Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 26

= May 26 =

MC Escher
Do you know of any other artists who have done work in the style of MC Escher? By that I mean, paradoxical images and playing with the rules. Black Carrot 01:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 20th century: István Orosz, Shigeo Fukuda, ,René Magritte, , Salvador Dalí, , Jos de Mey, . ---Sluzzelin talk  04:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ... also, a bit more abstract, Victor Vasarely,  and other artists known for their Op Art. ---Sluzzelin  talk  04:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oscar Reutersvärd, . --Lambiam Talk  10:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hiya, Black Carrot. You might also be interested in some "artists" who have done work with the the creations of MC Escher. Here is an example. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 15:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My rights, I guess.
I enter a clients house, originally unbeknownest to me, they have cameras in every room. Regardless of me not knowing about the surveillence origianly, do I have any say/rights in the use of cameras while I'm there?

71.126.48.220 04:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)moe.ron


 * Right now, you have the right to ask a lawyer about the answer to this question, that's for sure! –Pakman044 04:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously don't do anything unlawful during your visit, cameras or not. And just make it clear to him that you prefer not to be videoed (or that you charge extra).--Shantavira|feed me 06:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * According to our article Closed-circuit television, in the section on Privacy:
 * In the United States [unlike the United Kingdom --L.] there are no such data protection mechanisms. It has been questioned whether CCTV evidence is allowable under the Fourth Amendment which prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures". The courts have generally not taken this view.


 * If this information is correct (see Legal disclaimer!), someone entering a house in the US having camera surveillance would have no direct say in the use of cameras. They could refuse to enter or to perform some task with the cameras on. --Lambiam Talk  10:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As you you voluntarily entered the home, you have no rights in the matter. Furthermore, as the home is not yours, there is no standing to sue. ~Lexington Hunter Esq.~


 * Suppose you summon a plumber to your house and then proceed to lock them up in your basement. I am actually quite convinced that neither the (true) claim that they voluntarily entered the home, nor the claim that, as the home is not theirs, there is no standing to sue, would offer you much protection against a criminal charge of false imprisonment and a civil suit for damages. --Lambiam Talk  13:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there are any answers at all to this question is ... baffling. Perhaps I am missing something. Did the OP ever indicate: 1) the precise nature and scope of his relationship to the "client"; 2) his location and the relevant jurisdiction(s); 3) any pre-existing agreements between him, the "client" and any relevant third parties? If he did, then this entire thread is "merely" inappropriate. If he didn't, then it is both inappropriate and misleading (at best). Respectfully, Pakman044 got it correct from the beginning, and it should have ended there. dr.ef.tymac 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The present tense in which the question is set appears (to me) to indicate a hypothetical situation, described in the first person for dramatic effect. The questioner might also have asked: "Suppose a person enters a client's house, and – originally unbeknownst to that person – they have cameras in every room. Does said person have any say or rights in the use of cameras while there?". The IP address originates in the US, so it is a natural assumption that the questioner is mostly interested in information pertaining to the US. If we cannot even refer to existing Wikipedia articles in response to a request for information, then perhaps we should also start removing those articles lest readers consult them directly. --Lambiam Talk  15:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The irony and intent of your suggestion to remove Wikipedia articles to protect readers was (based on my opinion and estimation) unambiguous -- even witty. If the OP had been equally unambiguous in asking about "My rights," as a hypothetical, this tangent would never have started. You yourself cited Legal disclaimer. (and why ask If this information is correct ... for an obviously hypothetical question?). Even if the question was purely hypothetical, and obviously so to all except dr.ef.tymac the Truthiness of the conclusory responses (some with no links at all) is still a bit surprising.


