Humanities desk
< February 8	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 10 >

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 9

Can't reinsert trombone tuning slide

Can someone please tell me how to properly reinsert a tuning slide?! Usually they just slide in, but today I've already spent an hour trying put my tuning slide back into my trombone after cleaning. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lubricate correctly; chill the end that is to be inserted with ice (packed so that it is dry); try again, not forcing, but rotating for a different orientation as necessary.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it somehow got bent, by all means take it to a repair shop rather than trying brute force. Brass is easily damaged. As a side not, what is the point of having a tuning slide in a trombone? Edison (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember from Middle School, the trombone is played with the slide in various position, and position "0" is with the main slide (the playing one, not the tuning one) fully closed. You'd want that note to be well tuned, as well as all the positions further out the slide to be in the same place each time. Likewise any non-fretted string instrument, for open strings and for consistency of position. jeﬀjon (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a 'Follower effect,' or something to that extent?

Hello, I'm looking for a name to describe the human tendency to subconciously want somebody to lead them when in a perilous situation. Does anyone know of a name for that? 71.130.92.51 (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hoffer's "True Believer"? AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wish for a strongman (which somebody now is threatening to move to strongperson, see Discussion). But I do not know of any one word to describe this wish. Bessel Dekker (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheeple? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just old plain Obedience_(human_behavior). The Milgram experiment has investigated obedience in a series of experiments. Take a look at this article and at the further links. Mr.K. (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't look at it. <zap>. No! <Zap>. Noooo!!! <ZAP> ... Clarityfiend (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend: I am an unknown guy in the internet, I can't be wrong. Just believe me and follow that link. Mr.K. (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Follow us, Clarityfield...Mr.K. will lead us to salavation...everyone's doing it... --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

salivation, more likely. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead on, Macduff.... er I mean "Lay on Macduff, and damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!'" Julia Rossi (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible on Marijuana.

I just wanted to share my discovery that Mark 4:20 reads "And these are they which are sown on good ground." (King James). That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.26 (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention 2 Corinthians 11:25, where Paul of Tarsus admits, "once I was stoned." —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And 2 Kings 4:41, "And there was no harm in the pot." Adam Bishop (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard several times that there are close links between cannabis (and magic mushrooms) and the bible. Ideas like the burning incense originally being made of hash (and Moses having his revelations in a smoky room), the baptised being anointed with oil and cannabis extracts (later replaced by water), early christian temples with mosaics depicting bowls with mushrooms used as part of the ritual. This points to some shamanistic aspects of early christian rituals that have been faded out or were banned at some point during the 1st 3 centuries of christianity. I don't know who specificaly defends these interpretations though. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is beginning to sound a bit too much like John Allegro's trippy period. The bit about hemp smoke in a tent was reported by Herodotus about the Scythians... AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But did he inhale? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can say anything you like, but what is the evidence for anointing by cannabis extracts, which early Christian mosaics showed mushrooms being used as part of the ritual, were they really mushrooms and is there any reason assume that they are anything but a represantation of bounty. Where does the idea of Moses and the smoky room come from and why are we assume that Biblical incense was hash and not frankincense and myrrh, the use of which is well attested to?

Surely the original poster of the Mark verse was pulling our legs. AllenHansen (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who are mid-May's other children?

who are mid-May's other children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.26 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keats unfortunately doesn't seem to have clarified this point. May 15#births should get you started. Algebraist 14:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Civil War, Glorious Revolution & Act of Settlement

How come the line of Mary Tudor, Queen of France wasn't involved? What were they doing at this time that prevented them from being put onto the throne rather than the Cromwells or Stuarts? Lady Jane Grey and her husband's clique, were after all, the original Puritans. Furthermore, the Seymours were unimpeachable in this regard (already with Protector experience), while the Stanleys would have meant the full assimilation of the Isle of Man, another kingdom incorporated into the Crown much later under the Hanoverians instead. In addition to that of Mary Tudor, the Hastings family had the line of George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence and this would have reconciled the oppositional descents. In light of future events, would this have been wise, rather than having to depose the Stuarts a second time and then inviting others of the Stuart line (through Elizabeth of Bohemia, object of affection to the Gunpowder Plot), needlessly involving England in European wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.11.149 (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary had no children with Louis XII, her eldest son the Earl of Lincoln died with no children, that put Frances Brandon as the next in line, the attempt to put Frances's daughter Jane Grey on the throne attainted the whole line. Corvus cornix_talk 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about the French king; that is the article's title on Mary. Yes, Lady Jane's faction was seen as treasonous to the Catholic Howards, being the exact opposite. This would make them be the perfect candidates (over a dark horse like Cromwell and the return of the hated Stuarts), it would even seem righteous revenge for what happened to the Greys/Dudleys, if the Civil War was between the lines of Margaret and Mary, the latter favoured by both Henry VIII and Edward VI (certainly not Mary I and evidently not Elizabeth I) as representing the Anglican (e.g. Protestant) Succession that James V and his successors found so difficult to maintain. I find it strange that Parliament should respect the wishes of heiresses over men, with respect to the time period. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24.255, you give every sign of being the same 'Lord Loxely' who appeared here some time ago with a 'question' about the Gunpowder Plot. Well, here we are again; the same hectoring style, the same confusion over basic historical facts; the same tendentious polemic, masquerading as a question. Please forgive me for being so woundingly direct, but you have simply tied an intellectual Gordian Knot, too tiresome even for the sword of Alexander. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with asking why the Marian line, mostly Puritan, was not invited to take up the title of Protector or King? Didn't the English and Scots hate eachother a whole lot until the time of Victoria and wouldn't it have been more favourable to have an English dynasty take over the Scots than vice versa? Part of the "question", was wondering whether I had the right sense of the situation and you only answered that aspect of it, in the negative I assume. It is apparent that there is ignorance on your part regarding the main element of curiosity to the events which repetitively unfolded by rejection of the Stuarts, or that there is no data, assuming you "know it all". You will get nothing obsequious from me, because it is apparent in a proper household, that you should have been taught by your elders; "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". 24.255.11.149 (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

