Humanities desk
< May 5	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 7 >

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.

May 6[edit]

Historians[edit]

In the question above on slave-owning presidents, it was taken for granted that historians make moral judgements and express them in their work. This came as a shock to me. Why are historians allowed to make any moral judgements whatsoever? They obviously have their own opinions about historical events, but I thought the goal of historiography was to be objective and factual instead of judgmental? It's hard to be unbiased about history, but I thought that publicly expressing your personal bias in a paper would instantly discredit the paper, just as expressing personal biases in a Wikipedia article would discredit the article. --140.180.5.49 (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an Australian I can only point you at the History wars article which documents the amazingly different views expressed by historians on the impact of British colonisation on Australian Aboriginal people. There are massively diverse views. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they managed to hide their bias, there still would be way more historians doing work on the most famous Presidents than the obscure ones, revealing their bias (although this concerns which ones they think were most influential, not which were good or bad). StuRat (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily a question of whether they should (or are "allowed to") make subjective judgements, but an acknowledgement that they do. Even just collecting documents on a subject and publishing them unedited and unanalysed would not be "objective and factual", since the selection of documents, and even what you choose to collect documents about, involves subjective value judgements. As for wikipedia, we also acknowledge here that objective factuality can be impossible to achieve, which is why articles on contentious subjects need to be well-referenced and cover all major points of view. FiggyBee (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend In Defence of History by Richard J Evans. He goes over a lot of this kind of question. I seem to recall that he argues that historians should not pretend to be unbiased, but should guard against seeing only what they want to see. He also argues that a good historian will express moral judgement not by saying (in the style of 1066 and All That) "He was a Good King but a Bad Man", but rather through the use of irony, sarcasm, allusion and implication. He's a specialist in early-mid 20th century Germany, so he has plenty of opportunity himself to practice this approach. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the social sciences, historians make judgements about the meaning of history within theoretical structures of society. This is judgemental to the extent that many of those theories have implicit or explicit political outcomes. Institutionalist historians often defend the apparatus of liberal democracy, by writing about the failures of liberal democracy to protect itself. Marxist historians often write histories that are designed to arm the working class for its conquest of power. Within the humanities, historians make judgements based on their recounting of stories that, like any other story-telling, includes character and genre conventions. You may be unable to personally identify this aspect of academic histories, possibly due to unfamiliarity with the genre, possibly because you only read one history on a period or person. By reading multiple histories in comparison, you'll soon start to observe that historians are highly judgemental. Usually not individually moralising though. As far as trying to stop this, it is as difficult to stop historians making judgements as it is to stop chemists making measurements—futile and counterproductive. (Historians, incidentally, police each other's judgements quite vigorously, and attack each other over unsubstantiable judgements.) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As others here have indicated, there is no such thing as a "lack of bias". It is inherent in the act of being human. It is incumbent upon learned people to recognize that bias is universal, and to expect it in all situations, and to know how to read any situation expecting it. As soon as you assume that it is possible for humans to avoid bias, you start to assume that people who share your bias are the only unbiased people in the world, and your own personal worldview becomes self-reinforcing. It is better to know that all people have biases, and therefore if you are trying to develop a complete picture of anything, it is best to get your information from multiple sources. To take Fifelfoo's excellent science analogy a bit further, every measurement has an inherent level of noise, that is there is always both uncertainty and random error in every measurement, and the only way to counteract this is to take lots of measurements. When reading history, the same thing is required: if you want to know what really happened, and what it really means, your best to get lots of "data points", that is lots of information from lots of sources. --Jayron32 12:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even expert scientists are usually encouraged to offer their professional opinions and speculations in the "discussion" section of their works. The scientific answer to your question is that the freedom to express such opinions is protected by law and moderated by peer and public review. 71.215.84.127 (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A nice phrase that I have seen is that objectivity is not neutrality. Historians need to be objective (in that striving sense, that one wants but never achieves). But they do not need to be neutral, and rarely are. A lack of neutrality need not be a bias; bias is an issue with objectivity, not neutrality. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pillars of Society[edit]

Hello! Is Dina Dorf from Pillars of Society Bernick's daughter or not? Our teacher said she is but I Johan Tonnesen once remembers her as a child, playing angels in thetre with her parents. I already searched the web but the answers there differ as well. Thank you in advance!--Atacamadesert12 (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pillars of Society is an Ibsen play, for those who are wondering what the question relates to. The list of characters says she is a "young girl who is the daughter of the actress involved in the scandal of 15 years ago and who now lives as a charity case in the Bernick household." --TammyMoet (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Lincoln vs. The Native Americans[edit]

