Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 July 25

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.

July 25

The King has entered this building ... (aber ... wo ist der Kaiser?)

In Chancellor of Germany:

Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, a point which historians agree marks the beginning of the Third Reich. ... Hitler used the Enabling Act to merge the office of Chancellor with that of President to create a new office, Führer; although the offices were merged, Hitler continued to be addressed as "Führer und Reichskanzler" indicating that the Head of State and Head of Government were still separate positions albeit held by the same man. This separation was made more evident when in April 1945 Hitler gave instruction that upon his death the office of Führer would dissolve and there would be a new President and Chancellor. On 30 April 1945, Hitler committed suicide and was briefly succeeded as Chancellor by Joseph Goebbels, as dictated in Hitler's Last Will and Testament.

If Nazi Germany was called the 3rd Reich, why didn't it has a Kaiser, a king or an emperor? How could there be beef if there wasn't a cow? If Hitler did not have a son or daughter, who's going to inherit the Reich? How could a dictatorship call itself an empire without setting up a king at first? Did anyone protest? -- Toytoy (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "reich" doesn't appear to have an English equivalent. It was used during the Weimar Republic as well, so it apparently isn't specific to a monarchy. It's not used anymore because it's associated with the Nazi era. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Checking my dictionary, it seems that terms like "Reich" and "rich" and "right" and "royal" and "regal" and "rex/regis" and even "raj/rajah" are all interconnected and ancient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Reich's closest English translation is probably "realm"; kingdom in German is "Konigsreich" and empire is "Kaiserreich". France is often called "Frankreich". See File:HRR 14Jh.jpg, which is in German. France is called "Kgr. Frankreich" in that map, Kgr being short for "Konigsreich". Germany itself here (in this case, being the Germany of the Holy Roman Empire, or the First Reich) is called "Deutschen Reich" or "German realm". It is a term which does not imply any particular form of government, but does imply a sort of national unity. Reich is related to, but distinct from "Volk", which is another concept which has no direct English translation. "Volk" refers to the German people, while the "Reich" refers to the German nation-state. --Jayron32 05:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I always take "Volk" to be equivalent to "the folks", and it seems reasonable to assume they have a common root, as they both mean "the people". "Realm" is probably a good though understated equivalent to "Reich". "Realm" and "regimen" and "region" all seem to be connected to "regis" and "regere", Latin for "ruler" and "to rule". "Real" seems to be a cousin also. Fitingly, "Reich" seems to have a "rich" family of related words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rex/Rial/Real/Reich/Raja/Region/Realm etc. all descend from the same root which means roughly "King", but that doesn't mean they still mean the same thing. Meanings can diverge greatly as they take on new cultural contexts. --Jayron32 07:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Modern English is odd in not using this word by itself; it was common in Old English as "ric", and Sweden's laws are issued by the Riksdag. Dropping out of English was probably the result of the Norman Conquest; with virtually no exceptions, all Old English words for high society topics such as war and government were replaced by French words, since most of those who (1) still spoke English and (2) had reason to discuss the high society topics were connected to the French-speaking élites. As far as I can remmeber, the only way that this word survives in any form in English is "bishopric", which is ironic, because the Old English word was "biscopstole". Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The name of the band Queensrÿche was based on a middle-English word for "Queendom" (with meaningless heavy-metal umlaut). -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

“Les Miserables” (The Novel) question

Towards the end of the novel (Part Five Jean Valjean – Book 3 – Chapter 8 [Page 1122 in my book]): Jean Valjean is in the sewers and Thenardier approaches him. It is very clear that Thenardier does not recognize the man he thinks is a "murderer" (Jean Valjean) or the "corpse" (Marius).

However, later on (Part Five Jean Valjean – Book 9 – Chapter 4 [Page 1236 in my book]): Thenardier goes to Marius in an attempt to blackmail Marius for not exposing Jean Valjean as a "murderer" of the unnamed "corpse".

OK, I understand why Thenardier is wrong about the facts, and why he would approach Marius if he knew about Jean Valjean, but I am not following how Thenardier later realizes that the man was Jean Valjean.

I obviously missed something between those pages. Any one remember?--Wonderley (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't Thenardier have known what JVj looked like since they met when JVj came to get Cosette from him? Googlemeister (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally yes, but when in the sewer it says "Jean Valjean perceived immediately that Thenardier did not recognize him." In another part it mentions the darkness, blood and mud. After that JVj makes sure he stays out of the light and kept turned so that Thenardier could not get a good look.--Wonderley (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Other countries with an electoral college?

