Humanities desk
< November 14	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 16 >

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.

November 15

Zengo

What type of name is Zengo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.102 (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zengo can be a Japanese surname (善吾). It may also be a name in other places (possibly in Swahili speaking areas?) Steewi 00:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to one website ([1]), it means "give and take". Mexican? Bessel Dekker 01:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such word in Spanish. There is no Mexican.--Tresckow 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can solve this. The confusion comes from the fact that the restaurant named Zengo is part of the Modern Mexican restaurant group (the food is Asian-Latin fusion). The owners of Zengo, however, named it after the Japanese word Zengo, which indeed means "give and take." (Or so they assert; I don't speak Japanese.) To make matters more confusing, there are only 2 Zengo locations, Denver and DC, and the one in DC has Zengo written in Chinese on the entrance because it's in Chinatown, Washington, D.C., and the building code requires Chinese lettering on storefronts. --M @r ē ino 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite enlightening. (BTW, I never suggested that there is such a language as Mexican, obviously. The adjective, however, does exist and has a few distinct (polysemic) meanings. For instance, there are "Mexican languages". And I feel inclined to take issue with the remark that "there is no Mexican"—in fact, there are quite a lot of them.) Bessel Dekker 18:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, I didn't make sense. There is a kid name Vasien Zengo. So, which language is Zengo. By the way, he speaks some European language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.133.192 (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A name is not necessarily a word in any language. Again, "some European language" does not really narrow things down: European languages are used all over the world. And I must admit I have no idea where "Vasien" would come from, so that's no help either, sorry. Bessel Dekker 13:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for Vasien return many pages in Albanian. --mglg_(talk) 16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vasien and zengo yield [2] this video of a photo moving about to music. (disclaimer: I could not stand watching to the end) -- SaundersW (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

illegal immigrants

One of the problems with illegal immigration is that the immigrants are undocumented. What advantages and disadvantages would documentation, both voluntary and forced, provided for the government and for the illegal immigrants? Adaptron 02:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well for the Goverment it would provide them a good list of people who they could eaisly deport if nessacary and some other stuff around that kind of area. Well for imagrints they would probaly get better pay and not have to live in fear of deportation. A job will treat them better as they cant just go and say there illegals if they do something wrong. Thereds a whole lot of good things to it. Esskater11 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not referring to any kind of documentation that would provide legal status of any kind but only documentation status for documentation sake. I am not referring to the issuance of a drivers license for instance where illegal immigrants could use it to drive. I am referring strictly to documentation such as a picture in the newspaper might provide without entailing any rights whatsoever. Adaptron 02:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case none really, as remember the fucking huge ass support imagrant rallys with all kinds of pictures or illegals admiting it, i highly dought that did anything really. Esskater11 02:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of one huge advantage for illegal immigrants remaining undocumented - they don't have to worry about some gun toting radical sicko anti-illegal immigrant idiot who is an even greater threat to American society than they are and should be documented instead, finding out where they live and trying to stick an H&K417 grenade launcher up their butt. 71.100.12.42 05:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a vision that haunts anyone with documents? Personally, I rather find it much more frightening that, once documented, one becomes a known quantity (and that was not just a figure of speech) to agencies like Revenue Canada, or the IRS or any other authority with a documented interest in one's cash flow, even if it not be much more than a cash trickle. Bielle 07:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But was Adaptron talking about the immigrants getting documents, or just being documented? (If you get my meaning) Skittle 11:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about getting documents but rather being documented. Adaptron 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptron's question is complicated with the reference to voluntary or forced documentation. If documentation (voluntary or forced) could lead to deportation, then undocumented immigrants would obviously resist it. However, if state (or provincial) agencies issuing documents promised not to refer immigrants to the federal (deporting) authorities, then there would likely be a high degree of compliance by immigrants. The advantages for immigrants would be easier access to bank accounts, insurance, air travel, and other amenities. The advantage for the state or province would be that immigrant drivers would be licensed and would pay taxes. The advantages for citizens would be that they would not be sharing the roads with unlicensed, uninsured drivers, and their governments would be receiving tax payments from these immigrants. The main disadvantage to such a move would be to regularize and partly legalize immigration outside of federally approved constraints. In effect, it could be an inducement to greater immigration, which could confront lower-paid legal residents with greater job competition and loss of wages. Such a move could undermine federal control of immigration. Marco polo 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean documents that would grant or entail any kind of legal status whatsoever. Illegal is illegal regardless of documentation. As an example of what I am looking for as an advantage for the government would be knowing the burden on taxpayers that illegals represent, and for the illegal, being able to tell the government why they were here illegally, did they leave their own country to make more money here or did they flee their own country because the Communist government (as in Venezuela) had run them out. Adaptron 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bielle: assuming that the employer is following the tax code, the IRS will collect taxes on undocumented immigrants. In fact, the IRS will get a big windfall, because without documentation, the immigrants can't get a refund for any exemptions they might qualify for. The problem is that many employers who are unscrupulous enough to hire undocumented workers are also unscrupulous enough to commit massive tax fraud. --M @r ē ino 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, Mareino. In Canada, the illegal immigrant is usually paid in cash, and I can't imagine that there is much paperwork involved. Even proportionally, we don't have the numbers you do, except for recently, as illegal Cuban immigrants are cuurrently being trucked from Florida to Windsor in Canada, and dumped.. Bielle 18:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albany's ambition

