Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 23

= September 23 =

Wikipedia and Google searches
I use Wikipedia and Google search a lot by typing in the nouns that best summarize the information I'm after. This can be hit or miss, and I would therefore like to hear about more effective and intelligent ways of obtaining information.72.75.96.28 03:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)superiorolive


 * I added a title for you. The Wikipedia search sometimes isn't that great.  If you want to search Wikipedia using Google you can add "site:en.wikipedia.org" to your search terms, this will tend to give you better results.  However, I think everyone has this problem with searching for information on the web, the main cause is probably just the sheer volume of information available.  There are a few refinements you can make to Google searches (and probably to searches using other search engines), for example you can use "alexander -great" to find out about people called Alexander who aren't Alexander the Great (bad example, I know). Bistromathic 12:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Google is a search engine. An encyclopedia is great for general knowledge, but useless for, say, finding local stationery suppliers or checking train times. For most purposes it should be obvious whether you need a search engine or an encyclopedia, although you might often want to use one to get to the other. For example, Wikipedia is often better than Google at directing you to the most informative websites on specific topics, whereas Google will usually suggest the most popular websites (as well as what it calls "sponsored" links).


 * In my opinion Wikipedia would be better off without the "Search" button. Always use the "Go" button. If it doesn't have an article with the title you're looking for, it will default to search mode anyway and suggest a list of articles. So type into Wikipedia only those noun phrases that are likely to be the title of an article. For example, if you wanted to know who painted the Mona Lisa, you would type "Mona Lisa" and click "Go". If you were Googling for the same information, you would probably get better results by searching for a phrase you would be likely to find in the answer, such as "Mona Lisa was painted by".


 * What sort of information is it that you are looking for?--Shantavira|feed me 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For Google, I use phrases (between quotes) a lot. Especially when there are many hits most of which seem irrelevant, I try adding phrases to the search terms that are likely to occur in relevant material. --Lambiam 22:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've taken to using single words in quotes for Google. Google didn't used to return variations on the search term like plurals and participles, but now it does. Another useful technique is to weed out the unwanted hits with minus signs. If you search on "St. Bernard" and you want the saint, add a -dog. If the first page shows five hits on a "St. Bernard Hotel", add -hotel and re-search, and so on. I use advanced search pretty often, and if I want to check the prevalent spelling of three-dollar words among scholars, I add site:edu and get counts on the variations. The :site thing is good for restricting a search to likely sites like govs when that's what you want. I'll sometimes throw it over to google image hoping that sites with a pertinent illustration will have what I need. --Milkbreath 03:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Scotland and the Stuarts
The Stuart dynasty was more a burden than a benefit to Scotland. How true is this statement in the period after the Union of the Crowns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.101.202 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remember we will not answer your homework questions for you. I would suggest you read House of Stuart and Union of the Crowns for a start, then look at the references / external links / further reading sections if you need more information. Exxolon 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's as true before the Union as it is after, and I cannot think of a dynasty more deserving of the honour of being known as Les Rois Maudits, the Accursed Kings. Now, I'm probably exaggerating slightly-and I certainly do not want to hurt Scottish feelings-but the family was notorious for its bad luck and ill-fortune, leaving Scotland with one troubelsome minority after another. Even James IV, in some ways the brightest star in the Stuart heavens, was to lead his country into arguably the most unecessary war in its history, where no Scottish interst was threatened and none served; the occasion for the most devastating defeat. In the end even the French, most consistent in the support of the exiled Stuarts after the Glorious Revolution had enough of them. Louis XVI described them as an 'unlucky family' and refused to extend them any further political support.

Anyway, 217.42, this is getting too far away from the point of your question. Yes, they were a burden to Scotland after 1603. James VI, probably the last of the Stuarts who really understood his native land, left for London in 1603, promising to come back at regular intervals. He returned just once. Scotland could be safely 'governed by pen', as he put it, which meant that he could impose unpopular religious policies, like the Five Articles of Perth, without any real degree of consensus; a policy that was to be a serious source of future trouble.

