Humanities desk
< April 18	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 20 >

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 19

Website for finding theme (literature)

Is there any website that allow to find a theme for any stories? 66.75.241.44 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as theme is a part of literary criticism, it is largely up to the subjective view of the reader as to the theme of a book or story. I think it may be hard to determine an objective way to categorize such an idea reliably, and I don't know that any website makes any attempt to do so. Your question is also a little vague. Could you expand on it? To what end are you looking for this information. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to stop a prima donna behaving as such?

What is the best way to stop a prima donna (in the metaphorical sense) from behaving as such? Thanks. 89.242.147.172 (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of details makes answering your question impossible. In what way is she a prima donna? What is your relationship to this person? How exactly are they acting and why? What do you mean by "best way"? (easist? quickest? cheapest? most effective?) —D. Monack ^talk 20:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To take a very general position, the reason a prima donna may be acting so is likely to be a desire to be the centre of attention and/or an object of adoration. To satisfy, there are two options - keep her the centre of attention and adoration, or ignore them to a point where she must get over it. The first option will require a lot of maintenance, the second will have a lot of chaos in the first steps. The choice is yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.25 (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we assuming the offending party is a woman? Prima donnas can be men, too. In operatic circles, a leading male singer is a primo uomo, but in metaphorical contexts, prima donna can refer to anyone who qualifies by virtue of their behaviour, regardless of sex. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, this prima donna is a male. It is someone I'm involved with in business. One of the difficulties is that this person wants to be fed a rosy view of future events, and is not interested in the true facts, which are essential to jointly plan the right route to get to a successfull outcome. The justification for this seems to be that this person considers themselves an artist (although in truth they are not very good as an artist), and that being an artist gives priveledges including not having to think or work, and to be treated as someone important and of high status. I'm wondering what to do - playing along with it will make him worse (and makes him a dead weight as a business partner), confronting him will make him worse as well. Edit: a worrying possibility is that he is behaving like this because he has taken to the bottle. 89.240.60.225 (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. If you want to neither play along with him nor confront him, what other options are there? Those might be the extreme positions, but there must be ways of influencing him, making him see the issues you do, etc. It might require a subtle approach. I can't say much more than that without knowing more facts. If all else fails, would you considered severing your business relationship? That might make him sit up and take notice. If you tell him the relationship is just not working for you, and you're considering withdrawing, even a prima donna should want to know what the problem is, if only for his own sake. Then you could be upfront about how his behaviour is affecting you, and suggest some ways of changing the situation so that it works for both of you. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

write a report. two sections: the good. the bad. (He won't read the bad, because he wants a rosy view. But if you're explicit in that section, your ass is covered). 79.122.57.194 (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least this illustrates the important dicotomy of business or organisational cultures being either fact-based or loyalty-based - with the later seeming superficially to give an excellent performance without anyone doing much work, as people are assessed on their lip-service, until it crashes disastrously. Unless they have such powerful defences to criticism that they are never found out. 89.242.82.4 (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms in American legislation

Why do American legislators insist on giving their bills ridiculous acronyms? Looking through a couple of the relevant categories, I find USA PATRIOT, PROTECT, RAVE, BALANCE, CARE, CALM, COPE, REAL, SAFE (twice!), SKILLS, and USA, and I could find many more if I looked through THOMAS. Is there some historical reason? Are there any other countries with similarly absurd practices? --superioridad ^(discusión) 11:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would speculate that it's one way to add a little personal stylistic touch to what is otherwise a long dry technicalistic legal text... AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bill with a memorable name probably has a better chance of passing. LANTZY ^TALK 15:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a sneaky bit of psychology on the bill writers' part. Who wants to vote against the PATRIOT act - if you do, does that mean you're less of a patriot? And of course, something entitled the SAFE Act or the CARE act certainly couldn't contain provisions which might be harmful. Why would they call it the SAFE act if it was dangerous? And shame on you for suggesting that it is. Don't you CARE? - But seriously, it's called "priming": by presenting a stimulus with certain positive connotations (the words PATRIOT/PROTECT/SAFE/CARE/CALM/etc.) you are more likely to associate later stimuli (the contents of the bill) with the positive connotations of the former. -- 75.42.235.205 (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Timothy Geithner presented his plan to use a few hundred billion dollar of US Government money to buy troubled assets from banks, economist James Galbraith suggested the name "Bad Assets Relief Fund". 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to 75.42.235.205, its also biased because, for example with the PATRIOT act, anyone who votes against it is effectively saying 'I'm not a Patriot' - who doesn't want to be SAFE or doesn't CARE? Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they couldn't find a dead child to name their bill after (Tabitha's Law, anyone?). If I was a congressman, I would call my bill the "Anyone Who Doesn't Vote For This Bill is a Child Molester" Bill. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polls for European Parliament election, 2009 (Sweden)?