did the portuguese discover the Americas first before Columbus??

My wife says that by the time Columbus was trying to raise money for his first trip "east" (eventually thereby 'discovering' America, which he thought till the day he died was India.), the Portouguese had had a well-established and thriving colonial system in the Americas, relationships with the Incas, the Mayas, etc. Which obviously would mean they had discovered the New World long before Columbus...

Is this true? I can't find a reference... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.70.107 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of a well-established and thriving colonial system, but there are some theories about Portuguese contact with the Americas before Columbus. See Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact#Portuguese. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Could you give me a better reference than [1], which is some page that looks like the moon hoax pages......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.70.107 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section of the article referenced above cites "From Cabot to Cartier: The Early Exploration of Eastern North America, 1497-1543", JSTOR should provide you with at least partial access to that article.--VectorPotential^Talk 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One point: Columbus always believed he'd found China, not India. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why he and his crew called the native americans "Chinamen", a word sometimes still used today to refer to the American aboriginese... er... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.22 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Columbus went to his grave believing he had reached the shores of Cathay ..."

"To his death, Columbus believed that he had discovered new land, however he believed it to be near China"

"Columbus believed that China lay a short distance to the northwest of South America".

1421 hypothesis says (you have to read the whole passage to know what the "attack" is about): "Columbus actually believed he had reached India and he thought the people he saw were Indians. This attack is not without its own flaws, though, for in Columbus' time China was referred to as "India" by Europeans."

For an alternative opinion on the origin of "Indian", and although in need of a citation, Native Americans in the United States# Terminology differences says: "It is a common mistake to believe when Christopher Columbus arrived in the "New World", he described the people he encountered as Indians because he believed that he had reached the Indies, the original destination of his voyage. This is false. The term "Indian" comes from Christopher Columbus, but it wasn't because he thought he reached India. The region of the Indian subcontinent where India now lies was referred to as Hindustan. Christopher Columbus called the Native Americans "Indians" because in the language Columbus spoke (Genoese Italian & crude Spanish/Portuguese), "In Deos" meant "From God". Columbus saw the Native Americans as beautiful creatures delivered to Earth from God". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... which paragraph I'm tempted to remove. It was added on 25 January by User:67.185.108.168, whose sole contributions to WP are that edit and a similar one in Native American name controversy the same day. (Of course, it's possible that this is a more prolific user who has never happened to get that IP address before). Both are unreferenced, and a Google search for '"In Deos" Columbus' gives a number of hits, most of them on rather dubious sites, and none that I've found with any references (I haven't looked at them all). Certainly the OED does not mention this idea, and gives examples of 'India' meaning the new world going back to 1553 (though 'Indian' in that sense not so early). But this has all the hallmarks of etymythology: reject a straightforward and obvious derivation in favour of a more fanciful concoction, especially if it bolsters some argument you want to make. --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highly dubious and I doubt that the originator of the theory speaks Spanish or Italian. AllenHansen (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm defending that particular editor or his/her edits, but "straightforward" and, particularly, "obvious" derivations are often the lifeblood of folk etymology. What's "obviously" true often turns out to be completely false. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but not especially relevant. Folk etymology distinguishes two different phenomena, and I suggest that your argument applies principally to the second class, where a relatively unfamiliar word is changes to match a supposed origin. Any perusal of a site such as www.worldwidewords.org will show lots of examples of the first type (wrong or at least unverifiable origin for a phrase), and many of these are IMHO very convoluted. --ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orleanism and French politics

Would it be true to say that Orleanism was a new factor in French politics in 1830, or was the advent of Louis Phillipe a convenient way for a narrowly based elite to save the principle of monarchy after the disgrace of Charles X of France? Does this explain the ultimate fall of the July monarchy in the revolution of 1848? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.241.32 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be true to say that Orleanism was a new factor in French politics, 86.151, though its roots go further back than 1830: all the way back to Philippe Égalité, father of Louis Philippe, who came to represent a liberal alternative to the absolutism of his Bourbon cousins. In the July Revolution of 1830 his son offered a way beyond the reactionary 'Throne and Alter' politics of Charles X; a new departure that placed its greatest emphasis on press freedom, the legality of opposition, and an end to the dominance of the old aristocratic elites. It was a rational and modern alternative to rule by tradition. For the French liberals Louis Philippe came to represent the same position in French history as William of Orange did in that of England, just as Charles was cast in the role of James II. In 1830 Louis Philippe also offered an alternative to the anarchy and bloodshed that followed the creation of the First French Republic.