I have been wondering for some time what other countries outside from the United States have any sort of an electoral college (as in the people vote for an elector who votes for a presidential candidate). Here in where I live (the Philippines), it's not like that, the people directly vote for the president, but I would still like to know. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Similar systems existed in France during many of its republics. In the modern (fifth) French Republic, the Senate of France is elected indirectly via an electoral college like system (there are 150,000 or so electors). This tradition in France goes back to the Constitution of the Year VIII, which established the Consulate phase of the First Republic. People directly elected a slate of "notable people" who would then amongst themselves elect the government. There were several tiers of elections, IIRC. --Jayron32 05:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you consider the British Prime Minister to be the equivalent of the "President" it works kind of like that in the U.K. However, the U.S. is kind of a unique situation, in that this approach to electing the President was part of the "great compromise" that paved the way to acceptance of the Constitution by both the large and the small states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was asking for other countries which elect their president indirectly by people voting for an elector. Another I can think of is Hong Kong, although I'm not sure if it is indirect or not. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In the British Parliament, the MP's are effectively the "electors". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most countries that have a split executive (seperate Head of Government and Head of State) operate on some form of the Westminster System. The PM is not exactly the equivalent of the President. In the U.S. system, the President has a merged "Head of Government and Head of State" role; the U.S. is sort of unique in this regard. In most countries, the roles are divided between a President or Monarch, who acts as the Head of State, and a Prime Minister/Premier who acts as the Head of Government. In countries which use a varient of the Westminster System, the PM (Head of Government) is elected by the Legislature, and not directly by the people. In these cases, however, its better to think of the Prime Minister as something more like the Speaker of the House of Representatives, but with a LOT more powers. In most countries that have a split executive, the Presidency is a largely ceremonial role (like the Queen of England), and is directly elected. See Presidential system, Semi-presidential system and parliamentary system for more. --Jayron32 07:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Anne, the last queen of England, on one occasion chose to withhold the royal assent from a bill, so her role was not purely ceremonial. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

But we're discussing present-day circumstances, not those of 300 years ago: by "Queen of England" (a title not in fact in existence since the aforementioned Queen Anne became Queen of Great Britain in 1707), Jayron 32 doubtless meant the present Monarch, Elizabeth II. You may have actually been referring to this, Kpalion, but your meaning was unclear. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The prime minister is not the head of state, and so is not equivalent to the president. Anyway, he is not – as Jayron and Baseball Bugs wrongly claim – "elected by the legislature". The British Government is answerable to the House of Commons. However, neither the Prime Minister nor members of the Government are elected by the House of Commons. Instead, the Queen requests the person most likely to command the support of a majority in the House, normally the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, to form a government. In short, nothing like the electoral college at all. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In a slightly different context, the British Labour Party has an electoral college for the election of its leader (process currently under way) - the college is divided into thirds, a) elected Members of Parliament and the European Parliament, b) individual members of the party, c) individual members of affiliated organisations such as trade unions and socialist societies. As a party member and a member of an associated trade union, I'll get two votes, but in the weakest categories. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The position of Holy Roman Emperor was elective. The highest level monarchs subservient to the Imperial throne were even called "Electors". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Britain's Real Monarch

It seems that this theory can be disproven by the fact that James I of England was the legitimate heir of House of Wessex, the original ruling house of England.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a bullshit claim anyways. Henry VII of England only had illegetimate claims to the throne (he legitimized his line by marrying a legitimate heir, but his own claim was only illegitimate). Furthermore, the monarch is the monarch because Parliament allows it to be so. Parliament has full control over the throne and the succession, insofar as Parliament accepts Elizabeth I as Queen, she is it. There is no further requirment on the situation. --Jayron32 06:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I do understand the connection to Henry II, and not the house of Wessex. Historically, remember, that the English monarchy is considered to have started at the Conquest (remember that monarchs are numbered from the Conquest, which is why Edward the Confessor is not Edward I). Furthermore, the connection to Henry II is because of the rather pragmatic agreement between Stephen and the Empress Matilda to put an end to The Anarchy which established the formal succession for the first time. Prior to Henry II, there was no formal system of primogeniture in England, which resulted in some messes. --Jayron32 06:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Edward the Confessor would have been Edward III, following Edward the Elder and Edward the Martyr. 80.47.195.242 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Henry VII did have a legitimate claim to the throne - he won it on the battlefield. Just because we don't consider that a legitimate way of becoming monarch these days doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that it was accepted in those days. Applying modern laws to other times usually gets meaningless results. --Tango (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Was it really considered legitimate back then, though? The concept of usurper did exist. The point of primogeniture and similar rules for throne succession has always been precisely to ban people arbitrarily trying to take power by force. If one independent sovereign vanquished another on the battlefield, it may have been legitimate for him to take the other one's kingdom; but Henry VII was not an independent sovereign; as far as I remember, he was a rebel, technically. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's similar to the idea of right of conquest. You overthrow and imprison the king, and you're a usurper, but you overthrow and kill the king, and you're now the king. Anyway, you need to remember the context of the Wars of the Roses; Lancaster and York had been fighting on-and-off for generations, and according to Henry's article, he was the leading Lancastarian claimant. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the point I already made, I don't think the right of conquest applies to rebels, it just applies to one sovereign defeating another. If it applied to a rebel killing the rightful sovereign to whom he owes his allegiance, rebellion wouldn't be a crime. As for Henry, sure he was the leading Lancastrian claimant, but his claim was judged to be very unconvincing, as others have already said. From which we may conclude that there were no convincing Lancastrian claimants alive at all at that point (although I don't know if that's really the case or if the convincing ones were just ignored for practical reasons).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

recipe challenge

what are 8-10 appropriate meal ideas for an inept, broke, vegan, diabetic bodybuilder gourmet in a hurry?

in order, the criteria are:

• inept: this person is clumsy and not a great cook, very careful preparation is beyond him
• broke: this person is living on savings and needs to spend about $2-$3 per meal
• vegan: this person does not eat animal products, including meat, fish, dairy and egg products, etc
• diabetic: this person can have only a limited amount of carbohydrates in one sitting (say, 30g) and almost no sugar
• bodybuilder: this person needs to have about 20g of protein per meal, a bit more (30g) would be even better
• gourmet: forget suggesting that this guy just slurp down a can of red beans, he has real gourmet tastes and requires meals that are genuinely satisfying and a joy to eat. The minimum standard should be something you could actually serve in a diner. He doesn't like the taste of soy products, extra points if you can avoid these.
• in a hurry: the meals should average (see below) 15 minutes in preparation.

