Humanities desk
< November 10	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 12 >

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 11

75Janice (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)== Hyde Amendment (1997) info needed ==[reply]

I have written an article, Hyde Amendment (1997). However, except for the case described in the article, I have not been able to find a case where the defendant was reimbursed legal fees for frivolous prosecution. Are there other cases? Thanks! Mattisse 00:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at the article quickly. Have you used Lexis and Westlaw? If nothing shows with Shepard's, perhaps there has not been a case. Perhaps there is a very difficult burden of proof involved. 75Janice

Prescription ethics

An ethical question: I am taking a very necessary drug that costs $450 per month raw, $150 per month after insurance. As a student, this is still a bit more than I can afford, so I tell my doctor to up the dose to double what I want to take, as it's not working as well, and then break my new pills in half so now I'm only paying $75 a month. I am lying to my doctor and defrauding my insurance (the cost of the drug stays constant despite the size of the pill), yet if I didn't do that I wouldn't be able to afford the drug necessary for me to function properly. What are some resources on this type of medical ethics, and what would a modern interpretation be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.127.93 (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion - you are doing what you have to do to protect your health. I see no moral objection to your actions. You may wish to consider campaining for a system of socialised healthcare. DuncanHill 01:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If you are legitimately able to obtain the drug in a larger quantity, that will leave you less out-of-pocket per dose, why not do so? I can't see why your doctor wouldn't understand that, and be supportive. You shouldn't have to go to the length of lying to your doctor to get the financial outcome you want - but that's your call because we don't know the details of your illness or your treatment. It's certainly not fraud, imo. This is not legal advice, naturally. -- JackofOz 02:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No moral objections to crime and insurance fraud? Seriously? Oy vay. I am real hungry, I can't afford a pizza, I should be able to steal one from the pizza parlor? I am real cold, I can't afford a jacket, I should be able to steal one from the clothing store? Why is stealing from an insurance company any different? If you don't like your insurance plan, abandon it -- pay the higher premiums -- and purchase one that suits your needs. This reminds me, for some reason, of people who would lie and say that they are age 12 to get into the movies for a reduced child's admission fee. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The danger is, aside from any legal issues, that depending on the drug, knowing how much you are taking could be important to your doctor. It's usually a bad idea to lie to your doctor because them knowing your current and past medical history helps inform them as to the best treatment options. Whether that would be the case in this situation, I don't have a clue, but I just wanted to put that out there. As for the ethics of it, sounds like a problem with a very sick health care system; letting a sick health care system let you get sick can't possibly be the right answer. --24.147.86.187 02:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon for a doctor to prescribe a larger dose pill and have the patient cut it in half. By lying to your doctor, you have made your doctor an enemy in this situation. You could have explained that you could save a lot of money by having the larger pills, giving your doctor the chance to prescribe it to you with the instructions to cut the pill in half. Now, because you didn't give your doctor the chance, your doctor assumes you are taking the larger dose and will base all of your treatment based on that dosage. It comes down to the fact that you and your doctor are a team in your health treatment. The insurance company, clinic administration, and even friends and family are not part of the team. The only person you need to be completely honest with when it comes to your health is your doctor. Everyone else has no business knowing anything you don't want them to know. -- kainaw ™ 02:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

