Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 22

= March 22 =

unknown mosque in Baghdad
After the US-led invasion on Iraq, they destroyed the statue of Saddam Hussein and I want to know what is the name the unknown mosque in front of statue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.136.208 (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I think it is the 14th of Ramadan Mosque.--Cam 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Pope Gregory Vs. John the Faster
While researching the origins of division among Eastern and Western Churches of Christendom, I found this amazing information that dates back to 593 AD.. Apparently, the patriarch of Constantinople claimed to have more autority than the pope, which caused major problems for the next 1500 years.

My question is, is the real dispute anterior to the year 593 ? In his brief Quod Aliquantum, Pius VI described it as a frightening event comparable to the civil constitution of the clergy in 1791. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.234.87 (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC).


 * This is an interesting and challenging question, and it's especially worthy of note that Pius VI made a pronouncement on the matter centuries after it had ceased to have any true relevance. Why should this be?  The obvious answer is that Pius, faced with the challenge to the Universal Church presented by first the Enlightenment and then the French Revolution, was making the same error of judgement in Quod Aliquantum that popes Pelagius and Gregory had all those centuries before: namely to turn a relatively minor issue of church protocol into a major ecumenical drama. John the Faster, or John IV, was not in fact the first to adopt the title of ecumenical patriarch, as you will know from The Catholic Encyclopedia article: it had been used in reference to John II at the beginnng of the sixth century, though this seemingly passed unoticed by the Vatican.  John IV's formal assumption of the title caused Pope Pelagius to issue an angry protest.  It is possible, though, that the whole issue may have subsided but for one thing; it was taken up with even more vigour by Pelagius' succcessor, Gregory I, one of the most formidable of all the pontifs.  Gregory increased the political temperature by several degrees, when he wrote to the Emperor Maurice and the Empress Constantina, demanding that John abandon the title.  More than that, he maintained that what was, after all, simply an issue of church politics was a sign that the age of Anti-Christ was at hand.  Maurice was put in an impossible position: he could please the Pope and alienate the Patriarch.  There was no middle way.  Maurice, for the sake of his own authority, sided with the Patriarch, beginning a process of mutual recrimination between Rome and Constantinople.  It seems likely, as John Julius Norwich argues in Byzantium: the Early Centuries, that Gregory's protests hardened attitudes, turning a passing affectation into a permanent title.  Much more might have been achieved by a less confrontational approach.  The whole issue was sensibly ignored by Gregory's successors; but it marked one more move on the passage towards the final rupture of 1054.  In essence if showed that the Universal Church, like the Universal Empire before it, was a political and practical impossibility.  The final division between the Catholic and the Orthodox, the Latin and the Greek, merely reproduces, in the realm of the church, the Emperor Diocletian's earlier reorganisation of the whole of the Roman world.  Clio the Muse 09:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very interesting response. However, you could have at least tried to discuss the links between sergianism, gallicanism, photianism, anglicanism, between Cranmer, Talleyrand, Le Bel, Combes, Ludwig Müller and the CPA. Even Calvin would admit that Cujus regio, ejus religio can be dangerous (cf Thirty Years War). My favourite author on the topic is Vladimir Solovyov. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.234.87 (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

'Clicking' or Snapping fingers in night club jazzy scenes
I have noticed in at least TWO cases of popular culture, that in some kind of a night club, when the performer has finished reciting something (perhaps a poem), the patrons of the night club at their tables, will not clap to applaude, but will rather snap/click their fingers.

Case 1: In the Computer Game Grim Fandango, a woman in a jazzy/cool-cat nightclub gets up to the mike, recites a poem, and when she's done everyone around 'clicks' and snaps their fingers. and

Case 2: In the Animaniacs, whenever they do a scene of "Dot's Poetry Corner", dot gets up on some stage, recites a small poem, and when she's done you hear people clicking their fingers.

Question:

What can you tell me about this culture? Why do they click their fingers instead of clapping? In what type/kind of nightclubs/bars could you expect to find such a thing? What is the history of this practise? Does this practise have a name?

Thank-you in advance.

