Humanities desk
< February 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 2 >

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.

March 1[edit]

German artist[edit]

My parents gave me apainting that they bought back in Germany in the 1948-1949 time frame.I can't make out the artist name completly. It looks like Paul is the first name and the last name looks like Sarvino, Savri, Sani, or somethng like this.

Thak you for your help. Mike

This is a difficult one, Mike. The date your parents bought the picture is not really a great deal of help, unless they can be sure that it was actually painted at that time. The name itself does not look very German; and a search under the various combinations you have given has turned up nothing (looking under Paul Sarvino is particularly problematic, for obvious reasons). Perhaps it might help if you described the subject matter? But, in the end, it might be best if you showed it directly to an art dealer. I regret not being able to be of greater assistance. Clio the Muse 02:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Savrino sounds Italian. Tried searching? And Clio, not everything bought in Germany is German.martianlostinspace 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I was taking my cue from the heading. Clio the Muse 17:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic handshake[edit]

It has been alleged that this picture corresponds to a masonic handshake. Is it true ? What implications would it have ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.230.58 (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That Pope Paul was a freemason against all the teachings of the Catholic Church. It's laughably absurd. Clio the Muse 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there some kind of catholic church / illuminati theory out there somewhere? Amirman 09:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does it differ from any other handshake? Maybe you are seeing something I am not. --24.249.108.133 02:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the more compelling question is why is the Patriarch of Constantinople wearing a necklace with one of these on it? --TotoBaggins 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Inline display of Image:Gdead3.jpg removed. Fair use images are for article space only, sorry. Sandstein 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Ha! Ha! Clio the Muse 02:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously, what is that around his neck? GreatManTheory 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sure looks like a teddy bear to me, or perhaps a puppy, wearing a rather regal looking robe. StuRat 18:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am going to have a brainstorm over that blasted teddy! I've tried magnifying it, but it only makes it blurry. The only thing that I can think of is that, as the Patriarch is Greek Orthodox, it may be some kind of icon or holy medal, surmounted by a crown. It's the best I can come up with. Clio the Muse 23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're right: here is a better version of the above picture, and here you can see what it really is: a cameo with either a crown (headgear) or maybe a ribbon on top. --TotoBaggins 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Toto, I will always be your friend! Clio the Muse 06:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look like a Freemasons handshake as shown to me by the head of the Australian order, but then I was never a member. I know this person was the head of his order, and put a website up about him, but it was taken down as not being notable :D DDB 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC) It does look like a grip I've seen others use, particularly elderly with Arthritis issues. DDB 05:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Paul VI is at it again here. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like one or both of the gentlemen had arthritis and they were being very careful not to hurt each other. Corvus cornix 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if these guys use the "secret" handshake for all of their photo ops, do they have some super-duper secret handshake for when they're sacrificing virgins or whatever it is this handshake is supposed to suggest they like to do? --TotoBaggins 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Handshakes are far from homogenous. People from different cultures will perform them in many different ways. 148.88.0.12 11:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet paper usage around the world...[edit]

