Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< February 11 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 13 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


February 12[edit]

Horst Wessel[edit]

I'm in love with the picture of him on the article Horst-Wessel-Lied though I'm staunchly anti-Nazi. My question is, he died far before the beginning of World War II. My question is, was he anti-Jewish or what was he anti-what? Thank and hope you understand me. My English sucks. Kotjap (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I do find him attractive (physically only), but from his article he is clearly an early Nazi, so he must have believed in the ideology. Not a nice guy. --Lgriot (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess there's no accounting for taste. Not only were his values atrocious, the guy had no chin! Marco polo (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Be careful, or Lomn will remove the non-answers of you two just as he removed mine (unless he's playing favorites). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, so to answer your question more directly, the Nazis during the 1920s were quite overtly anti-Jewish, as well as anti-Communist, and Wessel was a leader in a group (the Sturmabteilung) that violently attacked members of both of those groups. Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
And according to the German article on Horst Wessel he was head of a group of SA, namely Sturm 5 in Friedrichshain, Berlin, which was known at the time for their extraordinary brutality even for an SA-group. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Poem from a mother to her daughter (?)[edit]

Hi everyone, I am looking for a poem I was shown in a university lecture on feminism in literature years ago. I have been trying to google it but I haven't been able to produce any useful results so far. As far as I can remember it was a poem from a mother to her daughter, recommending or wishing she would not be wearing high-heeled shoes in the future but stand firmly and confidently on the ground. I thought the poem might be by Sylvia Plath or Adrienne Rich (Snapshots of a Daughter-in-Law?), but including these keywords in my search did not improve results. I'd greatly appreciate any help. Groogokk (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't sound very Plath-like, more in the mode of Wendy Cope. There's a poem called "High Heels" by Carole Oles, but it only partly fits your description. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, Paul. You guessed it right, Oles' poem isn't the one I'm looking for. It is shorter than "High Heels", maybe just two stanzas of five or so lines each. Groogokk (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Well then, the best I can come up with is Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Cripple, an attack on high-heels wearers, but with no heavy-handed feminist pronouncement at the end about daughters walking tall on their own two feet etc. Paul B (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again (and sorry I couldn't answer you sooner). The Cripple is not it either, unfortunately. Part of the trouble is that I don't even know how well-known the poem is, because this professor used to talk about very popular as well as rather obscure poems... Still puzzled... Groogokk (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't the Pope an Archbishop/Why is Rome a diocese instead of an archdiocese?[edit]

Being a Roman Catholic, and the fact that Pope Benedict XVI is stepping down at the end of this month, this question came into my mind. Basically, an archbishop is a more important bishop, and the head of an archdiocese, which is a particularly important diocese. However, Rome's diocese is just a diocese, rather than an archdiocese, despite Rome's importance as a center of Catholicism throughout the centuries. Thus, is there any particular reason why Rome only has a diocese rather than an archdiocese, and thus the Pope is the Bishop of Rome rather than the "Archbishop of Rome?" By contrast, his Anglican equivalent (well not really, since Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the Church of England, although the analogy is close) is an archbishop. Why is this the case? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