Now, this might seem like an impossible set of criteria, but please note that all of the parameters (cost, time to prepare, etc) are averages, so that you can suggest, for example, 4 (different) meals that have an ingredient in common which will take 40 minutes to prepare for all four, and then are finished with 5 minutes of work. Space and storage is no big worry, and neither is "passive" preparation time, so if you you require some beans to be soaked for 24 hours, that will count as the two minutes it takes to put them in a bowl and pour water on them. You can amortize dried goods over a six-month period, in sufficient bulk it would add almost nothing to the per-meal cost, and you can assume any kitchen implements you need. The vegan requirement actually makes the meals cheaper, as animal products are relatively expensive. You can have him order any specialty products in any bulk you want, subject to shelf life. It is important, however to have 8-10 distinct meals with their own character that are each good and fulfilling. It's a challenge, good luck! 85.181.48.191 (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

1 suggestion - standard bachelor pseudo-stir-fry:

1. Buy a variety of spices
2. Buy a medium-high temperature cooking oil (like canola)
3. Buy a variety of grains and vegetables (sweet potatoes and yams are a good choice for starches, but rice and bulgar wheat work for alternates, tomatoes are a godsend)
4. Buy tofu, nutmeat, beans, or etc. in quantities sufficient to your needs, or supplement with cheap protein powder

preparation involves choosing vegetables and spices for a particular meal, slicing and dicing, then 10 minutes or so on the stovetop. you can slice-dice a few days in advance and store the makings if you want to speed up the process. meals generally look like a mess, but if you use good vegetables and spice carefully you can get chef-quality taste (use delicate spices - you want to enhance the natural flavor of the vegetables, not obliterate them - and don't be afraid of a bit of salt, which really brings out certain kinds of aromatic flavors). You can get a lot of variety this way with differnt choices, with a minimum of learning curve.

If youw ant something more 'recipe'-like or more high-toned, check out Moosewood Cookbook and google for online recipes from it. You won't get high-protein meals from that, so you'll have to change proportions or add supplements, but Moosewood is a great place to start for gourmet vegitarian cooking. --Ludwigs2 12:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Bittman's How To Cook Everything: Vegetarian also comes highly recommended. -- 174.24.222.181 (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have two suggestions. First, pease pudding or mushy peas. Soak for 24 hours: cook in oven for 6 hours. Serve with salsa, either shop-bought or home made (shouldn't take long), and a dollop of hummus or tahina. For the gourmet touch, use either black peas or grey peas, both of which are used in Northern England or the Black Country. Secondly, I remember making a dish called succotash, with sweetcorn and red beans. I'd also suggest adding wholemeal bread to any meal as this completes the protein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyMoet (talk • contribs) 12:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thick chunky vegetable soup. Chop the vegetables up, add herbs and pepper, boil for 10 or 15 minutes. You could add some cornflower to thicken it, I'm not sure how much protein that would have, plus drizzle a small amount of cold oil on it. The maximum of 30g of carbohydrate per meal is the limiting factor - I expect a rice or pasta dish would exceed that. Would he get enough calories with 120g of carbs and 120g of protein per day? Edit: For 30g of carbs and 30g of protein, according to Wikipedia he would only get 233 kilocalories per meal from them, when the calorie requirements for a man are usually given as 2500 kilocalories. He may get some estra calories from fat.

Because of his very restricted choices, I believe he should get expert advice from a qualified dietician. 92.15.14.227 (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

ORIGION OF BHATT BRAHMINS (RAI)

Origion of Bhatt brahmins (rai)

Respected sir/madam

Today on 25 July 2010 I have been learnt that u have shown the origion of Bhatt brahmins (rai) on your website wikipedia as the title (rai bhat) in Uttar Pradesh is highly objectionable and based on incorrect informations.

Sir the "Bhatt" means in Sanskrit language is "the man who is expert in all studies and a warrior" and the "rai" is the short form of "rais" and its the vadic title not conffered by muslim or british rulers of India .

Its supposed that by the different views of historians that aryans came from central asia and entered into the northern India .some historians says that Sindhu Ghati culture came first and after that vadic culture but its true that aryans entered into India in different eras .so in early times there was two classes in aryans.the brahmins and shudras later on these two classes developed into four varnas. The Bhatt brahmins (rai)bourned from the pious fire pit of Vasistha Rishi in the Varuna Yagya which was carried out by Varuna Deva who was the diety of water .the rishes were bourned from this fire pit .thier origion from Lord Bhrama and the Goddess Saraswati is thier goddess of knowledge. The rishies borned from pious fire pit.

