Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 7

= February 7 =

Mahatma Gandhi
Some people say that Mahatma Gandhi changed the law. How did he change the law and did he believed that he need to change it and what were his methods? This is not a homework question. Please, answer it. Thank you. February 06, 2008 7:41 p.m. Toronto. Don Mustafa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your question, Don Mustafa, is awfully vague. Which people, which law and where?  Ghandi himself never enjoyed direct political power, and was thus not in a position to change any law.  He certainly had an impact on the operation of certain laws.  On this I would refer you to his campaign against the discriminatory pass laws during his time in South Africa.  His method was to promote a sustained campaign of non-violent civil disobedience among the Indian community.  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that how did he change the law when he was in India and South Africa? What did he believed that he need to change the law? February 08, 2008 6:36 p.m. Toronto Don Mustafa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He did not change 'the law' in India. As for his campaign in South Africa, and the reasons for it, you could do no better than read the links I have provided.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Burkardt / coining of "Renaissance style."
The following appears in a 19th-century manuscript for an entry dated August 1855: "St. Michael, a large Gothic church, has a front of more recent date composed of Grecian details in the style called the 'Renaissance'." The article on Jacob Burkhardt in Wikipedia states that Der Cicerone was not published until 1855. I don't think the author read German. My Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles (1955) gives a date of 1840 for the use of Renaissance in the context of style. If a date is 1840 is correct, in what publication (of Burkhardt?) did it appear? LShecut2nd (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jacob Burckhardt's first book, a study of Belgian art and architecture, was published in 1842, the year before he took his doctorate. However, in his 1847 revision of Franz Kugler's Handbuch der Geschichte der Maleri, he placed new importance on the Renaissance over the Romantic style.  I can offer no comment on the (vague) 1840 reference given in your handbook, LShecut2nd.  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The dictionary cited before defines Renaissance thus: "I. The revival of art and letters, under the influence of classical models, which began in Italy in the 14th c. ; the period during which this movement was in progress 1845. b. ellipt. The style of art or architecture developed in, and characteristic of, this period 1840." Strangely the Renaissance "period" idea is dated 1845 while the Renaissance "style" built upon the "period" is dated five years before. My author, Frederick Hubbard, mentions the Renaissance style in an entry dated August 1855. Possibly the dictionary date should have been 1860 instead of 1840, and Frederick Hubbard, compliling his notes possibly as late as the 1870's, entered an anachronism in his finished "Notes on Travel." If someone could provide a definitive date for "Renaissance style" (in English or French), then I could be more certain. In the mean time, I can only add a footnote stating that the term was still new at the time of the author, without indicating how new. Thanks to all. LShecut2nd (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your quotes are exactly those in SOED. But what precisely is the question? If it concerns the originator of the word Renaissance (in English, not German, presumably), I am afraid I cannot help. I wonder whether it is necessary to postulate 1860 as a date. On the contrary, it is quite likely that the term was first applied in a more concrete way (to a style or manner) and only subsequently to the period. After all, periods do not exist in their own right, but are a function of artefacts, occurrences and the like. So the "linguistic origination order" style...period is not surprising.
 * While Burckhardt's work of 1860 popularized the word, it had already been used by Vasari 1n ?1568. Which leaves open the question who first used the word, in either sense, in English. But cf. . [BTW, as Clio will no doubt be aware, the title reads Handbuch der Geschichte der Malerei.] Bessel Dekker (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * True! Incidentally, the word 'Renaissance' is actually French, Bessel Dekker, a term given its first modern usage, I believe, by the historian Jules Michelet Clio the Muse (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, and that was in 1855. However,, in French the term in its modern sense (allied to humanism, not Christianity) is alternatively said to date from the 18th century. Michelet n'a pas créé le mot Renaissance mais l'a transformé en notion historique. (ibid.) Vasari's term, of course, was in its Italian form: Rinascita. All in all, there seems to be no reason to assume that the word was first used in English as late as 1860. Bessel Dekker (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Waz up i neeed help On a report!!!
Okies iam doing a report on george washington and i do really in depth reports but i like to through in a good twist that most ppl dont really notice Can anyone help me find some stuff that shows a darker side to george washington.