Though Charles I, James's son and successor, was born in Scotland, and spent the first few years of his life there, he inderstood almost nothing about the country. Indeed, he troubled himself so little about his northern kingdom that his Scottish coronation only came in 1633, some eight years after that in England. His arrogance towards the Scots became particularly pronounced in his religious policy. Heeding no advice, he insisted on certain Anglican-style 'reforms' in the Scottish Church which lead in the Covenanter Movement to a national revolution, a crisis that proceeded through the Bishops' Wars to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

Under Charles II the Scots fared even worse. He came to Scotland in 1650 with the clear intention of using the country to recover the English throne. In the end he led another disastrous and ill-advised invasion of England, like James IV, which crashed to defeat at the Battle of Worcester. Charles managed to escape but Scotland was, for the first time in its history, thoroughly and completely conquered, prior to absorbtion into the English Protectorate.

Though nominal independence was recovered on Charles' Restoration in 1660 he showed very little gratitude for the Scots' former sacrifices. Once again a policy of religious coercion was introduced, the cause years of trouble and oppression in the Lowlands, punctuated by sudden bursts of violence, like that at Rullion Green in 1666 and Bothwell Bridge in 1679. The repression continued through the so-called Killing Time.

Though the Stuarts had never shown any great sympathy for the Highland clans, their support for the exiled James VII and the whole Jacobite cause was, in the end, to contribute directly towards the destruction of their whole way of life.

For the later Stuarts Scotland was nothing more than the backdoor into England; never more so than for Charles Edward Stuart, James' grandson, who was the cause of the 1745 rebellion, a military and political adventure of the worst kind, which ended at Culloden in 1746. Charles got away, but the consequences for the Highlands were considerably worse than that which followed his grand-uncle's gamble in 1651. The romance later assocaited with 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' has always seemed to me to be astonishingly misplaced; as if a comforting fiction is felt to be somehow better than a rather sordid reality.