For the same reason that the CEO of a large corporation is not generally also the head of one of the departments. You might find our article Catholic Church hierarchy helpful. "Archdiocese" doesn't just mean "more important diocese", and "archbishop" doesn't just mean "more important bishop": it has an organisational meaning. The Pope's "rank" on an organisational level is more that of a Patriarch than that of an Archbishop, although of course he is above other patriarchs. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
As to the Archbishop of Canterbury: the role was created back when the Church of England was part of the wider Catholic Church, and hence the role was a standard one of head bishop in a given territory, under the Pope. When the Church of England split with Rome, they didn't rename the role. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Because Rome is a diocese and not an archdiocese. The title "Bishop of Rome" is a "lesser included title" underneath his title of Pope. Many monarchs have these lesser included titles because of historical reasons. Rome is a Metropolitan Diocese and Patriarchate. In the early years of the Church, the Bishop of Rome was on equal footing with the other Patriarchates, such as Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, each of whom was leader of a large province of the Church, whose organization mimicked that of the Roman Empire in some ways (even the concept of Diocese was based on Roman administrative organization). The thing to remember is that Rome was, by the 4th century, not even the capital of the Empire. The eastern capital was Constantinople and the Western Capital alternated between Ravenna and Mediolanum, Rome had a certain historical significance, and still acted as the seat of the (symbolic and entirely powerless) Senate, but it really wasn't that important of a city to either the administrator or economy of the Empire over the last few centuries of its existence. The Bishop of Rome didn't really become Pope until the 8th century or so, when he started asserting his primacy over the other Patriarchs under the authority of the Donation of Constantine, a document that was later shown to be a forgery, but one which was used for a long time to establish the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The title "Pope" comes from "Papa", meaning "Father", as the office came to be seen as the "father of the church". Once the Pope began asserting his primacy, and Pope became a title in itself, the title of "Bishop of Rome" came to be merely one of his lesser included titles, he accumulated and exerted real power under the name of Pope itself, and it wasn't important or necessary to "upgrade" his See to an archbishopric. So, the title is an artifact of the time when the office of Bishop of Rome was first established, and there's just been no impetus to change it in all that time. --Jayron32 14:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course, the history of Papal primacy is one of the things which is disputed between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, although I don't think I've ever seen an Orthodox Christian claim that Papal primacy was in dispute or a late arrival, only that Papal supremacy was. People bring up a lot of very early Christian quotations to argue both sides (much earlier than the 8th century), many of which I assume will be in our article. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
See the religion section of Primus inter pares for a little additional background on this issue. Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed on the primacy vs. supremacy thing, so long as you mean primacy in terms of temporal relationship and not hierarchy. It isn't much in dispute that the Bishop of Rome is the heir to the Primacy of Simon Peter; Peter as the first recognized leader of the Church after Jesus, and the Bishop of Rome as his seat established that sort of temporal primacy. The schism came about in part because the Bishop of Rome claimed a hierarchical primacy over the other Patriarch, that is his position as Patriarch of Rome granted him authority (and not merely seniority) over the others. --Jayron32 18:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The situation seems to be more complex than this. Our article Diocese of Rome says that one of the pope's titles is "Metropolitan and Archbishop of the Ecclesiastical Province of Rome" so maybe he's both a bishop and an archbishop. There's a further complication in that the diocese (rather than the province) has subordinate (suburbicarian) dioceses within it, each headed nominally by a Cardinal Bishop: I presume this is a unique situation. rossb (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hypothetically, any male Catholic in good standing can be elected Pope, even Narutolovehinata5. If he is not already a bishop, he would be immediately consecrated a bishop. He then becomes the Bishop of Rome, by virtue of which he gets to head the entire Catholic Church. This person is of lower ecclesiastical rank than the cardinals who elected him, but he still gets to be their boss. Work that out. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It is no less illogical than the Queen of the U.K. also simultaneously being Duke of Lancaster and the Holy Roman Emperor also being King of Germany. Many historical monarchs had lesser titles which had merged into their highest office, that the Pope has such a lesser title is quite in keeping with the practice. And has been noted before, Cardinals don't outrank Bishops, since Cardinal is not a hierarchical rank, but it's irrelevant to the idea that the Pope is also the Bishop of Rome. --Jayron32 22:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Small nitpick but as I'm guessing Narutolovehinata5 is not a deacon or priest. According to Papal conclave, in such a case technically Narutolovehinata5 would not be immediately consecrated a bishop. Rather he would be ordained a deacon, then a priest then consecrated a bishop. It's unsourced but it sounds like it may be true to me. BTW, there are some sources which dispute the claim any Catholic male can be elected which may be of relevance here. My impression is Narutolovehinata5 is young, I don't know his exact age and it's none of our business what his age is but at least one source suggest 25 is the minimum age to be a pope [1] as it's the minimum age to be a priest or deacon, but not a bishop. But the minimum age for a bishop has well established exceptions which have been used before so it's probably not a barrier. (Of course the pope could establish exceptions, the problem is this issue only arises when there is no pope.) There are a bunch of other source but I'm not sure if they've come to the conclusion themselves or just linking to the other source. I'm not sure if you'll find better sources discussion this since it's such an irrelevant consideration as no one genuine expects it to come up. Has anyone even come across any info on how the conclave is supposed to be notify someone nowadays who isn't one of their members like some random Catholic person in the Philippines? Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edward I of England[edit]

The article says The baronial and royalist forces finally met at the Battle of Lewes, on 14 May 1264. Edward, commanding the right wing, performed well, and soon defeated the London contingent of Montfort's forces. Unwisely, however, he followed the scattered enemy in pursuit, and on his return found the rest of the royal army defeated. Did Prince Edward follow the enemy on foot or on horseback? How many men did Prince Edward lead? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this source, Prince Edward commanded roughly a third of the royal army, or about 500 cavalrymen and 3,000 infantry. The prince would certainly have been on horseback, as all commanders were at that time. Marco polo (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not the case that all late medieval commanders were on horseback all the time, though they would have had horses available. See the Battle of Poitiers and Battle of Crecy in the previous next century. Johnbod (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Men-at-arms fighting on foot with massive archery support was a tactical innovation of Edward III - I was watching BBC 4 on Monday night - highly recommended.[2] BTW, Crecy (1346) and Poitiers (1356) were in the following, rather than the previous century. Alansplodge (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, yes. Knights also liked fighting on foot, not least because it offered the best opportunity for taking surrenders and picking up huge ransoms. Much of their training was for fighting on foot, and I'd resist the temptation to make any general assumptions. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Although if you are chasing after a fleeing army and you are wearing full armour, you would probably want to be on a horse. Our article on Crecy says that Edward III had to order his knights to fight on foot, which suggests that they would have preferred to be mounted. Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
"In a strong defensive position, the English King ordered that everybody fight on foot..." - he was the commander, he gave orders for the disposition of the forces. This is a non-point, even if WP were an RS. I agree pursuit beyond the immediate field of battle would normally be easiest on horse. Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but to be fair, you didn't cite any references, even from WP, in support of your contentions. However, I think we've almost reached agreement. Truce? Alansplodge (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought Edward had command of cavalry. But it doesn't seem that the cavalry disappearing would constitute a third of the army. In any case, I agree with Marco polo that you can assume that Edward himself was on horseback. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

