Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 9

= April 9 =

Is poetry dead
Once, poetry was a central form of artistic expression. It has long since been overtaken by the novel (which maybe has even been overtaken by the movie). Are there any (young) poets of any significance - say, who will be read a century from now - writing today? The only at all prominent poets I can think of are people like Seamus Heaney and Derek Walcott - in other words, very old people. So is poetry dead? What do people think? zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Waters on a starry night

Are beautiful and fair;

The sunshine is a glorious birth;

But yet I know, wher'er I go,

There hath pass'd away a glory from the earth

Poetry is one glory that will never pass from the earth. Who the great contemporary poets are only time stands as the real arbiter, but there are many, young, youngish and old versifiers here in England, just as I am sure there are in many other places. I could mention Andrew Motion, the current poet laureate, Gary Bills, Sean Bonney, Simon Armitage, Billy Childish, Wendy Cope, Anne Brooke, Chris Emery, Gillian Allnutt and so on and so forth; and, oh yes, I almost forgot to mention Attila the Stockbroker. I myself belong to a poetry society at my university, and we have had guest poets from various parts of the world, including a very nice lady from Lithuania, who came last year, but whose name now escapes me! Yes, poetry lives; it will always live. Clio the Muse 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Slam poetry lives and has been called "the death of art" - I'd disagree, but admit that most of it wont be read a century from now. ---Sluzzelin talk  01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true of most poetry. Most of Byron, Shelley, Wordsworth, Akhmatova, Goethe et al is not read much these days - it's the individual poems that stand out that remain deathless.  That's also true of most forms of literature.  JackofOz 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If history has taught us anything, it's that those who are accused of killing art are often responsible for revolutionizing it.Toko loko 05:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The great poets of all time, will be read hundreds of years from now, and some mediocre ones. Poetry is like art, and the really notable ones aren't recognised immediately. I like these words Everything is Illuminated. I've got more, but I can't print them at this time ;) DDB 02:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Inspiration begets inspiration? The title of the film mentioned in that link is based on a novel of the same name, which took its title from another novel: "In the sunset of dissolution, everything is illuminated by the aura of nostalgia, even the guillotine" − Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As with the Internet and information, I fear the fact that anyone can "publish" helps obscure the good stuff.   Also true: as with much other branches of literature, the last half-century's move towards broadening the canon to be more inclusive of multicultural and ethnic poets has produced such great young folks as Martin Espada and Rita Dove, but has also widened the field overall (which makes the top of the field less obvious, and the field more competitive for attention), and brought poets with more community-specific (rather than universal) goals in mind for their poetic works.   But that doesn't mean there's less good stuff that speaks to the soul of any human -- just that it might take longer to be uncovered, as DBB points out.  Meanwhile, to provide a counterpart to Clio's great list, back in the USA, Billy Collins is noted for being the first poet in a very long time who can make a living off the stuff, Donald Hall and Robert Pinsky and Mary Oliver still thrive, Garrison Keillor reads a poem every day on NPR, usually by a living author, and the next generations show up in the Best American Poetry collections every year.  Bias note: as my list shows, I seem to identify most clearly with middle-aged white guys myself... Jfarber 03:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Poems aren't really dead, if you think of song lyrics as poems. It's just moved to a different medium. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard people suggest this, but I don't think things which depend on (and were created as an integrated component of) music and performance as a carrier can be poems by definition -- poetry IS a medium, isn't it, so you can't both have that cake and suggest that poetry, like recyclable birthday candles, has moved atop a different one.  The idea that NAS and 50 Cent are writing poetry assumes that the very nature of poetry has changed so drastically it isn't the same thing as what poets write and do anymore -- even slam poetry isn't rap, not by a long shot.   The fact that there are still actual poets around, however, belies that fact.   In other words, while I suppose it is true that many members of modern culture celebrate the Lyrics of popular music asif they were poetry, and while I also believe one could make a case that such lyrics are celebrated in ways that people once celebrated other verse forms, that doesn't necessarily make pop or rap music lyrics suddenly count as poetry.
 * And there may be nothing new about this phenomenon, either -- see, for example, Shakespeare's use of song in some of his own plays.  I'd say musical lyrics have always appealed as poetic to a vast swatch of the culture; the only thing I see that has changed is that musical lyrics, for various economic, technological, and social reasons, may have an even stronger presence in culture as compared to actual poetry than they once did.   Perhaps, then, you mean "the human appreciation of those things for which poetry once was a strong cultural vehicle (such as poetic metaphor and verse) are now, to an even larger extent than ever, served by popular music"?    Jfarber 09:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But what about the courage / of the cancer cell, and what about Tony Hoagland and his "Brave New World"? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