To the above I would add one further 'burden': the reign of William of Orange, partially Stuart and married to a Stuart. His was the time of the Glencoe Massacre, the Darien Disaster; a time of famine; a time of deep national self-doubt. One could, indeed, wish for a better set of princes! Clio the Muse 23:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First Civilisation
When was the first recorded evidence of structured civilisation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.88.210 (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See Sumer. 152.16.16.75 09:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to drive a wedge into your answer, but aren't ancient China and Egypt also contenders for the oldest civilization ? StuRat 18:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of Sumer indicates that Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilization are also contenders. The linked articles don't refer back to Sumer, however, and that is why I linked to that particular article.  Good point about Ancient China, though - those records do go back about the same length of time.  152.16.188.107 23:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Lutheran and Hindu
I need to know what the major differences are between Lutheranism and Hinduism are? Can anyone out there help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.239.181 (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Short answer: lots. Did you try reading Lutheranism and Hinduism?  For a start, Lutheranism is a branch of Christianity founded in sixteenth-century Germany by Martin Luther, Hinduism is an ancient Indian religion, and I doubt whether anyone knows much about who founded it, when or where.  Nowadays, there are nearly 70 million Lutherans (or 82.6 million, depending on which bit of the article you want to believe) and about a billion Hindus.  Are there any specific areas in which you want to compare these religions? Bistromathic 11:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're basically comparing apples and oranges here. It would be harder (and maybe more fruitful) to look for similarities rather than differences, since there will be precious few of the former and just about everything else will be in the latter. --24.147.86.187 15:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have an idea you're pulling our leg, 24.117.239.181! Xn4  15:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And the leg will not be pulled! Clio the Muse 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Empedocles
What are the names of Empedocles's teachers?Flakture 11:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the article linked to your title, "Empedocles was a pupil of Pythagoras" SaundersW 12:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no good answer to the question. The assertion in the article goes back to Timaeus (historian) but is not credible.  If you want the name of a predecessor who can safely be taken as important to Empedocles' thinking (not what you asked), Parmenides.  It does seem reasonable to say that Pythagoreanism left its mark on Empedocles, and since that is more the point of the passage in Diogenes cited, I may change the article to reflect this.  Wareh 14:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wales and the Civil Wars
The Welsh were generally loyal to the crown during the English Civil War. Why? Thomas J Jones 14:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There were various reasons why people took one side or the other in the English Civil War, including personal loyalties, grudges and antagonisms, economic issues like taxes and royal charters, and political issues such as the notion of the Divine right of kings, but the most important factors were probably religion and the influence of the clergy of the established church, other preachers and ministers of religion, and people with local influence such as the gentry and other employers. Most Puritans supported Parliament because they had been badly at odds with Charles I and saw it as their hope of a better future. On the other hand, if they had to choose, most Anglicans and most Catholics backed the King. There were also influential people who benefited from royal monopolies who had a vested interest in supporting the King. But as in any civil war, most people tried to go on leading their lives undisturbed, if they could, and that was especially true in Wales.
 * In the rural areas, most land was part of a great estate, and country people were much influenced by the local clergy and gentry. They were also less likely to have seen anything of dissenting preachers, whose strongholds were in the towns and cities. Almost all Church of England clergymen were hostile to Puritanism, so supported the King, and many (but by no means all) landowners also supported him and were able to rally some of their tenants and workmen to follow the royal cause.
 * In the case of Wales, most great landowners took the side of the King. These Royalists included Richard Vaughan, 2nd Earl of Carbery, Henry Somerset, 1st Marquess of Worcester, Francis Lennard, 14th Baron Dacre, and William Feilding, 1st Earl of Denbigh.
 * On the other hand, there were exceptions, and those who supported parliament included Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke, the owner of Cardiff Castle, Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, and Sir Thomas Myddelton, the Younger, of Chirk Castle, who was a committed Puritan.
 * In 1642, Charles I himself visited North Wales to recruit volunteers, with notable success. Together with the men recruited by his leading supporters, a very large part of the King's army consisted of Welshmen led by English officers.
 * The Puritans were strong in several of the Welsh towns, but they generally found it harder to get their followers to volunteer to fight, and Pembroke was the only Welsh town which declared itself for Parliament.
 * The Parliamentarians blundered in Wales by distributing large numbers of broadsheets promoting their cause, all in English, which was a language most Welshmen of the 17th century didn't understand.
 * More than a hundred Welshwomen were killed at the Battle of Naseby (1645). The parliamentarians claimed that as the women didn't speak English, they took them for Irishwomen.
 * There was a lot of fighting in Wales, and as the Civil War went along the successes of arms went one way and then the other. Both the Royalists and the Parliamentarians did things in Wales which caused them to lose Welsh support, but all that's beyond the scope of an answer to your question in a few paragraphs. Xn4  17:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are one or two extra points that I think should be added to Xn4's interesting outline here. It is generally true to say that Parliamentary support was more concentrated in the economically advanced parts of England, areas that had been receptive to the Puritan message and new ideas in general.  This was not true of Wales, which, generally speaking, was much more backwards in economic and social terms.  Besides, the Welsh, particularly the lower gentry, had done not too badly out of the Acts of Union, and, unlike the Scots, and many of the English, had no particular quarrel with the crown.  Wales, moreover, were generally much more accepting of the existing Anglican Church, a loyalty that the first translation of the Bible into Welsh in 1588 had done much to ensure.  Puritanism made almost no progress in the conservative Welsh countryside.  To this we have to add the neglect of Wales by the Parliamentary party in London.  For Charles I, in contrast, it was a vital hinterland, the 'nursery of his infantry', not too distant from his capital at Oxford, and one which he took trouble to cultivate.  But in the end it has to be said that a great many of the Welsh people were drawn into a war against their inclination, a war whose causes they barely understood.  Clio the Muse 00:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Painting Identification
I'm attempting to solve a puzzle and this image was given as a clue: Portrait. If anyone recognizes who this is a painting of I would be very appreciative if you would post an answer. 71.56.140.34 17:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not Bernardo Dovizi (see article for similar style biretta), but it looks like a cardinal. Wareh 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help. We eventually figured it out to be Carlo Borromeo. 71.56.140.34 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The oldest borderline?
What is the oldest peaceful borderline in the world? So far I have not found any older ones than the one between Sweden and Finland (1809). TuoppiP 18:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends. Do the countries on both sides have to be fully independent of one another? If not, even without looking outside the borders of my own country (England), there hasn't been any serious fighting across the Anglo-Scottish border for a fair while now (the last pitched battle on British soil was (I think) the Battle of Culloden, though someone is bound to prove me wrong :) ), and it's been even longer since there were any battles between England and Wales. I'm certain other states have managed far longer periods of apposition without opposition. Sadly, my formal history education was of the rather restrictive "Hitler and the Henries" variety still in vogue at English state schools, so I wouldn't really be able to speak with any authority. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On this local side issue, perhaps it depends what you mean by 'pitched battle' and 'British soil'. The last invasion of Great Britain was a French landing in Pembrokeshire in 1797, when some 1,400 men of the French 'Black Legion' did a little looting and then surrendered. In the course of rounding them up, Jemima Nicholas did some good work with a pitch-fork. Beyond the shores of the island of Great Britain proper, there has been other fighting, including the German seizure of the Channel Islands in 1940. Xn4  23:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See List of land borders by date of establishment (Wikipedia has an article for everything!) It's not very well maintained, but it can lead you to the History of Andorra, where you'll learn that, according to the Andorran government, Andorra's borders have remained unchanged since 1278.  Now mind you, it's been occupied several times, but the borders never changed.--M @ r ē ino 15:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How long has the border between Spain and Portugal been peaceful? The French invasion ended 1812, but how was the borderline doing that time?TuoppiP 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Helen Gahagan Douglas
Hello. I would be grateful for some more background on the career of Helen Gahagan Douglas, the former actress, particularly on her political career, especially her role in the senatorial contest of 1950. Thank you. Bel Carres 19:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello right back, Bel! I suppose if people remember Helen Douglas at all it is because of her contest with Richard Nixon in the Senate election of 1950, a contest not marked for its observation of the highest of political morals!


