Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< February 22 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 24 >
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.

February 23[edit]

Ethnicity in Harvard[edit]

The ethnicity I've found about Harvard so far is pretty vague. It only has big category like Asian, White, Black, Hispanic/latino, Native American. But I want to know specific numbers of students of each nationality from around the world. Like how many Harvard students are Chinese, Indian, Iranian, Russian and so on... (Including those that were born in the US or come from that country). Is there any source that provide the information? If not then why Harvard doesn't publish such a vital information like that? Is there a reason to hide such a thing? (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Without answering the question directly, I note that your last question is a loaded question. It contains an as-yet-not-established assumption, and yet assumes that assumption to be true. What evidence do you have that Harvard University is deliberately covering up information? If you don't have any such evidence, then your last question is entirely unanswerable. --Jayron32 03:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Did I ever claim that Harvard University is deliberately covering up information. I'm saying if Harvard doesn't publish the information regarding specific ethnicity then what is the reason behind that? (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
There does not need to be a reason for not publishing information. You haven't told us your age or eye color. Why not? Is there a reason to hide such a thing? -- (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Irrelevant comparison. My age and eye color have nothing to do with this. A reason the information I was asking is needed because of something called Affirmative action in the United States. (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You said, and I quote " Is there a reason to hide such a thing?" We cannot answer that question because you have not yet established that Harvard is hiding anything. --Jayron32 05:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, why is this knowledge "vital"? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 04:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It's "vital" because there is a thing called Affirmative action in the United States. This information is handy to see what are the chances of someone that can get to Harvard. I know there are so many other factors that determine one will get to Harvard or not but ethnicity is clearly one of them. It is well known that if you're Chinese then it would harder for you to get in Harvard due to intense number of Chinese applicants = intense competition = harder. (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Harvard itself has these figures.[1] The international population is only 11 percent, so there could be any number of reasons they don't care to break it down further. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
No no, I'm not just talking about international students. What I mean is specific number of students in all the nationality and ethnicity including those that were born in the US or come from aboard. Most of Harvard students are American of course but many of them have ancestors come from many different countries. Example: number of Chinese that come from China or number of Chinese that were born in America or having Chinese ancestor are all considered as Chinese in Harvard, same thing apply to all the other ethnicity or nationality. I want to know that information not just international student. (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Aha, and this item,[2] also published by Harvard, has a breakdown by country, for years 2007-2011, on page 4. I found these items in Google by searching [harvard enrollment by race] or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Though it is a very complicated matter, but I do not think that such things as "Iranian, Indian, Pakistani, Nigerian, Congolese", etc. are ethnicities, and not nationalities. "Russian" can mean both nationality and ethnicity but outside of Russia it's usually the former.--Yęzýkin (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Your first sentence has me scratching my head, Lüboslóv. Can you perhaps rephrase it more clearly? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 10:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, for example, Pakistani is not an ethnicity, as in Pakistan there are many ethnic groups. Strictly speaking to call Pakistani an "ethnicity" is wrong. Pakistani is a nationality. It would be strange if Harvard collected the information about how many Sindhis, Baluchis or Punjabis there are in the university.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC) -- It sounds like Harvard is using the racial categories defined in recent U.S. censuses. -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Harvard even has this nationality information. To get admitted to Harvard, you need to send in 2 application forms: the Common Application, found here, and the Harvard Supplement, found here. Neither of them asks for nationality. The Common Application asks for race information in the categories the OP specified, but not nationality, and even the race section is optional. I'm in university right now, and I've never had to specify my nationality on any university documentation. -- (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right that I know for sure now Harvard doesn't have information like that because in the application, it doesn't even ask to specify your ethnicity but just a big vague category. (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It asks for citizenship. Citizenship is a legal manifestation of a nationality. The link above by Baseball Bugs gives the statistics of students' origin by country.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, except the OP said above that he didn't want citizenship information. -- (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I need to clear up something, let say I want to know how many Chinese or Indian in Harvard. The numbers I'm looking for including those Chinese or Indians that are from China, India or born in America such as Chinese American, Indian American. To me Chinese that come from China or Chinese that born in America are Chinese and should be counted as Chinese in Harvard. (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Have you tried contacting Harvard directly about this? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
No but I see no point in it now. There is no way Harvard could have gotten the information anyway due to the fact that the application doesn't even ask for the information. (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
If they don't collect the information themselves on U.S. citizens, by what magical process do you expect it to exist elsewhere? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Now... if I were conspiracy minded, I would ask... why does Harvard not collect such information? Are they deliberately not collecting it so that they will not have something to hide? If so, what exactly are they not hiding, and why are they not hiding it? What did the President of Harvard not know and when did he not know it? Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
That's got more 'not's in it than a cheap plank of pine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal status of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands[edit]