The best thing for you to do would be to play it straight with your doc -- say your insurance only covers 2/3 of the cost and that you can't afford the rest. Doctors usually have drawers full of samples, and your doctor might have some he can part with. I went through a short period without drug coverage, and when I went to the doctor, she sent me home with a basketful of free medicine samples to last until my drug coverage kicked in. The pharmaceutical company may also have a program to provide discounted medicine that your doctor may know about. -- Mwalcoff 02:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that not all pills are meant to be split in half - some are enteric coated or sustained release. --Joelmills 03:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fast responses. However, I am not looking for opinions, as this is not a real problem, but merely based on a real scenario (asking about a real medical problem would probably constitute asking for medical advice, anyway). I am looking for someone familiar with the modern ethics literature to help steer me in the right direction for this brand of medical ethics that is an important subject of debate right now (ie socialized drug care vs. private research patents, without which I wouldn't have this wonderful drug to begin with). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.127.93 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's flat-out stealing, lying, and fraud. Not to mention, a crime. That being said ... what exactly is the ethical question? How is this any different than stealing bread from the grocer, because you are hungry and can't afford the food? If indeed you can't afford prescriptions, explore social welfare options -- not criminal behavior. No real ethics questions here --- just a criminally deviant mind trying to justify and rationalize his behavior. That's my two cents. One can attempt to rationalize and justify -- as most criminals do -- and you can play mental gymnastics and semantics all you want. In the end, there is a reason why it is called fraud and why it is legislated to be a crime. (Joseph A. Spadaro 05:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I sense a lot of bite in your two answers, Joseph A. Spadaro. Even if you are right, that this constitutes a crime (and we don't do legal advice here, do we?), the descriptor "criminally deviant mind" appears to be a little strong for a hypothetical situation. And what is the point of the "oy vay"? Bielle 05:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blessed Oscar once wrote that it is better to steal than to beg, and I can see his point. For a starving man to steal the bread to fill his belly, or an ill man to steal the drugs to cure him, is no moral wrong. DuncanHill 15:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to buy Oscar Wilde as a moralist. In any event, he pinched the thought, as "...'tis better steal than beg" is from Philip Massinger's A New Way to Pay Old Debts (c. 1625). Xn4 22:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Living in the UK, this seems a very bizarre debate as here the drugs would either cost you at most £6.50 (about US$13) or nothing if you have a low income. Why cannot what is, for the time being, the richest country on earth put their heads together and create a decent health system as we did way back in 1948? 80.3.43.3 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Maxim Gorky's death

I, JackofOz, am copying the following question I raised at Talk:Maxim Gorky#Death Date, to access a wider pool of people with the facts at their disposal. The background is that until last year we showed him as dying on 14 June 1936, but that was changed to 18 June, on the basis of the preponderance of Russian sources (although some still say 14 June, and non-Russian sources seem to favour 14th and 18th roughly half and half). I must say I always thought it was the 14th, but am prepared to accept whatever the evidence says. Here's the question:

Death date revisited - the Chesterton factor

It does seem that the majority of sources, particularly Russian ones, favour the 18th over the 14th, although there are still a lot of sources, in absolute numbers terms, that say it happened on the 14th. Maybe they're all just copying the incorrect data from other flawed sources - but that's an equally possible scenario for those that say it was the 18th. It would be good to get to the bottom of how the discrepancy occurred in the first place, so we can be confident about the 18th. One thing I've just become aware of is that G K Chesterton wrote an extensive introduction to Gorky's short story collection Creatures That Once Were Men. I have no idea what the background to this was - whether Chesterton and Gorky were long-time friends, for example. I can't find anything on Google that sheds any light on it, and there's no mention in either our Gorky or Chesterton articles of the other author. But it's curious that Chesterton himself died on 14 June 1936, only (apparently) 4 days before Gorky died. I wouldn't be at all surprised of this was a factor in getting the dates confused. (It would be even more curious if it turned out that they in fact died on the very same day, but that is looking improbable.) Can anyone comment on this? -- JackofOz 23:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From the information I have Gorky went into a fever on 17 June 1936 and died the following day (Maxim Gorky and the Russian Revolution by Orlando Figes, in History Today, vol. 46.no. 6, June 1996). Clio the Muse 03:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Clio. -- JackofOz 14:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish names - the frequency of precious stones - why?

I'm curious as to why it seems to be not uncommon for Jewish folk (in Western areas like UK, US etc)to have surnames like 'Gold', 'Silver', 'Diamond', 'Pearl', etc.

