Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< November 20 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 22 >
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 21[edit]

Srečko Kosovel[edit]

How many books written by Srečko Kosovel were translated in english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.214.169 (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find four collections of Kosovel's poems in English. They are:
--Antiquary (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King of Rurutu[edit]

Who was the King of Rurutu between 1885 and 1900? Pictured here. And how did Rurutu come into French control? Thanks in advance.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Auckland Star article dated 29 Hakihea 1888, the king's name was Teuruarii. It also mentions that Rurutu and Rimatara "on account of their proximity to the latter place [Tahiti], have entered to a large extent into trading relations with the colonists of French Oceana. They appear, however, to be in no way enamoured of French control ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demonym of Pakistan[edit]

How did the obvious demonym become offensive in English? "Afghan", "Turkmen" and "Uzbek" are all perfectly acceptable in P.C. English; why is "Pakistani" the exclusive term. --90.220.162.146 (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting "Paks" as an alternative? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The poster is asking about "Paki", apparently. --Theurgist (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:Paki#Usage notes offers some information on how the term came to be offensive. --Theurgist (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that article is a bit too vague. Specifically, the P word was used against people from what was then East Pakistan who moved to the Brick Lane area of East London from the 1940s onwards. They faced harassment from groups of white youth, who went out beating up anyone of South Asian appearance they could see, a practice they called "paki-bashing". They neither knew nor cared whether the person was actually from India, West Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or somewhere else entirely, so long as they could get the kicks some young men get from gratuitous violence. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; the violence described is mostly associated with the skinhead gangs of the late 1960s and 1970s. See Skinhead#Racism, anti-racism and politics. A slightly (but not much) less offensive usage is that street-corner grocery shops were often called "Paki shops"[1] because in British cities the 1970s and 1980s, they were almost exclusively owned and staffed by migrants from the Indian sub-continent. Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost exclusively" is definitely overstating it - a lot were, but a lot were not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Paki" is not so much offensive as almost completely unknown in the United States. Anyway, those other countries' names were formed by taking a pre-existing ethnic group name and adding the "-stan" suffix, while "Pakistan" was pretty much a completely-made up name... AnonMoos (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though of course most English speakers did not realise that at the time, and some (obviously not the oblivious racists) were perplexed that Pakistanis did not attempt to rehabilitate the term 'Paki' rather than repudiate it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.149 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King Lear Video Assignment[edit]

As a part of an english high school project I'll need to play out Act IV scene vi and Act V scenes i and ii. We are supposed to reinvent the scene or "modernize" it by adding a new twist and setting while still maintaining the basic story and outline. My question is "what would be a well suited idea for my these acts and scenes?". For example one could do a "mafia theme" or "modern dictatorship" setting... etc etc.

