Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 January 9

= January 9 =

Foreign Presidents Buried in the USA
How many presidents/heads of state of other countries are buried in the United States?

In Miami there are 3:
 * 1) Carlos Prío Socarrás - Former President of Cuba
 * 2) Gerardo Machado y Morales - Former President of Cuba
 * 3) Anastasio Somoza Debayle - Former President of Nicaragua

Are there any others?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamanca34 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 4. Ferdinand Marcos is buried in Hawaii, or so our article says. —Kevin Myers 04:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Marcos has be re-interred in The Philippines, per Find-a-Grave. Salamanca34 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5. Jefferson Davis, buried in Virginia. —Kevin Myers 04:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6. Victoriano Huerta, buried in Texas. —Kevin Myers 05:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Queen Liliʻuokalani of Hawaii, in Honolulu.--Cam (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do chiefs of Indian tribes count? Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of them might. Native American chiefs of the distant past were not "heads of state", since they were usually one of several (sometimes many) leaders in a decentralized, non-state society. Native American societies began to centralize in response to European contact—tribe is arguably a concept imported from Europe—so post-contact "centralized" chiefs, like John Ross, might belong on the list, although chiefs with US citizenship (i.e. most of them after the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) are not "foreign". —Kevin Myers 06:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some would dispute Jeff Davis, on the grounds that he was American and that the CSA was not a "legitimate" country. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the former presidents of the Republic of Texas and governors of the Vermont Republic.--droptone (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering more along the lines of foreign nationals who are interred in the US. The sovereign Hawaiian Monarchs should count. Native American chiefs would be more tribal leaders than a foreign head of state, although they are recognized as nations. Republic of Texas and Vermont Republic leaders not so. Jefferson Davis is debatable.Salamanca34 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ignacy Jan Paderewski was buried at Arlington Cemetery until he was removed to Poland in the 90s. Woogee (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * However he appears to have been the head of government, but never the head of state which are seemingly two distinct roles in Poland, as they are in a number of countries and is usually the case for a Prime Minister. And the OP asked for head of states or presidents explicitly althought whether this was because of a lack of understanding of the terms I'm not sure. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nil is correct, but Woogee may have been confused by the incorrect wording in the article Arlington Cemetery, which read: "The USS Maine Memorial served as the temporary resting place for foreign heads of state, Manuel L. Quezon of the Philippines and Ignacy Jan Paderewski of Poland..." I corrected it now to say "... foreign heads of state or government..." — Kpalion(talk) 10:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From 1970 to the present, King Peter II of Yugoslavia had the distinction of being the only King buried in the United States (at the St. Sava Monastery Church in Libertyville, Illinois). It was announced in March 2007 that his remains would be transferred to the Karadjordjevic dynasty Mausoleum of St. George in Oplenac, Serbia, but as far as I know that has not yet occurred. - Nunh-huh 04:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hamlet and Catholicism in England
Shakespeare's Hamlet, as the Wikipedia article notes, contains clear references to Purgatory and other Catholic (non-Protestant) doctrines....Does anyone know what government and civil (and Church of England) responses were during the late 16th-19th centuries? By the 20th century, surely the public and government wouldn't really care what was in a play, but Protestantism was hugely powerful in British society at the time the work was written and through the 19th century, yet Shakespeare's works, including Hamlet, were presumably well received. --达伟 (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Puritans didn't go to the theatre - what the eye doesn't see.... Alansplodge (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hamlet,Prince of Denmark to give it its proper name - as the play wasn't set in England I don't think the authorities were that concerned. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But on the whole, how did the public react, since most of the populace was adverse to Catholicism and rejected its doctrines? --达伟 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my opinion - at the start of the 17th Century, the Puritans were a small but vocal minority who had little political clout and were despised by the King and the aristocracy. It was the well-to-do London set who were the patrons of the theatre, and their affiliation was to the emerging High Church that clung to Catholic traditions of worship. I suppose these people and their plays would have been an anathama to the Puritans, so they would have avoided the whole thing like the plague, rather than try to reform it. When the Puritans finally came to power in the English Commonwealth, theatres were banned. Most people were quite pleased when they were sent packing at the Restoration and it was back to business as usual at the playhouses. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly Protestantism is not the same as Puritanism. Protestants clearly did go to the theatre, or Shakespeare would have been playing to pretty small houses. Puritans were a pretty small minority at the time of Shakespeare (hint - some of them fled to America to avoid persecution).
 * Anglicanism in the time of Shakespeare was nowhere near the same as Evangelical Protestantism today. Purgatory, for example, is still an acceptable doctrine even today (you don't have to believe in it, but you can if you like). Actual doctrines even then wouldn't be nearly as far removed from Catholicism as you might think. Read the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion to find out what was considered Anglican doctrine. Most of the differences with Catholicism are about authority within the church.
 * In short it's a huge misunderstanding to think that over the course of a few years everyone in England went from believing Catholic doctrine to believing Evangelical Protestant doctrine. People's beliefs change much more slowly. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everyone's help...that's very enlightening. --达伟 (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