Was the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands technically US soil? I'm trying to determine whether the statement "the first thermonuclear device was detonated on US soil" is technically correct or not. The islands were obviously administered by the US, but I'm trying to figure out its exact legal status.

I read through United Nations trust territories but couldn't find the answer.Dncsky (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless the phrase "US soil" or a closely similar phrase is defined somewhere in legislation, then "technically correct" is a phrase without meaning. --ColinFine (talk)
By "US soil", I would assume the OP means "owned by the US", which I believe has a precise meaning. The article United Nations trust territories says All of the trust territories were administered through the UN Trusteeship Council, and that they were destined for independence, implying that they were owned by no one except possibly themselves but were administered by, in this case, the US on behalf of the UN. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands speaks of US administration of the territory, not ownership. And Territories of the United States lists the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands not under the various categories of "territories" but rather under the category "Areas formerly administered by the United States".
So I think it's impossible to justify calling the Trust Territory of the Pacific Island "US soil". Duoduoduo (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Clothing made in Palau is legally allowed to have labels saying "Made in the USA", even though factories there don't have to meet US labor laws. This has been a matter of some contention for a while now. RNealK (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the excellent answer, Duoduoduo. Much obliged. Dncsky (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

USPS clothing line[edit]

I saw some news reports. They were about the United States Postal Service launching their own line of apparel. Who's going to manufacture the clothes? Will they be made here in the United States of America? When will the items come out? (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The clothes will be made by The Wahconah Group. For details, see this. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


Our article Maharam says that it "is an acronym of the words ...מורנו הרב רבי מ (Morenu Ha-Rav rabi M..., Our teacher the Rabbi M...)." While מ is a frequent initial for names, it obviously isn't the only one. Are there other such acronyms ending in other letters for names that don't begin with "M"? — Sebastian 09:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Two such are "Maharal" for Judah Loew ben Bezalel and "Maharash" for either Meir Wahl or Shmuel Schneersohn. Deor (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
There is also "Ramban" for Nachmanides. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the question completely, but there is Rambam, Shach, Rashi, Radak, etc. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 12:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for your answers; they put my question nicely into context. Deor's reply was what I had been looking for. I'm wondering if we should add something like that to the Maharam article. I would have done so, but Evanh's uncertainty makes me doubt whether that would really improve the article. I'll suggest it at Talk:Maharam. — Sebastian 20:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC) - On second thought, a better place to discuss this is Talk:Hebrew name. — Sebastian 20:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Maharishi... Gzuckier (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The final "m" in Maharam, refers not to a name initial, but to the Hebrew prefix "m" which means "from", which is used as a disambiguator. Only small numbers of the most famous rabbis from history have unique acronyms, like Rashi. --Dweller (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The final 'm' in "Maharam" never stands for the Hebrew prefix mi-/me-; to so would be to create much ambiguity. It would be analogous to abbreviating "the Queen of England" to "th. Q. o.". All the various Maharam's I can think of had names starting in M: Maharam (me-)Rothenburg = Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg; Maraham (mi-)Lublin = Rabbi Meir of Lublin; Maharam Schik = Rabbi Moshe Schik; and so on. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. You could be right, in which case I apologise for misleading through my ignorance, but what about Yehuda Meir Shapiro? --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The latter was usually referred to—in speech and in writing—as "Meir Shapiro" only, and not by his full name. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 18:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, that explains that then. Thanks for educating me. Apologies to anyone I might have misled. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Does Vatican have an intelligence agency[edit]

According to List_of_intelligence_agencies#Vatican, Secretary for Relations with States is Vatican's intelligence agency. But after going through the article, it does not seem to be an intelligence agency analogous to CIA or FSB. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