I'm a New Zealander, so please excuse me if this question is in any way indelicate. Our society is reasonably egalitarian, so, from my viewpoint, my query is innocent, but I'm also aware that this isn't the case in other places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.51.145 (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Jewish name, especially Surname/History, for a partial answer. --Milkbreath 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many European Jews were either jewelery makers or dealers in precious metals and stones, and names like "Goldsmith" refer to this fact. Some of the names reflect that. Others adopted the name of their town \ village of origin as a surname, and these had the words "gold" etc. in them, like "Goldberg".Bergeronz 09:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, a lot of Jewish families were forced to choose their surnames (instead of just being "Moishe the son of Abraham"), and many chose names that sounded cool, like "Diamond" or "Rosenbloom." -- Mwalcoff 16:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if they sufficiently bribed the authorities, they were allowed to get the good names; if not, they ended up (like my grandmother's family) with names like Schnall. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some anglicised names are simplified transliterations of words that meant very different things in their original language, not that I'm sure that's the case with any of these jewellery names. Jewellery guilds in Eastern Europe were somewhat less racist than other guilds and more open to Jews joining, leading to a disproportionate Jewish representation that continues to this day in London and Antwerp (etc). --Dweller 10:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian fairytale - details

I saw a Brazilian stamp from 1994 which refers to a fairytale titled, according to the stamp, Joao i Maria. The scene appears to show an old woman with a cat on her lap and two children, a boy and a girl. I didn't find a Wikipedia article about a book \ story of that title and a web search was almost equally fruitless. What is the story about? Who are the characters in the scene?Bergeronz 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?q=João+e+Maria —Nricardo 02:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_e_Maria seems to be Hansel and Gretel—Nricardo 02:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevera

This may sound like a stupid question but how do you pronounce Che Guevera's name? --124.254.77.148 11:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guh-vahr-uh [1] - Г^edʃtǁcɭ 13:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that's how Spanish speakers would pronounce the surname. I've always heard it as Gwe-vahr-uh. -- JackofOz 14:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats how i seen it been pronounced red on numerous documentrys. Eskater11 16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The "u" only indicates that the "g" is pronounced as in (English) "garden", as opposed to (Spanish) "Jaime". If it were to be pronounced Gwe-vahr-uh, it would have have to be spelled "Güevara". For an audio sample, listen to the 'bienvenida' clip here. --NorwegianBlue^talk 18:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course. Same as mi-gel for Miguel. Thanks. Actually, now that I come to think of it, I've heard people pronounce it Guh-vair-a, which I'm sure is wrong because it's spelled -vara, not -vera. But then the Schnitzel Syndrome kicks in: having mispronounced it, people then change the spelling to match the mispronunciation. I'm not having a go at the questioner, just observing the phenomenon. Redirects overcome this problem here, but one thing they don't do is educate people about their spelling mistakes unless they're quite observant and notice the "Redirected from .." tag. -- JackofOz —Preceding comment was added at 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want IPA, it's tʃʰe geˈvara. His official given name is Cesar Ernesto seˈsar eɾˈnesto. Steewi 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gue as in spaghetti; var as in varlet; a as in ah, so that's how you pronounce it. —Tamfang 00:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flickering police sirens