statute of limitation in NSW, Australia
I want to know informaton about statute of limitation in NSW, Australia relating to fraudulent crime. Jych 11:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know unfair dismissal must be reported in ten days, or it is timed out. But I don't know about fraud. You could ask Gary HughesDDB 13:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where someone is a victim of crime in Aust., I believe they can apply to the supreme court to prosecute if the time limit is up.Polypipe Wrangler 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Asana
There are a infinite number of Yoga Asanas, so then how are stretches differiantiated between stretches and asanas? A response on my talk page would be greatly appreicated, or to let me know there's a response would still be appreciated, thanks!100110100 11:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

the middle ages - LAST-NAMES
Hey, i have found a great interest in last-names in the medieval times... in at least central-europe..

Did people get their names from where they came from, or did they get normal last names liek today ?

You have famous names like "Balian D'Ibelin" (Balian of Ibelin) and "Balduin D'Ibelin" (Balduin of Ibelin).

Was Ibelin a city, or the name of the land, or a castle that those lords owned ?

Was it only LORDS and BARONS that got such names ? noblemen/women that had a land of their own ? what about the peasants and lower people ? did they have last names that are more like today, names that isnt the name of the place they came from.. ?

you have other last names that could be such as :

- DE COURTENAY Godfrey OF IBELIN Reynald DE CHATTILION Odo DE SAINT AMAND Maria OF ANTIOCH Guy DE LUSIGNAN

those are a few examples of last names... and I wonder what made them get last names like this, that were in fact names of cities etc. ? or was it? forexample, Ibelin was a town, was it not, or a citadel perhaps ?

was it their nobleranks that decided if they got such names ? if you were a BARON that owned a land/territory called IBELIN, would you only then be called "OF IBELIN" as last name ? Or did EVERYONE from Ibelin get these names ? even peasants ? everyone just had their own first-names but the same lastnames if they came from the same place, like "OF IBELIN"? Sons and daughters and wives, would they take on such name if their father had it ?

'De' as in front of the last names (forexample : Balian DE Ibelin) means the same as 'Of', right ? (Balian OF Ibelin). 'De' is French ?

Was it only the French (Franks) that used those kind of names I describe, saying "of/De" and then the place/city they came from or owned ?

if they didn't have last-names like "of" and then the name of the place, what names would they have then ? names that remind more of todays modern names like Johnson, Williams,

I find this very interesting, but a bit confusing, and hard to get a real understanding of...

I hope you can help me, i would appreciate it big-time :)

88.90.148.250 11:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Krikkert7


 * Your question can't be answered, because you have not specified a place. Various places handled surnames variously.  In England, most surnames are descriptors.  Now, they described whichever was the most identifying characteristic.  If you were "the John from Chilton," because there were a lot of people named John who were smiths or franklins or carpenters, then you'd be John of Chilton.  That might simplify to John Chilton.  If you were Samuel the Guard, you might become Samuel Gar or Samuel Pike (dep. on a lot of things).  If you had a particular by-name that was identifying, that might be passed on.  In other nations, patronymics were a rule (notably the Northern nations, where the -sen/-son names rule).  In some parts of contemporary Germany, there were purchased names.  In some places, they mixed professional names, geographical names, and patronymns.  In other words, "it depends" is the best answer.  Utgard Loki 12:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article surname offers some rather generalized help. --Wetman 15:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a fascinating and fairly complex issue, Krikkert. By and large I think Utgard Loki has provided a fairly comprehensive answer to your question-and flagged up some of the difficulties involved, but I have one or two supplementary comments. My remarks, moreover, focus solely on the practice in the Anglo-Norman world, which, I think, is that in which you are specifically interested. In the examples you have given the 'de' does indeed denote noble origin, and is the Norman-French equivalent of the German 'von.' Every nobleman or knight in Medieval England and France would carry this as part of their name, and it most often refers to a castle or the demesne that they either owned, or where they were born. Take the single example of John I de Balliol, the founder of Balliol College, Oxford, and the father of the Scottish king John Balliol, whose family originated from Baillel-en-Vimeu in Flanders. Over time these place name origins simply became family names. Peasant names, on the other hand, were determined on a quite different basis. To begin with they would simply be known by their Christian names alone. To distinguish a particular 'John' or 'Jane', especially in legal documents, variations would be introduced, like John son of Robert, which in time would become Robertson or Robinson. Or they may have been called after a specific geographical feature close to where they lived, like John Hill or Jane Forest. They might also simply be known by their occupation, like John the Weaver or Jane the Spinner, or even simply by nicknames based on their appearance, like John Small or Jane Long. In the Gaelic world John, or Iain, to be more exact, would simply be known by the name of his father, becoming Iain McDonald or MacDonald, meaning Iain son of Donald. So, in conclusion, the naming of ordinary people breaks down into four basic elements: patronyms, place names, occupational names or descriptive names. Clio the Muse 17:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank yo ufor your helpful answers ! :D