I would really appreciate any sort of advice or help, and thanks in advance. --Wookiemaster (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a homework question. I'd suggest you introspect on your own practices in daily life, or the news. As far as rewriting Lear with a serious twist, have you watched Akira Kurosawa's Ran (film)? Lady Kaede is one of the most powerful roles I've seen. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many film attempts to "modernize" Shakespeare's works, or place them in different settings. Besides the ones which faithfully interpreted the text and merely changed the scenery and settings (like Kenneth Brannagh's Hamlet set in the 19th Century, or Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet set in the film Scarface), there are also some which kept the basic themes and played fast-and-loose with the text, like the MacKenzie Brother's Strange Brew or The Lion King, both of which were adaptations of Hamlet, or Gil Junger's 10 Things I Hate About You, which is a modern telling of Taming of the Shrew. One way to work out what to do for yourself may be to see how other's have done the same thing. It may give you ideas. --Jayron32 04:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespeare has survived these sort of indignities before, and he will survive yours :). So don't worry too much about it, it's not like rewriting Shakespeare is going to ever produce anything better than the original. You may not be aware of a deli in Manhattan on Houston Street called Russ and Daughters...but it seems like it might be crying out for the Lear treatment....you need only postulate three daughters, two ungrateful.... - Nunh-huh 05:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "better than the original" I did cite Ran just above. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know :) - Nunh-huh 06:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that familiar with Lear, but the main plot seems to be the descent into madness of a king and its effect on his daughters. So you could do a "what if" on "what if Queen Elizabeth developed Alzheimer's disease?" --TammyMoet (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very old "twist" is that the story of King Lear originally had a happy ending before Shakespeare got his hands on it. You can read the original 12th century tale here. Alansplodge (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Shakespeare version was also happy ending-ified in C18 and C19. See also George Orwell's Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool, full text here. How 'bout comparing Lear to Gorbachev, Kent to Yelstin and so on?--Shirt58 (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch - I think I just sprained my wrist drawing that very long bow ---Shirt58 (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Shakespeare's tragedies mostly revolve around kings and princes whose power is crumbling (often with their minds disintegrating too). There's usually violence, and often war, involved. So all you need to do is find modern cases where someone analogous to a king (a figure of great individual power) is assailed both externally (by other factions) and internally (by his family and henchmen). The modern world is full of examples:
  • The dictator of some country facing its Arab Spring revolt, beset by battle on the streets and the intrigues of regime insiders (like many kings, the insiders in Saddam's or Gaddafi's were usually their kinsmen and often close relatives)
  • The boss of a criminal syndicate like the Zetas or the Gambinos or the Yakuza
  • The leader of some jungle revolutionary group like the LRA or the FARC
  • Those running a group with nominally political ends that has fallen into plain crime as its political relevance has waned (paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, Yugoslavian ultra-nationalists, white-power extremists in south africa, black-power extremists in california, marxist in Hamburg)
People have tried drawing analogies between the outright violence of Shakespeare with political conflicts or boardroom battles (e.g. Hamlet (2000 film)), but losing your seat on the board doesn't have the visceral edge that getting killed does (and when people go the whole hog and have aging media tycoons killing one another wholesale, it seems a bit daft). Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your proxy votes in the forthcoming special general meeting regarding the issuance of a new series of debentures... -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another, modern American-contexted, take of King Lear is The Book, Play and Film A Thousand Acres. <The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195> 90.197.66.149 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Maldives vs. Tourism Maldives[edit]

The Maldives are heavily advertised as a tourism heaven where I live. You can imagine my surprise when I discovered via Wikipedia that they hold Islam to be their state religion, all citizens must be Muslim, etc. etc. and in general just don't seem to be the kind of people who want all manner of fun-seeking foreigners of myriad religious and moral persuasions coming to their country. But tourism is a huge part of their economy, and these people are not coming from other Muslim countries from what I've read... how does this work in practice? All good Muslims over here on this island, all heretics over there on that one but leave your cash on the table before you go, thanks! ??? The Masked Booby (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Muslims not visit places to have fun? Where did you get that impression? There are lots of tourist destinations within majority Muslim countries, and Muslims and non-Muslims alike visit them. Sharm el-Sheikh, Istanbul, Dubai, etc. You seem to have confused Islam with Fundementalist Islam, which would be something like confusing all Christians with the Westboro Baptist Church... --Jayron32 07:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Westboro Baptist goes way beyond "ordinary" fundamentalism into some semi-lunatic-fringe zone. In any case, tourism on the Maldives seems to be organized into enclaves, where the tourists have few unstructured contacts with the locals. However, the Maldives is far from alone in this (similar tourist enclaves exist or have existed in Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba, etc.) AnonMoos (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say thinking your god is telling you to fly planes into skyscrappers is into the full-lunatic-fringe zone... making weird placards and protesting at funerals seems almost sane by comparison. --Tango (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that an argument hinging around whose lunatic fringe is more lunatic really helps. And for what its worth most of those who have much knowledge of the teachings of G*d agree that murder on that scale is un-islamic.
