Humanities desk
< July 1	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 3 >

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.

July 2

Public opinion shift on abortion in the U.S between 1995 and 1997

In the days before and after Roe vs. Wade in which the Supreme Court in 1973 legalized abortion in all 50 states, support for abortion was rising in the polls and politicians where changing their stance on the issue. The trend was clear until support reached its peak in 1995 where according to Gallup, 56% of Americans claimed to be pro-choice and 33% claimed to be pro-life. For some reason, support for abortion dramatically dropped from 56% to 47% in just 2 years according to Gallup and the percentage of people claiming to be pro-life rose from 33% in 1995 to 44% in 1997. The issue of whether abortion should be legal or not has divided Americans ever since to the point that Americans are slightly more pro-life today than pro-choice in 2013 according to some of the latest polls. My question is what event, discovery, etc. caused the dramatic and astonishing drop in public opinion about abortion from 1995 to 1997? Willminator (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Republican takeover of the Congress, and attendant propaganda? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some references. Based on a quick skim, this paper argues that the changing trends are a function of America's two-party system and the subsequent polarization of public opinion that has been occurring on many issues. [1] seems to think it's something to do with America's racial and gender divides. Here is Gallup's 2002 review of the trends over time. And this is a review of US supreme court rulings on abortion over time. P.S. if I understand rightly how these polls work, one poll in 20 is inaccurate, based on the standards used in polling. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be the case with the issue of gay marriage. Is that the exception? It appears that Americans are becoming less polarized on that subject as more and more Americans are beginning to support it. Willminator (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big shift during those two years probably had a lot to do with effective fundraising by Pat Robertson as head of the Christian Coalition of America. As a result of this fundraising, Robertson became very influential both within the Republican Party—due to his ability to support Republican candidates who echoed his views—and publicly—through television and print advertisements. During the mid-1990s, abortion opponents showered negative publicity on types of abortion most likely to cause revulsion, such as intact dilation and extraction. During this period, anti-abortion activists also picketed frequently in public places, displaying images of aborted fetuses emphasizing their resemblance to newborn babies. This publicity and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 helped crystallize opposition not only to this form of abortion but to all forms. In effect, abortion opponents, including the National Right to Life Committee, used the most gruesome forms of abortion to convince a significant portion of the public that all abortion was gruesome and cruel. Marco polo (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the premise of the question is flawed, in that it assumes that opinion polls are a reliable barometer of public opinion. I would say that they are not, and even if they were, a shift from 56% to 47% support is not at all dramatic but merely a reflection of the margin of error within opinion polls. --Viennese Waltz 12:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, opinion polls are generally pretty accurate in determining how elections will turn out and the winner's approximate margin of victory as well. Thus, why can't they be a reliable barometer of public opinion on an issue such as this with a clearly worded question? Futurist110 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. 56 to 47 may sound significant, but may not be statistically significant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to see what the data for the early 1990s and the late 1990s for all of the years was. If the data (hypothetically) went 45, 47, 46, 48, 49, 56, 50, 47, 45, 46, then the polling data from 1995 and/or 1996 was probably a fluke. If the data (hypothetically) went 45, 47, 50, 53, 54, 56, 52, 47, 45, 46, then it is more likely than in the other data set that the poll results from between 1995 and 1997 on this question were not flukes. Futurist110 (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So there's no reason people given about why polls on abortion declined so quickly from 1995 to 1997? Since 1995, support for abortion has never gone up to 56% again. It has not even gone up above 50% in the polls for a quite long time. Willminator (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the launch of Fox News Channel in 1996 also has something to do with influencing public opinion in the USA, with its supposed conservative bias. The impact of Fox News on voting patterns (and therefore I presume public opinion over controvertial topics such as abortion) has been examined by by David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt in their book The Fox Effect. Astronaut (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don Quixote question

Edmund Gayton's Festivous Notes (1654) mentions the following: "Pacolet’s horse for the lords, and Ephialtes the night-mare for their viragoes; Probably Dulcinea, committed Sancho to the care of one of her familiars, who gave him the Presto and a vade celeriter through the air; but he came not flying, but lying, all the way." I know "Pacolet's horse" is a literary reference to the wooden horse that both Don Quixote and Sancho ride, and I know that "Ephialtes the night-mare" refers to the mare. However, I am unsure what Gayton is referring to about Dulcinea and Sancho. Who or what is this familiar, and what is the "Presto and a vade celeriter"? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ephialtes presumably also refers to Ephialtes, who was responsible for nightmares, according to the Greeks (but not Ephialtes of Trachis, the traitor at Thermopylae, although the two are often confused). For the rest, he seems to think Dulcinea is a witch or a magician? A "familiar" could just be a family member or friend, but also a shape that a witch could take (turning into a bat or a cat or whatever). "Presto" and "vade celeriter" are supposed to be magic words (see Hocus Pocus for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did humans first start believing in any form of a deity?

