Humanities desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

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.

May 18[edit]

Minsk Historically[edit]

Hey gang, was Minsk ever within the borders of Russia? Was there ever a time when the sentence "Minsk is in Russia" would be accurate?24.62.62.228 (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Minsk Governorate. This was part of the Russian Empire from 1793 to 1917. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Minsk article says "Minsk was annexed by Russia in 1793 as a consequence of the Second Partition of Poland." Adam Bishop (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From 1793 (the Second Partition of Poland) until 1918 ,when Belarus first, briefly, became an independent nation, Minsk would have sort-of-officially been part of Russia. However, much of the areas annexed by Russia during the Polish/Lithuanian partitians were semi-autonomous, and had a relationship with Russia much like the later Soviet Republics did. Belarussia was even considered independent of the Soviet Union by the U.N. after World War II, and got a seat in the U.N. despite being no more independent that any of the other soviet republics. For much of the period from 1946-1989, the Soviet Union essentially had 3 votes in the UN (Itself, Belorussia, and Ukraine). So, to answer your question, the best we can come up with is its complicated. Nominally Minsk was part of Russia from 1793-1918, and thereafter was part of the Russian-dominated Soviet Union, though the UN considered them an independent state (oddly enough, no one else really did)... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were the two extra seats a sign of confusion on the UN's part, or Stalin's price for supporting the UN? – Hm, have any UN-GA seats disappeared by annexation? —Tamfang (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember whether East Germany was a member of the UN. North and South Yemen both were, both are part now of Yemen, which has one seat. RolandR 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Germanys became members in 1973. The seats were merged in 1990. Also, Tanganyika and Zanzibar merged to become Tanzania. Egypt and Syria were one seat for a while. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is illegal to rob police cars"[edit]

pic That's the slogan displayed on a highway in China. What are the unique circumstances in China that made it necessary to inform people of that fact? F (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Chinese mate says that sometimes people do it as an act of resentment for Police treatment, but it's by no means common.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Chinese people were taking the idea of peoples' government too seriously and thought that the cars were theirs.

It is illiterate to rob police cars. It is illegal to steal them.--Wetman (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in UK English. They can both be the same, except that 'rob' has an additional meaning of 'steal the contents' (EDIT) or 'steal the possessions'.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case in some regional dialects, but not in formal British English. You could rob a policeman, but not a police car. Even if it were "stealing from" a police car, "rob" would be inappropriate. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, 'robbing' a bank would also be inappropriate, considering you are stealing the possessions/contents of the bank? Sorry, edited my last post for a slightly broader definition. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you steal money from a bank though, aren't you stealing the money of the people who made deposits? Thus robbing the bank of the property of individuals? That would make it appear that robbery is a correct term. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also rob a bank vault, or a warehouse. "rob" means to take from something, which can include an inanimate object. So if you take something out of a police car you are robbing it. If you take the car itself you are indeed stealing it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Robbery" is theft (or "larceny") combined with violence. Breaking into an empty building or car and taking stuff isn't robbery, it is burglary. Attacking someone on the street and taking their mobile phone is robbery. Pointing a gun at a blank clerk and saying "give me all the money" is also robbery (the violence is threatened, rather than actual, but that's enough). --Tango (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tango on the common law. However, while "qiangjie" is the Chinese equivalent to the English "robbery", they are not exact equivalents. It's misleading to analyse a Chinese sentence using English grammar. Robbing an object does not have the connotation in English of "Robbery from object". Rather, in Chinese, the object in such a sentence can be either the target (the thing being taken away) or the victim. That is, "Qiangjie [object]" can either mean "robbing someone of [object]" or "robbing from [object]", or "robbing the contents of [object]" depending on the context.

The compound word "qiangjie" is made up of two components: "qiang" - "to take with force", and "jie" - "to control and carry away". The object of each of those individual characters can be a thing, rather than a person.

Thus, one could say, in Chinese, (taking some examples from a simple google search): "搶劫電視台女主持人": "robbing from a female TV host"; or "搶劫中國商鋪": "robbing from Chinese-national shops"; (funnily enough): "搶劫民警": "robbing from a policeman"; "搶劫現金": "robbing [someone] of cash". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. One must always be careful in these situations to make a distinction between mistakes that exist in the original and mistakes created through an imperfect translation (perfect translations often being extremely difficult if not impossible). Does anyone know precisely what the intended meaning of that pictured statement is? It would be better to discuss the meaning rather than the exact choice of words. The rough translation we have suggests it could be talking about carjacking, stealing unoccupied cars or stealing the contents of cars. Only the first of which would constitute robbery under UK law (which is the only law I'm sufficiently familiar with in this instance), but that word may not be quite the right translation in context. --Tango (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster gives 'rob' the extra definition of 'steal', as I said above, though it says it is archaic. We still use it like that up north (North of England), though. I admit that perhaps it could be confusing, though. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is used quite often to mean "steal" in my experience, but it is an incorrect usage, at least legally. --Tango (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question for a moment: China is a big country (something a lot of people seem to forget quite frequently). I think we'll need to know where the photo was taken to be able to hazard a meaningful guess as to why there was such a sign.