Particularily you Clio the Muse answered my answers perfectly. Your answers couldnt be better i think :) but thanks to all :)

In answer to your specific Ibelin question, if you go to that article, you'll see that Ibelin was a castle, and its lords took their surname from it. Corvus cornix 18:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Courtenay, the various Châtillons and Saint-Amands, and Antioch are all cities, and Lusignan is also a castle. The examples are all crusaders, and they did not typically call themselves by the names we use. Balian of Ibelin did not even have a standard spelling of his own first name, as you can see in his article. [Baldwin of Ibelin was also "of Ramla". We don't even know which Chatillon Raynald of Chatillon was from, and he had many other titles to use (he was also "of Antioch", "of Kerak", "of Montreal", etc). French and Crusader names can also be occupations, like Pagan the Butler, or Walter the Chancellor, which they wouldn't have considered last names, as they would have signed their own names "Pagan, butler of the king/kingdom" or something similar. The French were not the only people to use places in their names, medieval Germans did it too (Otto von Freising, Wolfram von Eschenbach, etc), and although I can't think of any examples they probably used patronyms and occupations too. Adam Bishop
 * Schneider, Fleischer, Eisenhauer ... Corvus cornix 17:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

scottish poet 20th century
hi all, I can't remember the name of a poet i studied years ago (and can't remember any of the titles of his poems or quotes - my memory is doing really well so far!) but i do remember that one of his poems compared sparrows sitting on a gutter, chriping to each other to 'common' working class people chatting amongst themselves. I'm fairly sure he was from one of the scottish islands orkney, lewis etc. if any one can point me in the right direction this sparrow would be very happy - abe- 195.188.254.82 12:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Abe. I thought I was reasonably familiar with quite a bit of twentieth century Scottish poetry, but I cannot recall any of the themes you have outlined here.  Two obvious 'island' candidates do spring to mind, though: Sorley Maclean, who was born in Raasay to the east of Skye, and Edwin Muir, originally from Orkney, but who grew up in Glasgow.  Of the two I would go for Muir, a deduction based purely on his background and experience.  Terribly vague, I know, and I do hope you are able to get a more precise answer.  Best wishes.  Clio the Muse 14:42, 9 April 2007 (U