salary scale of professors in Xiver university school of medicine, Aruba[edit]

Dear help desk, Could you be able to provide the likely salary scale of professors in Xiver University school of medicine in Aruba. Is it worth applying/ Thank you. DHK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.167.211 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Xavier University School of Medicine in Aruba? Its website says its official name is "Xavier University School of Medicine Foundation, a non-profit organization under the laws of Aruba". You could check the Aruba government's website and see whether there's a contact tab for asking questions; you could ask whether non-profits in Aruba are required to publicly post their employees' salaries, and if so where. But if they're not required to post them publicly, then my guess is that there would be no way to find out, unless you can find where they advertise their vacancies -- an advertisement for a faculty position may or may not mention a salary range. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The word "Apothem"[edit]

Good morning, good evening, and good night! I came across a quite unexpected problem while writing a neat little paper on John Keats' poem "Ode on a Grecian Urn". One of the literary critics I am citing calls that famous line "Beauty is truth, truth beauty" an apothem. I take it to mean something along the lines of "commonly used phrase of wisdom", but the relevant definition is nowhere to be found.

Here is literary critic Raymond Havens' use of the line for context: "As to the quotation marks, if they are Keats's own and not a mistake they may have been intended to indicate, not the words of the urn, but an apothem, the kind of thing that is usually quoted. That is, they may mean: "The maxim, 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' contains all you know or need to know." "

The only definition of apothem I have been able to find is the math one. My question is (thank God, right?): what is the difference in meaning between apothem and maxim (which Havens uses as a synonym for apothem)? Just so I can come up with some examples. Examples would be welcome as well, to make this fun. Maybe "Early to bed, early to rise" or something of that sort.

Thanks for all your help! No rush, paper isn't due till Friday. The Reader who Writes (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

They mean "apothegm", which we call adage. A saying or set phrase. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
(ec) It seems 'apothem' here is an alternative spelling of apothegm (or apophthegm), according to the OED "A terse, pointed saying, embodying an important truth in few words; a pithy or sententious maxim." There are some examples here. - Lindert (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps somebody that knows the correct template could add a "for apothegm, a linguistic phrase, see Adage" (or something similar) to the Apothem page. Would Aphorism be a better article to link to? "Apothegm" currently redirects to "Adage", which is a stub. Alansplodge (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I've added the {{confused}} template, pointing to apothegm, which is a redirect (and that's fine; in fact it's excellent). If anyone wants to retarget the redirect, or write a separate article, the template will still point to the right place. --Trovatore (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The mayors of Benahavis, Spain[edit]

Searching for details relating to either José Ruiz Flores, or Salvador Ruiz Flores, one of whom was mayor of Benahavis, Málaga, Spain, during the 1930s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.138.242.86 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

With a quick look, I don't find anything in WP on either man. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
And a very quick check of Google Books does not seem to turn up anything either, sorry. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The closest I could find is a newspaper article from January 1928 about a certain hunter called José Ruiz Flores, who in a fit of madness shot someone in Benahavis, Málaga and then hanged himself. Obviously he couldn't have been mayor in the 1930s, but it's the closest I could find. - Lindert (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"Bible believer"[edit]

I am not too sure about Wikipedia's article on Bible believer. Initially it had some unverified data, so I cleaned it up a little. As it stands, I am keeping the part about the preference for the King James Version, even though I am not very certain on that information on whether or not Bible believers really do read the King James Version. I know one example of a self-identified Bible believer: Sarah Palin, ex-governor of Alaska. However, I may need to collect more Bible believers to get an accurate position of their worldview or theological position. In addition, I am getting the impression that the term "Bible believer" is synonymous with "Christian fundamentalist", so it is suggestable that the short article on Bible believer may be merged with the larger, more developed article on Christian fundamentalist, if they are truly synonymous.