1) BHRIGU RISHI 2) ANGIRA RISHI 3) KAVI RISHI

Thier sons as under

Sons of Bhrigu Rishi 1.Chavan Rishi 2.Vajra Shirsha Rishi 3.Slushi Rishi 4.Aurva Rishi 5.Shukara Rishi 6.Varenya Rishi 7.Savan Rishi

Sons of Angira Rishi 1.Brahaspati Rishi 2.Utattha Rishi 3.Payasya Rishi 4.Shanti Rishi 5.Ghora Rishi 6.Virupa Rishi 7.Samvarta Rishi

Sons of Kavi Rishi 1.Kavi Rishi 2.Kavya Rishi 3.Dhrashna Rishi 4.Buddhiman Rishi 5.Shukracharya Rishi 6.Virja Rishi 7.Kashi Rishi 8.Dharmagya Ugra Rishi

Sir,

The whole generations of thies rishies are called varuna but the bhatt brahmins (rai) called Varuna Bhatt brahmins also.the whole brahmins varna divided into three categories and the Bhatt brahmins (rai) supposed their origion from Kavi Rishi and there are only 49 praveras of them which are counted their gotras also because there are 49 marutas who were the brother of lord Indra bourned from the womb of mother Diti wife of rishi Kashyapa who are the fore fathers of bhatt brahmins (rai).its uncorrect that 750 gotras of Bhatt brahmins (rai).Bhatt brahmins(rai) are acharya in all over India being the supreme breed of aryan brahmins.

The categories of brahmins varna are-

1Acharya 2)Upadhaya 3)Buddhist

Presently the references of thies brahmins are available in the Srimad Bhagvat, Gita, Ramcharit Manas,Balmik Ramayan ,Vishnupuran ,Brahamavaivarta Purana,Mahabharat (Chapter 85 Anushashan Parva) ,Vedas also . ,shivaji and his times by j n sarkar,indai,a soldier's view by brig.(retd)A.C .prem ,the sikh history(1469-1988) by Dr.Gopal Singh,Discovery of india by Pt .J .L Nehru,manusmriti (A Commentary) by S.S.Shastri,A New History of India by Dr. Ishwari prasad,Prachin Bharat ka itihas by Dr R.K.Mukharji,Buddha Sanskriti by Rahul Sankratyayan,Studies in ancient india by Prof.Protansumaiti,Lohe ke Dhani by Bala dubey,Jat itihas by LT.Ramswaroop jun,Manas-puyush-ramcharitmanas by Shri Anjana nandan sharanji,kavivansh by kavi raja Pt.vidhyadhar bhatt,Bharatmahan by Acharya Chatursen,adhunik bharat ka itihas by kundra and bawa, india that was wonder partI AND II by A L Basham and shri S.A.A.Rizivi,Bhartia arya bhasha aur hindi by Dr.Sunil Kumar Chaturjya,aitaraiya brahman by Pt. Ganga Prasad Upadhayay,Jati vyavashtha by Dr.narmadeshwar page no.73,panchratna vivah paddhaiti ,Letter no. 154/EC/Lokshikayat/Dt 6-12-2004 by DM Agra (UP),bhartiyadarshan by Dr. Radhakrishnan,Service digest of 2 mech inf (Ist Royal jat),The Jats :their role in mughal empire by Dr. G.C.Dwivedi page no.197.These Bhatt Brahmins (Rai) estbilished many powerful dyansties in India.they developed feudal lordship in india but it was diffirent from the feudal lordship of europe.they united the india politically ,physically and culturally.the whole credit goes to them and at the time of peshwa dynasty in the IIIrd battle of panipat thier aim was lost to hoist the flag of hindupatpadshahi .the whole chemistry is disclosed below in this topic.these feudal lords of hindusdtan lost thier past glory but have the faith in thier hearts. they are great orthodox bhatt brahmins in india who save the country from the attack of muslim orthodoxship and contributed to uprooted the Christianity and british rule but the government of free india forget them . 1.Shunga Dynasty 2.Satawahan Dynasty 3.Gupta Dynasty 4.Rai Dynasty 5.Vakataka Dynasty 6.Peshwa Dynasty.

