Humanities desk
< February 6	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 7[edit]

America rising[edit]

What was the last worldwide conference of great powers that USA wasn't invited to cause we weren't considered important enough? What was the first we were invited to? I recall one of the universal law of war ones didn't invite us.

What was the first worldwide country conference USA hosted? I think there was a standards conference at our first world's fair? (1876)

What was the first time a country arbitrated a dispute involving the US like when one of them kaisers judged a border dispute with British North America.

What was the first time the US president/congress/whatever arbitrated a dispute between countries? I know our president has been asked to draw borders which are still where he put them I think. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any of those answers, but I do know the US hosted the International Meridian Conference of 1884. --142.112.220.136 (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian_Milky_Way -- The United States was invited to, and attended the Berlin Conference of 1884, but wasn't all that heavily involved, as far as I know (certainly not in the sordid details of carving up the map) -- the main U.S. goals were to make sure that European powers kept their hands off of Liberia, and knew that the U.S. was generally in favor of free trade in Africa. The U.S. peace-making intervention between major or semi-major powers which really put U.S. diplomacy on the world map was the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Portsmouth between Japan and Russia, which led to Teddy Roosevelt winning the Nobel Peace Prize... AnonMoos (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By way of comment, it's not that the U.S. was considered unimportant, it is that most of these earlier "Great Power Conferences" involved only Europe (e.g. the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815) and thus the presence of the U.S. was immaterial. It wasn't until the last two decades of the 19th century that conferences on global matters were held for the first time. That said, the article on the Universal Postal Union, one of the oldest international organizations around, mentions that U.S. Postmaster General Montgomery Blair was at the origin of the first conference on the matter in 1863 and the U.S. attended the first International Postal Congress in 1874 (one of only two non-European countries to do so). Xuxl (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it was probably an International Electrical Congress (the one in 1893 Chicago). There were also earlier unofficial world's fairs, official isn't the be all and end all as 1964 was unofficial. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the first great power conference with a geopolitical focus that the USA attended, was the 1884 Berlin Conference, about the colonisation of Africa. The previous gatherings of the Congress System had been various aspects of European security, that did not really concern the Americans. (apologies, all of that is already linked above). Alansplodge (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah America getting more important till at least late 1940s isn't the only trend, the world became smaller, USA got less isolationist over time, transatlantic travel and trade became less annoying... Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the first time that the USA acted as one of the great powers was the Eight-Nation Alliance that invaded China in 1900. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hazael horse frontlet provenance[edit]

Who dug this thing up? Temerarius (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samos: The Archaeological Museums (2012) by Tsakos and Viglaki-Sofianou states on page 21 (or 22/385 in the PDF) that Helmut Kyrieleis was director of excavations at the Heraion of Samos in 1980, just a few years prior to the 1984 discovery of the frontlet. Based on this and his editorial contributions to (as well as his explicitly being mentioned in) the 1988 source given in our article on the frontlet, I figure it stands to reason that it was his team that excavated it. GalacticShoe (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia's article on Helmut Kyrieleis confirms this, stating that he led excavations at the Heraion of Samos from 1976 to 1984. They even have a nice section on research history at the Heraion of Samos which clears up the chronological gaps in our own article's excavation section. GalacticShoe (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you both! I'm getting (or trying to) the 1981 book, hope it's in there.Temerarius (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in "Fuehrer durch das Herion" 1981, any other thoughts? Temerarius (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, is that in regards to the leader of the expedition, or to the frontlet? GalacticShoe (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the frontlet, it's not in Kyrieleis's 1981 book. Temerarius (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I may have been a bit unclear in my wording, but the 1980 date is for an unrelated artifact, the "torso of a colossal marble kouros" (according to Tsakos and Viglaki-Sofianou.) I only point it out because it was also discovered in the Heraion, under supervision of Kyrieleis, and I figured that it would make sense for the same excavation director to be working there a few years later. The actual frontlet was discovered in 1984 according to our article on it (and the 1988 source contained therein.) GalacticShoe (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what's the name of the first paper mentioning that item? Temerarius (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first published paper is probably that 1988 source:

Kyrieleis, Helmut, and Wolfgang Röllig. "Ein altorientalischer Pferdeschmuck aus dem Heraion von Samos." Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 103 (1988): 37–75.

--Lambiam 22:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one in the article? The one that says a "Funddatum ist nicht angegeben?" That's no first edition, unfortunately. Temerarius (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text on page 62 starts with "Das Bronzeblech, das im 1984 im Heraion von Samos gefunden wurde". The text "ein Funddatum ist nicht angegeben" refers to a different find (Eritrea Museum N^o B273). What do you mean with "That's no first edition, unfortunately"? Do you mean the same article has been published earlier elsewhere? --Lambiam 23:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just seeking whatever's the first in the record. The context or circumstances. For this or the duplicate. I asked on de:Auskunft as well. Were they publishing on these ongoing Heraion excavations yearly? Temerarius (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could be of some assistance, but I realize now that my replying to myself instead of editing my previous answer was probably not the best idea, as it makes it look like I'm two different people :P GalacticShoe (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

_{We don't mind. Temerarius (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

Pl. help understand meaning and difference[edit]

In relation to the Religion, whether terms 'Traditionalism, Dogmatic, Orthodoxy, conservative' mean the same or how those can be differentiated?

Why this question? Frankly I find myself a bit confused about some of definitions and redirects in the articles Traditionalism and Orthodoxy or may be I need help in updating my perceptions before discussing issues at respective article talk pages. Hence the question.

In relation to the Religion, whether terms 'Traditionalism, Dogmatic, Orthodoxy, conservative' mean the same or how those can be differentiated?