Sethivere ^.^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethivere (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do your own homework, turkey. But consider the angle that he was, in a lot of senses, a traitor to his country -- he was a successful military officer, trusted, and highly regarded by his country, and he wound up turning traitor, joining a militia, and doing immeasurable harm to his homeland's economic and military future.  If he had failed, he would have been Timothy McVeigh or maybe even Guy Fawkes... Just a thought, anyway.  Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya but consider that fact that the guy was a serious jerk in many ways, and people say he was a great general...haha the guy was a joke he sucked!he had now way of fighting inteligently...and as for a trusted man i agree and Woundering a traitor W/e the man killed anyone that ran away in battle even if it was to save himself or another the man was cruel and a racist as well i can look at the good things but i dont mean to be a down strider but damn the guy had alot of bad things to him as well but im looking for fresh material and i cant find any :p i will have you know im an excelling student that doese alot of research...and at the moment is to tired to spell or add puncuation

Respectfully Setivere!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.208.206 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To find the desired dark side of George Washingron you seek, remark on the fact that he owned slaves. Then take every opportunuity to apply 21st-century moralizing to this 18th-century Virginian, with numerous self-righteous asides. --Wetman (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * People really should learn to do their own research and their own homework. Taking the time to spell is also not a bad move. If Washington shot deserters, I don't see how that is different from any other army or general, including modern ones. Washington wasn't a brilliant general but he was an inspiring leader. Not perfect by any means, but he deserves better than to be judged by our standards.AllenHansen (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He slept around. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's time to dig out the "do your own homework" template. And if you can't be bothered to spell or add punctuation, why should we be bothered to do anything to help you? 80.254.147.52 (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't WP:BITE. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why be so mean to the kid? He/she did say that he needed help and that he did look around didnt they? And all they need was fresh material right... well I can help you. >.< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blarp (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he is not a born English speaker (to be fair).--Johnluckie (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I heard several biographers discuss George Washington at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. They stressed that he was not as well educated as the other Founding Fathers. He was unable to attend college. The most re75Janice (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)markable thing he did was to return home after the Revolutionary War and after his presidency. The founders were well versed in classical history. Achieving democracy was easy compared to keeping it. Congress deliberately short funded the military fearing a coup d'etat. George Washinton discovered such a plot and confronted his unpaid officers. Napoleon, for one, has total scorn for George. He remarked when captured that they expected him to do a Washington. Having read several biographies, I was impressed that he was not as mediocre as urban legend depicts. I even wonder if there were something in his personality that led members of Congress to trust him.75Janice (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Movie screenwriting
Could you please show me a sample of a written script. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.19.216 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hundreds available via this simple google search --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the Metatron really the voice of God or is Alan Rickman lying to me?
I am trying to find information pertaining to the actual responsibilities and duties of the Metatron. So far I have only been able to find very vague information that deals more with where he came from and not what he does.

I understand that he holds the throne next to God, but what does he do specifically?

If the Metatron really is the voice and hand of God, doesn't that mean that it was he who spoke to Adam and Even instead of God and forced Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden?