ALR (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tango -- I was going by the simple fact other fundamentalists are embarrassed by Westboro Baptist, and that it scores high according to the "Cult Danger Evaluation Frame". It was quite unfortunate that Westboro Baptist was apparently offered as an example of typical Christian fundamentalism earlier in the conversation, since this is misleading and factually false -- it's really not typical at all... AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also Tourism in Morocco, Tourism in Tunisia, Tourism in Egypt, etc. etc.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article Tourism in the Maldives. According to our main article on the Maldives, "Outside the service industry, Male is the only location where the foreign and domestic populations are likely to interact. The tourist resorts are not on islands where the natives live, and casual contacts between the two groups are discouraged." The way this works is that the international airport has its own island, close to the island containing the capital city, Malé. The resorts visited by most tourists are located on small islands completely occupied by the resort. That is, the islands visited by tourists are not inhabited by Maldivians, except for Maldivians working a shift at the resort on that island. Apart from the capital city, Maldivians live on islands not visited by tourists. Tourists are typically met at the airport by representatives of their resort, then transferred directly from the airport to their resort's island by speed boat or air taxi. A few tourists spend a night or two in Malé but are advised to dress conservatively and behave themselves while there. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tourists and locals mix a lot more in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Turkey. (I haven't been to all of these.) Guidebooks will give you details on how this works out in practice. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the responses have looked at the practical segregation issue, rather than consider the relationship between Islam and tourism. Whilst the overt practice of other religions is prohibited the teachings of G*d allow for a diversity of religious belief and personal behaviour.
ALR (talk)
I would guess that religious Maldivians don't think highly of most tourists' lifestyle (sex with people other than opposite-sex spouses, consumption of alcohol, near nudity, etc.), but they may see them as a necessary evil to be contained on segregated islands as much as possible. Marco polo (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but that's a personal view of the individual, rather than a view of the state. It's notable that the judicial system recognises a statutory system and Sharia only applies where statute doesn't already apply.
And the same considerations could also apply to many majority religious belief systems; cf Westborough mentioned above and their views on those behaviours?
ALR (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where the heck is Westboro Baptist a "majority religion" except in a rather small cult compound in the suburbs of Topeka???? Westboro Baptist is a tiny splinter of a splinter, and even many other fundamentalists are embarrassed by them. They're adept at attracting media coverage (and in one case taking a lawsuit all the way to the supreme court), but otherwise their importance is minuscule, and they're really not representative of anything besides themselves. AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for your confusion over my meaning; an adherent of Christianity that supports Westborough would have been more accurate albeit clunkier.
However pretty much any Pentecostal church would take a similar view on the behaviours identified previously to those of your average Sunni.
ALR (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Yes, though the Westboro people are freaks whose views would be considered extreme or even immoral by most religious Christians. I think the mainstream (predominant) Muslim view on those things is quite a bit more conservative than the mainstream Christian view. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pffh. The only difference between Westboro and other fundamentalist Protestants is that Westboro says openly what the others merely think privately. Pais (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for you, that's simply not the case -- "love the sinner but hate the sin" thinking prevails even in many quite conservative Christian groups... AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But even Westboronians say that. They say things like, "We don't hate fags, God does". Pais (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry Falwell's favorite anti-gay slogan is "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", and not "God hates fags". If you can't figure out the difference between the two, and don't know much in general about the differences between different evangelical and/or fundamentalist groups, then you might not be the best person to make broad sweeping generalized declarations on this subject. Westboro Baptist practices a deviant form of so-called "hyper-calvinism" which would be quite alien to Jerry