Hi! Just yesterday, I read a story on the Internet saying that a young Abraham Lincoln once served in the army, probably about 30 years before he became President, against some Native American tribes. I wonder if the story if really true, or if Lincoln saw action or not. LKAD (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the story is mostly true. Lincoln was a member of the militia, not the regular army. He was on active duty, but, according to Abraham Lincoln in the Black Hawk War, saw no direct action. He did experience the aftermath of a couple of battles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to his account, he somewhat enjoyed his brief stint in the militia, but saw a whole lot more mosquitos than Indians... AnonMoos (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBS ABC FOX CNN[edit]

Is there somewhere I can find out who are the major avertisers on these news channels?99.146.124.35 (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watch them. Hot Stop 14:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say, find statistics on which companies avertise the most on these channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising Age and similar publications report on the topic (e.g. here [corrected link].) If you want a compendium of such statistics, they are (unsurprisingly) available commercially. 71.215.84.127 (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free bus passes in England[edit]

Are the free bus-passes issued in England sponsored by the government or do they go directly through the travel company? --Thanks, Hadseys (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the free passes for the over 60s (rather than other passes, such as those for school children) - they're issued by the local authority. Some authorities may devolve the actual issuance to a transport company, but the ones I've checked require people to go in person to a council office, library, or similar "access centre". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly, bus passes aren't provided for the over 60s - they are only available for people over the female state pension age, which is now considerably over 60. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to how the travel actually gets paid for, Business Link has some useful info here. The fees are paid by bodies called Travel Concession Authorities, which are largely just local authorities. The concessionaires (bus companies) now electronically record details of bus passes and block-bill this back to the relevant TCA. They can do that because most busses now have pretty sophisticated electronic payment systems - only a few years ago they didn't, and it seems the TCAs were billed by means of some handwavey survey-based scheme. This report about a similar scheme in Scotland discusses abuses by concessionaires (where they'd say a traveller was going further than they really were), which were alleviated a bit by the later electronic systems. I think the TCAs in turn are, in part, compensated by a block grant from the Department for Transport, as the current interoperable scheme is mandated by Parliament in the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life imprisonment in England and Wales[edit]

Our article says that adult murderers in England and Wales are sentenced to life-imprisonment, while those between 18 and 20 are sentenced to "custody for life" and those under 18 are sentenced to "detention for life". Are there any differences between these sentences? The article doesn't give any details. Custody for life simply redirects to the parent article. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference is in the type of institution used - adult offenders will serve their sentences in a prison, juvenile offenders between 18 and 20 will be sent to a Young Offender Institution, and those under 18 will go to a Secure Training Centre (on which we don't have an article, surprisingly). There are other differences in the treatment of adult and juvenile offenders, of course, but this is the reason for the difference in terminology. Tevildo (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't 18 the age of majority in the UK these days? How come one becomes an adult for the above purpose only when getting to 21? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In many countries, young offenders are granted a transition period in which they are still treated either fully or partially as juveniles. "Age of majority" is a tricky concept - in the US, you can drive at 16, join the army at 18 (IIRC), but drink only at 21. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So no drunken teens driving stolen tanks ? What fun is that ? StuRat (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

In this particular case, it's a question of an historical situation - the separation of younger from older prisoners - being maintained because it works reasonably well, considering. YOIs (or, rather, Borstals) were first set up to fill the gap between approved schools (STCs) and proper prisons in 1902, when the age of majority was 21. Tevildo (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article notes that anyone under the age of 21 can't be sentence to a whole life order/term. Nil Einne (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz - With parental consent, one can join the U.S. Armed forces before 18 (I don't know the lower limit), but cannot deploy to a combat zone prior to 18 (unit deploys, soldier waits and follows). The military has no drinking age, relying on country of location - can drink if of age in assigned country or during leave/travel, including international flights. Dru of Id (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. currently allows 17 year olds to join but they have to have a high school diploma or equivalent or get one within 6 months of enlistment and cannot go to war zones until 18 (except when they forget). Military use of children Rmhermen (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

about islam[edit]

]can i have some information on this question? "this world is a cultivation for the hereafter" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.213.209 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reference to Predestination in Islam. V85 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Handbury question[edit]