 * Having said that, I've really no objection to answers with article links, and not even particularly to the fact that people gave answers to begin with. I was genuinely wondering if I had somehow missed some critical piece of the puzzle. My apologies if I was rather abrupt by suggesting this thread should have ended with Pakman044. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to Lambian's answer, I was referring to the matter of the cameras, in which there is not an expectation of privacy that is recognized. The case of false imprisonment that is refered to is an entirely separate matter which was not within the scope of what was originally asked.
 * Hmmm. How do you know the scope of what was originally asked? The OP said he "entered a client's house" ... which implies there is some kind of pre-existing contractually-defined relationship. Even if the OP is just an agent, and the contract is between the homeowner and the principal, there still may well be some contractual terms prohibiting the recording of work done by the agent (for example, to protect trade secrets). Breaching these terms would definitely give "standing to sue". dr.ef.tymac 18:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fleur-de-lis on a flag
So I came across this picture on the article on the OECD, and I'd just like to know which country the flag of the fleur-de-lis was referring to? AlmostCrimes 10:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As the caption for this image in our article Free Territory of Trieste states, this is A poster for the Marshall Plan displaying European national flags, including one for Trieste, erroneously with a blue background instead of red. --Lambiam Talk  10:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And it's not a fleur-de-lis, it's the head of the spear of Saint, um, I forget. Unless I'm confusing it with some other Balkan emblem.  &mdash;Tamfang 05:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically known as a ranseur, it is locally generally referred to as alabarda (halberd). The saint in question may be Saint Giusto – on which the English Wikipedia has no article; this is not Saint Justus, but the Italian Wikipedia has San Giusto martire –, the patron saint of Trieste. I found this: "The Crest, like the coat of arms of Trieste, uses the halberd emerging from the waves recalling, according to the legend, when Saint Giusto was thrown into the sea during the persecution of Diocleziano (303 a.a.) and returned from the ocean onto the beach of Trieste." Our article on the Trieste Cathedral, dedicated to San Giusto, mentions "a column with a halberd" without making further connections. The Italian Wikipedia article summarizes the legend but has no mention of an emerging halberd. However, confusingly, the article San Giusto (Trieste) on the Italian Wikipedia states: Addirittura per il simbolo della città, cioè l'alabarda di san Sergio, non è possibile definire né un'origine certa né l'esatta epoca di forgia. So here it is the halberd of Saint Sergio. Also a martyr, Sergio was a soldier in Syria under emperor Maximian. Perhaps the halberd/ranseur on the column is a relic. Was it the same halberd that was seen to emerge from the waves when Saint Giusto's body was returned? --Lambiam Talk  10:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ribbentrop
During the Nuremberg trials one of Joachim von Ribbentrop's co-defendants was heard to remark, after a particularly embarrasing cross-examination, 'How could such a man be Foreign Minister of the Reich?' Well, how could he? Captainhardy 14:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ribentrop origially was wine merchant who became in Nazi poltics. He went far in Nazi politics because of his skill in flattering Hitle. He also was a yes man who never challenged Hitler. As Hitler belived himself to be a genius he assumed Ribethop was a genius because Ripbentrop more then any other Nazi took the same positions as Hitler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk • contribs) – Please sign your posts!


 * Ribbentrop, is it possible to say anything positive about Hitler's 'Bismarck'? If the Nazi regime was a disease then Ribbentrop was one of the symptoms.  The comment you refer to, Captainhardy, came, I believe, during the course of his cross-examination at the main Nuremberg Trial in 1946.  Under questioning from Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, Ribbentrop denied having bullied President Hácha of Czechoslovakia into accepting German occupation.  "What further pressure could you put on the head of a country except to threaten him that your army would march in and your airforce bomb his capital?"  To which Ribbentrop replied, "War, for instance."  Hitler was always impressed by Ribbentrop's suave manners and social contacts, once telling Herman Göring that he knew Lord this and Lady that.  Göring, who had little time for the Foreign Minister as a man or a diplomat, quickly responded, "Yes, but they know Ribbentrop."  Even Hitler took the point.


 * Why was he ever appointed Foreign Minister? For the simple reason that Hitler distrusted the old establishment, represented above all by Konstantin von Neurath, the Foreign Minister he had inherited from the last stages of the Weimar Republic.  Ribbentrop, moreover, was always keen to offer the kind of radical solutions that Hitler favoured.  He won Hitler's respect by the two great coups of Nazi diplomacy: the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 and the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939.  The first undermined both the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and the whole concept of collective security supposedly embodied in the League of Nations, by allowing Germany to expand its navy in a bi-lateral agreement with England.  The second allowed Hitler to go to war with Poland, free from possible repercussions by the Soviets.  But in both cases Ribbentrop did no more than push at doors that were already partially opened.  The agreement with the Soviets, moreover, undermined the Anti-Comintern Pact, another of Ribbentrop's triumphs, angering the Japanese, and thus doing much to ensure that they stood aside in any future German war with Russia.