According to our Vatican City article, "The military defence of the Vatican City is provided by Italy and its armed forces". I would imagine then that they rely on the Italians for external intelligence, but haven't found a reference that explicitly states that yet. Alansplodge (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
As a search will show, this is an area full of conspiracy theories like suggestions the Vatican run some sort of super secretive intelligence service that is the best in the world. Some of the less extreme discussions I came across as [3] and [4]. (I'd note the later mentions as extant, Sodalicium Pianium which I assume is a typo of Sodalitium Pianum which our article suggests hasn't existed for a long time.) Even this CBC Canada obituary of Pope John Paul II [5] says 'It is said that such connections give a pope unofficially one of the best intelligence services anywhere. And the Vatican's timeless diplomatic corps is widely viewed as one of the world's best.' On the other hand, this book [6] [7] which analyses the situation from Pius VII to Pius XII, mentioned by the CIA here [8] suggests even then Vatican intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be. One thing that is believable from the earlier links is that the Vatican (as with most governments) likely cooperates to some extent with anyone willing to provide useful information who they have some degree of alignment with which likely includes not just the Italians but the US, UK etc Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --PlanetEditor (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism in Canada[edit]

There has been a fresh report of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service warning of possible attacks within the country. What could be the possible targets?. I mean, the Twin Towers were a highly notable target. But in Canada? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there are Wikipedians who work for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, so it will be impossible for us to answer your question. --PlanetEditor (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Terrorist attacks do not necessarily have to be on highly visible locations—I would even suggest that the use of symbolic targets (such as in the 9/11 attacks) is quite rare. Any attack would likely occur in a highly visible location, such as the downtown area of a major city. The phrase "terrorist attack" is quite broad in scope—violent attacks on public transport or large, highly-visible buildings would be most probable, though something less targeted (a car bombing, for example) could also be likely. (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Most terrorist attacks hit civilian targets, and can be anywhere. Just like the 7 July 2005 London bombings, which was on three trains and a bus. Some terrorists target women shopping in the market, others target children in schools. Most high-level targets, such as Parliament, and so on, are heavily guarded, and thus will not present a target, so they go for the most vulnerable. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The 2005 London attacks were aimed at major transport hubs, the suspected reason for a bus being targeted was that the Underground had already shut-down when the last bombers arrived. In previous decades, the Provisional Irish Republican Army had targeted economic targets such as the Baltic Exchange and a shopping centre in Warrington crowded with children. So you're right that could be almost anywhere, but there's usually a twisted logic behind it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The bombing of the shopping centre in Warrington had an apology issued afterwords, as we in Liverpool and the North West in general are ethnically Irish. It was unfortunate that the apology was not for killing children, although it was expressed that way. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
For a start 2006 Ontario terrorism plot may be of interest. Targets contemplated include the Canadian Broadcasting Centre, the Canadian Parliament building, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) headquarters itself, the parliamentary Peace Tower, and power grids. Of course, this doesn't mean they would have succeeded in penetrating any or all of these targets, some of which (such as parliament) are supposedly well-guarded. (I say supposedly, as incidents such as this suggest reality may sometimes be otherwise). They also contemplated assassinating Ministers, including the Prime Minister. I assume any future terrorists may consider a similar target set. Hope this helps. (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Washington (and others) in the Confederacy[edit]

In what sort of regard were the Founding Fathers of the United States (and even later presidents) held in the Confederacy? Washington is featured prominently on the Great Seal of the Confederate States of America, but how many others were revered as "national heroes", or even claimed as predecessors to those involved in the CSA? Would this have been just limited to figures from the South, or based along more political lines? (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Had the South won, there would be a whole revisionist literature on the subject. We can assume John Adams and John Quincy Adams would have been unpopular as anti-slavery Northerners. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton would have been unpopular for defending the Federal Constitution over the Articles of Confederation. μηδείς (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't find anything in Confederate States of America about it (though I might have missed it). But my memory is that the Founding Fathers in general were held in high regard, and the secessionists believed that they were going back to the values of the Founding Fathers, who had been betrayed by the mid-1800s US. As for the US Constitution versus the Articles of Confederation, my memory is that the secessionists revered the Constitution just as they revered the Founding Fathers. For example, Confederate States of America#Constitution says Much of the Confederate States Constitution replicated the United States Constitution verbatim, but.... Duoduoduo (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson's reputation in the South had declined because of his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the phrase "all men are created equal", an idea against which Southern leaders had long been waging rhetorical war. In his Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens explained that Jefferson and like-minded founders were "fundamentally wrong" for thinking that slavery was a "violation of the laws of nature". The founders were still admired, however, and Stephens later clarified that he had not meant to question their patriotism, ability, or wisdom. The Confederates admired former presidents Washington and Jackson enough to put them on their money, both ironic choices; Jackson in particular would have likely hanged every Confederate leader he could have gotten his hands on. —Kevin Myers 06:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Postage stamps and postal history of the Confederate States may be helpful, as is this page. Confederate stamps largely featured Jefferson Davis, and they had one issue with John C. Calhoun, but they also featured Jackson, Jefferson, and Washington. For a while, one US stamp (nicknamed the "Black Jack") and one CSA stamp featured the same portrait of Jackson! Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Wilson Jermaine Heredia considered black?[edit]