The natural assumption is that security is so bad in that particular town that local criminals would attack police vehicles. But who knows? Maybe it's a joke banner put up by a mayor with a different sense of humour. Or it is one mob boss boasting to other mobsters... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

name of a modern country[edit]

greetings from Serres Makedonia Greece. i would like to know why when some1 types in a fill the word fyrom,the results of that word is Macedonia while the national name of that country is FYROM.I think thats is illegal for the Wikipedia internet site and i hope you will fix that issue soon.We dont want that issue goes at the courts of records,dont we? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.109.153 (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you type in FYROM, the website redirects you to the article called Macedonia. That is normal behaviour, since the idea of a redirect is to take you to the article you are most likely interested in. At the top of the Macedonia article, there's a notice stating that the title is disputed and is currently being debated. As the notice says, "the use of the current title does not imply an endorsement of that title." Feel free to add your voice to the debate on the article's talk page. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I understanding this correctly? Are you really saying that the article title is illegal and you would sue Wikipedia over it? TomorrowTime (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name. In English, "Macedonia" about the country is more common and recognizable than "FYROM" or "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". I don't know whether it is illegal to call the country Macedonia in Greece (as opposed to the Greek region Macedonia). Maybe it is but note that Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation which is not Greek and has no servers in Greece. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you dispute some content on Wikipedia, you are supposed to bring it up on the discussion page about that article; and we have a rule called WP:No legal threats. If you're going to sue someone then just do it; but don't threaten to do it here. If you want a (probably) even more contentious argument about the name of a country, see the Discussion page (and its archives) for Myanmar. Tempshill (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try Makedonia, which is the spelling you just used for the region in Greece. You'll find that (although it mentions the independent nation) it also correctly leads, via Macedonia (disambiguation), to Macedonia, Greece. And yes, no legal threats, please. I'd be interested to know what your standing, and what jurisdiction you are in, that makes you think you could even make such a claim. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name that tune[edit]

I was just wondering if anyone knows the name of the tune that starts at about 8:40 of this clip: http://www.free-tv-video-online.info/player/youtube.php?id=cfo_1NkP2rE . PS you can click to the very end so you don't have to watch the whole section. Eiad77 (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's most likely just a piece of incidental music. It's certainly possible that it's a song that was actually on an album and they licensed for the show, but I'd be a little surprised if that was the case. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounded like a Steve Winwood homage, and the vintage is about right. --Sean 20:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armed civilian v. cop[edit]

In the US, what is the etiquette when a cop stops a civilian (either for a traffic violation or when he stops him walking down the street) who is armed with a sidearm? What about when it's concealed? I imagine the civilian ought to inform the cop about this so the cop doesn't react suddenly when he notices the sidearm; at what point is the civilian supposed to inform the cop, and how is it done? ("I'm armed" could be taken as a threat to the cop, right?) Tempshill (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the cop is going to search the civilian then I would imagine the cop would ask if there was anything the civilian wanted to inform him of first. If there isn't going to be a search, then I'm not sure it is necessary to say anything as long as you don't act in a threatening manner. If you're unsure, just ask the cop - if you tell them you are carrying in the form of a question about whether you should tell them, that shouldn't be too threatening (as long as you don't use the wrong tone of voice). --Tango (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm armed" can be misinterpreted, sure, but if you're about to be searched by a cop and you're legally carrying a weapon, simply saying "Officer, just so you don't get the wrong idea, I have a gun [on my belt/under my arm/wherever the hell it is] and I have a license to for it" in a polite and neutral tone of voice will probably work. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is asking about "in the US", I have yet to see any US police training that does not include asking the person "Do you have any weapons, drugs, or anything else that I should know about on you?" It is not necessary to scream "I'm armed!" at every passing cop. Just do what you are told to do and answer questions as they are asked. -- kainaw ™ 16:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have heard rumor of a law somewhere that could be used to lock you up if a cop asks you the time of day and you don't mention your weapon. —Tamfang (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very unlikely. Rumours of laws should generally be ignored. --Tango (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..."and there shall be laws, and rumours of laws. See that ye not be afraid." Matthew 24:6 --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true in some places. In North Carolina, for example, a person must "disclose to any law enforcement officer that the person holds a valid permit and is carrying a concealed handgun when approached or addressed by the officer" (source). --Sean 20:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't say what the penalty for not disclosing it would be. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church talk...[edit]