 * I suppose, in the end, the principle reason Ribbentrop became Foreign Minister, despite being a complete failure when he was German Ambassador in London, was because he was a useful cipher. Hitler already had a programme: he simply wanted men in place who were able to fulfill his vision.  But for Ribbentrop failure followed hard upon the heels of triumph.  He had assured Hitler that Britain and France would not go to war over Poland; and when they did, the Nazi Bismarck's star slowly began to sink.  In the last stages of his active ministry he attempted to play a degenerate form of the 'Great Game', not fully undersatnding that, for Hitler, rapprochement with Russia was but a temporary expedient.  After the collapse of France in 1940 Ribbentrop worked actively towards the creation of a four-power pact against England, embracing Germany, the Soviet Union, Italy and Japan, while at the very same time Hitler was working towards Barbarossa.  As the war progressed Ribbentrop had less and less to do, other than become one of the minor architects of the Holocaust.  Amongst the Nazi elite he was treated with diminishing respect, and even Hitler encouraged Walther Hewel, a diplomat attached to the Führer's headquarters, to make fun at his expense.  As a final insult he was replaced as Foreign Minister in Hitler's will by Arthur Seyss-Inquart, even though Ribbentrop, unlike Göring and Himmler, had been guilty of nothing but absolute loyalty.


 * The real answer to the question how such a man could become Foreign Minister of an important world power is, paradoxically, yet another question: how was a man like Hitler ever in a position to appoint him in the first place? Clio the Muse 03:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy
I am looking for the speech that Robert Kennedy was making at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles when he was assasinated. My interest was piqued from the movie "Bobby." Maybe it is a compilation of speeches; if so, where would I find this information.

G. Griffith


 * Google led me to this . It is a Youtube site and I have a dial-up connection, so I couldn't confirm for you whether it does, as the blurb maintains, contain the whole of the speech. There were also mentions of Evertube sites. Bielle 16:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that Robert Kennedy wasn't giving a speech when assassinated, but had finished the speech and was leaving through the kitchen. StuRat 19:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancient peoples' views on various topics
Hi. I've been doing some research lately on this topic and after having tried Wikipedia and Google to no avail, I turn to the Reference Desk. There probably is something on Google about this, but I just can't seem to get the query wording right...

Anyway, my goal is creating a table, somewhat like this (data may be inaccurate):

For this purpose, I'd like to dig up such information concerning the following ancient peoples: ''' Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, Jews, African Tribes and Vikings.  And their views on the following topics:  Murder, Polygamy, Divorce, Abortion, Slavery, Prostitution, Homosexuality, Patriarchy, Monotheism, Blasphemy, Rape, Thievery.'''

I'd appreciate any help or hint to a website of this sort. Thanks, Danielsavoiu 18:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to point out some problems with that method:


 * 1) It can't always be answered in a short phrase that would fit into a chart. Theft, for example, while illegal for some in just about any society, will be treated quite differently depending on not only the society, but also the wealth and status of the thief and victim.


