Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< November 21 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 23 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
I'm trying to locate a book I read about recently. I may have even read about it here on the Reference Desk, but I can't find it in the archive.
If I recall correctly is was either by or about a dirigible pilot describing the experience of piloting a dirigible. That's all I have to go on. I just remember making a mental note to remember this book and try to locate a copy. If anyone could tell me the title or author of the book I'm thinking of, or of something similar, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. APL ( talk) 00:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What is an example of a case in which forensic psychology helped solve a crime? -- Candy-Panda ( talk) 01:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
How can I find/choose/select a lawyer or doctor to get advice (no matter what country)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Which part of Toronto has the most Arabs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 ( talk) 02:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Which part of Toronto has the most Turkishes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 ( talk) 03:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I know that Toronto is multicultural city, but which part of Toronto that has the most numbers of White people and I mean native Canadians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 ( talk) 03:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Good thing you have answered my white people question but you haven't answered my Arab(When I mean "Arab", I mean Arabs together like Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian, Omani, Yemeni, Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Libyan, Egyptian, Palestinian, Saudi Arabian, Bahraini, Kuwaiti, Qatari, United Arab Emirates people and Jordanian Arabs) and Turkish people question. Please answer these two.
Did the title "Roman Emperor", through the inheritance of Ferdinand and Isabel, pass and settle into the Spanish, or the Holy Roman line? When Charles V abdicated, did it go to his brother Ferdinand, in order to append further legitimacy to the Holy Roman title, by uniting the two titles--since while the two titles had been held by two different individuals, it lessened the legitimacy of each one--with the Holy Roman one at a natural disadvantage? 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 06:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the selling or willing of the Byzantine title to the Catholic Monarchs, which descended to the Habsburgs. Wikipedia currently shows the title as having gone down permanently with the Spanish Royal Family, but I think that is inaccurate. Charles would have transferred the Byzantine imperial title to his brother Ferdinand, rather than his son Philip. It would unite the two imperial titles for some kind of legitimacy, but User:John Kenney tells me that neither the House of Trastamara nor the Holy Roman Emperors claimed the title of Roman Emperor, of the Byzantine line. Wikipedia has to make sense and it just isn't. I want clarification. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 19:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Then why does Wikipedia list the Spanish monarchs as pretenders of the Byzantine version of Rome? 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, where does any Royal Spanish website or catalogue on the internet state that the old Roman Empire belongs to them, even in theory? The only nutty one that is verified on Wikipedia, is the title to Jerusalem. I'd like to see a coherent claim to Rome from the Spaniards, not some original research on Wikipedia making crazy claims. Wikipedia lists several kings of Spain in succession (until Charles II of Spain), as having this title, but what historical sources have ever showed this? Also, where is it explained on Wikipedia why the claim did not continue with the succeeding Spanish royals (the succession box lists Louis, Dauphin of France (1661-1711) as next, but his own article doesn't have the succession box)? 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for paying attention to the question--although from your own personal opinion rather than fact, on whether the title to Rome went with Austrian Habsburgs or Spanish Habsburgs after this point. It is obvious that nobody has the answers, because this is original research being bandied about. I'd like to see some source texts that agree with the statements being put into these articles about the devolution of the claim or title, because that is Wikipolicy and due to the lack of following it in this case, I'm confused! 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Look, all I'm calling for is, reliable sources that agree with Wikipedia's articles, or Wikipedia should fall in agreement with such sources. How come everybody here is ignoring Wikipedia precepts? I call for integrity and you lot go on these insanely tangential rants! 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 18:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wanting to know the source text, so I can judge for myself the legitimacy of these claims. Are readers not to know the reasons why Wikipedia asserts certain things? Is not Wikipedia supposed to dispense verifiable knowledge? 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll forgive the wretched state of the related articles and maybe check Google Books. Thanks for the directional approach, well mannered that it is. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 04:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
