Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 2

New Cold War?

Is there a New Cold War there? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Where? --Jayron32 00:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing's an idea, so if people think there is, there is. A Google News Search definitely suggests that's the phrase. Doesn't mean it'll be like the Old Cold War, but newsmakers love drawing parallels, and this makes it easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

I've heard it called "Cold War II"   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think The Washington Times is hoping "Cool War" takes off. Pretty lame, especially compared to "Operation Eagle Guardian" and "Saber Strike." InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

I think one could make the case, easily, that the old one never ended in the first place, and won't end until Russia is either completely assimilated (the kids of the oligarchs and the nouveaux riches living and studying in the West will eventually return and try to make politics. They will be part of and answerable to the transatlantic ruling class that appoints all European leaders) or reduced to something akin to the Congo or PNG. The difference between Germany and the Congo is one of scale (watch Merkel's tepid reaction when the NSA scandal broke), not of substance. It's just how much of the loot from the 3rd World they may keep. Asmrulz (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"the transatlantic ruling class that appoints all European leaders" - er, what? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

from which all European leaders hail. better? Asmrulz (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I'm not trying to belittle internal issues. Colonialism or not, of course it is better if by the time you must industrialize or else, your population is manageable, high IQ and doesn't throw acid in women's faces. But as social modernization goes, direct Western influence isn't exactly helping Asmrulz (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If a new Cold War does start, Russia is in a much weaker state than the old Soviet Union. They may get back parts of the Ukraine, but that's a long way from controlling all of Eastern Europe up to Poland and East Germany. Their current economic clout is due largely to their production of natural gas, and the loss of Europe as a customer would put an end to that (of course Europe would then need to go to fracking to supply their own needs). They might get China as a customer, but that would require massive new pipeline projects to replace the loss of Europe. StuRat (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's far too early to call it one, and not many sources really are. Some media sources are trying to create hype for a new Cold War, but this is nothing like the Cold War. Ukraine is really the only truly pressing issue of contention right now. Before this crisis this year, no one was mentioning a new Cold War. There is no arms race, no Iron Curtain, no other satellite conflicts related to Russia ongoing. The US has not taken Russia nearly as seriously as it did the USSR. After all, what is there to fight about? Just Ukraine? Obama responded to a question on this the other day, and he's right that it's just one issue, not a whole series of issues. Scarlettail (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

But in international politics, we are seeing two blocks: one consisting of EU and NATO, the other consisting of Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran etc. In any international issues, if China supports something, Russia and Venezuela also supports that. And the two bocks are in frequesnt conflict, not only over Ukraine. We have seen Georgia in 2008. --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And Australia agrees with everything America says and does, at times taking an even more extreme view. (That's the politicians, not the people.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Downright daffy. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

Supposing Ukraine were to be split in half, this would be more like the iron pullshade; the Slightly Chilly War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Iron Pullshade...I like it! But Obama's wrong. The sanctions are (at least nominally) based on the Ukraine issue, but those sanctions have become an issue themselves. They're what seem to be pissing Russia off, not the US/EU verbally condemning their expansion. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

The sanction were toughened after Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I counted that in with "the Ukraine issue". It itself isn't just one thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

If the Russians don't like the sanctions, maybe they're working as intended. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Every action has a few reactions. Did you know Italy and Poland are currently fighting over Europe? Nobody likely knew how the Battle of Vienna would turn out either, but they all had their intentions. When you have a motley crew on either side, the chances of someone getting what they want down the road go up. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this naming game heading in the wrong direction? The thing that started post WWII was called a cold war because it didn't involve openly "enemies" bombing the crap out of each other, so it wasn't a hot war. This current situation seems even less intense, so it's cooler than cold. Maybe it should be a very cold war, or a quite chilly war. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"Quite chilly" sounds warmer than cold to me, like autumn. If I heard that, I'd consider bringing a sweater. "Cold" suggests I need to wear a coat. Maybe it's an Australian difference. Do leaves even fall from trees in fall down there? (Yep.)

But yeah, you're right about "cool" not working in that sense, either. The beach is a cool spot. You can tell, because while the crabs certainly aren't formidable, they aren't drafting resolutions and press releases, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

We don't have fall, and leaves fall from gum trees in summer. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, what's going on in Australia.com? Those look like "normal" trees. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Though I see Orange and the Yarra Valley are exceptionally cold. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Don't be fooled by a small subset of information. Coldstream, the one official weather station in the Yarra Valley, has recorded a maximum of 44.8 degrees Celsius (approx 113 F). It was -3C (27 F) this morning though. Bloody cold!. You're getting close to my home there. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Being fooled by small subsets of info is what Cold Wars are all about. Just trying to do my part. Cool news, though!