 * 2) Also, the attitudes of many of those cultures changed over time. The English (a subset of "Modern Western"), for example, were hanging petty thieves just a short time ago, at least on the scale of the English empire. StuRat 19:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I am not, however, trying to create an impecably accurate chart. I want to use a phrase to describe their general attitude (an arithmetic mean, if you will, of all their attitudes towards that topic throughout history). I want to nate whether they were harsh about murder, for example, as are the modern western (imprisonment), or more forgiving, even if only for a subset of society (e.g. slaves). When in ancient Egypt someone murdered a slave with a good reason he was praised, rather than criticised of imprisoned. It is in this kind of differences that I am interested in. Differences in moral values of the various societies, if you will. Thanks, Danielsavoiu 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You might have to be more time-specific with regards to Jews and African Tribes, since both these groups exist today. However, you might find information at aritles like List of Roman laws, Homosexuality in ancient Rome and Homosexuality in ancient Greece, as well as cats such as Category:Ancient Roman culture. See also: Divorce, Homosexuality etc. Rockpock  e  t  22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You may wish to break up the sex-related topics by gender. Rules and laws governing men have almost always been radically different from those governing women. In ancient Rome, for instance, a man was almost expected to take sexual advantage of his slaves (and could without the loss of even a shred of dignity keep mistresses and hire prostitutes), but a free woman who had any sexual contact with a man other than her husband could (depending on the year) end up divorced, enslaved, or even killed. -- Charlene 03:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember that there wasn't just one religion in Ancient Rome; early Rome followed an animistic, polytheistic religion, while late Rome was monotheistic Christian (ditto Greece). Laïka  12:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Romans had many different kinds of slaves, and a vast amount of legislation dealing with them, so it is not always as simple as saying a Roman could legally murder or rape a slave. Adam Bishop 13:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Spartans encouraged theft (at least among their youngsters), since as it made them better soldiers, more able to live off the land and use their wits. I doubt the rest of the Greeks thought the same. Clarityfiend 20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Brossano, Italy
In the process of doing genealogy if I had relatives from Brossano, where would this be exactly? Looking it up on the internet I can not find it. Apparently it is a very very small village someplace in Italy. In the Ellis Island records, number 15 is such an example I am talking about. Is Brasasco and Brossano the same?--Doug talk 19:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Borgo Brossana is a borgo of the historical town Cividale del Friuli. See here, for instance. I don't know whether this is it though, google gives a couple of results for the surname da Brossano, perhaps a historical Brossano once existed somewhere else as well. ---Sluzzelin talk  21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) It may have something to do with a district in the Italian town of Cividale del Friuli, named after an older town. Brossano has the form of an adjective. It looks like this could be the adjective corresponding to an Italianized form of the name Broxas, a place mentioned by some medieval authors whose location has apparently not been determined with certainty; some suggest a correspondence with present-day Brischis in Friuli. The Italian Wikipedia mentions a medieval house in Borgo Brossana in Cividale, in its article Cividale del Friuli. Brossana is in the feminine form although the word borgo is masculine, presumably because this is a shortened form of Borgo di Porta Brossana: "village/district/suburb of the Broxas Gate". The place referred to in the Ellis Island records can't have been the medieval town, but perhaps the district of Cividale. The theory is a bit tenuous and not based on strong evidence, but I haven't found a more plausible explanation. --Lambiam Talk  21:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer Lambiam. Could you help me further on this pertaining to Francescuolo da Brossano, thanks!! I see, so apparently this word means then the new town outside the walls of the old original town. Sluzzelin's google example is another example of this: Where then exactly is Francescuolo from? Could it be then just outside the "ancient walls" of the town of Padua, where Petrarch moved to live in 1361? I notice also that Francescuolo married Francesca, Petrarch's daughter, in 1361. Francescuolo da Brossano was named executor of Petrarch's testament. Do you know if Francescuolo lived in the Padua area (new town outside its "ancient walls")?--Doug talk 21:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (Aside: another theory that occurred to me that might explain the Ellis Island records entry #15, is that there Brossano might be a corruption of Borsano, a village belonging to Busto Arsizio.) First a correction: the meaning "outside the walls" is coupled to the word borgo and has nothing to do with a possible meaning of the word Brossano per se, and there is no hint or connotation of Padua present. For Petrarch's son-in-law: William Dudley Foulke's Biographical Introduction to Some Love Poems of Petrarch (1915) writes: "Petrarch settled permanently in Venice in the fall of 1362, and lived there five years. His daughter Francesca had married a young nobleman of Milan, Francesco da Brossano, and the two came to Venice and lived with the poet, not only during his stay in that city, but until his death." The same origin is mentioned in a lengthy section on the life of Petrarch by the hand of Thomas Campbell included in an 1879 English translation of Petrarch's sonnets and other poems: "In the same year, 1361, he married his daughter Francesca, now near the age of twenty, to Francesco di Brossano, a gentleman of Milan." --Lambiam Talk  22:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Lambiam. You have come through again!!! That answers both these questions throughly and clears this up. Now in addition I know Francesco is from Milan. Great answers.--Doug talk 23:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Roger Morrice
I would be grateful for a few more details on Roger Morrice and his Entering Book. Janesimon 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just Google Robert Morrice, even without quotes, and you will get an array of sites, of which this is one. Bielle 00:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is actually spelt Entring Book, Janesimon, and is a particulary useful source document for London life and politics from the late 1670s to the early 1690s, as useful, in its own way, as the better known Diaries of Samuel Pepys. Morrice himself was a puritan clergyman who became a close associate of those opposed to the forms of absolute government favoured by the later Stuart kings, Charles II and his brother and successor, the Catholic James II. Most of the early part of the Entring Book is concerned with the possible impact of resurgent Catholiciism on English liberties. For Morrice, the Tories, the party of the Court, were not so much a rival to the Whigs, with whom he identified, but 'conspiracy against the Reformed interest.' After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which James was replaced by William and Mary, Morrice is anxious to detect signs of Jacobitism in the ranks of those whom he refers to as 'the heirarchical party.'