When did the tradition start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistroadster ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've seen footage of this routine. It's hard to laugh and have one's mouth hanging open in shock at the same time, yet I managed it. Anyway, I am curious what impact (if any) it had on African-American society? I presume at the time some black community leaders were outraged at the characterisation and some nodded sagely and agreed that comedy is a mirror on life and Chris Rock had made some good points. Am I right? What kind of response was there from the black community? And, now that some time has passed, has the routine made any kind of impact? Has anything changed? If he were writing the routine today, would Chris Rock omit any of the characterisations because they're no longer accurate (if indeed they ever were)? -- Dweller ( talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure whether this question goes under humanities or misc, but here goes:
I've noticed that this mon seems to be worn by quite a few Eishin Ryu iaidoka. Why is this? What's the history of it? How did it become associated with Eishin Ryu? Thanks! 81.11.148.226 ( talk) 13:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been highly encouraged by the superb and erudite responses to my questions on international relations, so much so that I shall risk another. Would it be true to say that the Cold War arose from a series of mutual misunderstandings, or was one side more at fault than the other? Did the Soviet Union really aim at ideological expansion after 1947? I look forward to your responses. Many thanks. Mustapha Fag ( talk) 13:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
One early irritant in the immediate aftermath of WW2 was that Stalin didn't keep his promise, made by him personally to Roosevelt, to allow free elections to be held in Poland. Of course, Stalin never had any intention of keeping that promise... AnonMoos ( talk) 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed; there is really no other way to explain the sudden emergence of the Cold War other than by a process of misjudgement, misunderstanding and missed opportunities. There may have been some in the west-I think of Churchill in particular-who were attuned to the dangers of new forms of 'ideological imperialism'. But Stalin in every sense was more Bismarck than Lenin, a practitioner of realpolitik in its purest form, rather than a Communist crusader. His policy in eastern Europe after 1945 is, in many respects, simply a grander model of that pursued from 1939 to 1941 during his partnership with Hitler. Above all things, he was determined to increase his security in the west, which meant, of course, establishing a permanent Soviet presence across the region. Local Communist parties were encouraged and nurtured when they served this basic end; otherwise they were discarded in a quite cynical fashion. Although Churchill in 1946 was warn of an 'Iron Curtain' descending across Europe he himself had in discussions in 1944 entered into a 'devil's bargain' with Stalin, conceeding Soviet domination of the Balkans in return for British control of Greece. Stalin had at least fulfilled his side of this understanding by abandoning the Greek Communist Party.
Remember, too, as far as the security issues are concerned, setting aside the case of Poland, by far the most contentious issue, all of the other countries occupied by the Soviets had been German allies or client states to some degree or other. Yes, Stalin agreed that the peoples of these 'liberated' countries had the right to determine their own fate in free and fair elections, but his increasing distrust of the west-and the huge extension of American power conferred by atomic weapons-put an end to this prospect at an early stage. Stalin was not the kind of man who could be readily trusted, that much is true, but it is just possible that more would have been achieved by steady and patient diplomacy, particularly in relation to the German and the Polish questions. But then came Churchill at his sabre-rattling best! True, he was not in government when he made his famous speech in Fulton, Missouri, but Harry Truman was, and he shared the same platform.
How were the Soviets to take this other than an indication of a new, more hostile direction in western policy, subsequently enshrined in the Truman Doctrine? Why, by returning the same basic model, the promotion of the view that the world had indeed divided into two distinct camps, the dangers and the threats all being on one side, and the peaceful intentions all on the other. This was the Soviet Fulford, a speech given by Andrei Zhdanov in September 1947 at the first meeting of Cominform, the real beginning, it might be argued, of the Soviet Cold War.
Growing suspicion in the west over Soviet intentions, and growing anxiety in the east over future security, meant that there could be no agreement over the political shape of Germany, now and in the period to come. It was to be, rather, the new front line in the Cold War, symbolised by the creation of two separate states in 1949, divided by ideology, divided by politics, divided by economics...and divided by fear. Clio the Muse ( talk) 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Between 1523 and 1530 the Knights of Hospitaller lacked a permanent home, until Charles V of Spain offered them Malta and Gozo in return for one maltese falcon sent annually to the Viceroy of Sicily and a solemn mass to be celebrated on All Saints Day.