When was it, and where were these people located? I am interested for various reasons. Some might rephrase the question as:

"When did religion start?"
"Who were the first group of people to have/believe in a religion?"
"When did the concept of a deity first arise within humanity?"

Nicholasprado (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the short answer is anywhere between 100,000 BCE and 223,000 BCE. This was less to to with deity worship, however, and more to do with ceremonial rites. If you want a grey definition of when religion was born, this could be a proto form of it. The first real recorded deity, however, would be in 38,000 BCE. The Aurignacian Lion man of the Hohlenstein Stadel, the oldest known zoomorphic (animal-shaped) sculpture in the world and one of the oldest known sculptures in general, was made at this time. — Richard BB 08:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article only indirectly mentions paganism, but that has to have been around for nearly as long as humans began using their big brains. The core idea is that all of nature is "alive", not just the obviously-alive animals and plants. For example, volcanoes were associated with the wrath of gods. And paganism persists to this day, when we anthropomorphize nature, talking about storms having "angry" clouds and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the human race is the history of people arguing about the answer to this question for untold thousands of years. Nobody yet, to date, has ever convinced everyone else they have the correct answer. How many religions are there on Earth? More than you've heard of, and each one has a different answer, not to mention those who are against religion all have different answers too. Therefore such a question does not seem well suited to the Wikipedia Reference desk. Like everyone else, you will probably have to spend a whole lifetime researching and drawing your own conclusions. Happy hunting! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Til U: The OP dis not ask if any of the established belief systems were correct / factual / true. They did pose the query when, in prehistoric and preliterate times, humans invented divine entities. Maybe the question can´t be answered as any evidence is sparse and open to fuzzy interpretation, nevertheless it seems a vaild enquiry for the RD. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) I never said the OP asked that. 2) I can read for myself what the OP asked. 3) None of the questions can be answered here, only different opinions given. 4) These are the sorts of questions that almost always open up cans of worms, which is why they were one of the topics avoided, back when people had more sense. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say it, but you implied it. You're just trying to deter the OP from asking a perfectly valid question. This question is entirely capable of historical investigation, and presumably has a factual answer, although not one we may be able to determine. It is absolutely not purely a matter of opinion. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't infer things I did not say. If I mean to say something I will say it. For instance, I mean to say that yes, contradicting what you said, it is absolutely, 100% a matter of opinion (aka hypothesis / conjecture), and remains a mystery that cannot be answered without undertaking our own original research. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Til, your statement "[S]uch a question does not seem well suited to the Wikipedia Reference desk" is wrong, there are anthropologists/archeologists who are trying to find answers to that very "when" question, even though it is a very difficult one, and they must have written articles about their studies, so we could find references that the OP could find useful. --08:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they are. They've been trying to convince everyone else on Earth of their views for several centuries now, and they aren't really getting any closer to a breakthrough on that in any of our lifetimes, no matter how much "wishful thinking" or other bells and whistles are applied. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is like war, a phenomenon that predates us as a species. Dominant male chimps will shake the trees and make threat displays toward the sky when it rains. That's implicit belief in a sky god. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War does not predate us as a species. In fact, the earliest evidence of war--and some archeologists dispute even this--is cemetery 117, from 13,000 years ago. By comparison human prehistory spans 200,000 to 6 million years, depending on your definition. In prehistoric and pre-agricultural times, few had the authority, the manpower, the resources, or the motive for going to war, as the world was a big empty place. --Bowlhover (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subsequent articles may be of help to the OP: Evolutionary origin of religions, History of religions, Timeline of religion. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: As a plug for my late countryman (whose couch I have narrowly missed thousands of times): Freud and religion. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Freud has much to say about religion, when "Totem and Taboo" and "Moses and Monotheism" are two of his worst books (both quite strange, and both widely considered historically worthless by scholars in the relevant fields)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Til Eulenspiegel: I do disagree that the question I posed earlier to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk is a matter of opinion, since the topic on my mind is a exploration into when creatures, rather they be human or any other form of intelligent life, first started "believing" in a force that had power over them and could manipulate or control them, in other words a "belief" in something that they don't really have proof of, but something they feel exists to due to various experiences they've had. I'm also pointing to fellow user μηδείς post about chimps being angered at the sky pouring rain onto them, the chimps might feel that there is an enemy chimp or human or anything in the sky there for the sole purpose of throwing rain on them. The chimps would have no proof of this assertion, but they really couldn't find any other explanation as to why rain pours on them.

