Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 April 5

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 5

Muslim nations ruled by Christians

I know there had been similar questions about Muslim nations of Africa being the member of OIC and their rulers are a non-Muslim but the main question is why Guinea-Bissau, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast are ruled by non-Muslims? Isn't the majority people of the nation suppose to rule the nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.78 (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how you see "people". Why do people have to be defined by their religion? Is a British Prime Minister not supposed to be a Jew (Benjamin Disraeli) or a Scot (Gordon Brown, Tony Blair) just because Jews and Scots do not make up the majority of the country's population? Is an American president not supposed to be Catholic (John F. Kennedy) just because Catholics do not make up the majority of the country's population?

The nation's leader, ideally, should win the approval of the majority of the nation's population. In my experience, people are generally capable of approving of another person even if that person believes in a religion different to theirs. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, race. The answer is that the will of the majority is generally what "rules" a nation (though there are some important exceptions for minority wills as well in this). Whether the will of the majority chooses someone of one religion or race or what have you does not make their will any less clear. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Significance of blue in Pashtun culture

I notice that, during the period of Taliban rule over the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, most if not all of the chadris worn in public were a rather brilliant blue. Why this colour? Rockpocket 01:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about chadris particularly but Afghanistan was the chief source of the color blue in medieval times as that is where lapis lazuli is mined. Its rarity in the west meant that it was saved as a pigment for special purposes particularly The Madonna's clothing in painting. meltBanana 03:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Could be related, though I can't find any sources for it. I did find that "Young married women wear light blue burqas; older women and widows wear a darker blue. White burqas signify new brides." [1]. Still doesn't explain why blue specifically, though. Rockpocket 03:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there not a blue bead worn in some of the "burqa cultures" to protect against some evil? I can find no connection between the two that wouid raise this possibility from WP:OR to WP:RS, or, indeed, any source at all. // BL \\ (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant: in the beginning of the most recent Afghan war, the US dropped yellow cluster bombs all over the place, and also packages of food aid, unhelpfully also yellow. After some amount of foot dragging, the Pentagon agreed to change the color of the food packets, choosing blue. Then they quickly backtracked saying blue was a problem due to "cultural sensitivies". Story. --Sean 13:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Blue may have a spiritual symbolism in Islam, according to this article ("blue (al-azraq) often signifies the impenetrable depths of the universe, and turquoise blue is thought to have mystical qualities"). Don't know if this is a factor in the choice fabric for the chadris though. Brown and black are also used. WikiJedits (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jungdemokraten interwiki?

I started the article National League of German Democratic Youth Clubs after coming across a mention in a book yesterday. However, when googling for more info i came across that on de.wiki it is said that this is the same org as the present-day de:JungdemokratInnen/Junge Linke (see also de:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_der_Jungdemokraten). I'm familiar with the more recent history of JD/JL, but is it uncontroversial to state that the present JD/JL is the exact same organization as the one founded in 1919? After all, there must have been a break in continuity during the Nazi period? --Soman (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

list of genocides

do we have a list of genocides in a table, the kind you can sort on a column such as the number of deaths? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.93.248 (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

hmm... the entry list of genocides redirect to Genocides in history but the data there are not in a table form.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

will someone start such a page for me (the original poster)? I'll gladly work on it from the other sources -- it would be nice to have in one place in table form! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.93.248 (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

nevermind I found it! 79.122.93.248 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I occasionally look up that article, read it fascinatingly for about half an hour, and then I'm bummed out for like a week. Humans suck. Belisarius (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

South Asia

I notice that in Afghanistan, there are people who are Baloch, Uzbek and Turkmen. In Iran, there are Azeri, Turkmen, Baloch, and Arab. When people say the word "Desi", they mean a person who is Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Sri Lankan and recently some people have added Afghani people as "Desi". So, does this mean that Baloch people of Iran and Afghanistan, Turkmen and Uzbek people of Afghanistan, Azeri, Arab, Turkmen and Kurdish of Iran are considered as "Desi"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.212 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The term Desi does not have a clear definition. It seems to be used mainly by some people from South Asia now living outside that region. Unfortunately, South Asia also lacks a clear definition. Afghanistan is sometimes included, sometimes not. Because the term "Desi" is a term indicating a person's self-identity rather than a term that others can use clearly or objectively to identify others, the best guide whether a person is "Desi" or not is whether that person identifies as "Desi". The term seems to be adopted by peoples whose original languages were derived from or influenced by Sanskrit, from which the term Desi itself is derived. This may be the best "objective" test for whether a given cultural background might lead a person to accept a "Desi" identity. Using this criterion, peoples of Azeri, Turkmen, Baloch, Arab, Uzbek, and Kurdish backgrounds would probably not identify as "Desi". Furthermore, their cultures developed outside of the South Asian cultural heartland. As such, most people with a background within the South Asia cultural heartland (which doesn't extend far west of the Indus valley) might not see these ethnic and cultural outsiders as truly "Desi". Marco polo (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Different lingusitic roots for most of the languages in the countries you mention; if your local language is based on Arabic, (for instance) rather than Sanskrit, the word for "homeland" would be different (-stan?) so you would not naturally use 'desi' to self-describe. pablo_hablo. 21:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The suffix -stan is a Persian form (which actually has an Indic cognate "sthan", as in Rajasthan). The closest Arabic word for "homeland" is probably watan وطن, but the adjective watani is not used to mean Arabs abroad... AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pyne's royal residences

