Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 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

When did The Adventures of Rupert Bear run?

Hi all, I'm having a dickens of a time tracking down information on The Adventures of Rupert Bear, a British children's television series that may have run circa 1967-1977. The article is unsourced, I think at the very least knowing when the series started would be of tremendous help, but any other info that could be corroborated, for instance the network it ran on and number of episodes would be fantastic. Don't mean to dump this on the Ref Desk, but I'm not sure how else to get this info. Danke! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

IMDB (which is not a fully reliable source for the purposes of citing for Wikipedia articles, but may be a good starting point for your research) says that it ran in first run episodes from 1970-1972. It also appears there was a revival called just Rupert Bear that ran from 2006-2007. Hope that helps! --Jayron32 18:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

h2g2 ok for a source? [1]. —eric 18:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Israel Shahak quotes?

It has been shown at times that Israel Shahak was not averse to fabricating his quotes (see the WP article), so I wonder if anyone can verify the following two alleged quotes he inserted in two books of his.

• This article by Robert Fisk from the English Independant (Wednesday 03 December 1997) has the following: He [Shahak] quotes from an official exhortation to religious Jewish soldiers about Gentiles, published by the Israeli army's Central Region Command in which the chief chaplain writes: "When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah (the legal system of classical Judaism) they may and even should be killed ... In no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilised ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good." Robert Fisk is quoting from Shahak's book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years: Pluto Press, London, 1994. Can anyone verify that quote in Shahak's book and see if he gives any reference to any actual document?

Shahak does indeed give a detailed citation for this assertion: "Colonel Rabbi A. Avidan (Zemel), 'Toher hannesgeq le'or hahalakhak' (='Purity of arms in the light of the Halakhah') in Be'iqvot milhemet yom hakkippurim - pirqey hagut, halakhah umehqar (In the Wake of the Yom Kippur War - Chapters of Meditation, Halakhah and Research), Central Region Command, 1973: quoted in Ha'olam Hazeh, 5 January 1974; also quoted by David Shaham, 'A chapter of meditation', Hotam, 28 March 1974; and by Amnon Rubinstein, 'Who falsifies the Halakhah?', Ma'ariv, 13 October 1975. Rubimnstein reports that the booklet was subsequently withdrawn from circulation by order of the Chief of General Staff, presumably because it encouraged soldiers to disobey his own orders; but he complains Rabbi Avidan has not been court-martialled, nor has any rabbi - military or civil - taken exception to what he had written." I haven't yet tried to check with the sources cited, which could take some time; but as far as I know nobody has alleged that these are fake citations. RolandR (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I don't know about these quotes but check the WP article about Shahak about other quotes. The quote about Kook is especially dubious on simple common sense grounds. People can convert to Judaism. So what happens then? Souls that were supposed to be below the level of cattle suddenly change status? If you could check the first book don't you have access to the second book to check the source of the quote attributed to Kook? Contact Basemetal here 19:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: Note if you read Fisk's article he calls this an "official exhortation". You'd think this is Judaism's standard position on the matter. No word of the controversy Avidan's booklet has provoked and of the fact it was withdrawn. But that's another story. Contact Basemetal here 19:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

But that would be a criticism of Fisk, not of Shahak, who you suggested had "fabricated sources". RolandR (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I had simply asked about those quotes. That Shahak has fabricated some other quotes is stated in the WP article. Contact Basemetal here 20:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• This article on web site Loonwatch.com by someone writing under the name of "Danios" has the following: Prof. Israel Shahak, an Israeli human rights activist, documented the background for this racist religious dogma in his book Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. For example, he quotes Rabbi Abraham Kook, largely considered “the ultimate father figure” of Religious Zionism, who stated that “the difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews ... is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.” As you can see the quotation is referred to Shahak's book (co-authored with Norton Mezvinsky) Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel: Pluto Press, London (there are two editions, 1999 and 2004, but the guy doesn't say which one he is citing). Again, can anyone verify that quote in Shahak's book and see if he refers to any place in Abraham Isaac Kook's work where this quote is supposed to be from?