At what point in human history did we start to "believe" in a force that made any assortment of things happen?, and the more complicated and difficult to answer question:
Where were these human located on the planet?

Again I'm looking for when, where etc..., I don't have much experience in this topic so I posted it here, now it's seeming more likely that that part of history was never recorded. Thanks! Nicholasprado (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"that part of history was never recorded"... And in case I haven't used enough synonyms yet, here's one more: speculation. Again, nobody in several millennia has yet come up with any arguments that have proved to be compelling to most of earth's population. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of our modern concepts like "conscious being" don't even apply to the earliest humans. They seemed to take all active entities (growing organisms, fire, heavenly bodies) as having an animating spirit the same as oneself and other people. That is called animism. Animism as the earliest stage of natural history seems universal to all culturally modern humans, which means humans who possessed art and memorial burial in archaeology. That gives you a date of maybe 100,000 BC. On the other hand, Julian Jaynes theorized that humans only became "conscious" in his sense about 1,500 BC, when they began to realize that the thoughts in their heads were not the speech of others, but their own minds. (Consider even as late as the time of Aristotle gravity was explained as the "desire" of heavy bodies to occupy the center of the earth.) Before that point men were functionally schizophrenic, to put his theory in otherwords. This topic is so broad it would fill a bookshelf. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing, then, that we've even gotten past that point. I wonder if a person from one of those eras would be as functional as someone today if raised in modern society. — Melab±1 ☎ 03:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might be able to see some kind of resurgence in the mystical if you follow the rantings of individuals who believe in the government men behind the curtain. — Melab±1 ☎ 03:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this shaman troll? He still exists. But no, no rant today. He's listening. Happy thoughts... InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may find tracking down and taking a look at the following useful and/or interesting:

Harrod, James B. "A Trans-Species Definition Of Religion." Journal For The Study Of Religion, Nature & Culture 5.3 (2011): 327-353. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 July 2013.
L., G. "DEATH. (Cover Story)." New Scientist 216.2887 (2012): 32-36. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 July 2013.
Deeley, Peter Q. "THE RELIGIOUS BRAIN: Turning Ideas Into Convictions." Anthropology & Medicine 11.3 (2004): 245-267. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 July 2013.
Rossano, Matt. "Supernaturalizing Social Life." Human Nature 18.3 (2007): 272-294. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 July 2013.

All except the New Scientist article have what look to be pretty extensive references that are also probably worth pursuing. No definitive answer to your question in any of them, I'm afraid, but an avenue to explore, at the very least. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Gate

Are there any reconstruction or depictions of how the Lion Gate of Mycenae might have looked when the lion reliefs had heads on them? I know the article say they are missing and they are suppose to face down at the person approaching the gate, but looking at the image there seems to be very little room for a head between the neck and pillar and face of the wall above.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two paintings: [2] and [3] but I think your motherlode may be this site, where someone asked the same question as you and a ton of helpful reconstruction images were posted in reply. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Classical Music

(I think this is more relevant to humanities than entertainment)

Wikipedia has articles for lost_art and lost literature (entitled lost_work) but I can't find an equivalent for classical music. Does Wikipedia currently have such an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.210.47 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 July 2013

See Category:Lost musical works.—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books on German war medals

Hi all,

Seeing as this is a reference desk, could one of you kind editors refer me to a book regarding such medals? I would be interested to in writing some articles on German war medals in the WW1-2 era. Anyone know of such a book, or even an online database? Thanks, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 16:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are lots of books available to buy or from the library, such as Medals and Decorations of Hitler's Germany, German War Medals in the Light of History, A Collector's Guide to German World War 2 Medals and Political Awards.