Is it true that Robert duke of albany, brother of Robert III of Scotland, aimed to take the crown for himself? Did he plan to murder his nephew, James I?Donald Paterson 06:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikified it :P though I haven't actually checked our articles to see if this is addressed, sec Dureo 11:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it really doesn't go into it so much, so check the eleventh Britannica ed. article regarding James I for more info, Robert was regent and James was imprisoned, but Robert may have killed others as the article mentions. Dureo 11:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albany was certainly an ambitious man, and there are aspects of his career that might be said to match those of another ambitious man. During the reign of Robert III, one of the weakest of the Medieval Scottish monarchs, Albany had built up a considerable power in government as lieutenant-general of the realm. In 1399 he was replaced in this position by his nephew, David, Duke of Rothesay, eldest son of the king and heir to the throne. Albany did not settle readiliy to a subordinate role. In 1402, alleging misconduct, he had his nephew arrested in a palace coup and imprisoned in Falkland Palace, where, it is alleged, he was allowed to starve to death. This only left the seven-year-old James between Albany and the throne in the event of King Robert's death.

In 1406, in circumstances that are not entirely clear, the decision was taken to send James to France for his own safety. His departure was so precipitate that no time was taken to obtain a safe conduct from Henry IV to allow him uninterupted passage through English waters. After his vessel was intercepted he was to spend the next eighteen years as a prisoner of the English crown. Not long after the Prince was captured Robert died, leaving Albany in sole control of Scotland. From what we know it is almost certain that he hoped James would die in captivity; he certainly took no steps to speed his return. So, while we cannot be certain that he planned to murder his nephew, we can be certain that he aimed at the crown. Clio the Muse 01:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's déja vu all over again: Clio, me, and Richard 3. The man who is writing the relevant volume of the new EUP history of Scotland quite likes Albany, so Robert son of Robert can expect a good press when the book comes out. The problem, as with Richard III, only more so, is that it's difficult to be sure exactly who and what and how. Grant (Independence and Nationhood), who is quite willing to believe the worst of Albany, admits to complete bafflement regarding James's departure from Scotland. Boardman opines (The Campbells) that Albany's governorship was all quite constitutional and popular too.

The Stewarts didn't set any great example when it came to familial loyalty. Albany's father Robert the Steward had been dubiously loyal to his uncle King David II. Albany's brother Robert (who was called John) set a bad example by more or less deposing their father, but turn about is fair play, and his son David did the same to him.