Does anybody know where I can find a full online gallery of the images contained in the above mentioned book. Wikipedia only seems to have a few. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.84.185.189 (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonestown

Why didn't Congressman Ryan bring any armed guards with him when he went to Jonestown? 69.69.73.116 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Most likely simply because he didn't think he would be in any actual danger. If so, he was wrong, but not stupidly so: the idea that someone would actually murder someone in his position, accompanied by a news crew, was kind of preposterous, because there'd be no way they could ever get away with it, simply because Ryan was so important. If he'd known beforehand what kind of fanatics he was dealing with, he would've undoubtedly taken a different approach, but if he'd known what kind of fanatics he was dealing with, he wouldn't have had to go on a fact-finding mission down there. Of course, for Jim Jones and his flock getting away with it just wasn't a major concern. When you've got a plan in place for a mass suicide, you just don't have to worry about the consequences of your actions all that much.

Anyway, I can also think of other reasons to not bring armed guards -- perhaps he didn't want to give a hostile impression to the Jonestown residents. Or perhaps he couldn't get any; I'm not sure what kind of gun control laws Guyana has in place now (or thirty years ago), but in plenty of countries, you can't bring armed guards with you just like that -- or at all. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I wonder if Ryan and the US government knew that Jones had armed guards in Jonestown. If they did, they probably should have given him a military escort. If Jones can have armed guards in Guyana, I don't see why the US Military would be barred from having them. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The US military is barred from operating in many places - in fact pretty much all places not in the US. Violating this bar constitutes an act of war. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how legally Jones had armed his guards. In any case, even if Ryan knew that he had armed guards there, that doesn't mean he took the idea that they could be any danger to him seriously -- or that he had particular reason to. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, with regards to the "legality" of the armed guards in Guyana, it is my understanding that the reason Jones took his flock there was to get away from government influence in general. Jonestown was in a pretty remote part of Guyana, out in the jungle, which was away from effective Guyanese government control. In the U.S. there is really no where which is outside of government control, but in many other parts of the world there ARE places where the official government has no ability to enforce the laws. I don't think Jones really cared much either way what the laws of the Guyanese government were, he was just looking for a remote place where his cult could be outside of scrutiny. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I imagine there are places in the interior of Alaska which are just as inaccessible, where you'd be more likely to be molested by polar bears than cops. StuRat (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But the U.S. government/state governments has the ability to airlift any necessary number of soldiers/militia/police anywhere in U.S. territory, whereas the Guyanese government probably hasn't. Luwilt (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What was Jesus' last name

I know we commonly know him as Jesus Christ, but I doubt "Christ" is his last name. Did they even use last names back then.--Pgecaj (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

they did, it's "ben joseph". or "of nazareth". either or really... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.93.248 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are not really last names, they are a patronym and a toponym. They didn't use last names like we do today. That is, if your last name was Josephson, your father does not necessarily have to be called Joseph. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Since he was born a Jew, his "Jewish/Hebrew name" would have been Yeshu ben Yosef (=Jesus, son of Joseph). That's all Jews had back then. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I've read about this convention around that time too. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't know his last name but his middle initial was H. 75.62.6.87 (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an online encyclopedia that has an excellent page on this topic. See Christ. --Dweller (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly learnt something new! The excellent page says that the words christ, grisly, grim, grime, grease, cream and ghee, all have the same origin. Jay (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

While he would have been Yeshua bar Joseph/Yeshua of Nazareth I think the two 'surnames' would have been used differently. At home in Nazareth people would have used 'bar Joseph' because people there would know which 'Joseph' this referred to. However, when he was away from home (e.g. in Jerusalem) they would have used 'of Nazareth' because people wouldn't have known which Joseph 'bar Joseph' referred to but people would understand who (i.e. 'The Christ') was being referred to a lot better when they heard a name which implied 'that man called Jesus who has come from Nazareth'. --Joe^Talk_Work 00:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

National character studies

Can we prove that this or that country has a specific national character? Somehow, people that I meet that are easy-going, anal-retentive, phlegmatic or liberal are from specific countries. --88.6.158.100 (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to the work of Geert Hofstede, who has looked into the question of national character extensively. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The philosophical position is called essentialism. Essentialist assessment of "national characters" are downplayed nowadays. You'd be interested in Simon Schama's discussion of the invention of Dutch ideas of "Dutchness", based on imagined links with Batavians, in The Embarrassment of Riches (1987).

Motion of no confidence

In the commonwealth realms, who serves as Prime Minister after a motion of no confidence in the government is passed and before a new parliament is elected?

Is the incumbent PM not disqualified given the house has just expressed its lack of confidence in him and his ministers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Governor(-General) should appoint whoever can command the confidence of the house - or, if no such person is available - appoint a caretaker prime minister who would immediately call an election.