Odd topic, I'm sure. I'll try not to be too graphic, but a few years ago I saw an Italian political advert that featured a puppet wiping his bottom in a back and forth manner with the same piece of toilet paper for several seconds (which I was horrified at!). In contrast, I take 4-5 sheets, fold them over into thirds. I reach behind me and make one quick swipe from front to back and then let fall into the toilet. Repeat until toilet paper wipes clean. Are there any resources or studies on how toilet paper is used in different countries? --24.249.108.133 02:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But thank you for sharing...--Wetman 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's a cultural issue, really. I don't think people are generally taught on how to use toilet paper, so they just come up with their own way that works... (Oh, well...) 惑乱分からん 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a study on a small American population that found most women wad tolet paper into a little puff-ball looking thing before wiping. Most men fold it into a flat pad before wiping. I mainly remember that the study was too small and too limited to be extrapolated to the worldwide culture. Also, keep in mind that toilet paper itself is a cultural thing. In some cultures the concept of wiping fecal matter around on your rear with paper is disgusting. --Kainaw ^(talk) 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In India they use a bucket next to the toilet and splash the water onto their asscracks until they feel it is sufficiently clean. Everyone uses the same bucket. Toko loko 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I once read in a sci fi novel that there was a novel way of doing so with three shells, hands never having to contact the matter. Parents instruct their young. I had a friend who had a small plastic bowl that was shaped like a toilet to train his toddler/young. Before there was toilet paper, there used to be rope. Old rope was moistened and used to push out the matter. It was easy to clean too, through bashing. The bidet is an upmarket device. Defecation has some alternatives listed. DDB 05:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are thinking of the movie, Demolition Man. --24.249.108.133 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also heard a very similar thing (shells used in some mysterious way to clean behind in toilet, protagonist doesn't know how) in a Diana Wynne Jones book, A Tale of Time City. Skittle 22:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about India needs clarification. And this is true not just of India but of other countries bordering the Indian Ocean. There is indeed a bucket next to the toilet. There is also a faucet in the same room as the toilet to refill the bucket and rinse ones hands. In my experience, there is always a dipper in the bucket, so that people are not actually putting their hands in the bucket. Finally, there is a hole in the floor, into which one defecates, and into which one pours the water used to clean up afterwards. The used water does not return to the bucket. Usually, there is some soap for cleaning ones hands afterwards. Finally, one is supposed to use only one's left hand for toilet purposes. One is expected to use only one's right hand for eating, for shaking hands, or for handing items to others. I am Western and was raised with Western toilets, but in my experience the Indian toilet regime is at least as hygienic as the Western regime. Marco polo 13:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really true about Middle Eastern cultures only using their bare left hand (and no utensils or paper)? --24.249.108.133 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that in ancient Rome there was a bucket of water with a sponge for cleanup purposes. In early 20th century America a Sear Roebuck catalog was kept in the outhouse. Its tissue worked admirably. Thicker paper could be folded and refolded to make it soft and fluffy, For the truly hardy there were corncobs (maize cobs). For hikers there were green leaves (beware of poison ivy). Parents of infants find wetwipes to be handy for final tidying. Bidets are popular in some places, and against plumbing codes in other places.Edison 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the ancient Roman sanitary sponge on a stick: it gives a possibly extremely insulting meaning to the action described in Matthew 27:48 ("one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink"). I'm not sure how accepted an interpretation this is; a quick Google search netted me only the supporting opinion of this blogger. Wareh 16:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember taking an internet survey a few years ago about exactly this, I don't know if the results were collated or published, but it's worth searching around for. (I'll have a look when I get home) Capubadger 13:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 9/11 incident[edit]

Is there any fact in the news I heard that the destruction of W.T.O. twin towers is not an attack but it was a 'controlled demolition' because it did not affected its surrounding towers while its fall and it just collapsed in its limits. If its really an attack it won't be so systematic. Temuzion 05:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends who you ask, I suppose. You may be interested in the Wikipedia article on the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. There may also be some useful information here. Carom 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, when you look at peer-reviewed papers discussing the possibility of controlled demolition (there aren't any) and ask actual scientists, they will unanimously conclude it not a controlled demolition. When you ask college students who make videos on YouTube, however, you may get different answers. Toko loko 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in, while there are many things about the administration's handling of the 9/11 attacks and their investigation that might give one pause, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there just isn't any for anything too far removed from the account in the 9/11 Commission Report. --TotoBaggins 13:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement that surrounding buildings weren't affected is just plain wrong. World Trade Center Building 7 suffered so much damage that it collapsed within hours. If you were expecting the buildings to fall over on their sides, they are designed not to do that (except during a nuclear strike, perhaps), as building codes would then require them to be far enough away so one building wouldn't knock down the next and cause a domino effect. StuRat 18:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway Green House Effect[edit]

I'm thinking about doing a role playing game set in the future. I want to ask for advice in designing the societal system.

What would be the effect on Human Society if the scientists of the world agrees that the world has already entered into a runaway green house effect with possible collapse of complex human society in about 300 years?

I'm interested in societal effects.

Thank you. 220.237.184.253 06:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the scientific community is almost unanimous that a runaway greenhouse is not currently being experienced, seing as every planet and moon in the solar system that is being measured has increasing temperature .. suggesting a solar reason. Further, '98 was peak heat, according to published measures .. but sci fi is beautiful, allowing suppositions ;)

Societally, the poor will be screwed, and then killed, but there will always be poor. Subject to famine and drought with no ability to defend themselves. I'd expect the poor to fight each other for limited resources. If greenhouse gases increase, relative oxygen decreases. Expect patches of oxygen free zones. Presumably there is a collapse of fisheries (toxic oceans?).

Poor professionals, willing to do anything to survive, will be given carrots to behave in a desirable way. Expect the collapse of government with corporations filling an administrative gap, but with less responsibility. The globe will be sectioned according to relative wealth, with China and India being best positioned to maintain safe areas for wealthy, and US and Europe to be seedy contact zones with the poor. Antarctica will be protectionist, and a little xenophobic.

Expect cyberpunk style devices, including fast arms or legs with direct neural interface technology. Expect a souped up internet with neural links and avatars. Security hit teams will require 'ghosts' on the internet to aid their work.

