Humanities desk
< June 3	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 5 >

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.

June 4

WWII STATISTICS

I understand there was a large number of Christians killed by the Germans in Europe that were Jewish sympathizers. Do you know the numbers? I didn't see any posted for this category.74.237.246.9 (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)jr[reply]

While our Holocaust article does not have a section on Christians, it does note that 2,500 - 5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses were killed for refusing to swear allegiance and that some Catholic priest were labeled homosexuals so they could be confined. Some other Christians were classed as political activists and detained. Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a famous example of a Christian killed by the Germans. Our article notes that Jews made up only 6 million of the 9 to 11 million killed. Rmhermen (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you probably mean those individuals who actively helped the Jews rather than simply sympathised with them. See the articles on Irena Sendler and Żegota for more. There's an interesting book, Forgotten Holocaust by a Dr. Richard Lukas on, inter alia , the subject. The Gestapo resorted to using agents provocateurs to uncover Jewish aid underground organisations and would also promise captured Jews their lives if they betrayed the rescuing organisation. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian?

In the article "list of Swedish monarchs", there is the following line: "1457-1464 : Christian I of Sweden (Kristian I)". However, the article Christian I of Sweden makes no mention of "Kristian". What is "Kristian" — is it the Swedish spelling of the name, the Danish spelling of the name, the Norwegian spelling of the name, some other alternate spelling of the name (such as an archaic historical spelling), or a mistake?

Also, what is the name "Kristian" in general? I'm guessing it's the standard spelling of "Christian" in some particular languages? Which languages?

—Lowellian (reply) 04:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the interlanguage links to Scandinavian wikipedias: "Kristian" is used in Swedish and Nynorsk. Christian is used in Danish and Bokmål. Icelandic uses Kristján. I found no corresponding pages on the Faroese Wikipedia. (Finnish, not a Scandinavian language, also spells them Kristian). For other languages that spell the name with an initial letter "K", the article on Christian (name) also gives Kristián in Czech, Krystian in Polish, and Keresztély for the Danish kings in Hungarian. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian is most common in Norwegian (both forms, both Bokmål and Nynorsk), but Christian is also frequently seen. As most (all?) kings with that name have been Danish, their names are usually written Christian in Norway as well. 129.240.49.10 (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, "Kristian" is simply the Swedish spelling of his name.[1] Just to complicate things a bit further, he was born in Germany but Denmark was the leading nation in the Kalmar Union between Denmark, Norway and Sweden. In both Danish and German, his name is spelled "Christian". In Danish, he occasionally also referred to as "Christiern".[2] 83.89.43.14 (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of South America from 1900-1950

Where can I find information on the history of South America from 1900-1950--Goon Noot (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try here, here, and Category:History of South America. Fribbler (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at those places but have not found what I was looking for. I'm looking for information on what was going on in South America during ww1.--Goon Noot (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red=Stop Green=Go

When (and how?) did the Red=stop & Green=Go convention come about? Looking at Traffic lights suggests that it hails from something nautical, but what? -- SGBailey (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Right of way, which has a nice illustration of why ships would be allowed to go when they see a green light from the other ship -- Ferkelparade π 09:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see red, which calls attention to its association with blood and fire, and green which is related to the word "grow".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic lights for automotive use came about long after the railroads developed the "red-yellow-green" system. Red has meant stop as long as the ability to relate an action to a color has been around. There is a believe that this has to do with red being the color of blood - but who knows. It is just something embedded into the human DNA. As for the "go" color, the railroads originally used white. That was destined for failure. There are white lights all over that could be mistaken for a "go" light. Also, there is a case where the red lens fell out of a stop light and the driver thought it was white and drove at full speed into another train. So, the railroad adopted green for go because there was plenty of green lenses and it contrasted well with red. Why was there plenty of green lenses? They had been experimenting with green for "caution". So, once the caution light became the go light, they needed another caution color. Yellow was chosen. Well after the railroad had the red-yellow-green system, the first traffic lights were made. The first ones were red-green. Shortly afterwards, the red-yellow-green ones were adopted and, now, are standard. -- kainaw ™ 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more important point is that colored lights as railway signals were originally only used at night (by day they used semaphores or similar devices) and consisted of a colored glass in front of an oil-lamp flame. (As that article shows, the two devices were normally combined into a single unit.) Later railway signals used colored glass in front of an incandescent light bulb, and so did traffic lights; it's only quite recently that LED signals, which are intrinsically colored, become available. What this meant that a signal color could only be adopted if a suitable color of glass existed. The color also had to be sufficiently distinct from similar colors, and it had to work with an oil flame (which ruled out any strongly blue color). So the use of red and green doesn't come from maritime tradition so much as from the absence of any other available color. There was a specific research project to develop a yellow glass suitable for signals at the time when the railways were realizing they had to abandon white. --Anonymous, 21:51 UTC, June 4, 2008.

There are two aspects to red. One is that it is a color which grabs human attention, universally. Not all cultures have the same recognized number of distinct colors, but if they have words for colors other than "dark" and "light", then the next one is always red. I (and others) suspect this is the relevance of red to blood.