Falwell... AnonMoos (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, they say out loud what others think in private. Jerry Falwell's views on homosexuality are nondistinct from Fred Phelps's, but Falwell expresses himself more diplomatically. (Their views on other theological issues such as soteriology and predestination may of course be different.) Pais (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry Falwell and Westboro Baptist both belong to fundamentalist Christianity, and are of the view that homosexuality is immoral and contrary to Christian teachings, but otherwise there is really very little similarity at all between them. Jerry Falwell wants to see gays be converted to Christ and ultimately be saved -- and in the meantime he opposes any attempt to socially persecute them, and has met with some of them and told them directly to their faces that "anything that leaves the impression that we hate the sinner, we want to change that" (see article). By contrast, Westboro Baptist are happy to know that gays are going to hell, and wouldn't want it any other way (they don't actually want gays to repent or go to heaven), and confrontationally remind gays of this whenever they think they can get some media coverage out of it. Neither Falwell nor Westboro Baptist would be welcome in San Francisco, but to state that they're really just the same is pretty much ignorance... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So does Falwell believe gays can be converted to Christ and ultimately be saved while still being gay (and acting on that orientation in the bedroom)? Does he acknowledge that the people listed at Category:LGBT Christians (for example) don't need any more conversion than he does? Does he recognize that straight sex is exactly as sinful as gay sex? If not, then everything else you mentioned is just hypocrisy on his part. Westboro may be a lot of things, but at least they're not hypocrites. Pais (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both Falwell and Westboro Baptist are anti-gay in many ways, and you don't like either of them, which is your undoubted right. However, they're really not the same, and I don't see what purpose is served by trying to pretend that they're the same. I don't say this in order to defend Falwell (most of whose views are rather remote from my own), but in the interests of honesty and factual accuracy. AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All this time we've been talking about Jerry Falwell in the present tense, as if he were still alive. I only just noticed from his article that he died a few years back! Pais (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually about the same in most cases, if you're talking practising Sunni cf practising Christian, whether Protestant or RC. In both cases the issues are around ones relationship with G*d and the teachings take similar views.
ALR (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- you're entitled to your personal opinions, but unfortunately one aspect of your opinions (that Westboro Baptist, which you didn't even know how to spell correctly, is in any way a "majority" Christian view, or even typical of Christian fundamentalism) is factually objectively verifiably false and untrue). AnonMoos (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point on the spelling, force of habit.
That point, in any case, relates to the beliefs of the "average" (if such a thing could be said to exist) Christian cf the "average" Muslim. And it was in response to Marco Polo.
Of course there is a difference between what the teachings say and what's exhibited by adherents. The teachings are pretty similar, given that they're derived from similar environments. There is also plenty hypocrisy amongst both Christians and Muslims, neither of whih can be differentiated much from any other religious system in that sense.
ALR (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice -- if you don't know much about Westboro Baptist and the specific details of its relationship to Christianity in general, then you really should have avoided referring to Westboro Baptist in any way, because it ended up creating a distraction which significantly obscured your intended meaning (a caution which also applies to others in this thread). AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In many ways it's an interesting illustration of a number of the issues. Islam is not represented by those who choose to hijack airliners and use them as a means of mass murder. Yet that observation is glossed over by those who would criticise all of Islam. The latter sentiment being present in other discussions on this page at present, never mind historical ones. Westboro Baptist are no more representative than the free church that I was brought up in, the Anglican communion or the Methodist church.
The original question related to how a majority muslim nation can have as it's main industry something that whilst not of itself contrary to the teachings of Islam at least has associated behaviours that are contrary. Those industries that Muslims should not participate in are identified in the teachings. Equally industry and profit are encouraged, as is using what resources are available to make that profit.