 * Try Edwin Morgan as well. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 194.193.170.84 (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks guys have checked out the links - abe - 195.188.254.82 15:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Was it, perchance, George Mackay Brown? JackofOz 21:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)  (Postscriptum: Nope.  It seem to have been Edwin Muir).  JackofOz 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Christianity and denominations
Hi, I'm Christian and I've been trying to find a denomination which is consistent with what I believe. I believe that faith alone is enough to save you, and I do not believe that works have anything to do with it, so I know a protestant group is where I want to be. I've been attending church for almost a year with my gf and I do very much like it there. But after recently talking with the pastor there I don't know if I can really be affiliated with them. This is mostly due to what I see as a disregard for modern science and because he explained to me that this is the well detailed beliefs of the Baptist church I can't see myself ever calling myself Baptist. I also do not believe the bible to be inerrant because there is much proof that it is very often allegorical and metaphorical. So any ideas on what would be more suited for me? Chris M. 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Noone can truly help you. You have to find your own truth, and follow your own beliefs. Asking someone else opinon only gets you his views about the best religion for you. There are a lot of moderate protestant groups out there who accept evolution and most things of moden science and scholarship. You have to find the one which you fell is the best for you. Good luck in your quest and be careful about "false prophets who only want to rip you off" (there are plenty of those in the US as far as I know). Flamarande 15:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not as much asking for peoples opinion as I'm asking for ideas on what churches in general follow the thought pattern that I have outlined above. Chris M. 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many Protestant sects, particularly among the fundamentalists, that take a stand purely on the importance of faith as a route to salvation, though I think you may find some difficulty in in finding one which will walk comfortably with Darwinian concepts of evolution, or accept your contention that the Bible is in error in any point of fact or doctrine. Your belief in the allegorical or metaphorical significance of parts of the Bible is, in fact, far closer to Catholic teaching. And as far as Justification by faith is concerned, might I suggest that you read Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner by the nineteenth century Scottish novelist and poet James Hogg. Justification by faith was, in essence, a response to the abuse of Indulgences prior to the Reformation, and I do not believe was ever meant to stand completely alone, even by Martin Luther. Could faith, you might very well ask yourself, save an individual from the consequences of their earthly actions, no matter how bad? Are you familiar with the Medieval heresy of the free spirit? Anyway, it seems to me that you may very well find a home in mainstream Presbyterianism, far more liberal in point of doctrine than it used to be. Clio the Muse 15:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand where justification by faith came from, and while I believe it in theory I would not suggest simply having faith if your goal is to get to heaven. The basic determination to retain traditions of the catholic church while stating that not following those will effectively bring damnation is what turns me off from them mostly.  There are many reasons for my disagreements with the catholic church, contraception is a big issue as well, but is in itself not significant to turn someone away from a church, in my opinion.  I personally believe that indulgences are wrong in all circumstances, although their abuses prior to the reformation were particularly horrendous.  I am not familiar with the medieval heresy of the free spirit though so if you'd like to explain that I'd appreciate it.  I was thinking about presybyterianism earlier, so that may be a good idea. Chris M. 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that qualification, Chris. Your position is obviously more subtle than I originally assumed.  But there are indeed Protestant denominations that believe-or have believed-that faith alone is sufficient grounds for salvation.  Read the novel I have linked, which deals with the terrible errors that could, in theory, emerge-to a level of fictional absurdity-if someone believed simply in the sufficiency of faith.  It's gothic horror rather than theology, but it was written by a man who was closely acquainted with Calvinism, particularly in its unbending Scottish guise!  Besides, it's great fun!  The heresy of the free spirit is essentially a variation on this theme.  You will find all of the grim details in Norman Cohen's The Pursuit of the Millenium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists in the Middle Ages.  That, too, is a very good read.  Clio the Muse 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on what you've said, you would probably want to avoid any of the denominations that subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This would include most, if not all, evangelical churches.  You may be more comfortable with churches that subscribe to Liberal Christianity.  Despite its name, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America tends not to be evangelical in the common American sense of that word, though this may depend somewhat on the congregation.  Some of the more liberal Congregationalist congregations might suit you, as might some Presbyterian congregations.  This is not an exhaustive list of denominations where you might be comfortable.  Probably the best approach would be to speak with pastors of mainline Protestant churches in your area to determine whether you find their beliefs agreeable.  Marco polo 15:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally find problems with a lot of the evangelizing I see supported by those churches in that statement, so I'm not surprised there are other things we disagree on. Thanks for your help. Chris M. 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris M., I am assuming you are U.S. American. Marco polo and Clio the Muse raise some historically and socially relevant considerations, but I know for a fact there are also specific sects within U.S. mainstream christianity that forward doctrinal views consistent with what you have described, whose doctrinal lineage does not (exclusively) trace back to Martin Luther nor the 95 Theses. Instead, these are distinctly American responses to distinctly American attributes of contemporary evengelicalism.

The problem is this. It is difficult to imagine a congregation of any significant numbers of any mainstream religion that maintains 100% uniformity with a formally-stated creed. Even when the adoption of a creed is a prerequisite to participation, close examination reveals differences and refinements in either interpretation or applicability to all adherents.