What is maltese and how valuable is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.32.75 ( talk) 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In 1918 the German army claimed that it had lost the war because it had been stabbed in the back by political opponents at home. did the generals really believe this and could they have gone on fighting? 86.151.241.98 ( talk) 16:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It was a convenient excuse, a way of passing responsibility for surrender on to the civilians, though both Hindenburg and Ludendorff were well aware of the strategic realities. The Spring Offensive of 1918 had been their last great gamble, the one hope of breaking the Allies in the west before American reserves arrived in even greater numbers. As early as 7 August the Kaiser said to Ludendorff that "We have reached the limits of our capacity. The war must be ended." At that stage it was still hoped that it would be possible to do so on the crest of some military advantage. But the position continued to deteriorate day by day, so much so that at the meeting of the Imperial Council at Spa on 14 August Ludendorff recommended immediate peace negotiations.
The situation in the west grew steadily worse throughout September. In early October both Hindenburg and Ludendorff were pressing for an immediate truce, telling the Kaiser that the army could not wait for another forty-eight hours. To this Max von Baden repled that if the situation was so desperate it was for the army 'to raise the white flag in the field'. Ludedorff raised no white flag, but he sent a telegram to Berlin on 2 October, saying that the heavy losses of the last few days were impossible to make good, and an armistice was therefore imperative, " to spare the German people and its allies further useless sacrifice." Later in the month, as the Allied advance slowed, his nerve steadied somewhat, and he was even talking of the possibility of another offensive in the west in 1919. It was fantasy, of course. The collapse of the Salonika Front put the supply of oil from Romania at risk, without which the German army could only fight for another six weeks, as General Heinrich Scheüch, the War Minister, pointed out. The game was played and lost before a single red flag had been raised. The stab was in the front, not the back. Clio the Muse ( talk) 01:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
What was Stalin's attitude towards General de Gaulle? Pere Duchesne ( talk) 18:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< November 21 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 23 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
I'm trying to locate a book I read about recently. I may have even read about it here on the Reference Desk, but I can't find it in the archive.
If I recall correctly is was either by or about a dirigible pilot describing the experience of piloting a dirigible. That's all I have to go on. I just remember making a mental note to remember this book and try to locate a copy. If anyone could tell me the title or author of the book I'm thinking of, or of something similar, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. APL ( talk) 00:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What is an example of a case in which forensic psychology helped solve a crime? -- Candy-Panda ( talk) 01:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
How can I find/choose/select a lawyer or doctor to get advice (no matter what country)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Which part of Toronto has the most Arabs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 ( talk) 02:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Which part of Toronto has the most Turkishes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 ( talk) 03:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I know that Toronto is multicultural city, but which part of Toronto that has the most numbers of White people and I mean native Canadians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 ( talk) 03:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Good thing you have answered my white people question but you haven't answered my Arab(When I mean "Arab", I mean Arabs together like Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian, Omani, Yemeni, Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Libyan, Egyptian, Palestinian, Saudi Arabian, Bahraini, Kuwaiti, Qatari, United Arab Emirates people and Jordanian Arabs) and Turkish people question. Please answer these two.