Any thoughts on this? By the way, what is a Bible believer? From a conversation I had with a liberal Presbyterian (affiliated with the PCUSA), he describes "Bible believer" to mean a person who does not accept complexity. 140.254.226.233 (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I clicked the first reference in the list of references, and it gave the following:
Bible believer (also Bible-believer, Bible-believing Christian, Bible-believing Church) is a self-description by conservative Christians to differentiate their teachings from others who see non- or extrabiblical tradition as higher or equal in authority.
In normal usage, "Bible believer" means an individual or organisation that believes the Christian Bible is true in some significant way. However, this combination of words is given a unique meaning in fundamentalist Protestant circles, where it is equated with the belief that the Christian Bible "contains no theological contradictions, historical discrepancies, or other such 'errors'", otherwise known as biblical inerrancy.
Nothing here about specifically the King James Bible, so I'm guessing that our article's specification of only the King James Bible was just some editor's OR. And from this there are two meanings -- "believer that the Bible is true in some significant way" and "believer in Biblical inerrancy". So the article should reflect the existence of dual uses. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


In my experience, it is simply a term used with more or less thought, by various very different Christians, to describe themselves. Sometimes it comes with an implicit "unlike all those other Christians", sometimes it is used to imply that the speaker doesn't identify their beliefs any more specifically (and often would not consider themselves to belong to any formal Christian group). I don't know that it can be usefully considered to define a group or category. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Mostly, I'd be skeptical of any value that can be drawn from the article without significant referencing. Is there a group of Christians that strongly prefers the KJV? Sure. There are churches down the road from me that prominently plaster "1611" on their signage. However, suggesting without citations that those, then, are "Bible believers" to the exclusion of all others is a vast insult to the bulk of Christianity. Likewise an attempt to equate the phrase with "Christian fundamentalist" (whatever that might mean) -- but conservative Christians are by no means united behind the exclusive use of the KJV, even if you artificially restrict yourself to English-speaking Christians. I expect there are sources where one group or another will self-claim the title of "Bible believer", and that might be good info in the article about that group, but that strikes me as a really poor foundation for the "Bible believer" article itself. Personally, I'd be inclined to delete the sucker and start over. — Lomn 16:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Nominate for deletion? 140.254.226.233 (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
They'd have problems with some of the Bible errata in the KJV. Personally my favourite Bble believers are the 'Seventh Day Advent Hoppists' described in the section Fictional Bible errata. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to convert it into a redirect to sola scriptura. It's typically used by people who believe that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth, typically used in contrast to those such as your liberal Presbyterian who believe that some or many parts of the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt. I've heard it frequently in the conservative Presbyterian circles in which I grew up and am a member; many members of my denomination and related denominations (myself included) will describe themselves as Bible-believing but do not associate themselves or their churches with the fundamentalist movement. Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
A redirect and merger into sola scriptura would make sense. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this may discount a significant group of people who consider themselves to believe in the Bible, without necessarily adhering to any formalized Latin-named doctrine about it. --Trovatore (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, I don't think the concepts match. Sola scriptura is a Protestant idea, rejecting all authority except for the bible. That does not imply adherence to a literal inerrant interpretation of the bible - indeed, strictly, it requires neither literal nor inerrant interpretation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
So these are two different concepts, neither of which necessarily match all "Bible believers". I think the best thing to do with the search term is delete it. This is an encyclopedia; not every plausible phrase has to come up as a bluelink. The search box will no doubt find some relevant hits for anyone looking for them. --Trovatore (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Does it have any connection with Christian fundamentalism? If so it could be merged into that article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, see, that's the problem. Of course there is a connection — for some people who call themselves "Bible believers". But if the search term redirects there, then you're slighting folks who call themselves "Bible believers" but not "fundamentalists".
Michael Hardy proposes something called a cross-reference page for this sort of situation, and maybe that will catch on. But my preferred solution is really that these things be deleted. There's nothing wrong with not having a target for a search term! That's what the search feature is for. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Article King James Only movement for that specifically... AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent popularity of the term "rape culture" in internet searches[edit]

Can anyone explain why the use of "rape culture" in books peaked in 1998 but its use in internet searches doubled in 2011 and tripled in 2012? What is causing that? Farrah Watkins (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a guess, but probably the recent spate of gang-rape related major news stories, such as the one in India recently. --Jayron32 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe also something to do with the Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 (I can't believe we have an article on that, but on the other hand, I totally can). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
but neither of those would explain increase in 2011. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The 2011 rise might be related to the SlutWalks, but there are really very few newshits in 2011 that would seem to reflect any catalyst event. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Lots of new shits, however.  :) -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Glad to know my brain wasn't the only one which parsed that in such a manner for a second. Snow (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Ngram only goes up to 2008, so it can't show whether the recent online peak is also reflected in books.-gadfium 22:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)