But the other aspect is cultural. It does not necessarily mean "stop"; it means "attention." For this reason it has long been used for street signs, in particular ones as important as "stop". But in other cultures it has different meanings as well—don't get too hung up on things like "green is related to the word grow", that's not the case in all languages. In China "red" has associations with good luck, marriages, summer, and happiness—very different than in the West.

Of course, in one way, the choice of Red and Green for the binary street lights is horrible—Red-green colorblindness means that some 10% of the population has to just remember the position of the lights because they look identical to them, which is quite a lot (if it was red and blue, there would be no problem, for example). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red-green colorblindness doesn't work that way. Red and green are easily distinguishable from each other. My difficulty is distinguishing close-together shades of red and orange. Imagine an orange light gradually shifting toward red. The point at which it becomes hard to distinguish from a pure red light comes a little bit earlier for me than it does for other people. If traffic lights were red-orange-green, I'd probably be depending on their geometrical arrangement. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are different types of red-green colorblindness. Some people cannot tell them apart at all; this is not uncommon. Don't generalize your own experience for all others. I had a friend who could not tell red from green whatsoever. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Thanks folk -- SGBailey (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously

Why is every country covered in counties, especially in seemingly uninhabited areas? This makes the world seem less natural. And could someone please tell me the furthest land point from any inhabited area (not including Antarctica)? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 11:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The furthest land point from any inhabited area (not including Antarctica) would be the Arctic. 80.0.100.95 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're not. Not every country has uninhabited areas, either. And doesn't the fact that countries exist make the world less natural, nevermind counties? What is "natural"? For the second question, does Extreme points of Earth help? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ooch edit conflct but Adams right. Your first q cant be answered because it is inaccurate: not every country is covered in counties and your concern, "less natural", is so vague it can't be substantiated or easily answered. However even uninhabited areas are part of countries who do require that their regions need to be looked after and administered by local government even though they interpret that as meaning they should protect or exploit them.Your last question is interesting,but you arbitrarily exclude one continent. I would say north pole leaps to mind but you might not like that either; hopefully the answer you get will be more accurate , subtle and interesting than mine has been, or indeed your question allows. Mhicaoidh (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The North Pole is not on land, though/ Adam Bishop (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme points of the world#Remoteness might answer your second question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Small islands don't count. Only the major landmasses - America, Australia, and "Eurafriasia" - count. Though it might be on an island (a relatively large one only). —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntfictExpert (talk • contribs) 13:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are counting large islands, then you have to count the largest: Greenland. The furthest land point from any inhabited area on a large landmass other than Antarctica (if that accurately summarizes your criteria) would certainly be a point on the Greenland Ice Sheet in north-central Greenland. The exact location of the point would depend on whether you consider the scientific and military base of Nord, Greenland, to be "inhabited". Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Adam! And the OP has just wiped the place I live off the face of the earth so I guess I can't help here! Mhicaoidh (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Ontario, the province is divided into different types of entities, essentially according to the population density. See List of Ontario counties. There are "single-tier municipalities", mostly called cities, such as Toronto; "regional municipalities" such as Niagara Region; "counties" such as Wellington County; and, in the sparsely populated parts of Northern Ontario, huge "districts" such as Kenora District. It's not all just counties. --Anonymous, 22:00 UTC, June 4, 2008.

There are no counties in Alaska or Louisiana. Corvus cornix_talk 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luitpoldarena & Luitpoldhalle, Nuremberg

My query, posted on the Discussion page for Nuremberg, is about these two structures named for Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit on them here, if that helps. And on the same page in the .de wikipedia. Fribbler (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sales promotion

is there any relationship between ethical issues in sales promotion and consumer confidence in a product or service?

mohammed kamil farid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.87.83.248 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chavez's image

Hi, I would like to know what Hugo Chavez's image is like to the people of Venezuela —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.152.221.179 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Hugo Chávez and other relevant articles (such as Media representation of Hugo Chávez and Presidency of Hugo Chávez)? I think those should give you some idea of how he's seen by the citizens of Venezuela. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Orchard

I was wondering if anyone could hazard a guess as to why the IDF risked sending in large numbers of men (4-8) and a number of aircraft including F16s and F15s undisclosed ELINT and tanker aircraft in Operation Orchard.

It seems clear that the mossad had a man on the inside that gave precise coordinates of the nuclear facility in Syria. With this information would it not have been safer to use cruise missiles to do the job instead of risking planes being shot down and having to have search and rescue teams in a hostile country. A spy satellite or the man on the ground could have given BDA.