This is more complicated. Shahak does not directly quote Kook as saying this. Rather, he notes in his Preface that another writer, Seffi Rachlevsky, in his book Messiah's Donkeys, ascribed this quotation to Kook. Shahak notes thatb Rachlevsky was correct, and goes on to state that "The Rachlevsky detractors did not attempt to refute substantively the relevance of the Kook quotation. Rather, they argued that Kook said other things and that Rachlevsky, by neglecting to mention them, had distorted the teachings of Rabbi Kook." But Shahak does not footnote his Preface, and he does not repeat this quote in the main body of his book. RolandR (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again. Is this Sefi Rachlevsky, a leftist journalist who writes for Haaretz? The question is: does Judaism say that the souls of non-Jews are at the level of cattle, or does it not say that? Do Shahak and Rachlevsky affirm or imply that it does or do they not affirm or imply that it does? That's the crux. That's what "Loonwatch", a pro-Palestinian and Muslim apologist site got out of Shahak's book. If Kook had propounded such a theory it would be pretty close to some statements the "Protocols" make about what Judaism supposedly teaches. Plus on the face of it, it would be absurd, since, like I said, people can and do convert to Judaism. Contact Basemetal here 21:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a dispute with you about the use of terms such as "leftist" and "apologist"; it is apparent that we hold sharply different views. Regarding "what Judaism says", the answer is that some Jewish authorities say one thing, and some say another, there are wildly differing interpretations of the Bible and the Talmud (which is itself a record of discussions more than a code of law). Shahak points to the influence of Rabbi Kook and his interpretation, and argues that this is a legitimate interpretation of the texts; but it is not the only interpretation. The social and political context are necessary in order to understand the increase in support for Kook's view. On a minor point, the orthodox Jewish argument is that if someone genuinely converts to Judaism, this is evidence that they always had a "Jewish soul" (which was therefore present at Mount Sinai when God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses), but that for some reason they had not been born to a Jew. So this would refute your final point. Don't try to argue with a fundamentalist (of any religion); they have already thought out all of the possible logical objections, and have a ready answer for everything! RolandR (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• I still don't have a reference for Kook's statement. Then there's the problem of getting a copy of that quote and locating the objections of those who "argued that Kook said other things and that Rachlevsky, by neglecting to mention them, had distorted the teachings of Rabbi Kook" (Shahak collectively dismisses them as "Rachlevsky's detractors" so that's not much help) and evaluating them. The first stop would be Rachlevsky's book. Unfortunately it has not been translated. The bibliographic details are author: ספי רכלבסקי, title: חמורו של משיח, publisher: ידיעות אחרונות, year: 1998. Contact Basemetal here 15:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

Contact Basemetal here 19:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Was this Israeli soldier quoting the Bible?

This Google book preview won't let me see the footnote (footnote 31) to the following quote (line 6): It's not clear to me what a Hebrew soldier is doing so far from home. I have the feeling the what a Hebrew soldier is doing so far from home part echoes some passage in the Bible. Do you recognize such a passage in the Bible? Can you read footnote 31? If yes, what does it say? Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 19:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The footnotes are viewable on this Amazon preview (p. 246) and says: 31. Sandro Contento, "Israel Bans TV Crews from Filming Army Raids", Toronto Star, 24 March 2002. So just an attribution. It's not a well-known Biblical quote as far as I know. Alansplodge (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

About a scene in Eisenstein "Ivan the Terrible" Part 2?

I have a couple of questions about this scene (direct link to the scene 32 minutes 42 seconds into the movie) in Sergei Eisenstein's movie Ivan the Terrible Part 2 (it's the first scene in the cathedral, with the song in the fiery furnace, after the book of Daniel; the greatest in the whole movie but we're not supposed to express opinions here; no wonder Stalin didn't like this movie; if the time offset doesn't work you can try this alternate link or if neither time offset format works it's 32 minutes 42 seconds into the movie).

1. Is the music of this particular scene (more particularly the song that the children are singing in the fiery furnace) a traditional Orthodox church melody or is it an original composition by Sergei Prokofiev?
2. Do these kinds of religious plays still take place in Russian Orthodox churches? If yes, for what feast(s)?
3. Does the kind of clowns who play the Chaldeans in that religious play have a name in Russian?