I'd pick a different would-be Richard III-emulators among James I's Stewart kinsfolk. The most obvious candidate is the man executed for his part in James's death, Albany's half-brother Walter Stewart, Earl of Atholl. Had Walter got away with it, he would certainly have been guardian for the six year old ~~Edward V~~James II, and we know how unhealthy a time childhood could be for a king. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, me and Richard makes three! Well, for young Prince James I suspect the air of Henry's England was a lot healthier than that of Albany's Scotland. It brought on his poetry nicely! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

constitutional monarchy

why could france not find a stable monarchical solution on the same lines as england to the problem of constitutional order after 1815? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.105.21 (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"England"? Pedantically, see Act of Union. Anyway, the two countries are so different it's hard to think of a reason why France should have come to a similar system. --Dweller 13:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB The question has very Whiggish undertones. In fact, scrap that, overtones. --Dweller 13:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One answer could be a lack of monarchical overlordness. The monarchy in England has (and had) a restricted power compared to many other European countries. In particular, if you look at Hopkins and Cain and their gentlemanly capitalism the development of such a stable middle class, where money could be made, was curtailed under France's system of government. Thus while English middle classes could make money and invest in an expanding Empire thanks to a more relaxed monarchy, France's were left butted against a ceiling. Just a theory. SGGH ^speak! 16:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) French history isn't my strongest point, but I suspect that France's revolutionary tradition of radical egalitarianism threatened the upper bourgeoisie ("middle classes" in British terms) with the spectre of rule by the mob and risk to property. Consequently, the moneyed bourgeoisie and landed aristocracy repeatedly backed monarchs who promised to protect their interests. Repeatedly, the lower classes (often including the lower bourgeoisie) responded with revolution. England bequeathed to the United Kingdom a tradition of middle-class control over the monarchy. In contrast to France, two parties, the Tories or Conservatives and the Whigs or Liberals, played, in effect Good cop/Bad cop toward the disfranchised lower classes. The Liberals largely coopted the aspirations of the lower classes by advocating for them and progressively extending the franchise to include ever larger numbers of the formerly disfranchised. The gradual and evolutionary expansion of the franchise over the course of the 19th century (together with the pressure valve of emigration to the colonies) helped to forestall the revolutionary pressures that destabilized France. A traditional attitude of deference toward one's "betters" among the working classes in Britain may also have factored against revolution. By contrast, France lacked a strong party that mediated class tensions in the same way as Britain's Liberals. Marco polo 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, it wasn't only the Liberals who extended the franchise in the UK. The Reform Act 1867 and the Representation of the People Act 1928 were put through by the Tories. Xn4 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with France was that the Revolution of 1789 had taken history at a rapid trot through several stages, effectively creating some serious fault lines in civil society, the underlying structures of law, culture, society and political tradition that help sustain more stable forms of constitutional development. Put this another way: in the brief period from 1789 to 1791, France covered the kind of political ground that had taken close on a hundred years in England. Thereafter, the Revolution went into overdrive, pushing matters to an extreme undreamt of by even the most radical of the English Whigs. One by one, as Edmund Burke had predicted in Reflections on the Revolution in France, civic and political institutions were knocked flat, until only the army remained; and with the army came Napoleon; and with Napoleon came dictatorship. Napoleon overcame the weakness and the fractures of civil society by force and by force alone.

A return to more traditional forms of rule would demand high degrees of political awareness and sensitivity. Above all it would require an understanding that politics in France had undergone a fundamental change, that there could be no return to the older forms of absolutism. Progress would therefore require the kind of partnership between the crown and the dominant sections of the civil community, in essence the solution of the Glorious Revolution. But the Bourbons came back in the person of Louis XVIII and, more particularly, in the person of Charles X, having learned nothing and forgotten everything. Tensions built, only to be released not in a mature parliamentary system, but by the valve of revolution. It might even be said that in the period from 1815 to 1870, French history played out many of the events of the Great Revolution in a kind of slow motion. The monarchical solution failed in all of its forms, Bourbon, Orleanist and Napoleonic because it was too narrowly conceived; because it lacked firm foundations, party foundations, in society; because it lacked a clear sense of direction and commonly accepted goals; because it failed to heal the fractures of the past. In the end only the Republic would do, the form of government that divided the French the least; tolerated not for what it was but for what it was not. Clio the Muse 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peasants' war