There will be a space elevator and terraforming projects on Venus, Mars, Titan and Pluto. William Gibson's Neuromancer is one of many excellent reference works. DDB 10:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect the Greenhouse Effect to hit a stopping point when the Earth is hot enough that the heat and other radiation from the Earth equals the radiation coming in. By that point, however, many low level countries, like Bangladesh, will be underwater, many marginal areas will have become deserts, etc. However, there will be some winners, like Canada, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark (which owns Greenland). As well as gaining usable farmland, and warm-water ports, some countries may gain in other ways, like Canada being able to use the Northwest Passage year round. Antarctica will suddenly become valuable land, and you could expect wars over the conflicting claims for that continent. StuRat 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that there will be any sort of wide-spread collapse of civilisation. At least, not in the Developed World. The Developing World however, will take quite a beating. Several nations will be made totally uninhabitable (the Pacific Islands, Bangladesh, and several nations in West Africa), but some sort of UN-sponsored mass migration program will probably be worked out by then. And, when such an effect does occur, it will not be permenant. A warmer Earth is actually more accomodating for vegetation, Arctic Forests (which are even today more oxygenating than the tropical rainforests) will become huge oxygen factories and will soon harmonise the Earth's climate. 148.88.0.12 11:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Nightingale versus Mary Jane-Secole?[edit]

What impact did these nurses have on the crimiran war, and why were they rivals?--Lerdthenerd 09:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole in their own unique way made a great impact on nursing and medical care during the course of the Crimean War. But of the two I have always preferred Seacole to the rather aristocratic and remote Nightingale. There was something both incredibly courageous and tenacious about Seacole's whole approach. Lacking the official backing that Nightingale received, and facing racial and social prejudice, she neverthless left for the Crimean war zone itself at her own expense, whereas Nightingale and her hospital were based at Scutari in Turkey, on the southern shore of the Black Sea. I'm not really sure if 'rivals' is really the right term to use in describing the relations between the two women. Nightingale was a woman of her time, with all of the high Victorian social prejudices; but her disapproval of Seacole was more to do with clear differences in their methods and styles of nursing. In general, Seacole was much more 'hands on', and was prepared to allow the inmates of her refuge-known as the British Hotel-some comforts that Nightingale would never have contemplated. Nightingale was later to suggest that Seacole's establishment was little better than a brothel. But Seacole earned the right to be considered as one of the great figures in British nursing, and William Howard Russell, the war correspondent, wrote of her She was always in attendance near the battle-field to aid the wounded and has earned many a poor fellow's blessing. In view of this it is sad to note that while Nightingale's reputation grew after the war, Seacole was almost completely forgotten after her death in 1881. It's only fairly recently that she has been rescued from obscurity, and she rightly deserves to be remembered as one of the great black women of British history. Her autobiography, Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole in Many Lands, is well worth reading. Clio the Muse 10:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this prompt images of a "Celebrity Death Match?" in the boxing ring done via clay-mation? Edison 06:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Lisa[edit]

Why is recreation of a Mona Lisa impossible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.248.2.51 (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, I really do not understand your question. It's obviously not impossible, because it has been reproduced and copied many times. The one thing that cannot be reproduced is Leonardo da Vinci, the creator of the original masterpiece. Clio the Muse 10:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be argued that the Monoa Lisa-like popularity of a single painting cannot be duplicated in modern times. However, there is a counter-argument as there are many works of art in modern times that are nearly as popular as the Mona Lisa. Even Worhol's paintings (or were those just silkscreens) are popular - as in well known, not well liked. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the questioner is talking about a photographic reproduction, this is obviously possible as most people only know what it looks like from photos of it. If he/she is talking about a painter painting a painting (!) that is indistinguishable from the original Mona Lisa, this is probably as impossible as making an indistinguishable copy of any other painting. What the human eye can't detect, modern technology can. JackofOz 23:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are too many damn tourists crowded around it to get a decent look? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question pertains to Da Vinci's invention, and extensive use of sfumato, also known as "smoky haze". In short, the level of detail that Da Vinci "subtly adjusted the light and blurred the precise planes...(and) softens the outlines in (the) painting" by gradually blending the tones in such a way the pigments are indistinguishable. (Gardner's Art Through the Ages, Vol. II) With regards to the Mona Lisa, Da Vinci used sfumato extensively in the soft facial shadows, especially around the eyes and mouth that in part creating the piece’s mysteriousness, and why it appears the subject does and does not smile. Specifically, it has to do with the dark paints being transparent, and the lighter paints being opaque. This is why the Mona Lisa is considered a magna opus: the blending of shadows was perfected, and has (at least to my knowledge) no other art peice can rival to it for it's realism. On a final note, I believe there was a British artist who recently claimed to have mastered the art of Sfumato with the use of extreamly thin paintbrushes, and very powerful lens that allowed him to focus on small sections of a peice. I cannot however find a citation on him. Cheers. Zidel333 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

want source of quotation[edit]