The range was not that far in terms of the Tomahawk and a salvo of 10 or less could have destroyed the buildings causing the Syrians to panic and bulldoze the area?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.35.174 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess, but perhaps the Israelis wanted to show the Syrians that their airspace could be penetrated. This sends a strong signal to Syria and other countries in the region (I'm thinking specifically of Iran, which I believe has similar air defenses). GreatManTheory (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think you could even come close to comparing the air defences of Syria with Iran. If Iran was as badly defended as Syria surely they would have been bombed by now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.35.174 (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I remember hearing that the two countries had relatively similar air defense capabilities. Moreover, as far as I know Syria had what was considered fairly advanced air defenses, so it's nothing against Iran to compare the two. As for your contention that Iran would surely have been bombed, I believe that's the point--so easily defeating Syria's air defenses tells Iran that it is vulnerable to this sort of attack, hopefully (from Israel's point of view) dissuading Iran from engaging in anything that seriously rocks the boat. GreatManTheory (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Israel has no Tomahawks. Only the US, the UK and Spain have some. And those last two have only 60. GoingOnTracks (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Court and Constitution

Is it possible to challenge a state constitution law as against the constitution of the US and ultimately overrule it? E.g. 26 states in the US. have outlawed marriage between a same-sex couple. Isn't it possible for a couple to go to the US supreme court and put charges against their own state's constitution because of that? If it is possible what prevents them to do that? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyeditor (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To your initial question, it's entirely possible. The US Supreme Court can (and has) nullified portions of state laws and constitutions. However, the USSC does not hear initial cases, known as original jurisdiction, (so a couple can't just go to the USSC)* and is under no obligation to hear appeals that have reached their level -- so that's the prevention, such as it is. — Lomn 20:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Exceptions exist, but not that apply to this sort of example. See the article above for details. — Lomn 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So in what way can an individual resist the tyranny of the state? I mean take for example Lawrence v. Texas, that was initiated by an average couple. So, why not such a scenario is probable in the case of same-sex marriage? Is it possible for a group of lawyers across the country to take the case to the US supreme court? Is this also considered original jurisdiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyeditor (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, original jurisdiction means you can't take it straight to the supreme court. You have to initiate the suit in the proper jurisdiction (in this case, the state courts) before appealing your way to the SCOTUS. From our article: Currently, the only original jurisdiction cases commonly handled by the Supreme Court are disputes between two or more U.S. states. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a fair answer. You have just picked the part you wanted to answer and ignored the other parts. Please somebody read my questions again.

Barry Goldwater's Eligibility For U.S. President.

To be eligible to serve as president of the U.S. you must be a natural born citizen or living at the time the constitution was adopted. Barry Goldwater was born in Phoenix, AZ 01-01-1909 and Arizona was not admitted to the union until 02-14-1912 so does that not prevent his serving as president???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.73.38 (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See[3] a NY Times articleand [4] a Washington Post article on this topic. In Goldwater's case, opinion was that being born in a territory which later became a state was good enough to be "natural born." The Puerto Rico Herald [5] considered whetner someone born there would be "natural born" enough to become U.S. President and says that perhaps the "statutory American citizenship" Puerto Ricans gained in 1917 would make one eligible to be U.S President. The article considers other scenarios. Surely there has been a law review paper on this. As in December 2000, it could all boil down to what the Supreme Court thinks, and we all know how that can work out. Edison (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that the territory later become a state. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, then a U.S. territory, but now part of Panama, never a state. Legal opinion is near unanimous that he qualifies for the presidency. --D. Monack | talk 22:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal opinion of five members of the Supreme Court is all that is required, although I suppose the Senate could find someone ineligible despite the Supreme Court's findings. [6] is an article by John Dean who discusses a law review article on the topic. One interesting tidbit: a child of a foreign diplomat could be born in the U.S. but not be eligile to become President. Edison (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise being born outside the US is not an exclusion. Even If McCain had been born in territory completely unrelated to the US, to US parents, he would still be natural born. See previous discussion of this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, being alive at the adoption of the Constitution has nothing to do with it and doesn't exempt you from the "natural born citizen" requirement. There is some speculation that that clause was included to specifically prevent Alexander Hamilton from becoming president. --D. Monack | talk 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are born outside the U.S. to American parents, you are a citizen. United_States_nationality_law#Acquisition_of_citizenship --Nricardo (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's where the question as to the precise meaning of "natural-born" comes into play. — Lomn 03:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it should. Was jus sanguines considered the law of the land at the writing of the Constitution? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inventor of Lie Detector -- atomic bomb security?

On p. 107 of Now it can be told, a history of the Manhattan Project written by General Leslie R. Groves (military head of the project), it says:

Early in 1946 an additional safeguard was adopted (at Y-12, Oak Ridge)—a lie detector. It was used chiefly on people who had access to the final product (enriched uranium) chemistry building, to make sure no one had taken, or know anyone who had taken, material from the plant. The first tests were carried out under the supervision of the inventor of the instrument, and one of his assistants was retained at Y-12 to conduct tests whenever necessary.

Does he mean William Moulton Marston? Any way to tell? Any guess as to the name of the assistant? (The book doesn't say, and has no real footnotes or anything.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Polygraph and Lie Detection the Oak Ridge tests were carried out by Leonard Keeler. Another source is In Search of the Magic Lasso: The Truth About the Polygraph, which says "Following the Manhattan Project, the AEC actually began a polygraph screening program at Oak Ridge in the 1940’s. It was initiated by Leonard Keeler, who was one of the original creators of the physical machine we call the polygraph today, and at the time the foremost polygraph tester." Gandalf61 (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you very much, precisely what I wanted to know. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]