Your article on the Peasants' War gives the impression that they formed a solid block. But is it not true to say that they themselves were divided over aims and objectives? Can anyone comment on this? 81.129.82.49 14:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be flawed in a number of ways, as pointed out on its talk page. The article's focus is a Marxist interpretation of class relations at the time of the revolts rather than a description of the revolts themselves. The article focuses on Müntzer and ignores other leaders, whose aims may have been different. If you know something about this conflict and would be willing to consult a few sources for backup, you yourself could improve the article. Marco polo 16:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness; never mind Hamlet without the Prince: what about the peasants without a war! Even as a piece of Marxist analysis the whole article is quite bad. It's bad as theory; as history it is even worse. As far as your specific question is concerned, 81.129, you would do well to forget the traditional view that the war as a struggle between the feudal overlords and the peasant Gemeinde. I would refer you in particular to "The Social Origins of the Peasants' War in Upper Swabia in 1525" by G. V. Sreenivasan in Past and Present, no. 171 (Oxford, 2001). Using evidence from monastery of Otterbeuren, the author identifies two types of serf in the peasant communities-the lowly Seldner, or cottager, and the Bauern, a class of tenant farmers who, in the course of the century prior to 1525, had steadily undermined the rights of both the cottagers and the landlords. It was these wealthier peasants who led the rebellion in order to consolidate their property rights, but attempted to put breaks on the radicalism of the cottagers. In practice, for the cottagers, the wealthy farmers were in many cases just as oppressive, if not more so, that the feudal overlords. The rebels, in other words, were weakened by their own internal class war. Clio the Muse 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan Horse replica

Can anyone tell me the dimentions of the trojan horse replica that is located in Canakkale Turkey? Thank You. 76.176.215.76 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.215.76 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find exact dimensions, but this picture, which includes some people for perspective, makes it look to be about 30 feet tall. The length seems to be similar, and based on those proportions I'd estimate the width at 10 feet. The horse itself was made for the movie Troy, which may be useful to know in researching it in more detail. - Eron^Talk 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not talking about the one from the movie Troy I'm talking about this one: http://www.worldisround.com/articles/11974/photo1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.215.76 (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this one. Looking at that and similar pictures, it seems to be of a similar size; maybe a bit higher. I'd stick with my estimate that it is about 30 feet tall. - Eron^Talk 21:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You have helped alot. (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Baldwin

Can anyone confirm that Stanley Baldwin, British Prime Minister at the time of the Abdication Crisis, had family connections with the Scottish Clan Donald? SeanScotland 18:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This ([3]) Time article dated July 22, 1929 might be enlightening. He and Ramsay MacDonald are called "distant cousins". Bessel Dekker 18:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His mother was a Macdonald. DuncanHill 21:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His mother was Louisa Macdonald, descended from the Skye branch of the familiy, whose forbears settled near Eniskillen in Northern Ireland after the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745. On one occasion Baldwin even gave details of his Jacobite ancestry in a speech in the House of Commons; "My mother's family fled from the Highlands after having been out with Prince Charles in 1745. I remember that, in my early days, it was with great difficulty that we could stand up when the band was playing God Save the King, because we had a Hanoverian and not a Jacobite King."

I rather suspect that there was quite a lot of romantic embellishment in the stories related to young Stanley by his mother. What she clearly neglected to tell him was that her branch of the clan, the Macdonalds of Sleat, remained loyal to George II, while the rest of Clan Donald followed Charlie across the heather. Well, never mind; at least he managed to chase one Hanoverian from the throne! Clio the Muse 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions down reference is made to Edward Burne-Jones, which through the MacDonald sisters makes rather a nice link to this question. DuncanHill 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Mountains Close to the Equator

I'm trying to determine what the tallest mountains are that are within 5 degrees, north and south, of the equator. I have Chimborazo (1.5 degrees S and 6268 m) as the tallest in Ecuador, Kilamanjaro (3 degrees S and 5,895 m) as possibly the only candidate in Africa, Puncak Jaya (4 degrees S and 4884 m) and Mount Wilhelm on the island of New Guinea. In Columbia I've got Nevado del Huila (2.9 degrees N and 5,365 m), Nevado del Tolima (4.67 degrees N and 5200+ m), Nevado del Ruiz (4.8 degrees N and 5,321 m). Lots and lots of others in Ecuador mentioned on this list of mountains. Have I missed anything in the 3000+ meter range elsewhere in the world? DeepSkyFrontier 21:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a List of mountains. By restricting it to the countries within 5 degrees of the equator (see Equator#Equatorial countries and territories), you should get a manageable list. I think Mount Kadam in Uganda (found by a cursory examination following the suggested procedure) qualifies. --Lambiam 23:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Mount Cameroon. Marco polo 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. My sincere thanks to both of you. DeepSkyFrontier 05:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if what you're trying to figure out is which summit is farthest from the center of the Earth, see Chimborazo. --Anonymous, 11:42 UTC, November 16, 2007.