During the Middle Ages the law (from The Church) was that no Bible could be written in common languages. What was the Church's official stated reason for this law ? StuRat (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it is not that the Bible could not be translated into the vernacular but that all such translations had to be approved by the Church, ostensibly to avoid "corruption" (and undesired commentary). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Bible translations were not really uncommon in the Middle Ages. It was partly because vernacular languages were viewed with contempt in general, and they were not considered "real" languages. It would be impossible to translate the Bible into, say, French, if French was just a bastardized form of Latin with no real grammar or structure. But more importantly, the general public was considered ill-equipped to understand the Bible properly. Translations were explicitly forbidden in response to the heretical Cathar movement - once you start interpreting the Bible yourself, you might come up with all sorts of crazy beliefs, beyond the official church interpretation. (To be honest, this is a perfectly good idea. Illiterate medieval peasants certainly had no idea how to read the Bible, and educated literate people today still come up with bizarre interpretations.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"(E)ducated literate people today still come up with bizarre interpretations". I trust you merely mean more bizarre than the "official" translation. // BL \\ (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural comes to mind. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People sometimes let the points they want to make overcome their common sense. It would be bizarre in the extreme to interpret the Bible as not depicting the supernatural! If the phrase is to have any meaning, a "bizarre interpretation" would be one which a reasonable person would not find in the text, but rather one which has been "found" there with no reasonable textual justification, usually on the basis of the belief system, though disorder, or personality quirks of the person doing the "finding" rather than by intent of the authors. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point - most people couldn't read, those that could would all be able to read Latin, so translating the Bible into anything else serves little purpose. However, having church services in Latin (which the Roman Catholic church did until fairly recently, I believe) is another matter - that prevented the uneducated from having any idea what was actually going on. --Tango (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the view then was that the priest would, during religious instruction and homilies, tell the believers all they needed to know to worship and serve God. The priest would preach about various Bible texts at appropriate times during the church year, telling the congregation what the reading for the day meant. If the common person could read the entire Bible in their every-day language, it would encourage "mistaken" interpretations or beliefs which were heretical, perhaps based on the plain language of the Bible, like Jesus having brothers and sisters, which was to the Catholic beliefs about Mary. Edison (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In explanation, John Brown's Self-Interpreting Bible was written by an ancestor, but long past the Middle Ages, though not past the days of Latin masses in the Catholic church. Personal views on the Bible are somewhat of a family passion for those members who still believe. As for my remark, it was unnecessarily flip in tone. // BL \\ (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not all religious instruction was in Latin. I may be wrong but the mass wasn't always in Latin either. Educated people and nobles celebrating mass in the cathedral with the bishop heard mass in Latin, of course, but the local parish priest wouldn't speak it to the peasants, not even during mass. (The priest himself might not know any, aside from the liturgy.) There were other ways of learning about religion too - Passion plays, paintings and other imagery, morality stories, all sorts of things that weren't in Latin. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more about this...it's sort of beyond my specialty, so I'm going by fuzzy memories, but here are some more reasons. The average medieval person lived in a world where Catholicism was simply part of life. It was pervasive, but in such a way that they may not have thought about it very much. They didn't go to church every day, or even every week, but maybe a few times a year on special occasions. There were births and deaths and marriages and feast days, but they didn't go to church every Sunday for an hour or so. The local priest usually wandered around attending to everyone's spiritual needs, if they had any, and correcting various moral errors, but he himself was not necessarily very well-educated, and the bishop or archbishop showed up once in awhile to make sure the priest wasn't leading his parishioners astray. Part of the reason that Bible translations were rare is because there wasn't any need for them. People didn't sit in church every week listening to long Latin homilies; they had more important things to do with their lives. If they needed to know about particular bits of theology they could ask the priest, and he could explain it to them; but they wouldn't be able to read the Bible itself, no matter what language it was in. Remnants of paganism survived in the Middle Ages, just as they do today, and that was sometimes what the priest had to wander around correcting, but it also shows that people were more concerned with the natural world and how it affected them personally than they were with whether Christ had one body or two, which is the type of argument you get when you start interpreting the Bible. Now, having said that, there were groups of people who did want to know what the Bible said, and they wanted to preach it in their own languages, like the Waldensians and the Cathars. The prohibition against vernacular translations was directed against them, so that they wouldn't preach their wacky interpretations to people who didn't know any better. There are prohibitions prior to that, but Pope Innocent III was really against it, and the Cathars were so widespread that they could only be stopped by crusade. (There is one papal letter where Innocent III mentions this specifically, I'll see if I can find it.) Eventually, due to different political and social environments, successfully translations of the Bible led to the Protestant Reformation, which was quite a disaster, if you look at it from the perspective of the medieval church. But the prohibition against translations was not, as it is often viewed, an attempt by the evil popes to oppress the masses; it just made good sense in an age when most people couldn't read anyway. Another reason is that vernacular languages weren't standardized like Latin, so there would have been no way to standardize a translation, and disseminating religious education through one educated priest was the best way to keep everyone faithful. Sorry if this seems like a random collection of info; there are probably even more reasons that I will remember later. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think that I buy the argument that it was illegal to translate into local languages because people were illiterate. If they were all illiterate, then there would have been no need to hunt down and kill those who translated the Bible. Also, my original question was on why the Church CLAIMED they made such translations illegal, not on their actual motives. StuRat (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the idea they did go to mass every week and that was a specific part of the Catholic churches teaching that they should try and do that, where did you find out they didn't thanks? Dmcq (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course they were encouraged to do so, but that is the same as today. How many Catholics actually go to mass every week now? I don't remember where I read that, unfortunately, but I'll see if I can find it. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will bet that those serfs who were owned by the Church attended many services. Also, there were quite a lot of saints days, many of which would have had special services. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but there are lots of saint's days, and not all of them are celebrated by everyone everywhere. Lots of serfs lived on church land, monastery land especially, but I don't think that means they went to church more often than anyone else. I forgot about monks until now, but of course they were often involved in preaching to the masses. Anyway, I'm still not sure what the best/most recent/most up-to-date literature is on the subject, but search your library for "medieval pastoral care" (or better yet search Google Books, which turns up some promising links). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know that in England where there are about 4 million people who say they are catholics about one million of them attend mass every Sunday. And there aren't many less formal religious places Than Britain. So unless I see evidence otherwise I think I'll continue thinking most people went to mass in medieval times. Dmcq (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and another factor is that there would have been very little to do on days off, like Sundays and Holidays, so going to church and admiring the architecture and priests talking in magical languages wouldn't have seemed quite so boring, then. It's not like they had entertaining alternatives, like a football game to watch on a wide-screen TV. StuRat (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't say I know what people did for fun, but surely you are not suggesting that there was no other form of entertainment during the Middle Ages? What would you do if you didn't have TV? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to church, of course. Isn't it the contention of the Amish, Mennonites, etc., that modern technology is a distraction away from contemplation of God ? Isn't that why they have banned such technology (to varying degrees) ? So, I'd expect church attendance in the Middle Ages to be more in line with church attendance in Amish communities, which I believe to be much higher than in general in the modern world. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a valid comparison; those kinds of Anabaptist groups are descended from the Protestant Reformation, are not organized like the Catholic church, and exist in a modern technological world that can be rejected. That isn't really much like the Middle Ages. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. It's my contention (and that of those groups I mentioned), that "modern distractions" draw people away from God. Thus, people lacking such distractions, whether by choice or otherwise, will be more drawn to church, regardless of whether they are Protestant or Catholic. If you can show me some figures that prove that church attendance was low in the Middle Ages, then I will be convinced you are right. StuRat (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, I can try to find some info on that (but it will likely be after this question is archived). Of course, as usual I should say that no numbers or information will ever apply to everyone, everywhere, at all times during the Middle Ages; in the random info I gave previously, I was thinking mostly of France and England prior to, say, 1200. But anyway, the link below answers your actual original question. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, here is an English translation of Innocent III's letter concerning French translations of the Bible. I think the actual letter is longer, but this translation has all the basic reasons. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read through that, and the attitude of the writer is striking. It seems to show that he thought education for the masses was unnecessary and even detrimental, and education could only be justified for priests if they could demonstrate a practical need for it. Now I can see why so little progress was made during the Middle Ages, and even some of the knowledge of the ancient Greeks and Romans was lost. StuRat (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...well, it's not useful for either of us if you have already concluded that the Middle Ages were backwards and barbaric. The concept of "progress" was, of course, different from yours and mine, but that does not mean there was no "progress" at all. A culture that is not exactly like our own is not a backwards culture, although that seems to be the general opinion. I suppose the opposite is also true - a culture that is assumed to be more like our own is assumed to be a more advanced culture, but that's not a useful assumption either. The Greeks and Romans did not treat education any differently than medieval Europeans; medieval education even had the same structure as Roman education. There was certainly no such thing as mass education in the ancient world, any more than there was in the medieval period (or even in the modern world, really). There are many reasons why ancient knowledge was sometimes lost, but it's not because medieval people didn't care about it, or that they were lazy and stupid. Almost all ancient works survive only because they were copied in the Middle Ages. Anyway, I don't know anything about that book or that author, except that it contains a useful translation that answers your question (I started translating the letter myself, if you'd prefer that). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the ancient texts didn't survive precisely because they weren't valued in Europe during the Middle Ages (and many that did survive were kept alive by Islam). In at least one case the ancient writings (of Aristotle, if memory serves) were preserved only because the pages of one of his books were bleached to allow the paper to be reused as a prayer book. While this shows total contempt for the earlier writings, it did allow recovery of the ancient text using modern technology.