Speaking of autumn mists, that front of the war has definitely steamed up since the Old Days. Used to be you'd have to wait weeks for a lie to even get to the other side, let alone be repeated enough. Now the birds never shut up. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:17, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Is there any particular order to naming cathedrals and monasteries?

I'm specifically talking about the ones that call themselves "Our Lady of Mercy" and et cetera. Is there some sort of selection process for these names? Is "Our Lord" only reserved for Jesus, and "Our Lady" only reserved for Mary, mother of Jesus? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Our Lady shows a raft of titles that Mary has been given. Our Lord redirects to God, but methinks it should perhaps redirect to Jesus, or even have an article of its own, explaining who it refers to and why. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In Christian usage it usually means Jesus; in the Ein Keloheinu prayer it means God... AnonMoos (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

AnonMoos, in Christian usage, what's the address for God then? What would be higher than "Lord"? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Anno Domini, "the year of our Lord, Jesus Christ". Or the oft-heard expression, "our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ". That kind of thing. Keep in mind that in Christian tradition, God and Jesus are the same. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet not the same. Jesus died on the cross, God didn't. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that gets into the question of the Trinity and all that sort of thing. Anyway, I have heard the expression "Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" countless times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This diagram may or may not help (text in connecting links is bidirectional)

For a traditional diagram of Trinitarian relationships, see the Shield of the Trinity, though it doesn't obey strict Aristotelian logic... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

To quibble slightly, it's not logically inconsistent, as only the outer bars are bidirectional. We can read "The Father is God", but _not_ "God is the Father", which we'd have to do to create a contradiction. Tevildo (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not really the traditional interpretation of the diagram, and in any case, in conventional basic logic, equivalence or identity relations are symmetrical and transitive... AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not that I should keep worrying at this, but I would argue that this _is_ the traditional interpretation of the diagram, and getting a contradiction out of it would involve the fallacy of illicit major. But this isn't relevant to the OP's question. Tevildo (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Look at the ca. 1255 A.D. version of the diagram here (British Library), and you'll see the words "EST" written running in both directions in the links connecting the central node to the peripheral nodes (or two of the links -- the third is damaged)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So, that means the Christian God is just referred to as "God" instead of "Lord"? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

By 'the Christian God' do you mean the Trinity? Both terms 'Lord' and 'God' are applied by Christians to each person of the Trinity individually, and also to the Trinity itself, see the Athanasian Creed. However, the phrase "our Lord" both in New Testament and in later Christian usage has often been applied specifically to the Son (i.e. Jesus). Similarly the word 'God' is sometimes applied specifically to the Father. Just keep in mind that Christians do not make absolute and precise distinctions between these terms. They can be used interchangeably, for example, in Revelation 11:15 "our Lord" refers to God the Father to the exclusion of Jesus. - Lindert (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

65.24.105.132 -- "Our Lord" usually means Christ, but "Lord" as a conventional translation of Hebrew adonai means God... AnonMoos (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to usage in the name of religious buildings (as opposed to more general usage): "Our Lady of..." usually means the building is dedicated to Mary, but there may be a few exceptions where the phrase is used for one of the other female Saints. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

August 3

Honorable vs. dishonorable discharge from the U. S. military

If a person is dishonorably discharged from the US military (let's say for some bad conduct), and later evidence surfaces that exonerates him of that bad conduct, is the discharge changed to honorable or does it remain dishonorable? Also, vice-versa. If a person is honorably discharged from the US military (let's say, he was exonerated of some bad conduct), and later evidence surfaces that definitively assigns him responsibility for that bad conduct, is the discharge changed to dishonorable or does it remain honorable? In other words, can (and does) the military go back and retroactively change the discharge and change the person's military record, after the fact? I am referring to the United States military. In general, I am referring to people who are accused of crimes, are found guilty, and later on are found to be innocent. Or vice-versa. Situations of that nature. I was just watching a documentary on Jeffrey R. MacDonald, which made me think of these questions. Long story short: he was acquitted of multiple murders; was honorably discharged; was put through a maze of legal maneuvers; and was ultimately convicted of the multiple murders (many years after the fact). I understand that there is some distinction between the US civilian criminal court system and the US military criminal justice system. But, I don't believe that is relevant to the overall tenor of my question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that there are other discharge types, such as a General discharge, which is used for people who are unable to make it through basic training, etc. So, they might choose that as an intermediate step. However, once someone is discharged, it's unlikely that anyone in the military continues to monitor their case. Thus, somebody would need to lobby to get a change, and even then they may well be ignored.