Don't have a historical example off the top of my head, though. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Who gets to be the PM, and whose party commands a majority in Parliament, are connected, but a loss of confidence does not mean the PM instantly stops being PM. The PM would tender his resignation to the Queen/Governor-General the same day or the next day, and it would be accepted. (I suppose if the PM refused to resign, a constitutional crisis would develop.) Then someone else would be commissioned as PM. They might call an election more or less straight away, or they might not. The last such case in the Australian parliament was in 1941. Robert Menzies was the PM and leader of the United Australia Party (in coalition with the Country Party) but lost the support of his party (partly because he spent over 6 months in Britain and was even campaigning to get himself onto Churchill's wartime cabinet). There was also the matter of the two independents, Coles and Wilson, whose support the government depended on to make up their slim majority. Shortly after Menzies finally deigned to return to Australia to oversee the defence of his own country, his party made it clear that he'd be dumped if he didn't resign. So he resigned, first as PM, then as party leader. The Country Party leader Arthur Fadden was sworn in as PM, even though it was the smaller of the 2 governing coalition parties. But now the two independents decided to take a stand. They were not happy at the way Menzies had been treated, so they withdrew their support for Fadden's budget, and Fadden had no option but to resign. He was replaced by the Labor leader, John Curtin, but only after the Governor-General obtained assurances from Coles and Wilson that they would support Curtin and end the instability in government (at a time when the nation had matters of life and death to think about). This was in October 1941. But the next election was not called until August 1943. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The incumbent PM is not disqualified from continuing as PM by reason of losing a vote of confidence. The GG will meet with the PM and either ask for the PM's immediate resignation or choose to call an election. If there is an election, the PM can stay in office until it's over (and beyond, of course, if his party happens to win). The most recent example in Canada is our previous PM, Paul Martin Jr.. His Liberal government lost a vote of confidence on November 28, 2005; the election was held on January 23, and the Liberals lost; and Martin was succeeded by Stephen Harper on February 6. --Anonymous, 03:57 UTC, April 6, 2009.

That's odd. I wasn't aware the GG can call an election on his/her own volition, in the Westminster system (and I'm still not aware of that, actually). The GG is advised on electoral matters by the Prime Minister. In the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, the GG (Sir John Kerr) dismissed PM Gough Whitlam (even though his party never came close to losing a no confidence vote in the House of Representatives) and appointed the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser (who did immediately lose a no-confidence vote). But by then, Kerr had already acted on Fraser's advice to dissolve the Parliament in readiness for an election. That advice had been a condition of Fraser's appointment. So, in a way, this GG got his own way about there being an election - but those were extremely unusual, unprecedented, and never repeated, circumstances. And theoretically, Fraser could have declined to advise an election, and Kerr would have been powerless to do anything about it. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking further about this, governors-general may require further justification or documentation before being prepared to approve a proposed election, and may even disapprove the election, and there have been precedents for both of these in Australia. But being the initiator of an election is strictly the preserve of the Prime Minister. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Once the Prime Minister has lost a vote of confidence, one of two things must happen: new elections, or a new Prime Minister. The outcome will depend on a number of factors, such as when the last elections were held and whether there is another party, coalition or individual that is immediately ready to obtain the confidence of Parliament. It is a case where the Governor General will be called to exercice some of his/her powers.

Usually, the defeated PM will request that the Gov-Gen dissolve Parliament and call new elections. The GG can accept, in which case the PM continues in his position until the result of the elections are known (see the Paul Martin example above). The Gov-Gen may refuse to dissolve Parliament if he/she thinks an alternative government is possible, in which case he/she will designate another individual to form a government. This is what happended in Ontario in 1985 when David Peterson succeeded Frank Miller. If the defeated PM were to refuse to either submit his resignation or ask for new elections, then the Governor General has the power to dismiss him, but things would never come to that unless the system has totally broken down. --Xuxl (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Automobile

Are there any noteworthy accidents stemming from a car's steering wheel being a bit off? As in, the veers slightly off to one side when the steering wheel is let go off. I realize that not many people would let go of the steering wheel though. So, any examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.94.24 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is that one scene in Fight Club... sorry, I realize that was unhelpful, but I couldn't resist Belisarius (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What you describe is usually the result of faulty wheel alignment. The most common consequence will be felt in uneven tire wear and poor handling (always having to fight against the steering wheel). In some cases the problem might cause an accident if, as the result of misalignment, a car has a tendency to veer to the side and then hits a kerb, a slippery patch, a shoulder that is lower than the road surface, or runs in the path of oncoming traffic. Many things could go wrong as a result of such a problem. --Xuxl (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To test wheel alignment, put the car on cruise control on a straight highway, pointed straight down the lane. Then take a nap. If, when you wake up, the car is still on the highway, you know your alignment is good. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (PS: Just in case anybody doesn't already know it, this was a joke, and doing this would be highly dangerous.)

And people say the Reference desk is boring. Thanks for the help! 99.227.94.24 (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and has been proven so by that comedian who decided that it was a good idea to take a nap while driving. At least he got a few good comedy bits out of it. -- kainaw™ 01:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)