Thanks. Contact Basemetal here 20:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: Slightly better audio here or here (or, manually, 34 minutes 22 seconds into the movie). Contact Basemetal here 20:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This article says "[t]he Furnace Play is an ancient Russian liturgical drama which was performed in the Uspensky (Dormition) cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin on the Sunday of the Holy Fathers, a week before Christmas", and also that the music is original to the film. Admittedly that doesn't exactly answer your first two questions, since it may not still be performed and the music may be based on a traditional tune. -- BenRG (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ben. This is already valuable. Since the words of the song were written by Eisenstein I'd be willing to bet it is not based on a traditional tune because it would be an amazing coincidence if the prosody of the words written by Eisenstein matched that of some traditional Orthodox song. This said it is clear Prokofiev made it sound like a traditional Orthodox hymn. Nitpicking: The Pravda says the Sunday of the Fathers falls in the week before Christmas but that's only if you take weeks to start on Mondays. Maybe that's how it works in Russia but that's not the traditional Jewish and Christian position. (Or if Christmas falls on Sunday) Contact Basemetal here 15:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

We have ru:Пещное действо about the "furnace play". It was practised in the Russian church before Peter the Great's reform. In 1909, the Moscow Institute of Archaeology commissioned A. D. Kastalsky to reconstruct the chant. His reconstruction was based on ru:невменная нотация (znamenny chant notation). Narratologically, the scene was intended by Eisenstein as a parallel to "the Mousetrap" in Hamlet. The music for this scene was composed by Prokofiev; it is partly based on an 18th-century choral concerto by Dmitry Bortniansky rather than on Kastalsky's reconstructions. P.S. Britten's The Burning Fiery Furnace has the same name in Russian: действо пещное. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Andrey. Anything on my third question, the clowns? Contact Basemetal here 16:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Skomorokhi --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I did know about Russian skomorokhi. You can see one at the beginning of Andrei Tarkovsky's film Andrei Rublev, being taken to jail. The same guy reappears towards the end of the movie where we learn he spent 10 years in jail and had part of his tongue cut off as a punishment for his skomorokh activities. But I thought the skomorokhi were exclusively secular jesters, as the church actually reviled and persecuted them, and also that they were a bit different in terms of performance style from the "Chaldeans" we see the Fiery Furnace play (for example "usual" skomorokhi seemed more musical, they sang and played musical instruments). So it is surprising to learn that skoromokhi were allowed to perform in churches as actors in liturgical dramas or at least that the same term applied to clowns allowed to perform in churches. It looks like the church was a bit confused about them. Thank you, Ben and Andrey, for your help. Contact Basemetal here 08:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That was probably the main reason why the Church had the furnace play suppressed. It was viewed as a sample of quasi-heretical native developments some of which were legitimized by Ivan's Stoglav. In modern Russian sources the "Chaldeans" are called either skomorokhi or ryazhenye. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The UK-Parliment is a perfect o imperfect bicameral?

Sorry, i anticipe i'm italian. I don't understand if the parliment of the United Kingdom is perfect or imperfect bicameral. The maine problem is about house of lords, i don't understand if it can fall down the govern or not, and how this house is elected. Because i know what the ereditariety of the seats, but other? How are they elected or nominated? How time do they stay at them position? I see the colors of the political parties on the page, so there is a partitic domination in this house. What is the derivation of this partitic control in this house. Thank you anticipatly. --79.54.130.144 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

As a rule, nothing in the UK political system is "perfect" - it's not designed, but slowly evolved, with plenty of quaint and not-so-quaint quirks. Our article is at House of Lords. Members are appointed by the Queen, but she follows the advice of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The influence of the House of Lords is limited nowadays. It cannot topple the government, and it can only delay bills. Strictly the government does not depend on the House of Commons, either, but again tradition dictates that it resigns if it loses support there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to fill in a couple of details for the OP: The House of Lords can't veto a Government bill, under the Parliament Act 1911. There is no upper age limit or fixed term of service - members of the house can stay there until they die, resign, or are expelled. The distribution between the parties was set up by the House of Lords Act 1999 (which removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House), and is maintained by the Appointments Commission. Before 1999, the Conservative party had a very large majority, mainly made up of hereditary peers. Tevildo (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Reform of the House of Lords. Nearly everyone thinks it should be replaced by something better but nobody knows what. Alansplodge (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not just get rid of it then? Contact Basemetal here 21:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It's the UK. They never give up anything for good. You never know when a trained group of longbow men might come in handy! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Quite right - see Royal Company of Archers. Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Some people support that idea (including 22% of Britons in a 2010 poll and 163 MPs in a 2007 vote). Neutrality^talk 22:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Because of the principle of Supremacy of Parliament, many think it's sensible to retain a second chamber as some sort of filter for poor legislation that might be rushed through the Commons. Exactly what form that should take is debated; there is little enthusiasm for another elected body. Alansplodge (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I know some have floated the idea of a reformed House of Lords as a "House of Experts" - basically, making it all-crossbenchers, all appointed in nonpartisan fashion. That sounds like a reasonably sensible idea. Neutrality^talk 01:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Meritocracy and technocracy are variants on this idea. --Jayron32 02:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"Perfect" means something specific in this context. We don't have an entry for it, but the article on the Italian Parliament defines a perfect bicameral system as one where both chambers have identical rights and powers. By this definition, the British system is very definitely "imperfect". Rojomoke (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