Also note that there's another case, where the person did engage in the behavior for which they were dishonorably discharged, but that that behavior is no longer considered dishonorable behavior now. For example, homosexual behavior. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that there have been retroactive upgrades to honorable discharge status. I thought that the black sailors in the Port Chicago disaster were among them, but the article seems to contradict that... AnonMoos (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A retroactive upgrade to honorable discharge status would seem to be the less controversial of the two. Thus, the "petition" would seem to encounter fewer obstacles and less resistance. More controversial, I would think, is if the military wants to "rescind" your honorable discharge and change it to dishonorable. Jeffrey R. MacDonald, mentioned above, is a perfect example. He committed multiple murders on a military base, while he was stationed in the military. If he had been convicted at that time, clearly he would be dishonorably discharged. However, he was not convicted until many years later, years after the honorable discharge. So, as it stands today, he holds an honorable discharge, even after committing multiple murders on a military base while stationed in the military. (Unless some retroactive action was taken. Hence, the reason for my original question.) That scenario doesn't quite "seem right". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Military discharge, there are avenues for appeal of U.S. dishonorable discharges long after they are given. However, "Most of these requests are not approved".

The article also says "A dishonorable discharge (DD) can only be handed down to an enlisted member by a general court-martial."

There is much more on the topic - it seems a fairly complicated subject. Also, the article is headed with the warning "This article has multiple issues." C7nel (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So, I am wondering if "somebody" (who? maybe the US military? or the US federal government?) can object to MacDonald's honorable discharge and petition to change it to dishonorable. The bad conduct occurred while he was in the military, but it only came to light (so to speak) afterwards. And, indeed, after the granting of the honorable discharge. A very interesting case, I think. I wonder how the military experts sort all of that out? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WW1 Trenches

I find it odd that soldiers in WW1 could fire at each other from their own trenches. How is it possible that they could dig trenches within sight of each other? They were so close to each other that they could even shout to each other. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What's odd about it? HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It helps to understand how entrenchments work... you don't start with a trench close to the enemy. First you dig a trench much further back (presumably out of range). From the safety of that initial trench you dig cross trenches angling towards the enemy, and then you expand those with yet more trenches (parallel to the original one). You repeat this process until your "front line" trench is as close to the enemy as possible (you want to get as close to the enemy as possible... to minimize the distance and time during which you will be under enemy fire during a charge across the "no man's land" between the lines). In other words, you don't just dig one trench close to the enemy... you build a whole system of trenches, gradually moving your lines closer and closer to the enemy. Blueboar (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. So essentially, you are building trenches from within the cross trenches. One more very odd thing I saw (I have mentioned this before) on a TV documentary about Gallipoli, was the presenter showing us how close the British and Turkish trenches were. They were so close that he could put one foot on the edge of one, and one foot on the edge of another. I find it difficult to believe that they were digging one metre from the enemy, but that's how he put it. I am more inclined to believe that one side built a new line just in front of enemy front line trenches that had already been cleared out, rather than moving in, and risk being attacked via the network. Can anyone confirm this? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 12:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)Excellent article at Trench warfare.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A trench that zigzags towards the enemy is called a "sap". The technique of working forwards in this way is called "sapping" and is a very ancient one, although our article stops at the American Civil War. Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A quicker method is described in Trenching at Gallipoli: The personal narrative of a Newfoundlander with the ill-fated Dardanelles Expedition by John Gallishaw (Chapter III). "Most of our work was done at night. When we wished to advance our line, we sent forward a platoon of men the desired distance. Every man carried with him three empty sandbags and his intrenching tool. Temporary protection is secured at short notice by having every man dig a hole in the ground that is large and deep enough to allow him to lie flat in it... Lying on our stomachs, our rifles close at hand, we dug furiously. First we loosened up enough earth in front of our heads to fill a sandbag. This sandbag we placed beside our heads on the side nearest the enemy. Out in no man's land with bullets from rifle and machine guns pattering about us, we did fast work. As soon as we had filled the second and third sandbags we placed them on top of the first... Often we could complete a trench and occupy it before the enemy knew of it." Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Note also that the trenches weren't always as hostile an environment as you might assume - in some areas, there was a very marked policy of "live and let live" (not a great article, but Ashworth's book is well worth reading). Andrew Gray (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes the different sides also connected to and used trench systems that belonged to the other side, that is after they had been convinced to leave them behind. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It is surprising to read a claim that opposing trenches were ever 1 meter apart at one instant and manned by hostile forces. They would have bayonneted the enemy, shot him. or tossed him a grenade. It was a war, you know. A battlefield museum might show where enemy trenches were at different times; one of the trenches might have been abandoned, partially filled with mud and debris, while the nearby one was new and fully developed. The abandoned one might not be occupied because it was vulnerable to enfilade fire from enemy machine guns, while the occupied one ran at a more protected angle in the positions of that time. When the archeologists excavate and restore them, they can make it look like the enemies were separated by 1 meter. Edison (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find a reference for one yard apart, but the same source, Gallishaw, quoted above, has an account of how "...the Turks dug to within ten or twelve yards of us before they were discovered. One of the Dublins saw them first. He seized some bombs, and jumped out, shouting, 'Look at Johnny Turrk. Let's bomb him to hell out of it.' But Johnny Turk was obstinate; he stayed where he was in spite of our bombs." He goes on to describe a grenade throwing duel, won by a big Newfoundlander who threw the Turkish bombs back as fast as they could throw them. Another reference on a website, referenced to a veteran called Joe Murray quoted in “Defeat at Gallipoli”, (London 2002), Nigel Steel & Peter Hart, (p. 181-182), describes digging saps fifteen yards apart and then connecting the heads of the saps to make a new trench; "...It was undercover. The Turks used to do the same so you would get the trenches right together without anybody going over the top. When I talk about the trenches being ten yards apart, you probably say, 'Oh well that’s a lot of bloody nonsense, how the hell do you get the trenches ten yards apart?”' Well that’s how". Alansplodge (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sticking your head up to see what is going on (even at night), gets your head shot off. Therefore, being very close in a visual sense is meaningless. No-one can see you.