Presently the Bhatt brahmins(rai)who came in northen India under the aegis of Peshwa Sadashivrao Bhau and Vishwash Rao.Sadha Shiv Rao was cousin brother of Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao and Vishvash Rao was only son.these brahmins were the class one jagirdars of then India and commanders of Maratha army which was sent by then Peshwa Maharaj to face the attack of Ahmadshah Abdali this army was along with a procession of pilgrims who also came to take bath in Kurukshetra on 14-january-1761.this procession came to Agra on 5-June-1760AD and Maharaja Bharatpur Surajmal and Sadashiv Rao Bhau taken an oath on the bank of river Yamuna to becoming a friend and to joined the hands againts the aggressor .Maharaj Suraj Mal was in the attack of delhi but he fled before the battle of Panipat that is called third battale of Panipat.Maharaja Indore Malhar Rao Holkar taken the bribe from Ahmadshah Abdali not to take part in the battle .the kith and kins of Peshwa Balaji Bajirao and loyal commanders cut down in the battle the remaining brahmins run back to take shelter to save from the genaral slaughter after loosing the war they reached to the bharatpur where they were hosted by king and queen Kishori of Bhartpur .these Bhatt brahmins (rai)were worshiped by king and queen and given the shelter and protection to reach thier destinations .however few of them could reach up to the Gwalior and lot of people were become the pray of looters these brahmins who came to save the northern India became the subject of conspiracy.they put down thier royal dresses and weapons .again they involed in the first freedom struggle in 1857 ad while the lord Dalhosie implemented the policy of lapse .Peshwa Maharaj was pensioned at Bithore and he was crushed and his palace was destroyed by artillery by general Outram and under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhiji they denied to serve the govt service and any type of cooperation .these are the remaining kith and kins of peshawa dynasty who scattered in these areas and the indoria jats who are the jadhavs of indore have the 12 villages in tehsil kiraoli(agra) once the subordinates and survents of these great brahmins .they occupied this area after clearning the kirar rajputs from this area who srongly objected of maratha army while they were on withdrawl from the battle of panipat.the families of the bhatt brahmins (rai)and jadhavs established two villages 1)mudiapura,2)abhuapura .the kiraoli is known in the name of defeated kirar rajput "the kirarvali kiraoli".LATE PT GANGA RAM BHATT was thier leader who belongs to peshawa clan.it has been searched out that peshawa sadashiv rao bhau established a one feet height statue of lord hanumanji at hanuman tila of town shamli(mujaffarngar). the intention was to built a temple after the victory of panipat battle but it could not be happen unfortunately.

The Bhatt brahmins community have the five divisions

1) Varuna Bhatt Brahmins 2) Brahma Bhatt Brahmins 3) Bhatt Brahmins 4) Vadawa Bhatt Brahmins 5) Maharaj Bhatt Brahmins

Bhatt brahmins (rai) take the dakshina from thier clients on the birth of child,marriage ,katha ,bhagwat and on the occassion of pious puja.they are only authorised to preach the relegious surmons and the guru of the whole hindu society and subject to honour and worship.the great personalities borned a few names

1.Kumaril Bhatt 2.Narayan Bhatt 3. Bana Bhatt 4.Arya Bhatt 5.Bhaskaracharya Bhatt 6.Surdas Bhatt 7.Bhushan Bhatt 8.Matiram Bhatt 9.Bhatt Chandra Bardai 10.Ravan Bhatt 11.Shridhar Bhatt 12.Gaga Bhatt 13.Kamlakar Bhatt 14.Kalidas 15.Bhava Bahtt 16.Mayur Bhatt 17.Mahipal Bhatt 18.Sarangadhar Bhatt 19.Vamadeva Bhatt 20.Harisena Bhatt 21.Sayanacharya Bhatt 22.Madhavacharya Bhatt 23.Varamihira Bhatt 24.Pusipajan Bhatt 25.Laxmidhar Bhatt 26.Deva Bhatt 27. Ranachhor Bhatt 28.Pt.Jagannath Bhatt 29.Vaman Bhatt 30.Mahidhar Bhatt 31.Swami Ballabhacharya 32.Bhava Bhatt 33.Mahakavi Jagannath Bhatt 34.Shri Harsha Bhatt 35.Mallinath Bhatt 36.Divakar Bhatt 37.Bhoj Raj Bhatt 38.Vaga Bhatt 39.Birbal Alias Mahesh Das Bhatt 40.Khanda Deva Bhatt

And etc

They use the surname Sharma and bhatt in the areas of western UP ,Bhartpur,MP,Harayana,Delhi, being brahmins. —preceding unsigned comment added by Jhande Lal Bhatt (talk • contribs) 12:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I changed your all caps to lower case sentence text to make it easier for the volunteers to read.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And I corrected your mistyped and non-functioning 'close small' command :-) . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) (1) Please do not type in ALL CAPITALS - it is seen as shouting and is considered rude, and as a practical matter it is much more difficult to read.

(2) If you think something in an article is wrong, you should ask about it on the talk (Discussion) page of the article - that is what it is for. These Reference Desks are intended for asking general questions of fact.

(3) Although what you have written is hard to understand, you seem to be saying that someone has told you that Wikipedia says something you think is wrong, but you have not read it yourself. If this is correct, please read the material in question yourself to make sure your informant has not misunderstood or distorted what has been written. If you have read the article in question, I apologise for misunderstanding you, but your English is non-standard and difficult to follow.

(4) Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based only on material that has already appeared elsewhere in reliable publications that can cited as sources. What you have written above may all be correct, but Wikipedia could not include any of it unless you tell us exactly where it has been published so that it can be checked. When you re-post the material on the appropriate Discussion page, please be sure to include all your sources.

(5) The way you write English very hard for this native English speaker to understand. Would it be possible for you to have someone with more knowledge of English rewrite it?

(6) I have removed a few single spaces you put before the beginnings of lines, because these cause the text to display in unhelpful ways on Wikipedia. To indent a line by one or more spaces, you should instead use one or more colons (i.e. : for 1 space indent, :: for two spaces indent, etc).

I hope this has been helpful. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, 87! Sorry about that.

