Humanities desk
< July 26	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 28 >

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 27

Professor title (second try)

Let me try to focus my question. Is it possible in the USA that a person (that does have a PhD) will get a professor title in Humanities from any institute just for his/her publications, without teaching there?

And another question please: Can somebody that worked in an institute as a lecturer call him/herself "professor"? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Isaac Asimov decided to become a full-time writer, he was an associate professor at Boston University. As this was a tenured position, he was allowed to retain the title even though he was no longer teaching (and was not being paid by the university). 21 years later they promoted him to professor. So, in effect, he did get the title of professor just for his publications.

But this was a science position, not humanities. And, more important, he had an existing tenured position at the university. It's not as if they had hired him to start as a full professor with no teaching duties. --Anonymous, 08:02 UTC, July 27, 2008.

My question is even more radical: getting the title without any teaching at the place (in the past, present or future). I guess the answer is no.

Can anybody answer my second question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, the term professor has different meanings in the United States. In can refer to any post-secondary educator, in which case the answer to your second question is yes. Or it can refer to a specific rank that contrasts with that of lecturer, in which case your answer is no. --Allen (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First: In the US, it is possible for someone who has no teaching responsibilities and no previous association with a university to be granted the title of professor. This is, however, rare and almost always involves someone who is very well known in his field. The understanding is that the person will continue to publish and will list his affiliation with the title-granting university. Second: In the US and Europe, the title "professor" is reserved for what are known as "full professors" -- people who have risen above the rank of associate professor. In the US, students typically call teachers without Ph.D.'s "professor" and teachers with Ph.D.'s "doctor." While common, this usage actually reverses the prestige of the titles (as, at most institutions, to rise to the rank of associate professor requires that one hold a terminal degree). Wikiant (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Since Wikiant's entry discusses US vs. non-US usage, the 4th sentence should probably start "Second: in the UK and Europe..."~~ /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I intended what I wrote. The first item I know to be true for the US. The second item, I know to be true for the US and Europe. Wikiant (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. I see what you mean now. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to your second question, the term 'professor' is ambiguous -- it is both a rank, as is discussed above, and a sort of a description. You might say that whoever is teaching the class is the professor (in the second sense), but if a person who holds the rank of instructor refers to him/herself as professor, that person is being a bit disingenuous (and probably knows it). Llamabr (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A little more info: I believe your "first sense" use is typically capitalized while the "second sense" use is not. E.g., "Our professor is Professor Smith." Wikiant (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this is true so far as it goes, but you can just go ahead and call yourself Professor, as Irwin Corey the comedian did. The word implies that you're connected with a college in some way, but it's got about the same validity as "colonel" from Kentucky. OtherDave (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of cheesy unaccredited diploma mills in the US which grant aggrandized titles to people on their faculty. Some of these are "bible colleges," others specialize in healing or philosophy. There might just be a professorship in humanities to be had at one such based on life experiences, publications, or financial contributions, but it would not be taken seriously.. Edison (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

french revolution

when french revolution occured —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.60.214 (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See French_revolution GreatManTheory (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

personal pacifism and the military?

Recently I've gotten to know someone who's in the military. This person has told me that they believe in peace. This has gotten me to thinking: is being a pacifist compatible with being in the military? To me, they both seem to be polar opposites for obvious reasons. Thanks for your help as always. - Thanks, Hoshie 10:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps asking this person would be the best way to get a good answer for this question, but I think it's possible... kind of. It's entirely possible for a person to prefer a peaceful solution to all situations but still feel that it may not always be an option. Perhaps your friend feels that being a pacifist in an organization like the military gives them at least some potential make or influence choices that lead to war rather than peace, for example. Still, that is a kind of a contradictory situation to be in, and I would imagine that if they're honestly committed to pacifism to any significant degree, that's probably going to lead to a lot of internal conflict for them, for pretty obvious reasons. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Pacifism. While simply "believing in peace" is enough to make someone a pacifist by some definitions, typically the word refers to the more radical view that war is never justified under any circumstances. Most people believe in peace in some sense, but only a few are pacifists. So your military friend may not be a pacifist. --Allen (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that pacifists were sometimes assigned non-combat duties like being medics in the military. Rmhermen (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few people believe in peace but also believe in the occasional necessity of war. I would imagine very few people truly "believe in war" as something desirable, even in the military. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of war - the notion that war is like an unwanted fire or plague that must be extinguished is a common one.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want to read the Conscientious objector article. And for an interesting real-life story in this area, see Alvin York or watch the fictionalized version in the movie Sergeant York. --Anonymous, 22:50 UTC, July 27, 2008.

The temptation to quote Doctor Who is too great!

The Doctor: No, no. I'm trying to stop the fighting.

Jenny: Isn't every soldier?

Plus, of course, "Call me old-fashioned, but if you really wanted peace, couldn't you just stop fighting?"

Sorry. I'll find another rock to crawl under now... 79.66.124.253 (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading in The Atlantic Monthly about a conscientious objector who was drafted into the Marine Corps -- something he didn't think could happen. This was during the Vietnam War. He had a hell of a hard time in boot camp, ended up (if I recall correctly) as a corpsman (a kind of medic). OtherDave (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan maps

Where are the maps of Afghanistan where they show the languages and ethnic groups by provinces instead of districts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.191 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here are some links Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ethnic groups of afghanistan-provinces.jpg there are extra links to other maps contained in this discussion.

also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Linguistic_maps_of_Afghanistan

also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Afghanistan

for some reason they are not in the category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Afghanistan I don't know if this is correct or not.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Order of the Golden Star