Very very gently prising a few grains of sand/earth out of the bottom of the trench wall in the direction you're going, at night, while lying flat at the bottom of your trench, attracts no attention at all. Unless one of your opponents, by sheer bad luck, is doing the exact same thing exactly opposite you, and happens to hear. That's when the bomb-throwing starts.

How the ANZACs got into this situation - which was really quite uniquely close quarters with the enemy - is partly described in Landing at Anzac Cove (disclaimer, I copyedited it). One important thing mentioned in Third attack on Anzac Cove (same disclaimer applies) is that during this period of the war, the Turks had hand grenades (German supplied), while the particular Allied forces engaged didn't. Not sure if that's contradicted by other sources or not. If it is, we should look further.

It still doesn't quite explain how you end up building a trench only 2 yards away from your opponent's trench, but there's a lot of confusion in a situation like this, and perhaps even it happened that on certain occasions new trenches were dug (overnight?) in positions that had just been captured from defending forces, and the trench formerly occupied by the defending forces had been abandoned but was not suitable to be adapted to be one's own trench. And then the defending forces counter-attacked an hour or day or whatever later and re-occupied their own trench because they preferred jumping in there (an empty trench with which they were familiar) to jumping into your trench (an unfamiliar trench full of people eager to stick a bayonet into them). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

On the hand grenade issue, the first British grenade, the Mills Bomb, was introduced during the course of the Gallipoli campaign. Before their arrival, units improvised their own bombs, usually from the jam tins which came with the rations. We have an article Jam Tin Grenade. Observation over the parapet was generally through reinforced loopholes, or (a safer option) by using a periscope. "At dusk the sandbag packing is taken out of the loopholes and the men observe through these; but as they are only about two inches by four inches you can’t see much. At daybreak these holes are stuffed up again and, as I said, observing is carried on by means of the periscope. In the trenches you can see nothing either to the front or rear but the little length of trench that you happen to be in, and it is sure death to put your head up to look around. Even the periscope mirrors measuring only three inches square at most are picked off (by snipers) one after the other." [1] Alansplodge (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In an attempt to summarise; although nobody has been able to find a reference for opposing trenches closer than ten yards apart, it seems that if that did happen, either one side or the other would find their trench to be untenable and would retire to a safer position. Alansplodge (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you check our Hand grenade article you'll see that hand grenades were invented much earlier than the Gallipoli campaign. There were even specialised troops called grenadiers in the 18th century. --rossb (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but these had been abandoned for use in the field by most western armies before the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Contrary to my statement above, the British Army adopted an impact fused grenade in 1908, but it was prone to premature detonation and therefore very unpopular. "Consequently many British soldiers - and those based in Gallipoli who had no access to grenades of any type - resorted to the construction of home-made, or 'jam-tin' bombs. So-named because they were literally made out of jam tins, each was packed with gun-cotton or dynamite, together with pieces of scrap metal. A length of fuse would project through the top of the tin, with each inch of fuse giving approximately 1.25 seconds delay." [2] Alansplodge (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, the Ketchum grenade was no match for the power of a blanket. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