Hello Jhande Lal Bhatt, thanks for your comments on the articles Rai Bhat and Brahm Bhat. It is great that you have done so much research on the caste and are able to correct the articles. I will copy your comment to the talk pages of both articles (as 87 suggested). Also, I invite you to simply go directly to the articles and edit them yourself, not forgetting to include the references you mention. I think references to the Vedas, Gita, Ramcharitmanas, etc should be fine as long as you give the specific chapters, but to be sure you can always read the instructions at Help:Contents/Links#Citation. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Learning to hate (school) learning

Many years ago, I heard or read somewhere (I do not remember where) that students enter the first grade of primary school with a great enthusiasm for learning, and that somehow that enthusiasm has been almost completely annihilated (from many students) by the time they have reached the age of about twelve years. Of course, everyone in society (parents, teachers, merchandisers, entertainers, religious leaders, and others) can play a part (to good effect, to bad effect, or to no effect), but what is it about the school system that discourages what should be a lifelong love of learning?—Wavelength (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does it have to be something about the school system? Could it not be something about the average student (like puberty)? Dbfirs 23:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is something about students which plays a negative part, one hopes that the school system would play a positive part which is effective enough to compensate for it abundantly.—Wavelength (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How Children Fail is a classic book on the subject. 81.131.68.238 (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

...and its companion volume, How Children Learn. Bear in mind the difference between learning and the socialization and other administrative aspects of a school system. This is an issue in the option of home schooling, which in some countries is illegal. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, 81.131.68.238 and Deborahjay, for your answers. It seems to me that I might have seen one or both of those articles before, although my first knowledge of the phenomenon predates my use of the Internet by many years.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[I am correcting my error in typing and spelling, from "It seems to be" to "It seems to me".—Wavelength (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)]

More anecdotal, but as someone who never lost that love of learning, it seemed that the vast number of friends who didn't like learning found frustration over homework cutting into their free time. Whereas I spent more free time with my nose in a book than many kids. (I'll confess that I, too, suffered from this attitude toward homework, though not to the extent many did.) Since learning, before first grade, doesn't come with homework, I'd say that's a prime reason. (Not the amount we see today, either - this was in the 1970s, when from what I've seen, there was less.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Politics

Who gains the most monetarily from President Obama's policies?71.3.157.174 (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lawyers and politicians. Who else would you possibly expect? Lawyers get a hell of a lot of money to sit around and talk about the wording of all the policies. Politicians make a hell of a lot of money to sit around and talk about adding kickbacks for them and their friends to all of the policies. By the time any policy is passed, it usually has a time-period before it kicks in - something along the lines of 5 years (after the following election). So, they have time to claim they did something before the election, but time to renounce the policy after the election and start all over by handing over a hell of lot of money to lawyers again. -- kainaw™ 19:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have enough background knowledge to analyze this problem, but I can tell it needs clarification: from Obama's policies as opposed to what? John McCain's policies? A hypothetical moderate with the same leadership abilities? A hypothetical Democrat who followed the letter of their party's platform? The elimination of the office of the presidency? The complete collapse of the US government?

Furthermore, it's hard to say what groups are legitimate answers to the question. Millions of people are affected by policy decisions, and it's quite easy to construct subsets of them who are as sympathetic or unsympathetic as you like. What I want to know is what affect Obama's policies will have on people whose age is a perfect number times a square number. You know, folks like me.

Anyways, even with the necessary clarification, the problem depends entirely on the answers to fundamentally political questions, which are, as I understand it, outside the domain of the reference desk. Some people will claim that John McCain's hot-headedness would have risked starting WWIII. In this case, apparently it's Carlos Slim for the 53.5 billion dollars he'd not have, being dead otherwise. Others will have other ideas. Paul (Stansifer) 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus and the cross

If Judaism rejects Jesus, why is there a focus at all on the concept of Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The article Judaism's view of Jesus may have some answers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may draw a parallel: If I met an article page on Mohamet, would I object on the same grounds that you the OP use here? He is a fact of history, therefore, he should be there. I reject Hitler and what he stands for but I expect a true historical article page on him, and if missing I would want to write it myself. If I saw bias on that page I would object in the talk page. In fact the article page needs rephrasing in parts. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of you are focusing on aspects unrelated to my question. I understand Jewish views of Jesus -- I'm asking here about Christian views of Jesus. Why would Christians focus at all on INRI if the honorific is intrinsically awkward because the "King" is not accepted by his subjects. This has nothing to do with bias other than, perhaps and apparently, some odd Christian bias that their god was the king of some nation that denies it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Because Christianity was, and to some extent still is, a break-off sect of Judaism. Christianity believes that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, that he is the King (but in a non-worldly sense, i.e. his kingdom is not of this world). Since he said he was a king, and he was a Jew speaking to Jews, Pilate wrote that he was King of the Jews: Christianity generally considers him King of Heaven and Earth, which is broader, but Pilate had written what he had written. Therefore, when depicting the cross, showing a sign with INRI is a sort of shorthand that labels the image, as well as calling to mind various aspects of the story and theology. In brief: Christianity generally considers Jesus the King of Everybody. King of the Jews is a phrase and title that got bandied around during his trial by the people accusing him. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly helpful link: the INRI is a simple form of Iconography. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is also worth mentioning that Jesus was not a Christian. He was Jewish. The followers of Judaism that followed Jesus eventually split off, with all the other people that followed Jesus, and became Christian. Therefore those contemporaries that followed Christ, the people we think of as Christians, really wouldn't have identified as Christians in the way that I identify as Christian. Falconus^{p t c} 02:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misremembering my Catholic-school education, but wasn't there an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah would also be recognized as King of the Jews? So it's just another way of saying that prophecy was fulfilled. (And of course, a way of denigrating the Jews for not even recognizing their own Messiah.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How can the New Testament, written by Christians, be used as evidence that Jesus fulfills prophecies if their initial premise is that they believe he was the Messiah? That's cyclic. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's religion for you. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bear in the mind that the earliest Christians were all Jews, and they thus saw him as their king. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Was not this objection raised by the Pharisees to Pilate at the time, and did not Pilate answer the objection? Afterall, there was nothing presented to him that merited the death penalty, so they could not have it both ways. I refer you to; The Gospel according to Pilate or also known as The Acts of Pilate, in Wikipedia as: Acts of Pilate.