--StatusQuo87 (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You really shouldn't be getting your theology from a movie. You may want to have a look at our article on Metatron, who appears only in post-scriptural esoteric sources. There is no general agreement on any aspect of anything relating to Metatron, from his existence to his nature and attributes, or to his role. So he can be pretty much anything you or a film script writer wants him to be.  - Nunh-huh 07:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought Megatron was really the voice of Elrond and Agent Smith? I'm confused. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The author was using a comical title to get people's attention, but his question is a valid one. Is Metatron the voice of God? And/or did he expel Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden? I think reseach into specifics of demonology, and Medieval transcripts of theology may provide some answer, but as they are not Biblical per se, the answer is not "official" per se. Zidel333 (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I noted, Metatron appears only in post-scriptural esoteric sources. There can be no answer to any question about what he "really" is. - Nunh-huh 03:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Senator vs Senator
In the upcoming U.S. presidential election, both the Republican and Democratic candidates will be serving in the senate. I think this is the first presidential election in which each party will nominate a sitting senator. Can anyone confirm or deny my suspicion? Lantzytalk 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite the media hype, we don't yet know that the Republican nominee will be a Senator. But before 1952 at least (there has been an incumbent President or VP in each since then) Rmhermen (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Using the list of Presidents who were Senators on List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_political_occupation as a starting point, I didn't find any time that two Senators of any parties ran against each other as major candidates. Perhaps I missed one though, I have a baby screaming in my ear right now. Rmhermen (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only senator-on-senator contest that I can find is the 1960 election between Nixon and Kennedy, but Nixon wasn't serving in 1960. Lantzytalk 01:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's OK to include a former senator, then in addition to 1960:
 * In 1964, former senator Johnson ran against current senator Goldwater.
 * In 1968, former senator Nixon ran against former senator Humphrey.
 * In 1972, former senator Nixon ran against current senator McGovern.
 * ...plus several prior to 1960.
 * But if we're just talking about current senators running against each other, then the problem is that we almost never have two candidates, neither of whom is the sitting president or vice-president. As noted above, that last happened in 1952, when Gov. Stevenson lost to Gen. Eisenhower.  Before that, the elections of 1928 and 1920, 1908, 1896, 1884, 1880, 1876, and 1868,  did not involve an incumbent, but also didn't involve two Senators.
 * Which brings us to the curious case of 1860. This election did involve a sitting Vice-President, John C. Breckinridge.  The famous victor was non-Senator Abraham Lincoln.  And yet the election featured 2 senators: John Bell (Tennessee politician) left the Senate in 1859 and took no other office between then and his presidential run (3rd in electoral vote, 4th in popular vote); while Stephen A. Douglas was a real sitting senator (4th in electoral vote, 2nd in popular vote).  If only John Bell had been able to secure re-election in 1859!
 * We also have non-incumbent races in 1856, 1848, 1844, but no cigar...
 * Bringing us to the truly bizarre 1836 election. In addition to famously being the last election until 1988 to result in the elevation of an incumbent Vice President to the nation's highest office, the election also featured Senator Hugh Lawson White (3rd in electoral votes), Senator Daniel Webster (4th), and Senator Willie Person Mangum (5th).  Why?  The Whig Party's why-not strategy of running 4 different presidential candidates.
 * OK, so that's technically not a "presidential election in which each party (nominated) a sitting senator". But it's the closest you'll get.  In the other non-incumbent elections, 1824, 1816, and 1808, the sitting-senator issue doesn't come up.
 * So there you have it -- either the answer is "twice before: 1836 and 1860" or, "this is the first time ever." (takes a bow) --M @ r ē ino 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How to become a Muslim?
I want to become a Muslim because I like Allah, Islamic words, and the religion of Islam. I was born Buddhist. I'm no longer Buddhist. My family are all Buddhist and if I become a Muslim, I will be the only Muslim in the family. My family may want to take me to a Buddhist temple even I'm a Muslim. What should I do if they take me to an Buddhist temple? Please no Islamophobia answers and/or comments. Jet (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, it is makruh for a Muslim to enter a non-Muslim place of worship, be it a church, synagogue, or a Buddhist temple, unless some extraordinary benefit outweighs the harm (al-Fatwa al-Hindiyya, 5:346). So while it is not haram, it is not the sort of thing to be undertaken casually. It is acceptable to attend the funeral of a non-Muslim friend, relative, or associate. "And one may follow [the non-Muslim's] funeral from afar" (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 2:205). However, it is haram to take an active role in a non-Muslim funerary rite, especially if it involves praying for non-Muslims. "It is not for the Prophet and those who believe to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear that they are people of hell-fire." (At-Tawba, verse 113). For this reason, Muhammad himself was forbidden to pray for his beloved uncle Abu Talib. Lantzytalk 06:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So what are the consequences of a Muslim entering a non-Islamic place of worship? I know Hui Chinese people who are nominally Muslim but (at least) enter Buddhist or Taoist places of worship. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is makruh, then it carries no formal penalty. However, it may damage one's standing in the eyes of other Muslims. More importantly, it is supposed to incur divine annoyance. Of course, some Muslims are more lenient than others. It is very unlikely that conservative religious Hui in northwestern China would ever enter a Buddhist or Taoist temple, but it would not be remarkable among the Hui of northeastern China, who have also been known to drink, smoke, and eat pork. It is more a matter of personal orthodoxy than of denomination. Lantzytalk 07:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Some Muslims do not subscribe to a specific "School of Law", but ultimately consider the way they interpret God's Law and attempt to live according to it a matter between God and themselves – a liberal notion many other Muslims find unacceptable, though. --Lambiam 07:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a mosque near you? Take your questions there, because they'll be able to give you a better answer than any wikipedist.AllenHansen (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that taking the question to a local mosque is a good idea. It would, however, surprise me if that idea has not occurred to the OP. To me, the answers that the question received here appear to be both insightful and well referenced. --NorwegianBluetalk 10:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, your local Mullah is the man to speak to. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me where you live or what your age is. If you live in Australia for example and are of such an age where you are no longer a guardian (18?) then you would be fully entitled to leave your parents or other guardians if they don't respect your personal desire not to go to a Buddhist temple. This may be possible if you are not of legal age but it will be much more difficult. However before you try anything this drastic I would recommend you try talking to your parents/guardians about your feelings in this matter. Perhaps you may want to bring a friend, preferably an adult (e.g. a teacher) and someone who is not a Muslim (so that your parents/guardian don't think this person is unfairly influencing you) to help you in this matter. Indeed you could even try talking to someone in the Buddhist temple about this matter, they may be more then willing to help you since there is a fair chance they don't want someone being made to attend the temple who doesn't want to. N.B. I'm not saying you should take this matter this seriously. Personally I'm agnostic and have no problem entering any place of worship nor do I think people should have a problem. But if you do feel you don't wish to enter a place of worship outside of your religion then definitely you should stand up for yourself IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Presidential candidates losing their home state
Another question about the US presidential elections: how many times has it happened that a presidential candidate of one of the leading parties didn't win in his home state? I came across George McGovern not winning South Dakota in 1972, but have there been any other cases? A ecis Brievenbus 15:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, we have an article List of major-party United States presidential candidates who lost their home state. FiggyBee (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The most notable one recently, of course, was Al Gore in 2000, who would have won the presidency had he won his home state. —Kevin Myers 15:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Florida? ;) A  ecis Brievenbus 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Everybody knows he won Florida. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He doesn't. ;) --Emery (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which: I just noticed that both candidates in the 1920 election were from Ohio. Time for more listcruft? :) A  ecis Brievenbus 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Turks in Germany
Why are there so many people of Turkish origin in Germany? I can understand the preference for South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis) to migrate to the UK due to the fact that those places were part of the British Empire. The same for North African Arabs in France, due to the French control of Morroco and other places there. But what link is there between Turkey and Germany? The only thing I can think of is that the Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany in the 1st World War, but that seems a little farfetched. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The articles Germany-Turkey relations and Turks in Germany may be a starting point. FiggyBee (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to our article on Gastarbeiter, Germany signed official agreements with several countries during its economic boom in the 1950s and '60s whereby citizens of those countries could easily move to Germany as temporary workers. Turkey was the third country whose citizens were invited to work in Germany under the Gastarbeiter program, and it was by far the poorest and most populous country taking part in this program.  As such, the scale of the Turkish migration was larger than the migrations from other Gastarbeiter homelands.  As it turned out, many of the Gastarbeiter stayed on to become permanent residents and raise children in Germany.  Turks were more likely to stay on as residents of Germany than citizens of Italy, Greece, or Portugal, because those three countries developed rapidly from the 1960s through the 1980s as members of the European Union (or its predecessor the European Community).  So citizens of those countries were likely to return to their home countries to take advantage of opportunities there.  By contrast, Turkey still remains outside the EU, and it remains relatively poor.  If you look at the numbers in the table on page 83 of this document, you will see that Turks are the largest foreign nationality in Germany.  However, if you add up the numbers for countries that were formerly part of Yugoslavia, you will see that collectively they are not so far behind.  Like Turkey, the former Yugoslavian countries (with the exception of Slovenia) remain relatively poor and outside of the EU.  Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Names and backgrounds of wives of the Karaite exilarchs
What where the names and backgrounds of the wives of the Karaite exilarchs Hezekiah ben Solomon and Hasdai ben Hezekiah? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of a symbol?
Could anyone identify the symbol on the bottom left of this image? Thanks. http://z.about.com/d/graphicssoft/1/0/H/N/1/Small_BW_patterns.gif 213.167.126.215 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fleur-de-lis? --169.230.94.28 (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 213.167.126.215 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mayan artifact?
I happened to see this listing on Craigs List, and I wonder if any of the varied and wise minds on Wikipedia have any thoughts about it. Thanks. --76.16.186.86 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

God's Name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.220.73 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A price tag of $2500 and the non-claim of "could be Mayan, not sure" sounds like a scam. Also, if it is genuine, then chances are it belongs to the Mexican Government and anyone buying or selling it in the US is at risk of criminal prosecution. FiggyBee (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if it was found while traveling (where? unburied how? the lack of even basic details makes this extra sketchy), there's no evidence here that it's worth anything at all. It might not be old at all—there is an entire modern market of such trinkets today. I wouldn't drop thousands of dollars on something like that without some authentication being done. Of course, if the authentication was done, then it might not be legal to own. A classic catch-22. (As a side note, I seem to recall that once there was a case where someone alleged fraud in the purchasing of something illegal and it was decided that it was, indeed fraud, or something like that. Anyone know what I'm talking about?) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like a touristy souvenier!!! Someone is probably trying to get $2500 for what cost them no more than $50. AllenHansen (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Allen. --Wetman (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Musical Comedy Murders of 1940
Where can I find an online performance of the play The Musical Comedy Murders of 1940, by John Bishop? Thanks for all the help, it's much appreciated. --Emery (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

An online copy of the script would be much appreciated too. --Emery (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)