I would like to know the reason for police officers (in the USA at least) to flicker their car sirens instead of just leaving them running constantly when driving through traffic. This is a bit hard to explain properly, but I often hear the wailing sound being interrupted by it restarting several times in a row ("wiiieow-wiiieow-blip-blip-wie-bli-wiiieow" or something like that), seemingly from the push of a button by the police officer. Is this for a specific purpose, such as separating a crowd or drawing extra attention to the police presence? Is it common procedure in countries outside of the USA? Also, is there a term for this, or at least an official document with protocol for when cops would do this? Cambrant 13:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the section Emergency vehicle equipment#Audible warning devices (sirens) helpful for an answer to part of your question. The technique is common in the UK for all emergency services with some using white noise 'sqawks' interspersed into the siren as well as differing tones. 86.21.74.40 16:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed in Canada that the siren noise comes on as an emergency vehicle approaches a knot of traffic or any significant intersection, and stops again when the vehicle has passed through the problem area. I suspect, and others will likely comment here, that (a) an intermittent noise is more noticeable over a longer period of time than a continuous one; and (b) that, especially in heavily built-up areas, the continuous tone is both unnecessary, except to get other vehicles out of the way, and unnecessarily irritating to local residents. Information would be welcome. Bielle 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly, to get attention, the wail travels further as it is a lower sound wave, the yalp is more attention grabbing, but doesn't travel as far. It's good to break it up as drivers will tend to tune noise out after a while. Hi-Lo's are just what they sound like. Also the tone being changed at intersections can be important to prevent 'washout' (when one unit's approaching an intersection code 3 has its siren canceled out by another unit approaching from another direction, causing dangerous conditions.) article on washout and another article. Dureo 05:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the siren controls I have seen used a rotary dial to select the tone. When switching from one tone to the other, one might step through settings in between. This might also contribute to what you're hearing. --Mdwyer 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic to dictatorship

Why did the second French republic (1848-1852) give way so quickly to the dictatorship of Napoleon III (1852-1870)? In what way was Napoleon's dictatorship marked by its origins and why did it differ in character from the first empire? 81.151.6.217 13:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a contemporary analysis of the political processes involved here, 81.151, the structural factors underpinning events, please refer to Karl Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, the source of one of his most famous quotes, "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.".

The Revolution of 1848, narrowly conceived and even more narowly executed, had given rise to a quite artificial hope in Parisian circles, inspired by socialism and radicalism, that French society was about to be remade. These hopes were disappointed when the Constituent Assembly, though elected on the basis of universal male suffrage, turned out to have a conservative and monarchist majority. In Paris social divisions and class tensions grew ever more acute; and when the government closed national workshops, previously set up to cope with the problem of unemployment, the ensuing June Days Uprising was crushed with considerable force. Parisian socialism had been destroyed but reaction against events in the capital pushed the peasantry, the huge bulk of French voters, in an even more conservative direction, undermining the republic by degrees. Between the alienation of the left and the hostility of the right the French Second Republic was consigned to a premature grave. The Duke of Wellington was to write at this time that France needed a Napoleon, a thought that was shared by the country's peasants.

So, in essence, the Second Empire, unlike the first, was an expression of politically reactionary forces. In practical terms this meant that Napoleon III, no matter what his instincts and inclinations, was always to be a shadow of his great uncle. He did not shape events; he was shaped by them. Unsure of his constituency, he was progressive and reactionary, liberal and catholic, almost by turns. Hence a great imperial tragedy gave way to a little imperial farce. Clio the Muse 01:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

color of the eyes of the Green Knight

Is there any mention in the story about the color of the Green Knight's eyes in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight"? Thank you very much for any answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.136.216 (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I think they are called red. Xn4 17:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's in line 304 - "And runischly his rede yghen he reled aboute" Xn4 17:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the answer to all success christians got just one word ENGLISH?

I assume the per capita income of christians is more than any other religion. Is English the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.114.98 (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please come back and refrase this becuase i have NO idea what your asking Eskater11 15:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(images added) Considering that christianity has a lot of adepts in sub-saharan Africa and South America where some countries have very low GDP per capita and a lot of christian countries are not very fervant adepts, I wouldn't be so sure you first assumption is correct. Now as for the rest goes I assume you are not talking about Johnny English so could you be more clear? Keria 16:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ow. Do you mean because christians speak english? Keria 16:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original asker of this question- Well. I think I must have explained a bit. I am asking whether Christians are successful because they mostly speak English? Or simply, Is English behind their success? South Americans also are Christians. But they are not rich and influential as Americans. So, this supports the point. Many people may ask how do you think Christians are successful. Some may ask how do you say English people are successful. Little confusion. But generally, my main question is that why do you think that Christian countries have high per capita incomes than non Christian countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.126.250 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Countries which are nominally Christian are also, for the most part, countries in western Europe or countries which were colonized and settled, at some point, by western Europeans. That may have something to do with it; read Guns, Germs, and Steel for one author's take on the question. - Eron ^Talk 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only indirectly, I think. The English traditions of common law, the rights of the individual, nuts-and-bolts religion, and suspicion of authority seem to foster prosperity. Government as servant, not master, and God confined to the moral sphere make the difference. But English is a darned good language, and I'm sure it helps. There are lots of words, very few homonyms, and a fairly logical thrust. --Milkbreath 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's the article Anglosphere... AnonMoos 00:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions here, first,