As for free online sources, there is some very general info in The German Soldier in World War II pp13 ff. As you’ve seen, our articles Orders, decorations, and medals of Imperial Germany and Orders, decorations, and medals of Nazi Germany are each sourced to a single collector website, so it’s great you’re doing this!

If you read German, you might try the sources in the German Wikipedia article which include one book and several websites. 184.147.144.173 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, I will look into all of that. Thanks, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 17:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Six heroic men

There is a book called Six Heroic Men: John Frith; T. Fowell Buxton; David Livingstone; Richard Baxter; John Lawrence; Claude Brousson. by William Garden Blaikie. Who is the T Fowell Buxton? Presumably Sir Thomas Buxton, 1st Baronet in which case his article should be renamed on the grounds of "known as". I come to this conclusion because of WG Blaikie's religious views. But I refer you also to the section in Buxton's article called "Descendants". Kittybrewster ☎ 18:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created redirects for T. Fowell Buxton and T Fowell Buxton - WP:RM is the place to go if you think the article should be renamed, although the current title complies with WP:NCPEER and I think it's unlikely to be eligible for an exception. Tevildo (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know some detective novels of the Decadent Movement?

I need a detective novel from the Decadent Movement, is there any you can reccomend? -- 20:13, 2 July 2013‎ 189.222.240.18

A quick Google search comes up with Prince Zaleski by M. P. Shiel, although I've not read it myself. Tevildo (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shiel's Zaleski is certainly decadent, but Prince Zaleski is a collection of short stories, not a novel. Deor (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Lady Diana Spencer by Isaac Whood

I am trying find a photograph of Isaac Whood's three-quarter length portrait of Diana Russell, Duchess of Bedford (née Lady Diana Spencer), painted in the early 1730s. The Duchess is depicted wearing a "Van Dyck costume", "sitting, in white satin". I was able to find much information about the portrait and how it came to be, but could not find an image of it no matter how hard I tried. Any help would be appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it in the Woburn Abbey? I saw the description in a book cataloging stuff in abbey and in a roundabout way find these two links [4] and [5], although I don't think they are by Whood or is it the one on the book cover.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, yes, it is supposed to be in Woburn Abbey. Whood is definitely the author, but many thanks for finding the one by Hudson! I'll upload it immediately. I believe the portrait on the book cover is the one I am looking for, as it depicts her "sitting, in white satin". I don't think it would be a copyright violation if I cropped the book title out of the cover and used that image, but the resolution is rather low. It would be great if we could find an image of the portrait on its own, so to speak. By the way, I am ashamed to admit that I came across the cover while looking for the portrait but never realized that the painting on the cover might actually be that portrait! Thank you once again. Surtsicna (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that "Isaac Whood's companion portraits of the Duke and Duchess of Bedford in Vandyke mode are now untraced." The portrait on the book cover was painted by Charles Jervas. Thanks once again! Surtsicna (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nahl's Portrait of the Royal Family of Hawaii

In 1856 or 1857 (authenticating the date would be helpful too), Charles Christian Nahl created a portrait of the Royal Family of Hawaii on horseback that was exhibited in San Francisco. When and what was this exhibit? I see one source that said it was exhibited in the Mechanics' Institute Fair in 1857 but this New York Times article said that the painting was still being exhibited when Kamehameha V (a prince at the time) visited in 1860. How long was this exhibition? Also can anybody find out what happened to the original; source just said that it was lost with no info on who last owned it/saw it or what may have happened to it or other exhibition items like it after the event (maybe they were donated, destroyed, auction, etc). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were 30 some Mechanics' Institute of SF expositions between 1857 and 1899. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably first exhibited in 1857, and put on show again during the visit in 1860. Local newpapers would give you information about the length of the exhibitions, but they would probably be only for a few weeks. "Lost" just means it disappears from records. It could still exist. Paul B (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homework

im really stuck on my homework im doing an invention from 1600-1900

I may misunderstand your question, but is our article Timeline of historic inventions of any help? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several interesting and useful things were invented during the assigned period. Is there any particular type of invention you want to report on? Things in transportation, energy, chemistry, medicine, communications, food preservation, entertainment, lighting, or warfare, perhaps? Edison (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]