See also [2] Nil Einne (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Um -- such a "perfect bicameral" legislature would be odd -- if the two parts are identical in "rights and powers" then there is no reason for the second body. In most places with bicameral legislatures, the second body is one for deliberation more than for initiating legislation. "Bicameral" just means "having two chambers" - that is all it means. A "perfect" one would be one that has precisely two chambers, no matter what any Wikipedia article in Italy states <g>. Collect (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As distinct from approximately two chambers, maybe? How does rounding work in the case of two and a half chambers? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Identical in rights and powers does not mean identical in all respects: the two chambers may be elected by different rules (e.g. by district vs at large), so a majority party in one house may not control the other. A veto power for each can prevent a fluke majority from going too wild. —Tamfang (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

When a person dies, are you supposed to notify the credit reporting agencies?

When a person dies, are you supposed to notify the credit reporting agencies? This is for the USA. Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:A597:AD3E:4899:DD6D (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Probate laws of each state can vary, but in general this is likely to be one of the tasks handled by the Executor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a good idea to do so, if you are the surviving spouse of the decedent or the personal representative of the estate, in order to minimize the risk of identity theft. See here (from Experian) and here (a guide from the Illinois law firm of Meyer Capel). Neutrality^talk 21:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. But, I am missing something here. In all honesty, who would really (practically) care if the deceased person had their identity stolen? 32.209.54.215 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If an identity thief gets control of a decedent's identity, it (1) the beneficiaries would care - because the thief might incur debts that the estate might have to pay (this is complicated and context-dependent), thus diminishing the amount that the beneficiaries of the estate can collect; (2) the personal representative (and the estate's attorney, if there is one) would care - because it can cause a big headache for the settlement of the estate's affairs; (3) the government would care - if the identity thief fraudulently collects benefits using the decedent's identity; (4) a pension fund would care - for the same reason; and (5) lenders and creditors would care - because identity theft is a cost to them.

See also Ghosting (identity theft). Neutrality^talk 01:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why all those people would "theoretically" care. But, it will be easy to ascertain with definitive proof that the person in question died (or did not die). Once the death is "proven", aren't all those "identity theft" issues resolved and returned to status quo? In other words, any "impact" on the estate is negated/neutralized; any pension payments would be stopped; any debts would be written off; etc. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure the debts would be written off? The money is still owed, and depending on exactly how a given state's laws work, I would expect it to be paid by the estate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: I don't understand your post/your question. Am I not correct to assume that a person is not liable for a debt that was obtained by fraud? If a person (through identity theft) ran up a huge credit card bill with the credit card of a deceased person, I cannot imagine that the deceased person (or his estate) is liable for a debt that is 100% proven to be fraudulent (i.e., there is no dispute that the decedent is, in fact, dead; and could not have possibly charged those debts on the credit card). I assumed that the credit card/bank writes that off, when the fraud is discovered. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: ... ? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A good reference:

Credit Bureaus

To head off identify theft, experts recommend reporting the death to major credit-reporting agencies. Once a “deceased alert” is placed in the file, any requests for credit will be recognized as fraudulent and rejected. The big three agencies are Equifax (www.equifax.com, 800-525-6285), Transunion (www.transunion.com, 800-680-7289), and Experian (www.experiancom,888-397-3742).

Randolph, Mary (2008). The Executor's Guide: Settling a Loved One's Estate or Trust (3rd. ed.). Berkeley, CA: Nolo. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-4133-0655-2.

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)