Is Wilson Jermaine Heredia considered black? Venustar84 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Define "black". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Nobody needs to define "black", because the question was only whether he is considered black. The best I've found so far is an interview in which he says: "See, my dad is a black Dominican and my mom is a white Dominican, so the 70s were very rough for them here." [9], which tells you that his father is considered black and his mother is not. Someone who is more au fait with American concepts of race will probably be better able than I to find references on whether he himself is considered black in general. The simplest reference would, I assume, be a quote from him in which he described himself with a racial term, or him being featured in an article or award centred around race. (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The only definition that matters is what he considers himself. Race is a self-identified issue in the U.S. The official census stance on this is that a person is whatever race they pick on the census form, and there is no other official test or proof. What anyone else "considers" him is irrelevant. --Jayron32 22:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Having done a bit of searching, I couldn't find any instances in which Heredia was labeled "black". I found instances where he was labeled "Hispanic", "Latino", and "mixed race", but not "black". That isn't to say that no one has ever called him black, but he does not seem to be widely considered black. Marco polo (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Just looking at his pictures on Google Images, my first thought was medium-toned Hispanic rather than any strong African heritage. But as you suggest, it can be hard to tell sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Venustar84 -- traditionally in the United States there was the One-drop rule, but that's semi-irrelevant nowadays, and there's not any real "official" definition as such... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Es muy dominicano, pero no muy negro. No entiendo que le importa. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
There ya go. P.S. He's taken this question to the Entertainment Desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Passport control[edit]

Does one need a passport to travel between Russia and Ukraine? Does it depend on your nationality? Do Russians need a passport? Would Americans? RNealK (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It may depend on nationality, but I suspect it is mandatory for all nationalities. Russians require a passport, but no visa, to travel to Ukraine. Americans require a passport, and also a visa if staying for over 90 days. See this site. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The question arises because of the movie A Good Day to Die Hard, where the two American characters drive from Moscow to Chernobyl where no mention is made of their stopping at the border. Of course, their grasp on geography is rather tentative, since they seem to think Grenoble is in Switzerland. RNealK (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
You are aware that is a fictional story, with the definition of fiction being "making stuff up", right? --Jayron32 02:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
He's probably also aware that, even in fiction, there are usually at least some elements of reality that are preserved. Human beings are often interested in determining which elements of a fictional work are 'real', and which are modified (or invented from whole cloth). Sometimes this curiosity arises in the context of artistic criticism, sometimes because it can be fun to geek out, and sometimes because one might be planning a vacation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but there is no means of reliably determining which elements are made up and which elements are based in truth. I mean, some stuff is truthful in movies like this (Gravity works mostly; people aren't floating off into space). However, the main goal of the story tellers is to present entertainment, and all is in service to that. Other elements in the story may be truthful or not to any degree necessary to serve the story. Things such as the laws of physics, international laws regarding border controls, etc. etc. will be truthful or made up as needed to serve the main plot. If the plot requires that there is no passport control between Ukraine and Russia, there will be none, often without comment or explanation, because the people who wrote the movie wanted the characters to go from Moscow to Chernobyl, and it didn't fit their needs to represent the actual situation accurately. --Jayron32 15:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Most third-country nationals definitely need a passport (US citizens, certainly do) to cross the border, whether by air or overland, In many cases they need a visa from one or both of Russian and Ukraine. As to the nationals of Russia and Ukraine themselves, a treaty was signed in 1997 ( ) which allows travel with just national ID documents; it is still in force. On the other hand,, at least overland. Now Timatic says that even Russians and Ukrainians need passports to fly between the two countries, but perhaps their database does not include all the rules. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