The Pirate Party got over 9000 new members recently, but does it stand any chance in the election? F (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced European Parliament election, 2004 (Sweden) says the Christian Democrats scraped a seat with 142704 votes (5.68%). A low voter turnout is again suspected, and votes are much higher than number of members. A non RS comment from 3 months ago at [1] says "7% of Swedish voters would "absolutely consider" voting for us in the European parliamentary elections, and 14% said they "might consider" voting for us." -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t14:37z

Multiple wives/first ladies?

With Jacob Zuma likely to be the next president of South Africa, has there ever been a democracy with a president with multiple wives? -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t14:26z

Not a president as such, but a head of state. George IV of the United Kingdom had two wives simultaneously - sort of. First was Maria Fitzherbert; this marriage was deemed legally null and void because he had not obtained royal permission (and would not have, even if he had asked, because she was a Roman Catholic). But in the eyes of the Pope, it was a valid marriage. And I can see his point. If she had not been a RC, I'm sure they wouldn't have minded too much and permission would have been granted retrospectively. But because she was a RC, they chose to abide by the strict letter of the law. Thus it comes down to royal whim as to whether a prince is validly married or not. Then George married Caroline of Brunswick. He didn't have to divorce Fitzherbert first, because legally he was never married to her. And even if he had divorced her, she would still have remained his wife in the eyes of the Pope. But she remained his mistress and for all intents and purposes his wife, while his formal wife was Caroline. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An intriguing question. What about Islamic republics, e.g. Pakistan and Indonesia, to name two of the most populous? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia has had only 6 presidents, one of who was female and the daughter of the only one who did have multiple wives Sukarno (who was also the first president). Polygamy is common among the Sultans of Malaysia one of who is always the Agong (King) and therefore head of state but far less common among the general public and I personally doubt a polygamist has much hope of being the PM and therefore head of government (I don't know if there has even be a polygamist cabinet minister although if PAS ever gets in to government polygamist cabinet ministers are a definite possibility). Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brigham Young, with 55 wives, was governor of Utah Territory. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that no depend on wath you mean by first lady? Even if a man in such a situation may have several wives, I would guess that only one of those would function as the first lady. I think it was like that in old China; the emperor had many wives, but only one took the position of Empress.--85.226.47.62 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Jackson was attacked for remarriage issues. Neutrality^talk 00:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Male succession through females

I wonder if anyone can help me with this question. Is there a specific word for this situation : If a monarch dies without a son, and is succeeded by the husband of his daughter, then what is it called? Is there a word for such an heiress and situation? When a princess becomes the Queen consort, but not the Queen regnant, in the same country as she was Princess in? (though I am talking about any monarchy, not just kingdoms but also duchys etc) Regards--Aciram (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it happens like that. If the state does not allow a female monarch, the throne will go to the first male in line, not to the husband of the first female in line. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found something. There is Jure uxoris, and there is also Uterine primogentiure in [[2]], but I don't know if it is the same thing....--85.226.40.6 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this has happened exactly once, and was done in a nation that does allow female monarchs, see William and Mary, but that isn't the exact same thing, since Mary was also a Queen Regnant. I don't know if the situation described by the OP has actually ever occured, and so the situation may have never been accounted for.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VII of England and his wife, Elizabeth of York. Though Henry made his claim via his own bloodline, even though his wife had the better claim. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some examples in France of princesses of France who became queens of France while their husbands became kings: Emma of France, Joan of France, Duchess of Berry, Claude of France, Marguerite of Valois--85.226.40.6 (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly happened in the other direction. Catherine I and Catherine II "The Great" of Russia were Queens Consort who succeeded their husbands and became Queens Regnant. But this wasn't a consequence of any law on succession. Neither of them had Russian blood or any legitimate claim to the throne: Catherine I was Estonian/Swedish; Catherine II was Prussian. The formal word for those circumstances is "coup". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This happened a bunch of times in crusader Jerusalem (for example Melisende of Jerusalem and her husband Fulk), but in that case there was no law against a woman inheriting a crown, it was just socially awkward. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It happened in ancient Egypt. See, for example, the story of Hatshepsut. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replyes so far. I have just clerified my question: I supose I also ment this situation no matter wath the law said; simply a situation, were a Princess transfers her right to a throne to her husband, and becomes the consort in the very same country she was princess in; especially if she does not do this in any formal way : Saint Ingamoder Emundsdotter of Sweden is one example. Is there a term for this?--Aciram (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no succession law which gives a man right to succeed his father-in-law as sole monarch. Kings who did succeed their fathers-in-law as sole monarchs were elected to succeed the King who just happened to be their wife's father, i.e. the fact that the King was the father of his wife did help Rudolph of Burgundy to be elected but he was elected in his own right. Emma became Queen consort of France as the wife of the newly elected King. That's because women could not succeed to the throne of France at all. (Henry VII is not an example of this situation because he reigned by the right of conquest. He became King by conquest before he married Elizabeth of York. William III and Mary II both reigned by the right of conquest)