August 4

Surveying spots

I've long been familiar with the point of beginning article, editing it in 2007 and adding my photo to it in 2009, while I just discovered the initial point article a few minutes ago. Is there any difference between the two terms? They look like synonyms, but I could easily be wrong. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

They both refer readers to Beginning Point of the U.S. Public Land Survey. I'm no expert but I can't see any real difference between the two. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The only potential problem is that my own edits are the reason that point of beginning refers to the PLSS beginning point, so I'm left wondering if I made a mistake there. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Geographer of the United States

Why was there no longer a position of Geographer of the United States after Thomas Hutchins? Dismas|^(talk) 02:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't know, but I assume that the modern equivalent position would be head of the United States Geological Survey... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Bureau of Intelligence and Research says "The Director of INR/AN/GGI [Office of the Geographer and Global Issues] serves as the Geographer of the United States." This article states that Lee Schwartz became the "GUS" in 2007. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Fear not, for the Schwartz is with you. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

“...once most of the world’s major boundaries had stabilized and been mapped, we had to branch out and do different work to remain relevant.” I guess we'll never find Honalee now. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect, Tevildo. Sort of ruined the joke, but made Wikipedia an easier place to navigate. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

You could do Honalee if necessary. Tevildo (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems a bit drastic. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:24, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Food covers: cultural aspects and Wikipedia coverage

Covers like these, which protect prepared meals from insects, are a common household item in Asia. There doesn't appear to be coverage of this item in Wikipedia, however, save for a passing mention in the Indonesian cuisine article. Most English-language food hygiene advisories don't seem to mention them. Are such food covers historically exclusive to Eastern culture? Although they're similar in function, I imagine they were developed separately from the metal serving domes associated with fancy dining in the West. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

They're common in Australia. A very quick search found this ad. There would be many more. HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

From the backyards I've seen, entering a Canadian no-fly zone is generally punishable by death. There's an American health advisory about the possibility of getting their vaporized remains on your meal. I personally find it unsportsmanlike, like how some hornets are clearly on steroids (and the Australian ones are probably strange, too). I've seen those mesh covers around, but not often. Usually Rubbermaid at outdoor deals here. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:59, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Here's a relevant article about several regions. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:11, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

My mom has one of those dome shaped screens, but uses it indoors, over the fruit bowl, to keep fruit flies away. Unlike normal flies which are kept out by window screens, fruit flies seem to be able to get past them. Of course, this means you need an extra fine wire mesh to keep them away from the fruit, too. I've noticed that window screens seem less common elsewhere in the world, meaning that flies get in and you would need to keep food covered inside, too. One comment on picnic tables is that they often have gaps between the table slats, allowing flies and ants to come up from below, too.

I just find eating outdoors to be too unsanitary and inconvenient, so rarely do so, myself. (Watermelon is an exception, since all the dripping juice and seeds makes a real mess inside.) We also have a large (people sized) mesh tent for meals outside, but found out the hard way not to leave it open. The flies found the entrance to get in, but never found their way back out, so there were far more flies inside than out !

I wonder if they sell glass domes that fit snugly on a tray that comes with them. That would allow you to see the food clearly, block even fruit flies, have the weight to keep from blowing away, and they would be easier to clean. Admittedly they would be less portable, but for those eating on their patio or tailgating, they only have to be carried a few feet. StuRat (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You would need this one for watermelon. Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there articles on that topic on Wikipedias in other languages? Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the mention in the aforementioned article, I found ms:Tudung saji on the Malay Wikipedia. It's a very short stub though. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

StuRat, see Screened porch; the primary point is to keep out insects, leaves, etc. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Metrodotus?