 * Douglas first became seriously interested in politics, both domestic and international, in the late 1930s, when she joined the Holywood Anti-Nazi League. In the domestic sphere it was the problem of migrant labour that first caught her attention.  She and her husband. Melvyn Douglas, became close friends of the Roosevelts, and Helen was drawn deeper into the politics of the Democratic Party.  She rose quickly through the party ranks in California, becoming Democratic National Committee-woman snd director of the Women's Division.  It was this that helped her build up a political base.


 * In 1944 she was elected to Congress from the fourteenth district of Los Angeles, an area with a large black population, by her firm advocacy of liberal and New Deal principles. She was re-elected with increased majorities in 1946 and 1948, known for her advocacy of such causes as low-cost housing, civil rights and price controls.  She was also involved in the Foreign Affairs Committee, helping to give shape to the international programme of President Truman.  Douglas was one of the sponsors of the 1946 Atomic Energy Act and Truman appointed her in the same year as an alternate delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations.  She was a popular speaker, touring the country with her liberal message.  This was the peak of her political career.  Her 'downfall' came with her decision to run for the Senate, promted by her hostility towards fellow-Democrat Sheridan Downey, the senior senator from California, too closely identified in her mind with corporate interests.


 * Douglas knew she was vulnerable to accusations of Communist sympathies because of the kind of causes she had favoured. She even had opponents in the Democratic Party, and it was one of these, Manchester Boddy, her main competator in the Democratic primaries, who first referred to her as the 'Pink Lady', not Richard Nixon, though the term was to stick and carry across to the Republican camp.


 * If Douglas' struggle with Boddy had been troubelsome it was nothing compared with that against Nixon, who was as calculating as Caligula, playing the Red theme at every opportunity, deflecting his opponent from her main platform. She even attempted her own counter-accusations, accusing Nixon of failing to understand the danger of Communism in his vote against the Korean Aid Bill.  Both resorted to name calling, though Nixon was in every way more of a street-fighter; he was also far better funded.  Amongst other things, California electors received anonymous telephone calls, with the message that "I think you should know that Helen Douglas is a Communist."  It has been estimated that as many as half a million such calls were made in the run up to the election.  Against this level of organisation, and against this level of ruthlessness, Douglas, and her liberal idealism, had little real chance.  Clio the Muse 02:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, Clio! Thanks for such a great answer. You could probably write a biography of the woman. Did you study American political history at school? Bel Carres 11:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Highland regiment forgotten in Africa?
I read a small reference once to a strange note in British Army history. It claimed that a Highland regiment (or part of one) was ordered to a duty station in the interior of Africa and somehow forgotten by the War Office. Apparently they had vague orders and weren't supposed to come out until relieved. Of course they weren't and finally reported back after many years had passed. There is also supposed to be a Scots poem about them reporting back with uniforms so worn that their "breekies" were open in back. I am sure that this is outrageously exaggerated, but I am looking for someone who can tell me the origin of the story.