However, where women could succeed, their husbands reigned jointly with them. So, when Henry IV died, Castile passed to his half-sister Isabella I and Isabella I's husband Ferdinand V who proved to be the legitimate successors by defeating Henry IV's alleged daughter and son-in-law. When Isabella I died, Ferdinand V could not keep the crown of Castile because he was no longer husband of the sovereign, so Castile passed to their daughter Joanna and Joanna's husband Philip I. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Archbishop engages in a lengthy discussion of this general topic in the "Salic Law" passage of Act 1 Scene 2 (I think - working from memory) of Shakespeare's Henry V. AndyJones (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Hamlet, the current king Claudius is the second husband of Queen Gertrude, widow of the previous king, Hamlet sr. There's no discussion in the play as to why Hamlet (jr.) didn't succeed his father; and it wasn't noted as something remarkable or extraordinary that a Queen Dowager's new husband with no claim to the throne would succeed a king, so it must have been accepted as something that happened in those times. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I realise that Claudius was Hamlet (jr.)'s uncle, and therefore probably the brother of King Hamlet (although this isn't specified; he could, I suppose, have been Gertrude's sister's husband, or even King Hamlet's sister's husband). It still seems odd that the brother of a king would succeed the king when there were was a male heir (Hamlet, jr.) available. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Jure uxoris was only the case when the husband of a female monarch becomes a joint monarch by marriage, not when a husband becomes the sole monarch by marriage? In both the cass of Emma of France and Ingamoder of Sweden, their husbands was helped in their election to king by their marriages, although they were no female succession. I suppose the help was informal. Perhaps it was a misconsception from my part. There was really no term for a princess becoming queen consort in her own country? Perhaps there was not, but if there is, it would be interesting to know. Thank you very much for your answers! --Aciram (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Gothic

I don't get meaning behind the title "American Gothic", choosen by Gordon Parks for this photography. Can please someone clarify this? I'm not a native speaker, but I don't normally have difficulties in reading English. I just don't get the meaning of Gothic in this context. --Pjacobi (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See American Gothic. If you still don't understand after reading that article, see Parody. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks! I've seen the Featured Picture discussion but missed the article. So, the Gothic in itself doesn't make any sense, it only refers to the backdrop of the parodied painting. This is simply unguessable, if one doesn't know the story behind this. --Pjacobi (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, though American Gothic (the original) is one of the most famous modern American paintings (as the article states). If you don't know what it is referencing, then you won't get the other photograph at all, one could say. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peerages of the British Royal Family

What happens to a son's courtesy title when his father is given a new, higher-ranking peerage? E.g., if the Earl of Wessex were to be made a Duke, would Viscount Severn be simultaneously "promoted" to the courtesy title "Earl of Wessex"? Also, if a woman holds multiple peerages in her own right, do her sons receive courtesy titles? [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom seems to lay things out in meticulous detail. Does it answer your questions? -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the first question is explicitly answered there, but both are Yes. —Tamfang (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

graph of snowboard sales

Hi im wondering if any one can find me a graph with the sale of snowboards on it. Im looking for it so i can see the way snow boards have become more popular since they were first invented. ive looked around but cant seem to find one. I would like one that combines all sales of all or most companys so that it does not show how well a sertain company is doing and only how snnowboards gained in popularity. thanks --Sivad4991 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen murdered by soldiers?

This regards Maria Josepha of Austria. In the French wiki-article of her, it is said that her death was caused by brutal treatment from hostile soldiers during the war; I can not read French well enough to understand it better than that. Was she murdered? Exactly how did she die?--85.226.40.6 (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says that she was poorly treated by the Prussian army, who had invaded her territory without a declaration of war because she had taken the side of France and Austria. I guess she was probably taken captive, and probably passively maltreated until she died, but none of the other language article say anything further either (except that she died in Dresden). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish article says she died of apoplexy. No source is given. — Kpalion^(talk) 07:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the replies! Wath a shame that there is nothing more detailed about this in wikipedia. But perhaps someone knows anything about this? --85.226.47.62 (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly do animal rights organisations campaign for animals that are only born for meat?