1. Is the per capita income of Christians higher than that of any other religious group?

The question is probably too vague to be answered definitively, but, a browse through some stats at ARDA and the CIA Factbook leave me skeptical. According to ARDA the religions with the most adherents (in millions) are Christianity (2,136), Islam (1,314), Hinduism (870), Non-Religious (769), and then the numbers fall off rapidly. I would bet that Christian per capita income is higher than Islam and Hindu, but I'm not so sure about "Non-Religious". Furthermore, as the number of adherents becomes smaller the possibility of an overall high per capita income grows. For example, ARDA lists Atheists at 152 million, Jews at 15 million, and Shintoists at 2.8 million. These groups, with their smaller populations, might give the Christians a run for their money, so to speak. Shintoism especially, which, as I understand, is practiced mainly in Japan.

The mainly Christian European and American nations may be on par with Japan for per capita income, these are not, by far, the only nations with large numbers of Christians. ARDA has a list of nations ranked by the number of Christians, regardless of whether they are a majority in the nation's population. The list might surprise some. Here are the first bunch, with population of Christians (in millions) and per capita income (in PPP "purchasing power" form). Note that the average per capita income (PPP) for the whole world is listed as $7,600 (US dollars adjusted for purchasing power): 1. United States (252 mil Christians, $37,562 PPP); 2. Brazil (167 mil, $7,790); 3. China (111, $5,003); 4. Mexico (102, $9,230); 5. Russia (84, $9,230); 6. Philippines (74, $4,321); 7. India (68, $2,892); 8. Germany (62, $27,756); 9. Nigeria (61, $1,050); 10. Congo, Dem. Rep. (53, $697). I worked the list out to 23 nations with the largest Christian populations, which collectively amount to about 75% of the world's Christians. Omitting the stats (which can be found at ARDA), the rest up to #23 are: UK, Italy, Colombia, France, Ethiopia, Ukraine, Spain, South Africa, Poland, Argentina, Peru, Kenya, Venezuela, Canada, and Uganda.

Looking over these stats makes me doubt whether Christians have the highest per capita income of any religion. Perhaps higher than Islam and Hinduism. Perhaps not higher than Atheists, Non-Religious, Jews, and Shintoists. Of course the whole issue is open to definitions on what an "adherent" is and how accurate these stats are. I'm just citing a seemingly decent source.