Rfwoolf 11:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the fifties, and perhaps in the forties, small clubs in Greenwich Village that featured poetry readings were located in basements of residential buildings. The scaled-down applause kept the clubs from being evicted as public nuisances. --Wetman 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank-you, that makes sense! Rfwoolf 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Judging from a reference in a family guy deleted scene (an always reliable source) this appears to be for performances of beat poetry, as for why, the reason above could be true. I never attempt to understand hippy types137.138.46.155 15:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it sounds cool. :-) Ab e g92 contribs 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Improvisational theatre
Is there an englisch expression for the german Pseudo-Anglicism (?) de:Walkact, in which actors and audience are in one height/room and actors go through and act inside the audience? walking performance ?-- Thanks Cherubino 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thought of participatory theatre and methexis. But that's not quite what you described, as the emphasis here lies in the audience's participation, not in the actors' movement through the audience. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope I'm not being rude, Cherub, but we say English, not Engisch. Assuming your native language is German, though, I commend you on having better English than I have German!martianlostinspace 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Environmental theater? See Tony n' Tina's Wedding and Joey and Maria's Comedy Italian Wedding.  Are those the sorts of things you're talking about?  Corvus cornix 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading the German AFD for this article, I think that Corvus cornix's suggestion comes pretty close. References provided in that discussion use "Walkact" for acting troups that offer their services to business events, where the actors mingle with the crowd (dressed as guests, caterers, janitors etc) and then start improvising, singing, or annoying the poor "audience" in some other way. I remember once reading about a restaurant in the Netherlands having one of these "walkacts" go very bad: The actors played a seated couple arguing at their table, but, apparently, the male actor overdid it, and the "husband"' started using violent language and behaving in a very unpleasant and threatening way. The clueless guests wouldn't watch idly, and intervened forcefully, and the whole thing could have turned really nasty. As usual I forgot how it actually ended, but I think no one really got hurt. Seriously though, would you want to take someone out to dinner for that? ---Sluzzelin talk  02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say 'promenade theatre' (which I've added to the environmental theater article, and redirected to that. It's not clear to me whether 'promenade' is a more specific term than 'environmental' (which is unfamiliar to me in this context), or whether it's just a UK/US difference in terminology.

--ColinFine 20:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions about Finnish/Estonian history and linguistic issues
Hello, I've been reading about Finland and Estonia and I have a couple of questions:

1. Someone told me that the Swedishspeaking people on the Aland islands, are probably the best protected minority in the world, since people are only allowed to settle there if they are able to speak Swedish. Is this true? And if so, how can Finland do this? I mean, aren't members of the EU allowed to move within the European Union as they please?

2.I heard that there is an issue in Estonia with Russians who don't get the Estonian nationality. Apparently learning Estonian is one of the conditions to get it. But... why didn't they get it? I mean : when Estonian became independent, didn't all of its inhabitants with the Soviet Union nationality become Estonian citizens? What kind of criteria did they use at that time?

3. How related are Finland and Estonia? I mean : do they feel connected and do they care about each other? Especially : when Finland was independent during the Cold War, and Estonia was part of the Soviet Union, did Finland "feel sorry" about Estonia, and did they try to "help" or something? (Did Estonians try to flee to Finland?)

4. The new generation of Estonians, what languages are they best at? English? Russian?

Thank you, Evilbu 19:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This might help: Finland was certainly influenced by the USSR. That might explain why they refused the Marshall Plan.martianlostinspace 21:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I suggest you read carefully the articles Åland and Estonia.


 * 1)You are mistaken, ppl aren't forbidden to settle there. They are however required to have a "Regional citizenship or the right of domicile for the right to vote or stand as a candidate in elections to the Legislative Assembly, to own and hold real estate in Åland or to exercise without restriction a trade or profession in Åland." I suspect to recieve a regional citizenship you have either to marry a Alander, or learn the language (culture) to a certain degree. Nothing forbids you to work and to live there.


 * 2)The basic problem is that during the time of the Soviet Union a very large number of Russians emigrated to Estonia. During that time the Russian emigrants weren't obligated to learn Estonian at all, and AFAIK Estonian was not widely taught inside Estonia itself. As Estonia became independent several Estonian politicians passed nationalistic laws who warrant that if you want to be an Estonian you have to learn Estonian, and this is seen as harrasment by some of the Russian emigrants.


 * 3)Can't help you there.


 * 4)These days the students in Estonia learn Estonian as mother-language, and English as the first foreign language. Flamarande 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

On your third question, if by related you mean that they share a common cultural and historical heritage, then the answer is, yes, they are reasonably close to one another, both nations being members of the Finno-Ugric language group, and both joined politically for many years, in first the Swedish and then the Tsarist empires. Estonians, moreover, fought as volunteers with the Finns against the Russians during the Winter War. I imagine the Finns did 'feel sorry' for the Estonians during the years of Soviet occupation, though in view of Finland's sensitive political and strategic position such expressions of sympathy were probably fairly mute. Today Finland is Estonia's biggest trading partner. Clio the Muse 06:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still have some questions:

2. Yes, but how did they do that? I mean, did they have files saying who immigrated from Russia and whose family had been living there all the time? Did they make everyone prove that he could speak Estonian, back in 1991?

3. And is Finland being an important trading partner related in any way to the linguistic similarity? Or is just because Finland just happens to be virtually next door? Do Estonians speak Finnish when they do their business in Finland (Or is Estonian about as similar to Finnish as German to English?)