Have been googling for the Greek philosopher Metrodotus (or Metrodotes) from either 2nd or 3rd century BC (or both), who propagated the view about the existence of other, non-human worlds in the universe, but fond virtually nothing. He is mentioned very briefly in books and seems to be different from Metrodorus of Lampsacus (the younger). Is there any detailed info on him? Brandmeister^talk 13:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether you consider these 626 hits "virtually nothing". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

They seem to contain a lot of junk, which includes irrelevant Metrodotuses. Brandmeister^talk 13:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No luck googling your spellings in Ancient Greek Μητρόδωτος and Μητρόδωτες.

I read the articles on Metrodorus and Metrodorus of Chios from the 4th century BC says that he accepted the Democritean theory of the plurality of worlds. The quote "A single ear of wheat in a large field is as strange as a single world in infinite space." is attributed to Metrodorus of Chios.
Sleigh (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Sleigh on who you are likely talking about. Added reliable secondary source to Metrodorus of Chios that can lead you to vetted primary literature. Paulscrawl (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking for that quote also. Brandmeister^talk 17:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Good excuse to replace original research - or ancient public domain content (EB11 content in 2014, really?) - in that article with academically citable & reliable secondary sources. Working on it now. Source above cited DK 70 (searching for my buried copy now), as does Guthrie's definitive modern history of ancient Greek philosophy (specifying DK 70 A6). Added citation, with Guthrie's more fluid translation (cf. article's uncited translator) to article. "As a follower of Democritus picturesquely expressed it, it is as unlikely that a single world should arise in the infinite as that one single ear of corn should grow on a large plain." Paulscrawl (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

how to wear hijab according to a hadith

Somebody told me that there is a hadith where Prophet Muhammad PBUH said do not wear hijab or niqab in a form that resembles a camel hump or something like that. Is there a website that talks about and shows photos that resemble like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.146 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Vice has an article on it. I'm having trouble finding good citations on the hadith, but it appears to be an interpretation of Sahih Muslim Hadith 5310 that ignores the clarification in Sahih Muslim Hadith 6840 specifying that the hair is like camel humps, not the hijab. Since decadent women in the Byzantine Empire wore their hair up, and that the Khaleeji-style hijab seems to be recent, I'd assume that Muhammad was talking about giant hair instead of giant hijabs. But, the principle of not having giant hair could apply to not having giant hijabs, according to whatever you find reasonable. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

FAO Statistics

The Potato article contains the following statement: The world dedicated 18.6 million hectares in 2010 for potato cultivation. — I would like to find such data for Tomato too, but the FAO Statistics doesn't give me the area, only the production and the yields of the top 5 producers. Do you know where I can find such data? Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The source cited in the article is [3], which I was able to use to get the area harvested for tomatoes. RudolfRed (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Darn, I assumed that doesn't work anymore. The new version doesn't include area. The old version will be available only this month. What am I going to do after that? —  Ark25  (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

August 5

Disability Studies textbooks

I'm looking to acquire a few undergraduate level books about Disability Studies. My Bachelors is in Communication Science, so I don't have a basic grounding specifically in the subject. I intend taking a post-graduate course in Disability Studies within the next year or two. I'd really prefer not to be the class ignoramus when I start. Are there any "must read" books I should study to get up to speed on the basics before starting the course? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

See Category:Disability literature.—Wavelength (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Another idea would be to familiarize yourself with whatever laws are in place regarding disability in your jurisdiction. E.g. in the USA this would be the Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but unfortunately the category doesn't contain anything suitable - it's mostly a list of books (fiction and non-fiction) about individuals that have a disability. I've already collected various legislation and policy documents from government websites so that angle is basically covered. The Bibliography in the Disability studies article is a bit too much - perhaps 4 or 5 of the "best" of those would be reasonable, but there's no indication which of them are more comprehensive and comprehensible for a beginner. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Which country will you be studying in? As an ex-sociology/community studies lecturer, my take on it would be to read Tom Shakespeare's books and maybe also Laura Hershey. I'd become familiar with the various models of disability: the Social model, or the bio-psycho-social model (which seems to inform most of Government policy in the UK at the moment)(what no article?). I'd also become familiar with theories of social capital, particularly from John Field, who has written a book on this subject which is very useful. But this all applies to UK courses. If you are in the UK, and are on Facebook or Twitter, there are a number of disabled activists/theorists I could recommend. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've created a redirect. Apologies if this spoils anyone's fun. Tevildo (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm in South Africa, but UK or other sources are welcome. The only book I have at the moment is American, but with a global scope - James Charlton's Nothing About Us Without Us ISBN-9780520224810 - I often found the Neo-Marxist POV difficult to parse. I've come across some of Hershey's work online. Thanks TammyMoet, you've given me good leads to follow up. A few Facebook links would be most welcome too. Disability studies as an academic discipline is still in its infancy in this country (we've been somewhat preoccupied with bigger fish to fry). The University of Cape Town is the only institution offering actual courses - but only at the post-graduate level. (I found Biopsychosocial model). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See Amazon.com: disabilities - Medical Books: Books.—Wavelength (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and Wow! is Amazon deliberately trying to be offensive by classifying these books under "Medical"?!?! The problem I have with looking through such lists/catalogues is that I don't know enough about the subject to tell the "essential reading" titles from the junk. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Aren't e.g. Autism, Paraplegia things that cause disabilities and are also medical conditions? Our article on disease says that sometimes broad use of that term includes disabilities. I don't think it's that weird that a book about e.g. Vision_impairment would be classified as both a medical book and a disability book...