I understand it in principle, but if the animals they're campaigning for (organisations like PETA and so on) are arguing for animal rights, don't they think of the fact that the cows, pigs, chickens... whatever... wouldn't have been born at all if not for being used in the commercial meat industry? And the general population of these animals is gonna be close to negligible without these industries - sad but true.--Evenexist undercrowd (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I love the taste of beef, chicken, fish, and so on, don't care for pork that much, I do like lamb though, but do you get my point?--Evenexist undercrowd (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)--Evenexist undercrowd (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "purpose" of a given life does not affect the moral status of that life. If humans were being bred for meat it wouldn't make their slaughter any less moral. If your parents "bred" you in order to make you their slave, it wouldn't actually make it any better for them to treat you as a slave. Intentionality has nothing to do with it in this case. You either think killing said animals is moral or you don't. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If meat-eating were abolished many forms of cattle would not be allowed to breed, and would go extinct, or near extinct.

The situation is not the same. And the situation is not clear-cut. It's disingenuous to claim it is.

Imagine if meat-eating aliens from beyond the moon showed up, and gave us the choice between :

A)Being raised as cattle.
B) Not being allowed to breed, and going extinct except for a few zoo specimens.

We can all agree that killing humans is immoral. How does that help us make this decision? APL (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

APL, can you elaborate on your "many forms of cattle would not be allowed to breed" comment? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Primarily I mean that the land they occupy is often extremely valuable. Free cows would present a nuisance, an expense, a health hazard, and even a danger. If cattle farming stopped tomorrow, I have a hard time believing that the freed cows would be allowed to be fruitful and multiply. For practical reasons if for no other.

I suppose it's possible that hundreds of millions of cows could just be set free to their own devices, but I doubt that the Cow Nation would be able to sustain itself (We're talking hundreds of millions of cows, here, many of them currently living on high-density lots.) And not just cows either, also innumerable pigs and chickens, etc. Without human intervention "freed" cattle would suffer a massive die-off. Sterilizing them would, at that point, seem humane, and it would benefit the Human agenda. It's hard to imagine a scenario it wouldn't be done.

Perhaps I'm being too literal. Or too cynical. Perhaps the cow freeing could be done gradually with a concurrent introduction of predators. A whole artificial ecosystem could be constructed for them. This would be a massive effort, possibly even more massive than convincing people not to eat hamburgers in the first place. APL (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, at first I thought you might have been implying that through artificial selection, cattle are no longer capable of surviving in the wild. Thanks for the clarification. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm straying from my original point which was simply that it's disingenuous to claim that it's a simple answer from the animal's perspective. An end to cattle farming would be catastrophic to the cattle, even if they eventually recovered. APL (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is 98's answer above PETA's official response to this question? Would they prefer the animals not exist than exist to be eaten by humans? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PETA and others also campaign around animals killed for fur, both wild ones (e.g. seals) and those bred for the purpose (e.g. mink). The bodies may go for petfood, but do not usually enter the human food chain. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a person free a (human) slave who was born into slavery? --Aseld ^talk 07:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For many reasons, most of which don't apply at all to cattle. Even if you believe them to be sentient, a free cow will not smoothly integrate into our society or even our ecosystem as anything other than a food source. (Let alone nine hundred million of them.) APL (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Indians know about this? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously those animals we raise for food might never have been born without the desire to eat them, PETA and other groups know this - they argue that it is unethical to kill an animal for food because we don't have to to survive (presumably they let off other carnivorous animals without conscious minds). Animals bred for eating might struggle to survive in the wild if let alone, but we very rarely do that with other animals so why wouldn't we just start 'maintaining' food-animals in a manner the same we do say Badgers, Foxes and hedgehogs? That is to say we actively try to ensure their survival, but we also actively try to limit their numbers (at least in my understanding we do). I can see that the 'domesticated' breeds may have a disadvantage but also think it'd be manageable. Ultimately though as noted above the question of 'why' we breed them doesn't alter the morality of what we do to them in the minds of those that think it is immoral (though this will placate many many people as shown by the desire of millions to eat things such as free-range produce or those with approval that they are well treated - even if ultimately they're killed for food). ny156uk (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that Badger, fox, and hedgehog populations are being artificially supported? I'm aware that some varieties of Fox are protected species. Wikipedia's articles on Badgers and hedgehogs seem to indicate that they're doing quite well on their own. If that's not right, it would probably be an interesting addition tot he badger and hedgehog articles.APL (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure a variety of measures have been introduce to try and reduce the deaths of hedgehogs. For example our hedgehog article mentions the redesign of McFlurry containers. I believe tunnels under roads are also common [3]. However these aren't really a great example of artificially supporting a population. Better examples would be breeding programmes and the like for criticially endangered species with pandas and kiwis for example although even these are just as much about undoing damage done by humans Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ny explains the point well. Note that few people are going to find slavery acceptable even if you start breeding people specifically for it in which case the specific people involved would obviously not have been born where you not breeding them for slavery Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]