When Helen Handbury died in 2004 she had 14 grandchildren. They included [Matthew] Keith, Jessie and Elisa Handbury, [Paul] Fiona Payne, [Paddy] Melanie, Stephen, Peter and ??? Handbury, [Judy] Will (died 2009), Sarah, Helen (now married) and Nick Paterson. Who are the three missing people? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us some context please? Even a country would help. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is sister of Rupert Murdoch. Probably Australia. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viewership vs advertising[edit]

Which is a larger source of revinue for most news companies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess advertizing... but it probably depends on the specific news company. Certainly the three "traditonal" American TV news networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) get no revenues at all from viewership (viewers don't pay anything to watch them), so advertizing is their primary source of revenue (I don't know about the cable networks - viewers have to pay the cable company to access the cable, but I don't know if the networks get a cut of those access fees or not... even if they do, it probably does not equal their advertizing revenue).

Old fashioned "dead tree" print news companies certainly get some revenue from "viewership" (Sales - readers pay to purchase the paper)... but my guess is that advertising fees usually generate more revenue than sales of the paper.

Then there are on-line news outlets... there are two business models here... some on-line news outlets don't have any advertizing and thus no advertizing revenue (depending entirely on access fees by viewers for revenue), while others have gone the more traditional advertizing based route. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia thinks that "a newspaper typically generates 70–80% of its revenue from advertising, and the remainder from sales and subscriptions." - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"bread" as a slang word[edit]

In the English language, approximately when was the first usage of the word "bread" used as a slang word meaning money?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on bread says: In Cockney rhyming slang, bread means money; this usage is derived from the phrase "bread and honey". It doesn't date the origin, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{EC} It's rhyming slang; "bread and honey" = "money". According to our article; "Rhyming slang is believed to have originated in the mid-19th century in the East End of London, with several sources suggesting some time in the 1840s", so that would be the earliest date. The Phrase Finder: Cockney Rhyming Slang has a list of rhymes that were in Ducange Anglicus, The Vulgar Tongue. A Glossary of Slang, Cant, and Flash Phrases, used in London from 1839 to 1859 and John Camden Hotten, A Dictionary of Modern Slang, Cant and Vulgar Words, 1859. However, "bread and honey" is not amongst them, but "There may have been many examples for dictionary makers to record by the 1850s but, like most slang, these were street level terms and not in general usage." Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shorter Slang Dictionary By Rosalind Fergusson, Eric Partridge, Paul Beale (p.28) says; "Originally Teddy boys', hippies' and drug users' slang but now in common usage. The term originated in British rhyming slang (short for bread and honey), but in modern British use it was adopted from the USA around 1955." Gawd blimey! Alansplodge (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would this have anything to do with the old term of dough for money? HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or would dough be derived from bread? Money --> bread and honey --> bread --> dough? Seems very plausible to me. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OED says bread for "money" is originally US, and cites it only from 1952, with a dubious citation from 1939. The meaning "livelihood, means of subsistence" long predates it, from 1719, and seems to me a perfectly adequate etymology, without bringing in rhyming slang, particularly since if the OED is right it is from the US. The OED also says dough as slang for "money" is originally US, and cites it from 1851.--ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business Magazine question[edit]

Which business magazine was first called New Business when it was launched. the founder decided to change its name in 1930 after witnessing wall street crash in 1929. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.244.183 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This ain't The 64 Dollar Question. If you already know the answer, then just tell us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robot education in science fiction[edit]

This is going to be a lengthy question; apologies but I don't think I can shorten it and be clear. I am working on a book, and one of the points I need to discuss is that modern AI work shows clearly that there is no prospect of ever getting robots to behave intelligently by simply downloading knowledge into them -- they will have to be capable of learning from interaction with the environment. Thus robot intelligence will require some system of robot education. Possibly once one robot has learned, the knowledge could be uploaded to others of the same design, but there would still have to be an education to start with. The thing is, in spite of having read a lot of science fiction, I have never seen any SF story that showed an awareness that robots would need to be educated -- the sole exception is 2001: A Space Odyssey, in which Hal, while being destroyed, reverts to a childlike state in which he is taking lessons from Dr. Chandra. But of course I have only read a tiny fraction of the science fiction literature. I'm wondering if any readers of this desk remember any stories in which robots are put through an education. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a SF story, but a real life case of "AI education"... see Watson (computer).