Anyway, as for separating the wheat from the chaff, why not solicit some of your future instructors? Even if you don't know exactly who will be teaching which course, I'm sure anyone in the department can either help you make a reading list or will direct you to someone who can. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Disability studies has very little to do with medicine per se, it is primarily concerned with philosophical, ethical, political, economic and sociological issues, which may include topics such as matters pertaining to the provision of health services to people with disabilities, such as why the only dentist in town has her surgery on the second floor of a building without an elevator, thus forcing wheelchair users to incur the additional expense of travelling to the next town for their regular dental checkup; or whether it is a nett gain to society to abort 80% of fetuses that are diagnosed with Down syndrome before 20 weeks gestation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Saints and particular virtues

Is there a list of Seven virtues that includes saints associated with said virtues, or a list matching up Catholic Saints with corresponding virtues? If the answer is "All saints display every virtue to some degree," yeah, sure, whatever, but certainly particular saints' stories call out particular virtues, and I'm wondering if there are any works that list such correspondences. Heck, I'd even take a list of saints who appear in Dante's Paradiso according to which sphere they're in (although I'm pretty sure he just shuffled them into the eighth sphere and higher to focus more on social commentary rather than hagiography). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a few namesake saints, such as Faith, Hope and Charity, but I've never heard that saints are assigned to virtues in that way. You might have better luck with angelology, or Tolkien's Valar. AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but already got lists of angels (heck, I overhauled the Shemhamphorasch article not too long ago. Got a list of saints and orishas that correspond, but was hoping someone had tried to tie saints and virtues (even something that fails WP:RS, since I doubt I'd end up using the material here). I suppose I'll have to settle for synthesizing (not for this site, obviously) the demonologies of Peter Binsfeld and Sebastien Michaelis, and matchng the saints to different virtues through the corresponding vices and demons -- if no one knows of anything that might be useful. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The seven deadly virtues, those ghastly little traps

Oh no, my liege, they were not meant for me

Those seven deadly virtues were made for other chaps

Who love a life of failure and ennui

Take courage now there's a sport

An invitation to the state of Rigor Mort

And purity a noble yen

And very restful every now and then

I find humility means to be hurt

It's not the earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt

Honesty is fatal, it should be taboo

Diligence a fate I would hate

If charity means giving, I give it to you

And fidelity is only for your mate, ha

You'll never find a virtue unstatusing my quo

Or making my beelze bubble burst

Let others take the high road, I will take the low

I cannot wait to rush in where angels fear to go

With all those seven deadly virtues

Free and happy little me has not been cursed

DuncanHill (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of curses, virtues, FH&C, threes and thirteens, fatal honesty and a lack of humility, here's a spirited theological discussion on how to do unto others I'm quite proud of, preserved for eternity. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

"Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same." GBS. DuncanHill (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nobody's making anybody click anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:54, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

And I'll only explain how the virtues connect to the saints through the Care Bear Cousins on a "need to know" basis. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, but not exactly, here is St. Leo the Great's take on charity. I don't have a source saying he's typically associated with that one above the others, but it seems that way to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Yongli Emperor

How large was the retinue which accompanied Yongli Emperor into exile in Burma in 1658?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Languages of the UN

The official languages of the United Nations are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish. What languages do nations where none of those languages is an educational language speak?