I can if you wish go through the prophetic words about Him from the books of The Prophets and draw the necessary parallel citations, but I think I would be wasting my words.

Does not your question begin: If Judaism rejects Jesus....? Helen Shapiro, would not agree.MacOfJesus (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The name Messiah means "anointed (one)" in Hebrew; the name Christ means "anointed (one)" in Greek, and distinguishes Jesus Christ from other men named Jesus.

The arrival of the Messiah was prophesied in the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, and Jews were expecting his arrival at the appointed time (http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/3-15.htm).

Please see also http://www.multilingualbible.com/matthew/21-43.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/matthew/23-37.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/matthew/23-38.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/romans/2-28.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/romans/2-29.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/romans/9-6.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That raises the question, what does the "H" stand for. Maybe "Himself"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

[Where is there an "H" that stands for something? I did not see one. Are you referring to the Greek letter eta in the Christogram IHS?

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)]

I think he is referring to the middle initial in Jesus H. Christ ---Sluzzelin talk 01:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, according to Jesus and Messianic prophecy, the Messiah should be a descendant of King David via Solomon, thus quite literally eligible to be "king of the Jews". --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

See Genealogy of Jesus. (I do not mean to be curt; I am just not developing a long comment.) -- Wavelength (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see my related comments at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#"absurd" Jewish beliefs. (permanent link here).

—Wavelength (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OP, is this not bordering on Christophobia? You are arguing from a universal premise, that I have pointed-out has exeptions, in fact so many that your argument does "not hold water". One I have to mention: Edith Stein, St. Teresa Benedicta of The Cross, (Feastday today). MacOfJesus (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC). MacOfJesus (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Weighing job title

Is there a particular title for someone who weighs objects for a living? By objects I mean some type of commodity (food, money, etc.). --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. some kind of controller or comptroller would probably be closest. 92.230.233.128 (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The (rather obsolete) term is weighman. See also checkweighman. Warofdreams talk 11:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

See article page: weighbridge and weighbridge operator. "Weighbridge operator" is an article page waiting to happen. The words: "Weighbridge operator" come up so many times in other article pages that an article page on him/her would be justified. Also the controller that operates on a quayside, that balances a boat for weight distribution, to prevent listing, even in the case of a storm. Sorry, don't know his name! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a National Union of Ships' Clerks, Grain Weighers and Coalmeters in the United Kingdom.—Wavelength (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also see article page Stevedore, but I still cannot find the person responsible for weight distrabution on a ship before departure. He/she is the one who truly earns their wage by weight. I have left a question on the talk page of the article buoyancy. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

At the article/talk page Buoyancy I received this reply: "The rotational stability of a vessel is briefly mentioned in the Stability section. There is a wikilink to Metacentric height, which discusses the issue in far more detail and provides some good references for further reading. --RexxS (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Buoyancy"" MacOfJesus (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

See also Angle of loll. MacOfJesus (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

See also List (watercraft). MacOfJesus (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

See also Harbourmaster. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Roman Empire

I have been hoping to write a book set during the declining years of the Roman Empire, but I am aware that I perhaps don't know quite enough of the details of life at the time to write an entire novel on it. Could someone direct me to a website where I can learn what I would need to know for this?

80.47.195.242 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You could start at our article Roman Empire, then follow the links and maybe get hold of some of the books cited. I fear that historical knowledge gained only from "some website", might not be enough background knowledge to please any potential publishers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Start at http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/life.html, then follow the links. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

