Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 March 22

= March 22 =

Ripping up Kim Jong-un's portrait at Panmunjom's JSA - can it start a war?
Hello, when someone wonders when's a good time to die, I would tell them that they could only for the best cause one can find.

In this case, the cause would be Korean Reunification and the dissolution of the North's regime. However, a war would have to start and I wonder of a possible way to start it without harming anyone first:

Could going to the DMZ's JSA, unfolding the North Korean leader's portrait in full view of North Korean soldiers, and ripping it in half provoke them to shoot the ripper of said portrait?

If someone plans this but they have a little hesitancy to dying, what's a good escape plan? Where's the best path to escape through? Is the building behind the JSA huts (specifically the Home of Freedom) bulletproof? Therefore, would it be feasible to stand right in front of the door, rip up the poster, and run inside to avoid the hail of bullets?

After the gunfire starts and the poster-ripper survives and escapes, what would happen to said ripper of the poster? Moreover, how likely is it that the incident would cause us to move North to help stop the repressive regime from being repressive any longer?

I would tell them that it could be a good suicide plan, but as long as they escape alive, I am rather curious about how their life will turn out afterwards. --NayNayNayNay (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." RudolfRed (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Much of the detail and speculation in your question seems to be rather extraneous, but we already had the Axe murder incident at Panmunjom, and it didn't start a war... AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as similar to a request for legal advice. 70.59.28.93 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In any case, I wouldn't recommend it. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am doubtful that any intended goals would be accomplished through this sacrifice, but that's all I'm going to say. Falconus p t   c 08:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ripping up a poster may have once turned an election (last paragraph in section).--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Look up the actual Korean Demilitarized Zone article. The North Koreans make a regular practice of shooting at and occasionally killing people in the DMZ.  I'm sure that the South Koreans would gather around their special divided table and file another sternly worded protest. Wnt (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Eternal Jew
Did the Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew link (supposed) Jewish domination of the world with the austerity measures of the Bruning Government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I recall. (Though I am sure someone here has more thorough knowledge of The Eternal Jew.) Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not specifically I think. It can be watched on youtube. Not sure where the misleading subtitles or comic effect in the Rothschild scenes are that the article talks about... 84.197.178.75 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Preists
Did the Catholic Church’s top leaders in medieval society (eg. bishops), have faimly histories of holding church leadership positions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nepotism and its associated link Cardinal-nephew shed some light on the subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See Category:Papal family members and Category:Illegitimate children of popes, where I discover that Pope John XI may have the distinction of being the only pope who was an illegitimate son of an earlier pope (Pope Sergius III).
 * See also List of sexually active popes for some further juicy details of their lubricious doings. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

national anthem
is it true that the british national anthem lasts for four minutes and twenty five seconds? I had heard it was, but looking it up on youtube gives a range of different times. This would be the time taken for a full orchestra to play the full official version.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be a lot of verses - according to the BBC, a single verse (as played at the F1 grand prix at Germany) lasted less than forty-four seconds and the version that will be used at this summer's Olympics (two verses) will be one minute and twenty-five seconds. Mikenorton (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In contrast to many nations, Britain doesn't have laws specifying an official version of the national anthem. Our article God Save the Queen has more info: typically only 1-3 verses are performed, though verses have been added and removed at various points. That article says the 3-verse version is most standard, but it also notes numerous variations: in lyrics, in verses, in the introduction, and the tempo.  George V attempted to standardize the tempo, but since then there's been a tendency to speed it up from his recommendation; however for royal deaths a slower version is used.  So really there's no answer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with above, but it is very rare to hear more than one verse. If a further verse IS played, it is generally the third verse: "Thy choicest gifts in store...". The second "official" verse ("Oh Lord our God arise, / Scatter our enemies...") is subtitled "in time of war" and I have never heard it sung in my lifetime, even though we've been to war a few times. The supposed verse about crushing rebellious Scots, is known only to Scotsmen. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At the Sunday School I went to in the 1970s we had to sing all 5 verses if the Sunday fell on a Royal occasion. I remember being slightly perturbed by the verse about the Scots. This was in the Black Country, a good 300 miles south of Scotland. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute what you say, but I've never seen the Scots verse in print as part of the National Anthem. Both Hymns Ancient and Modern and The English Hymnal used by the Church of England only have the three verses. Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The version in the Guiding Handbook, when I was a Girl Guide, was also the first and third verses. I mainly knew the second verse because my parents delighted in singing a version of it that had 'Popish tricks' in place of 'knavish tricks', which they claimed was the version they were taught. I suspect this was a fabrication on their part, as our article says this was a suggestion by George V which didn't catch on. 86.171.37.99 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A roving Lollard preacher
Would a roving Lollard preacher have a copy of the Wycliffe Bible with him? How big (physically) would it have been? Did it contain just the New Testament or both Testaments? Who probably would have made that copy and how?--Doug Coldwell talk 22:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It most likely varied a lot. According to this book, it is probable that a number of Lollards possessed either bibles or parts of the bible, sometimes individual bible books. It also seems to imply that the Lollards produces these books themselves. As bibles were expensive (and time-consuming) to produce, many probably could not afford an entire bible. It seems they also learned passages by heart. The New Testament shown at the Lollards page, is taken from this website, where it states that they often used pocket size bibles. At this page, you can find that that particular (incomplete) New Testament is 4 3/8 x 2 3/4 inches (i.e. 11.1 x 7.0 cm), and includes 182 folios. -- Lindert (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A complete copy of the Bible would have been prohibitively expensive, and very big...I don't remember exactly how large, but way too big to carry around a complete copy. The idea that all the Bible books should be bound in the same volume is a relatively modern invention. If medieval preachers carried any Bible books at all, it would likely be a copy of the Gospels, maybe some Psalms, maybe some of the more exciting bits of the Old Testament. But they wouldn't necessarily lug actual books around with them. They would have memorized the most important stories, and if the audience couldn't read, there wouldn't be much use for written copies. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think they would be likely to carry it with them, as doing so could put both themselves and their Bibles in danger. They would be more likely to keep their Bibles well hidden. StuRat (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily...the translation was unauthorized, but it wasn't explicitly forbidden until after Wycliff's death. There are hundreds of surviving copies of at least parts of it, which suggests it was very popular and widespread. But Lollard preachers working after it was banned would probably not want to be caught with one, as you say. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Very interesting answers. It puts a good light on this. On the part of carrying a copy of the Gospels, maybe some Psalms - would (your best guess is alright) Acts be a book that they might carry with them or put to memory, like the Gospels?--Doug Coldwell talk 13:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I probably shouldn't guess about this because I don't really know, but I have the impression that medieval preachers (and not just fringe or reformer ones, like the Lollards, but regular Catholic ones too) focused on the Gospels more than any other parts of the Bible. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While it's always dangerous to extrapolate from current practice, I'd note that during the season of Easter (so, from Easter Sunday to Pentecost) the emphasis in the Liturgy of the Word in Catholic churches is the book of Acts. Nonetheless, the readings from Acts do not go in the 'Gospel' slot, but in the 'first reading' slot which is usually from the Old Testament. I'd think it's fair to classify the 'importance' of Acts in usual practice as roughly below the Psalms, but above most other books. So, (barring some information that their group placed unusual weight on it) I'd expect a preacher to carry a copy of Acts only if they already had all four Gospels and the Psalms, but it seems more likely that they'd carry Acts than any of the Epistles. 86.171.37.99 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for additional on Acts.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)