Unfortunately, in the end, Orleanism never quite grew beyond the appearance of being a 'party monarchy', not much loved by the majority of the French people. It became narrow sclerotic and self-regarding, with its unheroic and pear-shaped king fatally wounded by the brilliant caricatures of Daumier, forced to resort to older methods of censorship and repression. But for all its faults the 'liberal monarchy', the last in French history, was considerably better than the forms of government that were to follow its departure. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procopius and the Secret History

Your page on Procopius says that he wrote The Secret History because of dissolusionment with the court of Justinian and Theodora. But the text is so venemous that their must surely have been some other process at work? T Jarvie (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best verdict ever passed on The Secret History, T. Jarvie, was that supplied by Procopius himself, who wrote of his fear that later generations would condemn him as "a narrator of myths...neither credible nor probable." And he is quite right: parts of it are so fantastic that they quite simply defy belief. It is perhaps best seen as a bad-tempered narrative, a corrective to his public adulation of Justinian, that of necessity had to remain secret, pointing out the various failures of his reign, including the superficial nature of his western reconquests. Unfortunately he goes too far in his anger, mixing the critical with the fantastic.

But the real source of his animus can be traced to the great transitions in Roman society, transitions that saw the decline of traditional elites and the older self-reliant forms of urban government. For Procopius the source of this moral and political decay is to be found at the very heart of Justinian's government, particularly in the power and influence enjoyed by women like Antonina, wife of Belisarius, and, above all, the Empress Theodora, both of whom, in defiance of all of the ancient traditions, had been admitted to senatorial rank. It is in his descriptions of Theodora that Procopius is at his most scurrilous, his most vindictive, his most pornographic...and his most misogynist. And it is this-simple misogyny-that provides one of the most important keys for reading a work that was written as an intellectual safety valve for an angry and frustrated man. Theodora has become in his eyes the personification of all that is wrong with the Roman world. The irony is that his invective simply served to make her one of the most memorable figures in Byzantine history. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Clio the Muse. You are brilliant. T Jarvie (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Hegel outline his theory of tragedy?

In which work does Hegel outline his theory of tragedy? --Jscheiner (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his Lectures on Aesthetics. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Muslim nations vs.civilization

Are Egypt(Ancient Egypt) and Iraq(Mesopotamia) the only Arab Muslim nations to have a ancient civilization? If not, what other Arab Muslim nations have which civilization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they all did :) . I can't really say what they were, though, unless you say what you mean by ancient. Wrad (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or what you mean by civilization. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan had an ancient civilization at Petra. The Queen of Sheba's court at Sheba was another ancient Arabic civilization. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the modern "Arab" states "have" ancient civilisations - the Middle East is, afterall, the cradle of human civilisation. Simplistically identifying modern nations with ancient civilisations, we have: Lebanon was the home of the Phonecians, who also founded Carthage, now in Tunisia. The Assyrians and Hittites also ruled or lived in various parts of other modern Arab states. Iraq, as you said, contained the ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia, especially Babylon. Sudan contains ancient Nubia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenicians also founded Cadiz, now in Spain. And the Carthaginian civilization, the descendants of the Phoenicians, settled in Sicily. Corvus cornix_talk 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabian Peninsula had a highly developed culture even before Muhammad. AllenHansen (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quran

Are Moses and Jesus the only prophets of Islam to face a pagan civilization, according to the Qur'an? If not, who else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad had to deal with the pagan Arabs. Algebraist 21:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas. Wrad (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but can you tell me which ancient civilization did Ilyas face? You cannot tell me that Ilyas also faced a civilization. You have to say the name of that specific civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 14:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:No one here "has" to say anything. If you follow Wrad's link, you will find your answer. Wrad is helping you to find the answer, so that you will understand it better. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He fought the pagan Canaanite civilization and their God Baal. He is pretty much the same as the Jewish Prophet Elijah. Wrad (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country Song

I am trying to figure out the name of a country song I heard. I have no idea who sings it. These are the only words I can remember in it: "pass it on to the next generation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henson Cargill - This Generation Shall Not Pass? Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superdelegates

Having looked at List of United States Democratic Party Superdelegates, is Teddy Kennedy not a superdelegate? Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a broken ref tag that made him and some others disappear from the list. It's been fixed. He is indeed a superdelegate as are all Democratic members of Congress. --Rajah (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]