ALR (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In his comment of "07:26, 21 November 2011", Jayron32 didn't mention terrorism or al-Qa`ida at all, but rather compared a generalized "Fundementalist[sic] Islam" to Westboro Baptist, thereby creating the implication that Westboro Baptist is a typical form of Christian fundamentalism -- an implication which is unfortunately untrue and unhelpful, and ended up creating a distraction which significantly obscured his intended meaning... AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point, which has been blown way out of proportion, was that the OP expressed an opinion of Islam which was far afield from what reality is. If the Westboro connection is uncomfortable to you, forget it. Instead, concentrate on the point that there is very little which ties all Islam together anymore than there is which ties all Christianity together, and the OP's apparent belief that good Muslims don't do tourism is plainly simplistic. It would be akin to taking the most extreme, lunatic fringe of any group of 1 billion people and pretending that that group represented the whole billion. There is no way to say that "good Muslims" don't visit places on vacation. It's just silly. --Jayron32 19:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you made a significant blunder when you compared a generic "Fundementalist[sic] Islam" specifically to Westboro Baptist (thereby implying that it was a typical form of Christian fundamentalism), and this ended up creating a distraction which significantly obscured your intended meaning. As I advised ALR earlier, if you don't know much about the context of Westboro Baptist and the specific details of its relationship to various other forms of Christianity, then you really should have avoided referring to Westboro Baptist in any way whatsoever when trying to make a vague rhetorical point... AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nothing you say there is incorrect in any way. --Jayron32 00:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whole discussion has gotten a bit bizarre. The OP never stated that Muslims never engage in tourism, just that the tourists coming to the Maldives are (mostly) not Muslims. This source confirms the OP's claim. It states: "Over 80% of tourists to Maldives are Europeans, and the biggest emerging tourism market is Russia. The main tourism source countries are Italy, Germany, UK, Japan, France, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Spain, and Russia." While each of those countries, apart from Japan, has a significant Muslim community, Muslims are at most a small fraction of the tourist arrivals in the Maldives. Of course Muslims take vacations/holidays, but that is somewhat irrelevant to the OP's question about the particular form of tourism practiced in the Maldives and the culture of that country. Marco polo (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotal evidence would suggest that pretty much any country with a significant tourist industry is very happy to accept the foreigners' money, while not wanting to mix with that riff-raff any more than necessary, but rather just wanting them to spend and go away. Certainly not unique to any particular culture or nation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stick on legal seals:: whats the point?[edit]

What is the purpose of thsee http://www.ryman.co.uk/0750225190/Ryman-Self-Adhesive-Legal-Seal-4-per-Sheet-Pack-of-44/Product seals? What use are they on legal documents? Why do lawyers still use them? 139.184.30.131 (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're tamper seals for post packaging; envelopes.
If they're intact then you have a degree of assurance that the document you receive is the one that was sent.
Most legal documentation still has to be delivered hard copy or faxed.
ALR (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] on ALR's last claim that it "has to". In the US, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act made electronic signatures equivalent, on almost all legal documents, to hard copy signatures. (That said, most lawyers I work with still do want the hard copy of the document, probably because old habits die hard.) Our Electronic signature article has links relating to other countries' electronic signature policies. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair. "Most" is perhaps a bit of a generalisation, although in the EU and S Asia where most of my experience is there is a limited subset of transactions where an electronic transaction is acceptable; may not be an electronic signature.
The preference of solicitors to hold a hard copy is largely down to the well developed corpus of common law available. Many remedies will not need tested in court in a way that it will do in the case of an electronic transaction. It reduces risk and cost, although clearly storing hard copy in a secure and assured way also costs.
The substantive point remains, when hard copy is transacted the use of a seal provides a degree of assurance around the integrity. It's not particularly significant nowadays.
ALR (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think these seals are also sometimes used under notary seals - Nunh-huh 17:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in our article on Seal (contract law). Most people don't have wax seals any more, so, for those jurisdictions that still recognize sealed instruments, a stick-on seal is an alternative. John M Baker (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article Company seal says the red wafers are (at least partly) used to make the seal easier to see. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval universities.[edit]

Was anyone able to go into the Medieval university? Or was it just limited to monks or the kind?157.253.197.177 (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Within the very large geographical and temporal spans the term covers there were doubtless variation, but in general one did not have to be a monk or member of the clergy already; many studied at such universities in order to qualify to join the clergy, particularly if they had ambitions to rise in the Church hierarchy (or become university teachers in their turn). However, one would have to be literate and well-educated to a pre-university level and to have the means to support oneself and pay any necessary fees, which would almost certainly mean one would have to have a wealthy family background - aristocratic or mercantile. One would usually also have to profess and practice the religious beliefs appropriate to the particular institution. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.40 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of the early Oxford and Cambridge colleges (which would've made up the vast majority of university provision for most of the medieval period), there were several, perhaps even the majority, that were specifically established to be accessible to poor students.