Bookku (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are used in different contexts, and inasmuch as they are used by scholars as terms of art, their more specific meanings depend on the context and can only be understood in that context, often in contrast to other tendencies operating in the same context. Religious conservatism is generally understood as a political orientation inspired by religious teachings – which depend on the religious sect involved. --Lambiam 10:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That section is inappropriately precise. "Religious conservatism" often refers to conservative religious beliefs, regardless of political orientation — for example, in Christianity, believing in biblical inspiration versus rejecting its authority, or in Judaism, following halakha instead of doing whatever one wants. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Dogmatic" seems particularly unrelated to the others. It simply means being strict about a doctrine. You can be dogmatic about something brand new (e.g. you could have a "dogmatic" Muslim within the lifetime of Muhammad, when Islam itself was the farthest thing from traditional). Conversely, in a practice-centered religion, such as some forms of Buddhism, you could be very traditionalist without being the least dogmatic. - Jmabel | Talk 22:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Texas Ranger[edit]

Closed: discussion initiated via block evasion.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

C.D. Parker is killed with a poison that, without the autopsy, could resemble an heart attack. What is this type of poison? Maybe that used in US for death penalty executions? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.239.131.247 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Block evasion. Dekimasuよ! 07:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with he 1980s T.V. show Texas Ranger starring Chuck Norris, but not that exact episode. But there's lots of nerve agents to paralyze humans. Like the stuff from the poison dart frog or chemicals such as organophosphates. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

95.239.131.247 -- Pressure from anti-death-penalty advocates has cut off the supply of the more reliable execution drugs, so now U.S. states are trying various less reliable alternatives. AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For good reason, we shouldn't be executing the evil with the traditional burning salt injection. It's not squaring the circle, just let an anesthesiologist do the usual then let the viewers in then too much anesthetic. Then the inmate can't be an ass to the victims by holding their breath and possibly exaggerating or faking convulsions till they black out instead of holding breath for zero to 60 seconds then deep or normal breaths like I would. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, nitrogen has been reliable. Of course, we could always go back to older traditions, such as hanging, firing squad, or electric chair. Those were at least "mostly" reliable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guillotine didn't leave much room for faking it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its inventor was a genius - an early example of the slogan, "from sharp minds come sharp products." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the multiple types of oil price scales?[edit]

For example, this site shows barrel per oil as low as $17 in April 2020. tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil

and this site as low as $22 in April 2020 tradingeconomics.com/commodity/brent-crude-oil

The 2nd is called Brent crude oil. But this website follows the same data as that but doesn't call it Brent crude oil, it calls it West Texas intermediate https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart but Brent and WTI are still not the same?

Wikipedia's price of oil seems to show $22 in April 2020 for all of them. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

We have articles on West Texas Intermediate and Brent Crude. West Texas Intermediate crude was the earlier common benchmark in oil-pricing, but when U.S. oil production declined (pre-fracking) and North Sea oil production increased, it was supplemented by North Sea Brent... AnonMoos (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, West Texas Intermediate briefly had a negative price on April 20, 2020! AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Usage plummeted due to COVID, but people still had contracts out. With storage full, they needed to get rid of the oil at "any price". That is part of the risk of trading in futures. -- Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forcing use of non-dominant hand for writing[edit]

What was the "logic" behind forcing left-handed children to learn to write with their right hand? 2601:18A:C500:E830:526A:B17D:E5EF:4ACD (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conformity. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 22:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I know about is the attitudes from my childhood, which seemed to be a desire to protect the kid from being "different", plus a vague residue of earlier negative views or superstitions associated with things left (as seen in the meaning of the word "sinister"). A claimed rational motivation (fairly pretextual in my opinion) was that left-handers sometimes have to hook their hand around their pen in an awkward way to avoid smearing the ink of what they have just written, when writing from left-to-right, while right-handers don't... AnonMoos (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handedness#Negative connotations and discrimination, and other sections of that article cover this in some detail. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder that about hooking one's hand. So, then, how would a right-handed person write in Hebrew or Arabic without smearing the ink? 2601:18A:C500:E830:526A:B17D:E5EF:4ACD (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that from personal experience, but there's something about it in the article subsection HiLo48 linked to... AnonMoos (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can write left-handed without smearing the ink, but it requires you to keep your hand below the line of text like this Arabic calligrapher. I know because I had an argument with a left-hander that his hooked style was unnecessary and I taught myself to write left-handed just to prove him wrong (it only took me a few minutes - the result was neither quick nor very elegant, but it was legible). He wasn't convinced. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A number of educators wouldn't like having to supervise what would be to them devious practices. To illustrate the problem, as often it's one that can be considered maybe rooted into language. The left-handed driving of the pen for writing left-to-right at line level is by push, as opposed to a right-handed's pull, or "draw" [1]. --Askedonty (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be laziness on the part of teachers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming due course and necessity they might perhaps have emphasized on the strength of will How Is Strength of Will Possible?. ( Intending in fact "power of will" instead: medical news). --Askedonty (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does nothing to answer the original question, but when my Mum was rapped over the knuckles with a wooden ruler by her teacher at elementary school for writing with her left hand, her Dad, a big, right-handed, athletic type who wrote poetry and children's books, went in to school and had words with the teacher. Said teacher stopped with the ruler after that. DuncanHill (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with other natural variants, such as sexual orientation or skin color, handedness has also been an object of stigmatization. In Europe, left-handedness was considered undesirable, and even a sign of inferiority, until well into the 20th century. R. Braun, writing in the German medical journal Klinische Wochenschrift in 1941, had this to say: “We can only conclude that the right side generally does correspond to what is right. Physically or otherwise uncoordinated persons are called gauche; [orig. linkisch, ’leftish’], and we may well think that something about them just isn’t right.”

Understanding Left-Handedness (2011), from Deutsches Ärzteblatt. Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]