Moving on to fiction... there is Data (Star Trek) who learns through interaction with humans... although often imperfectly. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. To clarify, I'm not so much interested in robots that can learn (I know lots of examples of that) as in robots that are put through a formal process of education. I have never watched the new Star Trek, I confess -- was anything said about how Data was initially given intelligence? Looie496 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone's interested in feeling old, "the new Star Trek" was first broadcast 25 years ago this September. FiggyBee (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it counts as "science fiction", but this is a major plot element of the Infocom text adventure A Mind Forever Voyaging. Tevildo (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This tale (which I've heard from several sources, none of which cite a real source, and so which does seem like an urban legend) may be instructive. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In WarGames, WOPR has to be taught not to blow up the world. How about a nice game of chess? Neither it nor HAL are robots, BTW. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major theme in The Lifecycle of Software Objects by Ted Chiang, although that story is about "digital residents" in a virtual world rather than physical robots 59.108.42.46 (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voice recognition software often needs to go through a "training period" where it becomes accustomed to the voice of it's "master", not unlike training a dog commands. In the case of the software, the "master" must speak a series of words to it as it learns to recognize each word. As voice recognition would be a key skill for any robot, I'd expect something like this might be necessary there, too. And beyond just recognizing words, it would need to interpret them, too. For example, if you ask it to play music, what music should it play and what should be the volume, if you don't specify either ? StuRat (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bender went to bending college. He majored in bending. Also, Johnny 5 may have got a lot of basic facts by speed-reading an encyclopedia (downloading knowledge), but he was still pretty stupid until he did some interacting with his environment ("Error: grasshopper disassemble. Reassemble!") 98.226.12.79 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading one book with the problem of making a wire small enough to connect to a nerve ending. When this is done then AI could use animal brain tissue and be programmed by computers. Much smaller and thus smarter than non-animal memory storage.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

elections in the uk[edit]

what is the total number of elected politicians in the uk?? Including MPs MEPs Local Councillors, Scottish Parliament, Boris Johnson and everyone? How many in total? Thanks. Amisom (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's rattle off a few here, all from Wikipedia articles:

650 Members of Parliament
20,680 "Councillors" (County, Unitary authority, London Borough, Metropolitan Borough, District, Welsh Unitary Authority, Scottish Unitary Authority)
16 directly elected mayors
129 MSPs
60 Members of the Welsh Assembly
108 Members of the Northern Irish Assembly

Total, 21,643, give or take(!). That's unless anyone else can think of other elected officials not already mentioned. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget 72 MEPs. And what about town/parish council officials? And do members of Church of England governing bodies count? AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we wish to contemplate "indirect" elections such as appointments to boards of Quangos, instrumentalities, government owned or partially owned corporations, etc? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that but theres also the London Assembly and mayor 26 people, and as alextiefiling says, local parish councillors like from Bideford town Council w hich was in the news this year. Amisom (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the London mayor was already included, but yes, the Assembly counts. Even if we restrict it to directly elected (thus non-Quango) and universally-open (thus excluding the CofE) posts, the number of parish-level councillors must be immense. (I wouldn't know exactly, as I don't live in a parished area myself.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The National Association of Local Councils, which represents parish and town councils in England and Wales, claims there are "nearly 100,000 councillors" at the parish/town level (town level meaning that it is a parish council with a mayor, rather than meaning a city, district or unitary authority). If we take them into account (and assume that Scotland has a proportional number to its population - i.e. another 10,000), that means there are around 130,000 elected politicians in the UK altogether - though the vast majority of them will not be full time politicians. You could, arguably, include school governors in the extended definition of politician - ~~there are more than 300,000 of them in England alone - in which case there are probably just shy of half a million elected politicians.~~ Smurrayinchester 13:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised not all school governors are elected. I can't find how many elected school governors there are, but it'll much smaller than 300,000. Smurrayinchester 13:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider is the number of politicians who hold more than one elected position. It's quite common for one person to be elected to parish, borough and county councils and hold 3 positions at the same time. So is the OP asking for the total number of positions available to be filled, or the total number of elected officials, which would be smaller? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in November there will be elections for Police Commissioners. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked about "elected politicians". I don't think any RS would call school governors politicians, except those who happen to be, erm, politicians in other ways. I hope the day never dawns that we regard our Police Commissioners as politicians, but it may be coming. --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see how an elected police commissioner can be anything but a politician! It's possible they may not be party affiliated, but the idea is that the postholder will be independent of the police and set policing agendas to reflect the needs of the community. Sounds like a politician to me. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]