You lost me when you said there's no such thing as mass education today. Virtually every Western nation has a public school system available to all, and tax supported, so that everyone can get a diploma. In many cases college is also provided for little of no cost to the student.

As for measuring progress in different ways, by what measure of progress would you say that Europe advanced, say between 400 AD and 1200 AD, more than in the 800 years prior or 800 years since ? I also don't think that ancient Greek culture was more like ours. They were polytheists, we're (for the most part) monotheists. They had democracy only on an extremely small scale, for a time, in Athens, while it's widespread and almost universal for us. Their economic system was based on military conquest, while ours is based on free trade and capitalism. StuRat (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First: ancient texts did survive, because they were preserved in the Middle Ages. Some were rediscovered in the Renaissance, and some continue to be rediscovered today, but it is wrong to say that they were lost because they weren't valued in the Middle Ages. I don't know the particular case you refer to, although you are correct that that sort of thing sometimes happened. But it's wrong to suggest that indicates a general trend. Of course, as you said, Muslim scholars also preserved ancient texts, as did the Byzantines (who were more likely to preserve Greek texts like Aristotle than the Latin-speaking west). For education, I suppose this is besides the point, but yes, every Western nation has mass education...but is that the norm for the entire world? We are anomalous in the context of world history, and perhaps even in the modern world. Thirdly, I guess your position is that the ancient world was the pinnacle of progress, that all that progress was lost in the Middle Ages, and that we have now regained and surpassed that progress, correct? I mean, that's not an unusual position, but it is entirely untrue. In law, government, agriculture, technology, military tactics and weaponry, language and literature, etc, basically in every way, Europe was quite different in 1200 than it was in 400, just as the ancient world was quite different in 400 than it was in 400 BC. (It's not even accurate to describe it as "the Middle Ages" or "the ancient world", and historians actually distinguish a few different time periods within those labels.) But since this thread is about to be archived, and it would take a long essay to discuss everything that happened between 400-1200, maybe we should start a new discussion. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the question about church attendance, I haven't found anything useful yet, at least on Google and Google Books; some books say church attendance was high, even mandatory, and some say attendance was low. I know I read something about low church attendance for a class a few years ago, but I don't remember where it was, or even what class it was for. But I was thinking, what kind of sources would there be for information like this? Nobody counted who went to church each week, and even if we know that in a certain time and place church attendance was mandatory, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone went (the fact that something like that needed to be enshrined in law probably meant that people weren't going in the first place). Information of this sort would likely have to be gleaned from ecclesiastical writers, who were either complaining that the local populace didn't go to church enough, or praising them for their piety and their good attendance. But we would have to know who they were talking about - the nobility? People who lived in cities? Rural peasants? And (as always) when and where were they writing? So, it was incorrect of me to say that church attendance was low, but we also can't say it was regular. I have some ideas about where to look for this (Bernard Hamilton is a good church historian, for example), so I will have to make a trip to the library. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The church didn't need a reason.in fact when one scottish wasp named King James commissioned the word of God for the comman man in about 1604 a couple of catholics one named Guy Fawkes tryed to blow up as many as he could in 1605. remember remember the 5th of november.But heres the kicker these so called religious people wanted to kill people for spreading Gods word and cover it up by warning us about the dangers of Goverment rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prprd (talk • contribs) 02:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novel about woman who thinks cary grant is god[edit]

I'm trying to find the name of a novel i read a few years ago. There's a women in it who likes old films and thinks that cary grant is god. I think she's also obsessed with scissors or something like that. Has anyone an idea what book this is? Thanks. 79.78.133.28 (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion offered by google is Love Walked In by Marisa de los Santos (2005). Neither the author nor the book have an article at Wikipedia, though there is an article on "Love Walked In", a song the book's main character seems to like as well, but from an old movie not starring Cary Grant. Here are links to specs, synopses, and reviews at Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]