4. And what about their knowledge of the Russian language? Do they (have to) learn it in school? And is it something they need/(like to) use in real life? Evilbu 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 2) would indicate that everyone was tested - ethnic Russians who couldn't understand the Estonian test didn't gain citizenship, but they no longer qualified for Russian citizenship outside of Russia, leaving them effectively stateless.


 * One other point regarding ties between Estonia and Finland - they share a national anthem, so throughout the Soviet era the 'Estonian' anthem could be heard on Finnish radio when played at the close of broadcast every night. This, of course, doesn't necessarily mean anything - the UK, Luxembourg, and the Norwegian royals all use a single tune as their anthem.  --Mnemeson 17:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that Estonian is rather closer to Finnish than German is to English. There is some degree of mutual intelligibility between them. --ColinFine 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

O.J. Bronco
Whatever happened to Al Cowling's Bronco, the one used in the O.J. Simpson chase? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.218.31.251 (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

The Effects of the Gutenberg Press on the English Language
I would like to request any information you may have regarding the topic of the effects of the Gutenberg Press on the English language. If you have any information, it would be greatly appreciated, as I am having difficulty finding relevant and concise information on this topic.

Sincerely, Anthony Butler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.110.50 (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC).


 * History of the English language is rather high level, so Early Modern English seems like the best bet. According to that, printing "helped to stabilise the language and broaden its vocabulary". For background, after Johannes Gutenberg, William Caxton would be the man, and Spread of printing is worth a look. If you'd like to read a book on the impact of printing, Lucien Febvre & Henri-Jean Martin's The Coming of the Book is a classic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, I would recommend a look at the theories of Walter Ong, who is generally credited with the theoretic perspective that the printing press, in formalizing the language, also brought forth the possibility of more linear, reliable, formulaic thought, which in turn led to futher developments in the sciences, etc. Though these are primarily changes in how people think and experience and frame their world, such things in turn do affect how and why they use language, and thus how the language evolves.   Such theories can be explored in more depth in our article on print culture, which it defines as "the conglomeration of effects on human society that is created by making printed forms of communication", or, more plainly, as "the cultural products of the printing transformation" -- Neil Postman, in a famous late-nineties early 90s Harpers Magazine dialog with Camile Paglia called "She Wants Her TV! He Wants His Book," alluded to these theories to show that, IF we accept language as (at least in part) a cultural product, then the identified characteristics of cultural change (in the case of print, a new valuation for aggregation, linearity, authoritative structures, and other qualities) are often found to be those characteristics of the language that the culture then evolves to communicate those ideas.  Jfarber 01:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * addendum to above: Found a relevant Postman quotes in our article, but it seemed too deep to point to, so I hope hope no one minds the use of space...(italics below are mine)
 * "...Printing fostered the modern idea of individuality but it destroyed the medieval sense of community and social integration. Printing created prose but made poetry into an exotic and elitist form of expression. Printing made modern science possible but transformed religious sensibility into an exercise in superstition. Printing assisted in the growth of the nation-state but, in so doing, made patriotism into a sordid if not a murderous emotion.... []"


 * For some even more relevant quotes on how education of and about language was changed by print, and how, for example, spelling suddenly became much more important in schooling, and how schooling itself suddenly became available to everyone, aim for about a third of the way down our wikiquote page for Neil Postman...samples include:
 * "'At the same time, the printing press provided the wide circulation necessary to create national literatures and intense pride in one's native language. Print thus promoted individualism on one hand and nationalism on the other...'"


 * "'In schools, print shifted the emphasis from oral to written and visual communication. Teachers who had been only partly concerned within instructing their students in how to read became by the mid-sixteenth century concerned with almost nothing else. Since the sixteenth century, the textbook has been a primary source of income for book publishers. Since the sixteenth century, written examinations and written assignments have been an integral part of the methodology of school teaching; and since the sixteenth century, the image of the isolated student who reads and studies by himself, has been the essence of our conception of scholarship...' Jfarber 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)"

Somewhere I read that the printing press contributed to the lost of the letter thorn. Today "th" is used instead of thorn. If I understand it right, by the time the printing press was introduced to England, thorn was already being replaced with "th", but was still often used, especially for the word "the". Printers, who did not always have the letter thorn available, generally used "th" instead, contributing to the decline in the use of the letter thorn. Since thorn was still widely used for the word "the", printers, who often did not have a thorn letter, sometimes used the letter "y" instead, resulting in "the" being printed as "ye". Today "ye" is used to evoke a medieval style of English, but is usually pronounced "ye" instead of "the". I'm not sure how much of a role the printing press had on the loss of "thorn" but it seems clear that it played a major role in the "creation" of "ye" as a word of its own. For more on this see the pages Y, Ye, You, and Thorn (letter). Pfly 06:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)