An example is The Queen's College, Oxford. Our article on that college doesn't talk much about that aspect, but does mention "a long association with the north of England ... reinforced for many years until relatively recently by the large number of Hastings Scholarships given to men from 20 schools in Yorkshire, Westmorland and Cumberland". Basically the college in that period aimed to provide the sort of education that sons of small-fry landowners from those areas (often yeoman farmers who were technically commoners and thus peasants) would need in order to become minor clergy. Such clergy were needed to fill small posts back in the areas the students came from, and the posts themselves were needed because the students would mostly be second or third sons and thus have no inheritance of their own. Either way, the students were neither from especially wealthy backgrounds, nor from penniless backgrounds, nor (in the vast majority of cases) monks when they started university nor from clerical families. (Some would go up to Oxford as young as 14).
In a parallel sense from a point of view of wealth, most or all of England's famous private boarding schools (properly known, contradictarily, as public schools), were originally founded as charitable institutions to educate the poor. (Though the exact definition of "poor" varied a lot.) The article on Christ's Hospital claims that it is unusual for still doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merton College, Oxford, had ties with the villages of Kibworth in Leicestershire since medieval times, and education for that village benefited in the manner described above. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, you needed to speak Latin before starting at the university, or at least have some literacy. So you would have gone to a local school first. The key question wasn't whether you could afford fees but how you could afford to live given that you couldn't work in agriculture or handicraft. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proficiency in Latin was certainly a prerequisite for admission to a medieval European university, but it didn't necessarily require prior school attendance. One could have been tutored by a local parish priest or one's parents, for example. Marco polo (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I think the priests often had a school so they could teach boys in a group rather than individually. If there was only one boy in the village in a position to learn Latin then there wouldn't be a need for a school. The number of schools grew quite fast in the late middle ages so it depends on what period the OP is most interested in. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps worth noting that the history of medieval universities encompassed about 350 years, from around 1100 to the end of the Middle Ages around 1450. In the early years the students were almost entirely people who intended to become clerics, but by the end of the period the universities were major institutions attended by clerics, nobility, and the children of the wealthy. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What no one has said explicitly is that the universities, in medieval times and in most cases until at least the end of the nineteenth century, were effectively limited to male students. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some comments on student backgrounds of the time in Hastings Rashdall's Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, which is very Victorian, but has the great benefit of being available online, and the descriptions (if not his conclusions) should still be more or less valid. Vol I (Salerno, Bologna, Paris); Vol. II.i (most of Europe); Vol. II.ii (English universities & student life). Chapter XIV of vol. II.ii is probably what you want - it touches on background, education, etc at the beginning. Shimgray | talk | 12:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japan and league of nations[edit]

I am looking for details of Japan membership to and departure from the league of nations. Couldn't find an article, any pointers within Wikipedia? --Lgriot (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mukden Incident describes the events that led to the Japanese resignation from the League of Nations. --Kusunose 00:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article Member states of the League of Nations states that Japan was a founding member of the league and withdrew 27 March 1933. while article League_of_nations#Mukden_Incident clarifies that Japan's withdrawal was in the context of the beginning of Japan's 1930s aggressive maneuvers in China being condemned by the other members of the league. What additional details are you interested in? AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was all I needed, I was looking for the dates and also the name of the incident -Lgriot (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011_November_21&oldid=1073724652"