Did the title "Roman Emperor", through the inheritance of Ferdinand and Isabel, pass and settle into the Spanish, or the Holy Roman line? When Charles V abdicated, did it go to his brother Ferdinand, in order to append further legitimacy to the Holy Roman title, by uniting the two titles--since while the two titles had been held by two different individuals, it lessened the legitimacy of each one--with the Holy Roman one at a natural disadvantage? 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 06:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the selling or willing of the Byzantine title to the Catholic Monarchs, which descended to the Habsburgs. Wikipedia currently shows the title as having gone down permanently with the Spanish Royal Family, but I think that is inaccurate. Charles would have transferred the Byzantine imperial title to his brother Ferdinand, rather than his son Philip. It would unite the two imperial titles for some kind of legitimacy, but User:John Kenney tells me that neither the House of Trastamara nor the Holy Roman Emperors claimed the title of Roman Emperor, of the Byzantine line. Wikipedia has to make sense and it just isn't. I want clarification. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 19:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Then why does Wikipedia list the Spanish monarchs as pretenders of the Byzantine version of Rome? 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, where does any Royal Spanish website or catalogue on the internet state that the old Roman Empire belongs to them, even in theory? The only nutty one that is verified on Wikipedia, is the title to Jerusalem. I'd like to see a coherent claim to Rome from the Spaniards, not some original research on Wikipedia making crazy claims. Wikipedia lists several kings of Spain in succession (until Charles II of Spain), as having this title, but what historical sources have ever showed this? Also, where is it explained on Wikipedia why the claim did not continue with the succeeding Spanish royals (the succession box lists Louis, Dauphin of France (1661-1711) as next, but his own article doesn't have the succession box)? 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for paying attention to the question--although from your own personal opinion rather than fact, on whether the title to Rome went with Austrian Habsburgs or Spanish Habsburgs after this point. It is obvious that nobody has the answers, because this is original research being bandied about. I'd like to see some source texts that agree with the statements being put into these articles about the devolution of the claim or title, because that is Wikipolicy and due to the lack of following it in this case, I'm confused! 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Look, all I'm calling for is, reliable sources that agree with Wikipedia's articles, or Wikipedia should fall in agreement with such sources. How come everybody here is ignoring Wikipedia precepts? I call for integrity and you lot go on these insanely tangential rants! 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 18:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wanting to know the source text, so I can judge for myself the legitimacy of these claims. Are readers not to know the reasons why Wikipedia asserts certain things? Is not Wikipedia supposed to dispense verifiable knowledge? 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll forgive the wretched state of the related articles and maybe check Google Books. Thanks for the directional approach, well mannered that it is. 24.255.11.149 ( talk) 04:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
When did the tradition start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistroadster ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've seen footage of this routine. It's hard to laugh and have one's mouth hanging open in shock at the same time, yet I managed it. Anyway, I am curious what impact (if any) it had on African-American society? I presume at the time some black community leaders were outraged at the characterisation and some nodded sagely and agreed that comedy is a mirror on life and Chris Rock had made some good points. Am I right? What kind of response was there from the black community? And, now that some time has passed, has the routine made any kind of impact? Has anything changed? If he were writing the routine today, would Chris Rock omit any of the characterisations because they're no longer accurate (if indeed they ever were)? -- Dweller ( talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure whether this question goes under humanities or misc, but here goes:
I've noticed that this mon seems to be worn by quite a few Eishin Ryu iaidoka. Why is this? What's the history of it? How did it become associated with Eishin Ryu? Thanks! 81.11.148.226 ( talk) 13:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been highly encouraged by the superb and erudite responses to my questions on international relations, so much so that I shall risk another. Would it be true to say that the Cold War arose from a series of mutual misunderstandings, or was one side more at fault than the other? Did the Soviet Union really aim at ideological expansion after 1947? I look forward to your responses. Many thanks. Mustapha Fag ( talk) 13:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
One early irritant in the immediate aftermath of WW2 was that Stalin didn't keep his promise, made by him personally to Roosevelt, to allow free elections to be held in Poland. Of course, Stalin never had any intention of keeping that promise... AnonMoos ( talk) 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed; there is really no other way to explain the sudden emergence of the Cold War other than by a process of misjudgement, misunderstanding and missed opportunities. There may have been some in the west-I think of Churchill in particular-who were attuned to the dangers of new forms of 'ideological imperialism'. But Stalin in every sense was more Bismarck than Lenin, a practitioner of realpolitik in its purest form, rather than a Communist crusader. His policy in eastern Europe after 1945 is, in many respects, simply a grander model of that pursued from 1939 to 1941 during his partnership with Hitler. Above all things, he was determined to increase his security in the west, which meant, of course, establishing a permanent Soviet presence across the region. Local Communist parties were encouraged and nurtured when they served this basic end; otherwise they were discarded in a quite cynical fashion. Although Churchill in 1946 was warn of an 'Iron Curtain' descending across Europe he himself had in discussions in 1944 entered into a 'devil's bargain' with Stalin, conceeding Soviet domination of the Balkans in return for British control of Greece. Stalin had at least fulfilled his side of this understanding by abandoning the Greek Communist Party.