I have a very old calendar that was put out by The Royal Order of the Golden Star. The calendar was aimmed at children with a lesson for each day, such as, "I will be unselfish under all circumstances" and "I will not waste any time in idleness". The buzz words on the top of the calender are "Physically Strong, Mentally Alert, Socially Kind, and Morally Clean". I would like to find out more about The Royal Order of the Golden Star. Can you help? Thank you, ____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portsmouth1974 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the name right? Google search for that term brings up only similar names, such as Golden Star Fraternity and Lodge of Order of the Golden Star (PDF). You might check if the calendar has a publisher's name on the back. What year is it for?64.228.89.144 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology

If you Google P.W. Thorndyke, you get a sense of this clinical psychologist's significance in Cognitive Development research, particularly correlating familiarity with narrative structure and the retention and use of any and all information. From my limited research, it is one of the few hypotheses that has not been refuted with contradictory research. In fact, the Buros Nebraska Institute for Testing & Measurement confirmed it. However, the information available through Google is limited, and most of the work cited was done a quarter-century ago. For instance, is the good Dr. Thorndyke alive or dead in darkest America? Might he still be working at some institute? Has he turned up any new developments lately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealityUnlimited (talk • contribs) 18:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European colonization of the Americas = crimes against humanity?

Would the European colonization of the Americas be considered crimes against humanity if we used modern language to describe exactly what took place and was done?

What specific modern words would be used to accurately describe the type of exploitation, taking of land, cultural assimilation, and other negative actions/campaigns that took place?--Sonjaaa (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For modern words, you could check the language used to describe recent events in Rwanda (genocide), Zimbabwe (land reform, an euphemism), West Bank (illegal land annexation), Tibet (resettlement, another euphemism), Ex-Yugoslavia (ethnic cleansing). Cultural assimilation is itself a modern term and the extensive See Also section in that article gives another slew of terms. Recommended reading: Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.64.228.89.144 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a crime is a violation of a law, then this would be a case of applying the law retroactively. Since the concept of "crimes against humanity" didn't exist at the time of the European colonization of the Americas, it seems to fit the retroactive application clause. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By inflating the concept it can be diluted and rendered largely ineffective, which is often the unspoken subtext when applying holocausts and diasporas to marginal situations.--Wetman (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think a "crime against humanity" is necessarily a legal concept, and I don't think that's what the original poster was asking about -- it seems to me that she was asking how those events would be interpreted through modern-day morality. Personally, I don't think calling them crimes against humanity would be particularly inaccurate. Even if we conclude that it doesn't technically qualify as a crime against humanity, that was some pretty shitty treatment of other human beings by any standard. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if the reason you're asking is for the purposes of writing in Wikipedia, then the correct terminology to use would be "whatever the reliable sources use"! :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When modern humans came out of Africa circa 30,000 years ago and "replaced" Neanderthals, was it a "crime against pre-humanity?" or a "crime against subhumanity?" Edison (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question! It depends if "humanity" means only our species or if it means any Homo. Maybe "crimes against homininity (or homininkind)"? Do we have evidence that our species treated Neanderthal civilization in a criminal way? Or did we just compete fairly against them and they couldn't keep up? That is another question.--Sonjaaa (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it a "crime against nature," except the homophobes already got that one. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a quintessential debating topic, or undergraduate essay question, on which you can probably make convincing cases either way. One point you might keep in mind is that in law, generally, something isn't made a criminal activity retrospectively. --Robert Merkel (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosher law on soy "meat" and "dairy"

According to the modern interpretation of Jewish food laws, is it acceptable to combine vegetarian meat substitutes like tofu with real cheese, and to mix soymilk(and similar products) with real meat? What about combining fake meat and fake cheese? And is tofu acceptable under kosher law if it's flavored and shaped to resemble something forbidden, like shellfish or bacon? 68.123.238.140 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very surprised to hear that someone had a problem with this. Tofu isn't meat, it's bean curd. It's no different from a mango or a carrot in terms of, uh, meatitude. If something tastes like shellfish or bacon, but isn't shellfish or bacon, there's no problem -- provided, of course, that the flavoring doesn't come from actual shellfish or bacon, or some other non-kosher source. If you're concerned, you may want to check with a rabbi or something; I guess it's possible that there are some weird interpretations of kosher laws out there, but there's no reason to believe that I can see that tofu is somehow off limits. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soy products like tofu and soymilk are always kosher because they are vegetables, not meat or dairy, assuming they meet general kashrut requirements for any other vegetable. —D. Monack ^talk 00:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning behind mixing meat and dairy has to do with actual deaths of animals or the use of animal products—it has nothing to do with appearances, flavors, cooking methods, packaging, trademarks, etc. Fake meat doesn't kill any animals. Fake cheese doesn't use any animal products. So what problem could there possibly be? If you said, "I'm going to mix tofu and vegetable oil products" nobody would bat an eye—the only reason you even think to ask the question is because you are calling them by less-descriptive names. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It states in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 87:3 comment of Rema, that if one eats beef with coconut milk, one should place a piece of coconut on the table for appearances sake (marit ayin). However since today everyone knows that there are soya sausages, soya milk, etc., people usually don't put the labelled package or the container on the table.Simonschaim (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on context and how strictly observant the people in question are, it might be polite to do something like that. I agree with User:Captain Disdain that a rabbi's opinion on the exact social forms would be best, but at the very least it seems to be kosher. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privilege (sociology)

We have no article on privilege (sociology)? This is a fairly important concept in gender studies, sexual diversity studies, aboriginal studies, black studies and other minority studies! I don't know enough to start the article, but I encourage somebody to! I'm also curious what is the opposite of privilege. I.e. is the person who doesn't have privilege called unprivileged or marginalized or non-privileged or? --Sonjaaa (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik, it's the disadvantaged as in underprivileged. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well, I find anything related to Pierre Bourdieu's themes can take you to privilege, its dynamics and spin-offs, further links and reading list. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]