The second question here seems to be,

2. Is English the reason for the success (financially I assume) of Christians?

It seems to me that the above lists on where the majority of Christians live (such as Brazil, China, Mexico, Russia, Philippines, and India, along with the USA) makes it seem unlikely that English has anything to do with it. Of the top 23 countries listed, the only ones that are primarily English-speaking are the US (1), maybe India (7), UK (11), South Africa (18), and Canada (22). Many more are Spanish-speaking, and Brazil, up there at #2, Portuguese. Pfly 08:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments that could work in favour of the questioners theory would be the work ethics often associated with christianity and the pragmatic and empiric qualities often associated with the english language. The resulting could would be a voluntary religious idealism associated with a down to earth pragmatism. Hmm ... the kind of combination that creates an Erik Prince founder of Blackwater. Wether any of this is true and it really differentiates english-speaking christians from other groups or if it is just an accumulation of clichés I can't quite tell, it would need further research. Keria 11:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a false correlation. English speakers have done well, in general, over the past 200 years, but not necessarily because of their language, and not much better than speakers of German, French, Japanese, Swedish, Dutch, and some other languages. What the English-speaking countries have in common is a history of early industrialization, which gave them a global head start on accumulating wealth. The Industrial Revolution began in England, not because of its language, but for a long list of historical reasons, including the breakdown of feudalism with the labor shortages of the late middle ages; the emergence of a merchant class in London and other ports that supported the growth of trade, naval power, colonial possessions, and capital; and the simultaneous emergence of a rural laboring class displaced by the growing efficiency of agricultural practice and prepared to work for low wages. English migrants brought the new industrial technologies and practices to English colonies and the newly independent states of New England. English entrepreneurs also brought these technologies and practices to Belgium, where some of the same conditions prevailed that had supported industrialism in England. From Belgium, industrialism quickly spread to neighboring European countries. After 1853, the Japanese took on industrialization as a determined national project, and after 120 years of effort, they began to overcome the head start that western Europeans, North Americans, and Antipodeans had enjoyed. The Koreans and some parts of the Chinese-speaking world seem to be on the verge of a similar feat today. None of this can be credited to the English language. Marco polo 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Cornblossom

Has any ever heard of this woman or where she was from 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not until you asked - this site has some info [2], and googling "cornblossom" does bring up various other sites too. Hope this is of some help. DuncanHill 15:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. She's one of my ancestors. :) BTW, Wikipedia has an article on Nancy Ward. Corvus cornix 21:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Buttercup is from The Princess Bride. :) Steewi 01:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this Street Art in Spain Represent?

I am trying to find out what this means, who is the boy, and what is he holding? This is in Sevilla. Saikosaiko 17:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't work out what it is that the figure in the foreground is holding! Anyway, I am reminded of Dante's story of Count Ugolino chewing on the head of Ruggerio, Archbishop of Pisa, in the ninth circle of hell, depicted in Canto XXXII of the Divine Comedy. I do stress that is what I am reminded of; I am not saying that is what it is! Clio the Muse 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm vaguely reminded of Saturno devorando a un hijo, which at least was painted in Spain. —Tamfang 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that thing in the foreground is a dachshund? --S.dedalus 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Mary Queen of Scots

I see from your article that King James of Scotland called the execution of his mother a 'proposterous and strange proceedure. How did it affect his relationship with Elizabeth of England and how did she justify the act? Also why was Elizabeth so reluctant to approve the death of a dangerous rival?81.151.6.217 17:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth was afraid that the execution of a ruling monarch would set a bad precedent, and that she might be next. Corvus cornix 21:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Besides, it was on the instigation of both Houses of Parliament and to prevent another alleged plot against herself that she finally signed the death warrant. At the same time, she was afraid to be blamed by her subjects for the death of her rival monarch. There was also the international situation: after the execution, protests from Spain and France came in, and Elizabeth attempted to put the blame on her advisers. For similar reasons, she had earlier considered having Mary murdered in secret. As for King James, when he succeeded to the throne he had his mother's body re-buried in Westminster Abbey. Bessel Dekker 23:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must remember that James was not quite two years old when his mother fled Scotland after her defeat at the Battle of Langside. He never saw her again, and it is unlikely that he had any memory of her. More than that, since she considered her abdication of 1567 to be forced and illegal, her own son was, in her view, little better than a usurper. So, personally and politically, James had no more reason than his cousin Elizabeth to be attached to Mary. He was, however, deeply attached to to the possibility that he might succeed to the throne of England, and had therefore absolutely no wish to antagonise Elizabeth too far. For the sake of public opinion in Scotland he had to make a token protest over the execution of his mother in February 1587, but a few weeks later he wrote to the English Queen, assuring her that "I dare not wrong you so far as not to judge honourably of your unspotted part therin."