In short, part of your journey may consist of accepting the wheat with the tares, which grow side by side, and holding fast to what you believe wherever you may find yourself. Best regards. dr.ef.tymac 15:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just thought I'd point out that there are many moderate congregations within the baptist denomination, its not monolithic at all. Churches associated with the Cooperative_Baptist_Fellowship are usually more moderate than those associated with the Southern_Baptist_Convention. -- Diletante 15:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Southern Baptist is the one I'm familiar with, but thanks for pointing that out. Chris M. 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be a link that would interest you Religion Quiz-Czmtzc 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks also. Chris M. 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose being nondenominational would fit you, although there's really no defining factor for being one.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Police brutality
What do you think about police brutality


 * The Wikipedia Reference Desk does not provide answers to questions seeking an opinion, particularly very general questions such as this one. Reference Desk editors' opinions on these questions are no more valuable than those of the general public.  Reference Desk editors are, however, happy to answer questions of fact.  Marco polo 15:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Marco is absolutely right: this desk is intended to deal with specific issues and to focus on matters of fact, not to air vague opinions on this, that or the other. I will say, though, that brutality is bad, in whatever form it comes.  Clio the Muse 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See our article Police brutality. --Lambiam Talk  15:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

. dr.ef.tymac

Since this question calls for opinion, I've responded here:. StuRat 19:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I also responded. [' Mαc Δαvιs '] ( How's my driving? ) ❖ 02:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its great. *rolls eyes* 82.36.179.20 14:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

civilians in war
What are the limitations on the principle of non-combatant immuntiy in war? Are there any circumstances in which it is justified to attack civilians, or is this an absolute principle and the killing of all non-combatant/civilians is outlawed? thank you xx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.1.13.36 (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC).


 * The Geneva Conventions, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention, prohibit in all circumstances and at all time violence to life and person of persons taking no active part in the hostilities. An intentional attack on civilians is, according to international law, a war crime. Taken literally, there are no limitations on the principle. The protection offered is not strong if the parties waging war consider collateral damage a regrettable but unavoidable consequence of the methods used. Also, if civilians can be arbitrarily designated illegal combatants, this voids any effective protection. Note how the casualties of the use of force by an occupying power always turn out to be "insurgents", and never innocent civilians who happened to be at the wrong spot at the wrong time. --Lambiam Talk  16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand notice that all these laws and agreements are (unofficially) disregarded if the war really becomes a Total War. Civilians (and their homes) who work in a factory who produces military equipment are many times considered a valid military target. The same can be done with people who work in the oil business (petrol/gas has a vital military importance for the military transports, airplane, tanks, etc). If you accept oil then food is also valid (no army fights on an empty stomach). ETC (it goes on and on). In the end all of us are targets in a true war. It is better to think really hard before we begin a war. Flamarande 17:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This question has generated some soap boxy answers. That said, we may examine the behavior of the victors in World War 2 who formed the United Nations after the war and prosecuted leaders of the losing side for war crimes, but no one (that I have heard of ) from the victorious allies. In the first months of WW2, transportation centers such as airports, port facilities, bridges and rail lines were subject to attack because they aid the war effort, even though they are likely to have civilians present, whose injury or death is unavoidable collateral damage. Ditto for civilian homes near a military installation or armaments plant. Bombing attacks on a moving ship were disappointing because it was dodging the falling bombs and shooting back effectively. It was much easier to bomb a port town. By the end of the war the fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden were intended to kill as many civilians as possible. The nuking of 2 cities in Japan was likewise intended to kill so many civilians that the leadership would surrender (although there were certainly military installations and war industries in the two cities). This must have been in accord with the Geneva Conventions, because no allied leaders were indicted. If no action could be taken in a war which would result in harm to civilians, warring parties would merely surround their troops with hostages and the other side would have to yield to them like in a sappy western. Edison 03:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How to start an article?
Hello, I am very limited to my knowledge of the internet and today was the first day I viewed Wikipedia...I have heard of you all but today was the first day to actually view it...great idea! I would like to list 70x7 Evangelistic Ministry on your site...how can I do that...thanks!

... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pastorgregg (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Hi, Pastorgregg. I left a welcome message for you on your user page. When you have an opportunity, please feel free to review the links and familiarize yourself with the basics. There is a lot of information, but you can always ask for help by typing "helpme" on your user page. Hope that helps, Regards. (Note: generally it is not a good idea to post e-mail address here.) dr.ef.tymac 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Since this specific page is for research questions in Humanities, please consider using Help_desk for your proposed contribution. I will also be glad to help you personally if you'd like help getting oriented. Just click on the name and press "leave a new message." dr.ef.tymac 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, my name is Terelle Gunter and my Facebook page was deleted as of today. I did nothing wrong! Chemone Callaway is the person who changed my profile picture. She has my password and I don't know how to change it. Can you please reactivate my page so I can continue to use and enjoy Facebook? Thank you!!!!!
 * Hi Terelle, unfortunately this not the Facebook section of your computer. You may want to try: click here instead. Hope that helps. dr.ef.tymac 02:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)