Charley6alphacharley 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Charley, the British War Office could be stupid, but not that stupid! Besides, even if the army forgot them the soldiers would still have relatives at home who would have asked questions, especially of the officers.  And if it was a Highland regiment the men would not have been wearing 'breekies' in the first place! As late as the First World War Highland soldiers wore kilts while on field duty.  I can find no reference to the poem you mention, but if you can flesh out the context I will try to dig a little deeper.  Clio the Muse 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There was any battle going on the year 142?
There was any battle going on the year 142 or that started in the year of 142? If not, and in the year of 142 BC?? Exdeathbr 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be able to claim that the seizure of the throne of the Seleucid kingdom by Diodotus Tryphon in 142 BC was a battle ... Corvus cornix 21:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 142 was around the time the Antonine Wall was built, so there were almost certainly some skirmishes between the Romans and the Britons in that year. Not sure about pitched battles though. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 22:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Diodotus Tryphon took over the Seleucid Empire in 142 and immediately set forth trying to control the empire by force - requiring some sort of battles, but nothing notable. -- k a i n a w &trade; 22:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is more difficult (if not outright impossible) to find a year in recorded history that didn't have a battle. Clarityfiend 03:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a quote that I've forgotten word-for-word as well as who wrote it. The point of the quote is that conflict is normal.  Peace is the abnormal period between conflicts. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I found this purportedly Russian proverb in my files: Eternal peace lasts only until the next war. —Tamfang 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Kushan Empire (India-Pakistan area) was probably at war in 142, but Indians from the pre-Islamic era generally avoided writing the sort of precise cronologies that could give you an exact date. --M @ r ē ino 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

G.W Cooper
i really need help to find out who this is, i have searched on many different websites and not found a thing. i have a very old hand painted pot which is signed g.w. cooprer.

any help at all will be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.216.101 (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How old? Glazed? Stoneware or faience? Are you in UK or US? Is "G.W. Cooper" inscribed or painted? --Wetman 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

im in the uk, its at least 100 years old, its glazed and not stoneware. g w cooper is painted on the side and there is a markers stamp on the bottom but it is too faint for me to read what it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.216.101 (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just making sure, but could it say "G.W. Copper", meaning something like "gross weight of copper", followed or preceded by a number ? StuRat 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

no, its definatley G.W Cooper and has no number after it, it is signed on the pot in the way that an artist would sign a painting. shame i cant make out the imprinted stamp on the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.216.101 (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Population change
How would it be possible for a population to continue growing for several generations if women immediately averaged 2 children each? --72.221.78.124 23:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know of any closed populations on Earth. I believe that Iceland and Greenland are the closest to being closed - but are not completely closed.  Therefore, if a population stopped having children all together, there would still be immigrants coming in.  There would also be people leaving.  So, it is a question of how many are coming in and how many are leaving.  Now, if you close the population (nobody in/nobody out), there is the lifespan issue.  Assume you have a population where everyone dies at 60 years of age.  If the birth rate is exactly 2 people per woman over the 60 years, the population will remain steady.  But, lifespans are getting longer.  So, you have more births than deaths - increasing the population.  Again, it is the same issue as above.  How many people are dying and how many are being born? --  k a i n a w &trade; 23:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The short answers are (1) migration and (2) rising life-expectancy. Remember that many women have no children, and some children die before they can have children of their own, so without migration and without people living longer you need a birth rate well above 2.0 to keep the population steady. Xn4  23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much to both of you, this had been frustrating me. --72.221.78.124 23:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Another possibility might be that the number doesn't actually rise, but the methods of finding people improve, so that the population count does go up. StuRat 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A late addition to the thread: Still another possibility is that for some reason a majority of the population is (and continues to be) female. This could arise through a mutation that affects the viability of sperm cells containing a Y chromosome, for example, or by a cultural practice of sex-selective abortion. You might have one generation comprising 1,000 men and 4,000 women, the next 1,600 men and 6,400 women, then 2,560 men and 10,240 women, and so on. In this example the women are averaging 2 children each, but the men are averaging 8 each. --Anonymous, 21:24 UTC, September 29, 2007.