We have a list of passport-free borders, including the CIS. However, you need to show your ID card at the border. CS Miller (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It's quite possible such a scene was written and/or filmed, but got cut from the final print. Happens quite often with scenes that fill in gaps, but aren't central to the story. We'll have to wait for the DVD to come out with extra scenes or commentary to be sure. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Immanuel Kant and German idealism[edit]

  1. I am not primarily interested in Kant's morals and ethics. What I cannot grasp is what his thoughts about reality were. What does he mean by "transcendental"? Why did this spark so much reaction? From what I've read, it sounds like he was talking about some strange notion of another plane or something. Did he think contradictions could be true?
  2. What does the idealism in German idealism have in common with Berkeley's immaterialism?
  3. What the heck is Hegel talking about when it comes to God, history, and ideas? Did he think everything in existence was some giant idea or was he making analogies? Was this concept of the Absolute that he had come up with something like Brahman? Did he think contradictions could be true? What does he have to do with Marx?

Melab±1 23:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ding-an-sich, Antinomy, Transcendental idealism, Subjective idealism, and dialectic might be useful starting points. Tevildo (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hehe. On every fundamental issue, Kant’s philosophy is the exact opposite of Objectivism. -brief summary, Ayn Rand. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is this relevant? — Melab±1 04:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, I was not aware Ayn Rand was opposed to Kantianism. --PlanetEditor (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Not just opposed, she described Kant as literally evil. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Those last three articles are not helpful. — Melab±1 04:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
1.a. Transcendental broadly describes those methods and things which deal with conditions for thought, as described in Kant's first critique. Here's a normal way of describing Kant's metaphysical philosophy in an historical setting: Kant accepts Hume's/Teten's empiricism (which analyzes knowledge down to matters of fact and relations between ideas), and thus is also skeptical of Leibnizian-Wolffian metaphysics (which seems to extend beyond any grounding in mere matters of fact or relations between ideas). However, he also believes that such empiricism can allow synthetic a priori truths beyond what Hume or Tetens recognized, more in line with what Leibniz/Wolff recognized. This is the transcendental turn, which Kant calls his "Copernican Revolution" in metaphysics. This turn is showing that empirical thought, which is well-grounded in the content of experience, has conditions of its possibility, and these conditions give a grounding to synthetic a priori thought. These conditions of possibility, Kant theorizes, are part of what it is to be human: Human thought is constrained into experiencing the world in certain forms. These constraints thus determine human thought prior to any experience. One example: human experience is guaranteed to have effects related to causes; Hume could not find causation in anything but constant conjunction of sense data; Kant thinks there is a robust necessity between cause and effect in experience. The necessity of causes for effects is one of the things Kant thinks transcendental philosophy helps establish. These matters are well described in various ways in Graham Bird's The Revolutionary Kant and Henry Allison's Kant's Transcendental Idealism, 2nd Edition.
b. Kant sparked a lot of reaction because his arguments are very compelling, while the arguments from the Leibnizian-Wolffians, which was the dominant philosophy at the time, were also very compelling, while the two metaphysical systems are very different and contradictory. Also, Kant seems to be the first to have theorised that the objective world is partly determined by subjective human nature. You might think that Kant also sparked much reaction from going beyond Hume, but really Hume wasn't popular at the time. Hume became popular again with Russell and the logical positivists/empiricists. Lorne Falkenstein is a current professor who wrote a famous book on Kant, Kant's Intuitionism. He later abandoned studying Kant because he felt Kant, in the end, just fails to make sense, and now champions Hume's skeptical empiricism as the superior philosophy.
c. Not another plane, no.
d. He did not think that two contradictory propositions could both be true, no. That is dialethism.
2. They both limit human experience to ideas. One difference is that Kant also thinks that there are things in themselves, albeit of unknown quality and quantity; Berkeley thinks there are only ideas.
3. I don't know Hegel. I believe he did indeed think that everything in experience is an idea. I know some who treat Hegel as the same as any other philosopher. I have also heard this about Hegel (paraphrasing): "Hegel is a perfect example of the common notion of a sophist." What the person meant was that Hegel just makes a nice sounding myth and intentionally weaves fallacious arguments together without sincerity.--Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 09:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)