Medieval themed paintings

Hi, I have sort of a random question. I'm sort of new to art and things, and I really enjoy some of the paintings of Edmund Blair Leighton, especially The Accolade and God Speed. In particular, the whole theme of chivalry and knights interests me. So my question is, can anyone point me to artists that paint similar paintings? I've browsed Google Images for paintings about knights and whatnot, and have come up with little. Thanks in advance ;) Zenislev 21:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should find something to please you if you work your way through the articsts mentioned in Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. DuncanHill 22:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My own favourites (not members of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, but among those who followed after it) are John William Waterhouse and Edward Burne-Jones. Xn4 00:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Pre-Raphaelites, eh? —Tamfang 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Burne-Jones is rather a neat link to the question above about Stanley Baldwin - see MacDonald sisters to learn more! DuncanHill 01:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, that's the kind of stuff I was thinking about. I especially liked Joseph Noel Paton (looked up all of the artists from the article on that Art Renewal Center website), his paintings of Sir Galahad and whatnot. Waterhouse also had some cool ones (like La belle dam sans mercie) but I haven't looked through all of his paintings listed yet. Are there any other artists or paintings themselves you can think of depicting knights? Thanks again (Oh and does anyone know why my signature doesn't link to my user page? I messed with my signature settings and now it doesn't link; anyone know how to get that back?) 71.131.12.99 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Gah, now I can't log in, anyway this is Zenislev[reply]

As you've spotted, Zenislev, your problem is that you aren't logged in. I've taken the liberty of redirecting 71.131.12.99 to Zenislev. If you have a shared IP address, you may decide to expunge that when you've got the logging-in problem sorted out. To undo any changes to your signature as Zenislev, you need to go to My preferences while logged-in. Xn4 01:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooh, finally was able to log in. It kept saying that my password was incorrect last time but now it's working fine. Thanks for the assistance and all. Let's see if it leaves a proper signature now. Zenislev (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poem page numbers

Stupid me forgot the note cards I had this stuff written down on. I need the page numbers of the books these poems are found in:

KEY: "Poem name" By Author Book title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.163.13 (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"How Did You Die?" By Edmund Cooke 101 Famous Poems**

"Not In Vain" By Emily Dickinson 101 Famous Poems**

"No Funeral Gloom" By Ellen Terry The Best-Loved Poems of the American People**

"Mammy" By Langston Hughes The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes

"Passing Time" By Maya Angelou Oh Pray My Wings Are Gonna Fit Me Well

Also, the names of the editors of the asterisked books would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.163.13 (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmmm ... how about you identify the editions you've already taken notes from, and we'll try to help. We don't do your homework for you. -- JackofOz 22:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....I'm sorry, that's all I know about those poems. And I looked EVERYWHERE on the 'net for these numbers and such, but found nothing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.163.13 (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meaningful to say that poem X occurs on page 123 unless you identify the edition of the book it occurs in. What do you need the page numbers for if you don't have access to these books? --Lambiam 23:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find some of these using Google books or the "Search inside" function of amazon.com. --Lambiam 23:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the books after you took the notes? Did you return them to the library? Put them back on the shelf? Burn them, and scatter the ashes? Your best bet is to find the books you were using, so you can find the information in them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the questioner has an assignment due the next day that involves analysing poems as well as citing them. That's why he doesn't have time to find the original books he used. It's also why he forgot his note cards and cannot access them. --Bowlhover 03:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your subtlety escaped me for a moment, Bowlhover, but now that the penny's dropped, I entirely agree. -- JackofOz 09:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]