Remember, too, as far as the security issues are concerned, setting aside the case of Poland, by far the most contentious issue, all of the other countries occupied by the Soviets had been German allies or client states to some degree or other. Yes, Stalin agreed that the peoples of these 'liberated' countries had the right to determine their own fate in free and fair elections, but his increasing distrust of the west-and the huge extension of American power conferred by atomic weapons-put an end to this prospect at an early stage. Stalin was not the kind of man who could be readily trusted, that much is true, but it is just possible that more would have been achieved by steady and patient diplomacy, particularly in relation to the German and the Polish questions. But then came Churchill at his sabre-rattling best! True, he was not in government when he made his famous speech in Fulton, Missouri, but Harry Truman was, and he shared the same platform.
How were the Soviets to take this other than an indication of a new, more hostile direction in western policy, subsequently enshrined in the Truman Doctrine? Why, by returning the same basic model, the promotion of the view that the world had indeed divided into two distinct camps, the dangers and the threats all being on one side, and the peaceful intentions all on the other. This was the Soviet Fulford, a speech given by Andrei Zhdanov in September 1947 at the first meeting of Cominform, the real beginning, it might be argued, of the Soviet Cold War.
Growing suspicion in the west over Soviet intentions, and growing anxiety in the east over future security, meant that there could be no agreement over the political shape of Germany, now and in the period to come. It was to be, rather, the new front line in the Cold War, symbolised by the creation of two separate states in 1949, divided by ideology, divided by politics, divided by economics...and divided by fear. Clio the Muse ( talk) 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Between 1523 and 1530 the Knights of Hospitaller lacked a permanent home, until Charles V of Spain offered them Malta and Gozo in return for one maltese falcon sent annually to the Viceroy of Sicily and a solemn mass to be celebrated on All Saints Day.
What is maltese and how valuable is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.32.75 ( talk) 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In 1918 the German army claimed that it had lost the war because it had been stabbed in the back by political opponents at home. did the generals really believe this and could they have gone on fighting? 86.151.241.98 ( talk) 16:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It was a convenient excuse, a way of passing responsibility for surrender on to the civilians, though both Hindenburg and Ludendorff were well aware of the strategic realities. The Spring Offensive of 1918 had been their last great gamble, the one hope of breaking the Allies in the west before American reserves arrived in even greater numbers. As early as 7 August the Kaiser said to Ludendorff that "We have reached the limits of our capacity. The war must be ended." At that stage it was still hoped that it would be possible to do so on the crest of some military advantage. But the position continued to deteriorate day by day, so much so that at the meeting of the Imperial Council at Spa on 14 August Ludendorff recommended immediate peace negotiations.
The situation in the west grew steadily worse throughout September. In early October both Hindenburg and Ludendorff were pressing for an immediate truce, telling the Kaiser that the army could not wait for another forty-eight hours. To this Max von Baden repled that if the situation was so desperate it was for the army 'to raise the white flag in the field'. Ludedorff raised no white flag, but he sent a telegram to Berlin on 2 October, saying that the heavy losses of the last few days were impossible to make good, and an armistice was therefore imperative, " to spare the German people and its allies further useless sacrifice." Later in the month, as the Allied advance slowed, his nerve steadied somewhat, and he was even talking of the possibility of another offensive in the west in 1919. It was fantasy, of course. The collapse of the Salonika Front put the supply of oil from Romania at risk, without which the German army could only fight for another six weeks, as General Heinrich Scheüch, the War Minister, pointed out. The game was played and lost before a single red flag had been raised. The stab was in the front, not the back. Clio the Muse ( talk) 01:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
What was Stalin's attitude towards General de Gaulle? Pere Duchesne ( talk) 18:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)