Besides high politics Morrice's journal has a lot to say about many aspects of contemporary life, from military and legal affairs, to printing, firework carnivals, storms, hurricanes, duels, executions, suicides and many other similar delights! But, unlike Pepys, he reveals virtually nothing about himself. We know a few fragments about his life. He was born in about 1628 and died in 1702. He studied at St. Catharine's College, Cambridge and later became the vicar of Duffield in Derbyshire in 1658. Because of his Non-conformist views he was ejected from his living at the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, going on to become a private chaplain to Denzil Holles and John Maynard, both veteran Parliamentarians. Clio the Muse 04:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bless us, a correct use of the word contemporary. I may faint.  &mdash;Tamfang 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Learn to expect correctness and brilliance from Dr. Clio the Muse. Corvus cornix 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Clio's informative response moved to the article Roger Morrice. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Christianity's views on God in relation to space travel?
A bit of a crazy (maybe dumb) question that just popped into my head, for some reason - probably caffeine-related, but still.

Does God's influence extend beyond the earth's atmosphere? For example, if a man was on a spaceship heading to the moon or Mars, would God hear/be able to answer his prayers? What is the (denomination of your own choice) church's position on space these days? Is it said that God created the entire universe, or just our own planet? --Kurt Shaped Box 22:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Genesis reads "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.", so I assume the belief is that God created the universe, and not just the planet. - Akamad 22:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks very much for that. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 22:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Some passages from The Confessions of Saint Augustine/Book XI by Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430), one of the most important church fathers of Western Christianity:
 * Nowhere in the whole world didst thou make the whole world, because there was no place where it could be made before it was made.
 * Now, are not those still full of their old carnal nature who ask us: “What was God doing before he made heaven and earth? For if he was idle,” they say, “and doing nothing, then why did he not continue in that state forever—doing nothing, as he had always done? ...”
 * Since, therefore, thou art the Creator of all times, if there was any time before thou madest heaven and earth, why is it said that thou wast abstaining from working? For thou madest that very time itself, and periods could not pass by before thou madest the whole temporal procession. But if there was no time before heaven and earth, how, then, can it be asked, “What wast thou doing then?” For there was no “then” when there was no time. ... Thou madest all time and before all times thou art, and there was never a time when there was no time.
 * The implication is that God created not only the heavens and the earth, but space itself (there was no place where it could be made before it was made) as well as time (thou madest that very time itself). --Lambiam Talk  23:16, May 26, 2007 (UTC)


 * I have heard from the Freemasonry: "I believe in god, the great creator of all worlds.". I think this captures it nicely.


 * A related question is, whether a fictional character like a figure in a book, or a computersimulated beeing can pray to god. If you accept that our world could in principle be a simulation running on a computer in another world and you nevertheless believe that you can pray to god it follows that Darth Vader can do so too. Strange idea, right?


 * Early in the 20th century, while real space travel was only a distant dream, CS Lewis condsidered such questions in his Space Trilogy. I don't know that anyone has been able to improve on what he said there.  Pastordavid 00:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the same old problem of anthropomorphisation – people endlessly refer to God as 'he', 'Him', 'The Lord' etc. so there's this assumption that God is an entity, rather than a metaphysical nothing, a mere concept, that can be discussed sensibly. Vranak


 * (indented the previous, as "nyah nyah" isn't much of an answer ) There have been books on the subject, and there have been even announcements, but it's not actually very difficult, theologically.  Essentially, western religions dealt with all of this already, in the "Age of exploration."  What happens if you find aliens on another planet?  Well, about the same as if you find aliens living on an undiscovered continent:  not much.  Unlike the various polytheisms of Rome and Greece, the Abrahamic religions locate a deity who is not tied to a particular bit of geography.  Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a God who is omnipresent and beyond space and time, and therefore space travel is irrelevant, and even life forms on distant planets would be.  Indeed, they can even, in Christianity, be saved.  So long as it is only the Christ, and not another, they can be Christians (there can be only one begotten Son of God).  Geogre 01:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting comments :) From a fundamentally Christian perspective, and since the original question mentioned churches and denominations, (so I think this is on point) any intelligent life on other planets would already be "Christian," considering that the teachings include statements like "all things were created by [Christ], and for Him," the context of that being both this planet and everywhere else in the creation. (Col 1:16)  Since the tempting spirits are described as being active on this world, and some implication is even given that they are confined here, presumably earth is the only location containing sentient life that is in rebellion against God's order.  If there were other "Adam & Eve" type tests elsewhere, we don't know about it.  This sort of introduces some skepticism about cattle dissections and anal probes, neither of which seem all that charitable...   ◄    Zahakiel    ►   13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting and thought-provoking responses there, guys. Thanks very much for that... :) --Kurt Shaped Box 15:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)