Elizabeth had already written to James, explaining in a quite disingenious fashion her 'unspotted part'; that the death of Mary had been a 'miserable accident' and 'contrary to my meaning.' But, as Corvus has said, she was more afraid of the precedent set by the trial and execution of an anointed monarch. It would have suited her purpose better if Mary had simply died, in the way that other politically inconvenient figures in English history like Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI had 'simply died'. She certainly gave hints to this effect, though in the end she had to countenance something altogether more public. Clio the Muse 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One small footnote... when James's first daughter was born, in 1596, he called her Elizabeth, which was intended to flatter the Queen of England and to show her that there were no hard feelings. With the crash of the Stuarts after the Glorious Revolution, the crown fell to this Elizabeth's descendants. She was the mother of Sophia of Hanover (1630-1714) and thus the grandmother of King George I. Xn4 08:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

public domain

I have researched the internet to find the answer to this question. As far as I can tell, the picture of "The Thinker" is usuable if the image is not altered in any way. Therefore, my question: Is a reproduction picture of the sculpture, "The Thinker", by the artist Rodin available to use as an image printed on a book cover? Dmsports 19:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot give legal advice here, which is what answering this question would amount to. Please note that the answer may be different for different jurisdictions. Also, there may be copyright on the reproduction itself. Usually, a publisher will know such things (or will know whom to ask). --Lambiam 19:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this as advice for a particular situation, but here are some general relevant considerations. While some jurisdictions have shown a willingness to say that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public-domain art objects are also in the public domain (see Template:PD-art at Wikipedia, and note that this is subject to dispute!), this is not the case with three-dimensional art objects. Even if the original artwork is PD, any photograph of it (no matter how uninspired) is more than just a slavish copy—it is an original work, with its own perspective, etc. Thus, unless (A) the photograph itself is old enough to be PD, or (B) the photographer has explicitly released his or her image into the PD, it would not be available for free use. Wareh 20:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

, or (C) the holder of the copyright (possibly the photographer) has given a licence for the intended use. --Lambiam 21:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the images of The Thinker used in Wikipedia, they each have slightly different licensing requirements. The main one is dual-licensed as GFDL and CC-A, which means you are in luck: you can use it on the cover as long as you put something along the lines of "Photograph of The Thinker at Musée Rodin is (c) User:CJ at Wikimedia Commons, and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. license. Go to http://creativecommons.org for licensing details." Alternatively you could get in touch with that user and ask them if they want to re-license the photo to you without any stipulations except for attributing it to their real name, if you didn't want to write all that and with the URL. Note that depending on the photo you want to use, the licensing can be very different—the GFDL stipulates that you must include an entire copy of the GFDL with each reproduction, which makes it a lousy choice for cover images! There are also viral-licensing issues which may or may not apply in your particular case. --24.147.86.187 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mazzini

Why is Mazzini less regarded as a prophet of Italian unity than Cavour or garibaldi?Lord Lovat 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly for Mazzini he was a classic example of a 'prophet without honour', too radical for the Piedmontese liberals, too anti-clerical for the Catholics. If was his fate to be more popular abroad than he ever was in Italy. For him a united Italy was not a sufficient cause in itself, as it was for Cavour and Garibaldi. Ten years after unification Mazzini expressed his feelings of disappointment with the new kingdom;

"The Italy which we represent today, like it or not, is a living lie … Italy was put together just as though it were a piece of lifeless mosaic, and the battles which made this mosaic were fought by foreign rulers who should have been loathed as our common enemies … The battles fought by Italy in this process were defeats … Italians are now without a constitution that could express their will. We can therefore have no real national existence or international policy of our own. In domestic politics … we are governed by a few rich men … Ordinary people are disillusioned. They had watched … as Italy, once ruler of the civilised world, began to rise again; but now they turn away their eyes and say to themselves: ‘This is just the ghost of Italy’."

In a sense he was right; for Italy had been created before Italians. Cavour's Italy only carried the immediate appeal of unification. Beyond that it was a state based on the politics of exclusion, the direct opposite of the kind of democratic polity desired by Mazzini. Italy was to be a country of Red Shirts one day, Black Shirts the next. Clio the Muse 23:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]