I am trying to find the source of the quotation: "Onward, through the fog". I have heard of it being attributed to some 1960's underground comic characters, and also from a famous US Navy Admiral from the 18th century perhaps? 69.95.49.127 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1800s are the nineteenth century. The quotation provided a title for Gregg M. Hartenstine, Onward Through The Fog and an album for The Jimmy Swift Band. --Wetman 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "Oat Willie" motto in Austin, TX. AnonMoos 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

christians[edit]

What is the difference between a christian and a liberated christian? please send answers to <removed email address>. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.223.177 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please forgive me for saying so, but your question is simply too broad in scope, with no clearly defined parameters. Christians form a highly diverse group of people, not at all homogeneous. Are you referring, perhaps, to the difference between the teachings of the mainstream church and Liberation theology? Or do you have something of a more general nature in mind? It would be a help if you could make your question a little more precise. Clio the Muse 18:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that a quick google search of the term primarily calls up references to an organization which does seem to refer to themselves as Liberated Christians...and which claims (rather insistently) that "there are no other Liberated Christian groups anywhere". The differences between this group and the mainstream teachings of modern Christianity are primarily (almost exclusively, in fact) in their opposing attitudes towards polyamorous, sybian, sexually open sex and sexual practice. I thus offer the site per link above, and suggest that -- especially since this is what the term seems to mean popularly, by the usually kluidgy "google standard" -- if this is NOT what the original querent meant, clarification as per CtM's response above would help us provide a clearer answer. Jfarber 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this helps at all, but in a perfect worldwide Christian church, there shouldn't be any differences in doctrine. In other words, the church should be unified (clearly that isn't the case - eg. christian denominations). At any rate, disagreement from the mainstream on Jfarber's topics is notable - putting them well outside mainstream.martianlostinspace 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese, reproduction painting[edit]

In 1911, Gifford Pinchot delivered a lecture in Albany, NY, at the request of FDR. FDR said, in 1930, "[Pinchot] threw on the screen, first, the reproduction of a painting made in meticulous detail about the year 1400 by a Chinese artist. The scene was a beautiful valley in China, peopled with a city of a half million... Down the mountain at one side had been slashed a strip in which was a wooden trough, or flume, such as is used for sliding logs down a declivity. This was evidence that lumbering operations had been started." FDR continued, "Then, Mr. Pinchot flashed on the screen a photograph of the same valley made in 1900 from the identical spot... The whole valley floor was covered with a wilderness of rocks and boulders that had been swept down with floods. A poverty-stricken village of 5000 remained within the still-standing walls of the once prosperous city of a half million."

Do these pictures still exist? Where might they be? I have searched the internet for days, and I'm afraid that they are lost (or made up by FDR for a good story). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.160.178.121 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

FDR's account of Pinchot's presentation is true enough, though according to Ted Morgan's biography, FDR, it was given before the New York legislature in February 1912, not 1911 (p.128 in the 1986 Grafton Books edition). Roosevelt's aim in setting up Pinchot's presentation was to convince his fellow legislators of the need for some urgent measure for the conservation of rapidly vanishing forests. He was convinced that Pinchot's pictures did much to secure the passage of the Roosevelt-Jones Conservation Bill in April of that same year. On your more immediate question I have no idea if these pictures still exist, though it would be sad if they did not. You might try contacting the Pinchot Institute for Conservation [1]. Good luck, and please let me know if you track them down. Clio the Muse 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahler's Third (Movement VI: Love) audio[edit]

Where can I find an audio file of the finale to Mahler's Third Symphony? A midi or an MP3 is recommended.

i dont know who has signed this question so i cant help you.--Lerdthenerd 11:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hackers[edit]

why do think that most hackers are young men?

because 'hacking' has only recently become 'popular' --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 01:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking as I understand it has been around for long enough that, IF those who started hacking when the phenom was young were still doing it, a whole bunch of them would be...um...pre-middle-aged men, like myself. However, statistically, that seems not the case -- so with no evidence, I'm going to posit that hacking, like many other anti-establishment behaviors, is something that many folks grow out of as they grow to accept their role in society as positive and proactive, and as the daily ritual of maintenance, family, and work take up much of the time they might once have had to devote to hacking in the first place.

As for the gender issue...I think there may be a more nuanced answer than merely one of "interest", as Clarityfiend proposes below, and would note that technical and constructive (rather than collaborative) fields in most western culture, at least, have been dominated by men for a heck of a long time, and there is much social science to suggest that both nurture (western culture) and nature (including perhaps some of the innate differences between male and female approaches to problems) have an impact on this, though opinions differ as to how much of each one is at the root cause. As the web becomes more about collaboration, "community hacking" (as opposed to traditional, code-and-guts-based hacking) may present less geneder bias, though I'd bet we won't see the full effects of such change for several generations. Jfarber 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are most geeks men? Because males are more interested in technology. Clarityfiend 02:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]