do you want to write a good book, or is a crap one okay? If you need to write a good one, I suggest picking up the phone and actually callig, during office hours, the history departmen of a big university and, being very polite and making clear that you are just calling for the possibility of talking for a minute with the appropriate professor, ask if they can recommend quality historical fiction set during the time you are interested in, or whether they might have someone in mind who is more interested in the subject and who might know. You might need to play a bit of phone tag, just remember to be polite and to the point tell them who you are and exactly what you are looking for - ideally we are talking about a few minute call. you can try doing some of this by email, but I really recommend the first approach. Once you have the list of recommended historical fiction (incidentally you could try the same question of literary departments) just get those books from amazon, read them an analyze them for why they are so good that they leave someone recommending them years after the fact. buy a standard history of the fall of the Roman Empire and Read it with great imagination, keeping in mind the great works you've been reading in historical fiction and the effects you see, why you feel it "works", and try to repeat the effect with your own story and your own writing. be careful not to repeat phrases literary from the recommended historical fiction you read, even though you respect them an are tryito repeat the effect. (this is a common beginner's mistake, repeating verbatim, and so being "derivative" - same goes for plot; find your own). when you've wrtten the book, hold it to the same scrutiny ad thr recommended books: where does yours fall short? where is it more linear, flatter, less surprising, less clear, less interesting. this last one is important, pay special attention to tricks used to keep the reader turning pages. hint: don't be direct about it ("he had no idea what was coming"). put your manuscript aside after all your editing and read it with fresh eyes a month later. does it hav the same effect as your recommended book? If not, rewrite it and repeat all of the above until you love the book when reading it with fresh eyes. at this point write a kind, former, direct letter to professors of history and literature askin them to kindly review your manuscript and write a few brief comments for you I they would. icoude a self addressed stamped envelope for them to use. if our letter to them is nice, they will give you their thoughts. listen to them and do what they suggest. do another round after the changes, with the same and new professors, but this time include writers. if your manuscript is any good, the establishes writers will recommend your work to an agent, who will get back to you about publishing your work. once a publisher is interested, you will also benefit from their professional editorial services and should end up with a fine book. all of the above has bweb assuming this is what you are writing. if you are interested in writing a crap book, my recommendation is just to watch Gladiator, use your imagination as to why Rome fell afterward, and just make everything up, the only thing you need is actual senators' names from the period and cliches like the barbarians at the borders and so on. use you imagination and write anything you want, a love story intricacy is especially easy as it doesn't require facts, so for feuds and so on. just write Gladiator again, but with Rome falling. don't forget detailed descriptions of well-built pectoral muscles and the like. good luck. 92.230.233.128 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Does your question imply that you are already aware of the historical events but not so aware of the lifestyles of those days? There were a lot of complicated things happening during that time, including the Eastern Roman Empire. Unless your novel has no reference to these, then you would need to study those also. There is a huge amount you could read - from things written by Romans themselves, to non-fiction historical textbooks, to fiction set in Roman times. If I were you I would start reading the more entertaining things first: The Golden Ass and the Satyricon for example, although I don't know what period of Roman history they relate to. There are many textbooks - The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon fits your period exactly but I suspect it may be outdated and a too-long read. Fiction includes I Claudius by Robert Graves. Graves lists some of the reading he did to prepare to write that here Tacitean_studies#20th_century. 92.29.115.109 (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

92.230's flippant remarks do contain a good suggestion - call the history department of a nearby university (or better, the classics department), and someone there is likely to help you. They'll probably pass you off to a grad student who would be happy to help, perhaps for a small fee (those wacky grad students, always trying to pad their CVs). We also have a specific article, decline of the Roman Empire, which might be helpful for a reading list (don't use Gibbon, at least not exclusively). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The OP would probably be better off asking the same question at a public library, since have the books to hand and may even be willing to prepare a bibliography if he was seriously interested. The Further Reading sections of the various Wikipedia articles already make quite a long list of things to read. 92.29.117.139 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the culture and the lifestyles I was interested in, I want to understand more of the way my characters will act and talk, what they do each day, where they live, where they work and so on, rather than the background of historical events which I have already found. I don't suppose there is an entire website out there dedicated entirely to providing such information, by any chance? And I do already know how to write a book, getting inspiration, not copying, reading back through over and over, and so on, this is just the first I will have attempted where I want an accurate idea of a culture I have no personal experience of. 80.47.204.116 (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I found Peter Hall's Cities in Civilization a very interesting academic look at everyday life in a wide variety of cities and time periods. It has well-referenced information on life in Rome in the period from 50 BC to 100 AD, which may be a bit early for your purposes but would still be worth a look. Warofdreams talk 11:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend reading Ammianus Marcellinus. His history covers about twenty years in the second half of the fourth century. It is a fascinating primary source, and easy to get in a good translation (I have the one in Penguin Classics). He has chapters on life in the empire, and long rants on the things that horrify him (displaying cooked food in shop windows before noon! daring to boil water!) as well as an eloquent defense of Julian the Apostate. It's interesting to have the perspective of a non-Christian on this period in Roman history as well. Antandrus (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This and this are two books that you may find useful. Deor (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If your book is to be set in the final years of the empire, then I also recommend this source. Marco polo (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If your setting will be Britannia (I'm just guessing) decide how, when and where the personal effects of the collapsing structure will be most strongly experienced, get your major themes on paper-- "Being 'Roman'", "Keeping up appearances as the world goes to hell", "an appropriate lifestyle", "Christianity and social class" etc-- and start seeing the world around through your main character's eyes. What are the limits of the character's horizon? What are people simply taking for granted? What's happening that they don't notice? Start with a short story in which one thing gets resolved or doesn't and see how that goes. Why not construct a back story around one of the Roman hoards, the desperate circumstances in which it got buried? What was not buried? --Wetman (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Martin Henig (an established historian of Roman art) has done exactly that in his The Heirs of King Verica: Culture & Politics in Roman Britain (ISBN 9780752419602), in which he fictionalises the characters named on objects in the Hoxne Hoard. BabelStone (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the better novels of this exact time period is Raptor (novel) by Gary Jennings. It covers the fall of the Western empire and the rise of Theodoric the Great. Like all Jennings books, there's LOTS of really weird sexual stuff going on, but if you can get past that, the rest of the book is pretty good. And the time period is exactly when the OP is looking for. --Jayron32 04:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)