When Puritans (in their political as opposed to theological aspect) had power, either over the City of London or over the whole country, they banned or greatly hampered theatres, which is why even in the 16th century, The Globe theatre, The Rose theatre, the bull-and-bear-baiting pit, and other places of popular entertainment located themselves in Southwark on the South Bank of the Thames, beyond the city limits of London whose corporation and magistrates were dominated by Puritanical merchants. During the Commonwealth and Protectorate of 1649 to 1660, there were no legal plays, which is why English drama and comedy are divided into Elizabethan-Jacobean on one side and Restoration on the other. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All of which is completely irrelevant to the OP, for reasons clear from earlier posts. The Puritans were a disliked minority, as were the Catholics. The officially sanctioned religion, accepted by the majority, was Anglicanism, and everyone to the "left" and to the "right" of it was condemned and got his share of persecutions. Since Anglican dogma was very similar to Catholic dogma, there is nothing strange in the fact that some notions in Shakespeare's drama may not appear entirely Protestant to some. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Ten Articles (1536) merely made Purgatory a non-essential doctrine. But the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) quite clearly state "The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God." Protestants had been forcibly repressing rites and institutions referencing purgatory for 40 years before Hamlet appeared. Shakespeare's plays - as all others in Elizabethan England - had to undergo censorship before they could be mounted on the stage, and were vetted for religious and political statements detrimental to the government in power. So the state, and its puppet religion clearly cared, and clearly rejected the existence of purgatory. How, then, did the reference in Hamlet survive this censorship? It is a matter of debate; Stephen Greenblatt (in Hamlet in Purgatory believed that Shakepeare was pushing the limits of what censors would allow in his depiction of Hamlet's father's ghost; others have suggested that the text was modified by censors to change a serious presentation of a real purgatory into a jocular, literary presentation that would be less likely to be taken as factual - the ghost inhabits a secularized purgatory inhabiting the imaginative space left open by the Reformation's banishment of the religious Purgatory. Note that though the notion of purgatory can be found in Hamlet, the word itself never explicitly appears...that would have been censored. - Nunh-huh 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it perhaps relevant that the events in Hamlet are clearly set in a foreign country some time in the past (relative to Shakespeare's milieu) and could have been seen by, or be plausibly argued to, the censoring powers as both historically authentic and irrelevant to the contemporary situation? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably the censors were not as enlightened in that respect as you wish they were. They were chiefly concerned with the effect of a play on the British audience, regardless of the setting or time period of the play. They would not have stood for sympathetic depictions of Catholicism even in a distant land long long ago. - Nunh-huh 04:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How to make academic journal version of the Economist exactly follow the organization of the original version (printed or online)
I access the Economist via an online academic journal like EBSCO Host, to which my school subscribed to allow students' free access to all the articles. My concern is that the academic journal doesn't follow the original (either printed or online) version's organization of topics/headings. For example, the original version categorizes all the articles into one of the following categories:

This week's print edition Daily news analysis Opinion World politics All world politics Politics this week Special reports Business and finance Business education Markets and data Science and technology Books and arts People Diversions

In contrast, different academic journals for the Economist have their own organization of the contents, different from the original table of contents. For example, one academic journal called Academic Search Premier organizes contents as follows:

UNITED States LETTERS to the editor GREAT Britain CHINA EDITORIALS CLIMATIC changes -- Prevention DEVELOPING COUNTRIES GREAT Britain -- Politics & government -- 2007- IRAN GLOBAL Financial Crisis, 2008-2009

Strangely, some journals don't even present an organization of contents, but merely lists all the articles alphabetically.

What I want to know is this: Do online academic journals provide certain features/options to change its table of contents to exactly match the original's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First, you are not talking about academic journals, but about archival services. Academic journals publish original articles, they do not (usually) reprint popular press articles. And your archival services apparently do not offer complete publications, but only individual articles - because that is what is most often needed, and because it is a simple business model (you only pay for the content you need). They may or may not also offer access to complete issues of the newspaper. If not, you need to go to an archival library. The Economist is a fao prestigious publication, it will be archived at several places, either on microfiche or, nowadays, probaby digitally. It's almost certainly in the Library of Congress. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please find anything about Josef papirnikov?
He is a Jewish poet, and I didnt find anything in google. Thanks! Imanuel.sygal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You might try looking under "yosef papirnikov" and "yoseph papirnikov". Woogee (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Internet Archive has many of his works in Yiddish. He is also known as Papiernikov and Papiernikow.--Cam (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He was born in Warsaw in 1897 or 1899 and died in Tel Aviv in 1993. --Cam (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you all! I finally found it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imanuel.sygal (talk • contribs) 13:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)