For example, I'm curious about the following nations: continental Europe, the Lusophone, Japan, etc. I am less curious about places like Philippines (which have a strong English tradition).

FYI, Notes on my most recent viewing:

• Ukraine spoke English (Not Russian!).
• Luxembourg spoke something non-English, presumably French.
• Chad spoke something non-English, presumably French.
• Nigeria spoke English.
• South Korea spoke English (IIRC)
• An Eastern European nation (I cannot remember which; possibly Latvia or Lithuania) spoke something non-English, presumably Russian.

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just on the Ukrainian issue, there is no preference given as to which language a nation's representatives use in UN business, and Ukraine as a very good political reason to distance itself from Russia in every possible way, despite any linguistic or cultural connection. Nigeria, of course, speaks English as a former British possession. Chad, likewise, was a former French posession. Luxembourg has three official languages, French being one of them. As China is a longtime supporter of North Korea, it is unsurprising that South Korea would distance themselves from China and choose English as it's language of choice (especially since Anglophone countries like the U.S. have long been staunch supporters of the South's cause). --Jayron32 01:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Luxembourg spoke something non-English" reminds me of "Three Men on the Bummel" by Jerome K. Jerome. Our three friends (to say nothing of the dog) are cycling through Alsace-Lorraine, and observe that 1/3 of the population are offended if you speak to them in French, 1/3 are offended if you speak to them in German, and 1/3 are offended if you speak to them. DuncanHill (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- English is pretty much the general international language in South Korea. Chinese and Japanese are important for aspects of South Korea's foreign relations, trade relations, and history, but ambitious diplomats seeking postings outside East Asia might not consider learning them to be worth the effort. Ban Ki-moon apparently speaks English and some French... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

With Japan, they sometimes use English and sometimes Japanese. Bear in mind, there is a huge team of interpreters behind the scenes, interpreting all the different languages. If you notice, everyone in the meeting hall has a headset on. They are not all listening to Gangnam Style. There is a central office, where all the translators are. If a non-'standard' language is used, this will be presumably translated into English by the Japanese/English translator, and the other translators will translate the English translation. This may sound like there would be a delay, but this is not the case. All of the interpreters are simultaneous interpreters, so there would be no unusual delay whatsoever. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 04:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone says "President Kennedy demands that you remove the ICBMs" and the correct Languagese is "dartooseabombo the demand-aqo you that remove-apa Kennedyo Presidento" wouldn't the best they could do sound like "ICBM demands you that removes Kennedy President" does to us? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 00:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And that reminds me of the time when the French delegate felt it appropriate to refer to the proverbial sagacity of the people of Normandy. "La sagesse Normande" became "Norman Wisdom". DuncanHill (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

August 6

How long should I wait to answer a potential landlord' email reply?

On Craigslist I asked how much are the utilities/yr last night (9:40). They answered 8 minutes after the office probably opened. I wanna ask if they have an upper. I asked if they still had one bedrooms the last of the month and apparently they are out. Maybe I should add that I don't like to hear footsteps so they don't think my ability to pay their 2 bdrms hinges on how much the heat is. (I wouldn't take a lower, though I do like taking the the lower's waste heat). I want to see the other 3 reply with the address and heat cost and visit first but I'd pay whatever's the best that day. I could always bear my relatives a while longer, though, I'm not desperate to accept. They're not luxury, I'd say they're utilitarian or utilitarian plus but the paint is new, or not old. If something I didn't add is important then I can provide that. Also, how long is too long without an explanation, in case the Internet goes out? (My brain doesn't have my email password anymore, only the desktop) 68.173.121.143 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I conjecture that somewhere there is a reader that has a clue what that question is about. That reader is not me. --ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you are far enough along in the process to get their phone number and call them or get their address and actually show up. In my experience, you notice things when you visit you would never think to ask, like "Are you next to a smelly landfill ?". StuRat (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Reasons why India is in such bad shape?

Look at this post which cogently summarizes problems in India. Why is this? What genes or possible causes can make such a situation possible?74.14.75.23 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with genes. People born in India have no biological predisposition towards negative traits than any other person in the world. See Corruption in India, however, for what is often cited as a major barrier to economic prosperity in what is the second most populous nation on earth. See also This article in the Economist and this article in Forbes and this one from Harvard University all of which basically agree that political corruption is the major roadblock that keeps India from becoming a major world economic power. --Jayron32 00:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

But how would "political corruption" explain away this?74.14.75.23 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)