Humanities desk
< April 12	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 14 >

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.

April 13

New South Wales

Why was New South Wales called New South Wales instead of New Wales?96.53.149.117 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was called New Wales. New South Wales tells me: In the journal covering his survey of the eastern coast of the Australian continent, Cook first named the east coast of Australia "New Wales", which he later corrected in his journal to "New South Wales".

But why he changed it, that's anyone's guess. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there might have been another "New Wales" already existing somewhere on the Northern Hemisphere, but I didn't find anything conclusive. The article on Welsh American has:

"On a plaque mounted on the east façade of the imposing Philadelphia City Hall, the following inscription is found:

Perpetuating the Welsh heritage, and commemorating the vision and virtue of the following Welsh patriots in the founding of the City, Commonwealth, and Nation: William Penn, 1644-1718, proclaimed freedom of religion and planned New Wales later named Pennsylvania. [...]"

The article on William Penn has:

Penn first called the area “New Wales”, then "Sylvania" (Latin for "forests or woods'"), which Charles changed to "Pennsylvania" in honor of the elder Penn.

Since the the American New Wales was renamed almost a century before Cook thought about the Australian region, I doubt it had any influence on Cook's decision. Maybe there was yet another New Wales? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was distinguishing it from New North Wales? Although there was another New South Wales in the same area already. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Nova Scotia and New Caledonia, which despite being named after the same place, are about as antipodean as you can get. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then, they weren't so named because of any proximity to Scotland, but because of something that reminded the discoverers of Scotland, or because they just wanted to perpetuate Scottish influence abroad. Same deal for the various New Englands, the two New Irelands, New France, and New Britain. I was taught in school that the cliffs of the NSW coast reminded Cook of the cliffs of South Wales, and that was why he thought of the name. But I can't vouch for that. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory Mitchell and Webb sketch. Seems weirdly similar to what Jack was taught at school. 217.43.141.59 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legend with Hakon and Sigrid?

Hello, I'm reading a novel so I can write about it for Wikipedia but I don't recognize all of the allusions in it. There is one story in the book that is presented as a legend from Norway. There's one time parameter: the novel is set in the 12th century, so presumably the storyteller wouldn't tell the other characters a legend that postdates the period.

The gist of the supposed legend is that there's a woman named Sigrid who is charged by her aged warrior father to brew a potion of invincibility for him, so that he can defeat a certain Hakon Swendson. There is a long-standing feud between the families, but the two meet and fall in love, à la Romeo & Juliet, except with a happy ending.

Does this tale sound like any actual legend from Norse or Scandinavian mythology? A regular Google search turns up lots of Sigrids and Hakons but nothing that fits this story. Thank you. Loves Macs (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The names reminded me of Hagbard and Signy, but that legend is rather miserable, and Romeo and Julietish in the sense that they both die. So, a pointless answer, really, since it bears no relation to the question. Gwinva (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bible as book

Is the bible normally cataloged as a fictional or non-fictional book?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it depends on one's religion and one's philisophical stance on the Bible. For example, a creationist would probably take the whole Bible literally, a Christian whole supports evolution would believe the New Testament but take the Old with a grain of salt, and a atheiest would think the whole thing's ridiculous Library Seraph (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP was asking about how the Bible is catalogued, not about philosophical stances. In the Dewey Decimal System, modern translations are given the shelfmark 220.5, meaning it is classed as non-fiction.

Bear in mind that the classification "non-fiction" does not automatically equate to "fact". The writings of David Icke, for example, are also catalogued as non-fiction. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess most libraries/book shops etc. have religious sections. Some take it upon themself to move them to the fiction section chan dler ··· 13:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the Swedish library system, where they classify it as "Ccb", which means that they put it specifically in a section called "Religion" (same as The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Qu'ran, I suppose) 83.252.174.221 (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In BS" section. Is "BS" considered fiction? Edison (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, "B" is "Philosophy, psychology, religion", with "BS" simply "The Bible". Fiction vs. non-fiction doesn't really enter into the classification scheme. Most books that would be classified as "fiction" under other schemes wind up in a subcategory of "P" "Language and Literature". - Nunh-huh 22:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But was some early cataloguer making a wry editorial statement by declaring The Bible to be "BS?" Edison (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is tempting to think so, but I suspect it's just one of those amusing coincidences. These days we'd probably skip from BR to BT just to avoid the matter. - Nunh-huh 04:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of Sudan People's Liberation Army

What is the general opinion of the Sudan People's Liberation Army in the US and Europe? Are they considered "good guys" or "bad guys," if such a distinction makes sense? Have they been accused of genocide or terrorism?

Thanks, — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a "general opinion" of something like this. Some people will say they are a force for good and others that they are a force for bad. It's impossible – and anti-intellectual – to generalize. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with that. For instance, Afghanistan, 2001, the Taliban were generally considered by the US and Europe to be "bad guys," while the Northern Alliance were generally considered "better guys," or at least "not-so-bad guys." In Sudan, the Janjaweed are generally considered "very bad guys" by the US and Europe -- the US declared that they committed genocide, the US Sec. Council called for them to be disarmed and the International Criminal Court has filed charges against their leaders.

I'm all for moral relativism, but there is frequently a general consensus of opinion on who the West supports.

If the SPLA specifically garners no such consensus of opinion, because their actions are considered ethically "grayer," that would be an adequate answer to my question. — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a general opinion. To be honest, in North America at least, no one really cares about Africans killing each other. If anyone even knows that anything bad is happening in Sudan at all, it's probably because of George Clooney. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the leaders/diplomats/Human rights organizations of the West? For instance, like I mentioned above, the Janjaweed are generally considered "bad guys" by the West, even if most people don't know who they are. — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember that when the Taliban was the Mujahideen, and was killing the commies, they were the Good Guys according to the West. Likewise, when Saddam Hussein was killing the Iranians who overthrew the Shah of Iran, himself a U.S. ally, he was a Good Guy. Fast forward 20-20 years, and now they are the Bad Guys. For the policy makers and the diplomats in all countries, the "Good Guys" are defined as people who best serve the interest of those policy makers, and the Bad Guys are those that do not; it has little to do with the actual actions of those Guys, only with how they can be use to further the politics of the policy makers. Thus, Taliban in 1980's = Good Guy. Taliban in 2000's = Bad Guy. Saddam Hussein in 1980's = Good Guy. Saddam Hussein in 1990's = Bad Guy. It is this sort of actions by western governments, especially the U.S., that likely leads to the bad reputation the U.S. government has in the world with regards to interventionism. If the U.S. intervened on "moral" grounds, it would be one thing. Its when the U.S. clearly acts out of self-serving interests (and in some cases, takes NO action in places where we have no interest, c.f. Sudan, Rwanda, etc.) that it becomes clear that "Good" and "Bad" on an absolute scale mean nothing for the policy makers. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Taliban are not the same as the Mujahideen... AnonMoos (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The leadership was different, but the core group was essentially the same. Many of the same people who were American allies as the Mujahideen became American enemies as Taliban. There is a direct evolutionary link between the two groups, but yes, technically the Taliban was a distinct (but descendent) group from the Mujahideen. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance, not the Taliban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.196.62 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a direct "a to b" linkage between either group. The leaders of the Mujahideen largely became the leaders of the Northern Alliance, but in 1980 the U.S. Government drew no distinction between the native Afghan groups fighting the Soviets. Its really a complicated situation; but during the 1980 Soviet war, the Americans supported ALL native groups who opposed the Soviets, including the Mujahideen leadership (later the Northern Alliance) and those that later became the Taliban. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fable About Thinking Ahead

I seem to recall having read a fable/allegory/parable several years ago about prisoners being forced to carry supplies from one Greek city to another. Most prisoners chose relatively loaded sacks of pots/pans to carry while one of them chose the heaviest sack and was scorned for being an idiot. However, it turns out that this sack was full of food, so by the time the trip ended, there was little food to carry and so this prisoner was barely carrying anything at all while his comrades were still carrying the original loads.

Does anyone know what the name of this story is and where I could find it again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.201.86 (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The story is from the life of Aesop and involves slaves (including Aesop himself, the clever fellow with the bread) rather than prisoners. John M Baker (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

native american population history

where is our article on the history of the population of native amerincas, please? I glanced over Native_Americans_in_the_United_States and also read the article titles in the "see also" section at the end but can't seem to find the article. (I am especially interested in the reduction over time in their numbers, if this happened, and the referenced causes). Thank you. 94.27.151.13 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a look at the article on population history of American indigenous peoples. --62.47.129.162 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC). Oops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may want to head to a bookstore or library and check out 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, a very accessible and enlightening read on this topic. Other books on Native American population history which are good are Guns, Germs, and Steel and The Columbian Exchange. Additionally this short article has some great references you may want to follow. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "1491: New Revelations..." is not an uncontroversial book but our article lacks a critical reception section or any indication at all of any review of the work. (The "Guns, Germs and Steel" article has some such information.) Rmhermen (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placing blame elsewhere

What is the name for the observed human tendency to fit newly observed data into a person's current set of assumptions, no matter how much the data conflicts with the assumptions?

A driver runs a stop sign and slams into a pedestrian, and instantly places blame on the pedestrian for getting in the way (fitting the belief, "I am a good driver");
a Republican in America blames the current recession solely on the policies of President Clinton although there were 8 intervening years of Republican governance (fitting the belief, "Republicans are better rulers than Democrats");
a Democrat in America blames the Republicans for warrantless wiretapping although it has been approved repeatedly by Democratic lawmakers (fitting the belief, "Democrats are better rulers than Republicans")

The political examples above are intended as examples and not as flamebait, hence my use of both sides. Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation bias may be what you mean. However, I feel I should point out when it comes to politics, that may not really be the case a lot of the time. I suspect it doesn't have a whole lot to do with psychology -- at least in terms of people displaying an unconscious tendency. They have an agenda, and they're very much aware of how important it is to manipulate the media and voters. That's not the same thing as actually believing in what they say. This is not to say that confirmation bias and other similar psychological effects aren't a factor in politics, but a lot of politics is about putting a spin on things regardless of what you believe. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm looking for — and it looks like a good article, thank you. Tempshill (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also cognitive dissonance... AnonMoos (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buck passing. --88.110.37.123 (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]