Humanities desk
< December 3	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 4

Can someone please explain the context of this Dawn article

"ISLAMABAD: A majority of the NRO beneficiaries have been bureaucrats and government officials as a list, released by the government on Saturday, contained names of only 34 politicians out of a total of 8,000.

According to the list, almost 97 per cent of the beneficiaries are from Sindh. The ordinance will lapse on Nov 28 in the light of the Supreme Court’s July 31 verdict in the PCO judges case.

The list shows that a total of 8,041 people — 7,793 from Sindh — have benefited from the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), promulgated by former president Pervez Musharraf on Oct 5, 2007.

These people have got withdrawn 3,478 cases (3,320 in Sindh) registered against them on charges of corruption, financial bungling, misuse of authority and criminal charges." - Dawn 22 Nov 2009.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04--nro-qs-10

I'm confused about how the article keeps mentioning the Sindh all the time. Is there some social context that I'm missing? Or is it simply just a passing observation made by the Dawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExitRight (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popular minimalist design style

Is there a name for this design style? Where did it start from? A sans-serif font, white letters on bold solid colours, often lower-case titles in big letters, a casual disregard for capitalisation, somewhat minimalist...? Thanks. A few examples below.

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/
http://www.graniph.com/en/
http://www.superdry.co.uk/
--210.250.2.98 (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have become the design style du jour for 2009; as lots of existing companies have been coming out with newly designed product lines with similar style. Consider the new Pepsi design, Target Corporations new "in house" brand redesign ("up and up"), Giant Supermarket's new logo, etc. etc. All of these new designs have popped up in the past year, and they all seem to have this same basic style. Its becoming pretty widespread. --Jayron32 05:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And not just any sans-serif font. If you're interested, check out the movie Helvetica. It's not as good as one might expect, but it presents a pretty comprehensive picture of where this look came from.--Rallette (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might watch the (rather entertaining) film Helvetica which outlines the type of aesthetic trends behind this kind of bare-bones, modernist/minimalist design (of which the particular font plays a rather large role!). It is not particularly new. At a consumer level, American Apparel has been doing it this way for ages now. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everybody. I'll check it out! 210.250.2.98 (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therese of Saxe-Hildburghausen's religion

What religion did Therese of Saxe-Hildburghausen, Queen consort of Bavaria, follow when she was born? Weren't all the Ernestine Dukes of Saxony Protestants? How did they become matched up with a Catholic Bavarian king?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When she was born, she likely didn't follow any religion, as infants don't usually have the cognitive ability to make such decisions for themselves. Usually people learn to feed themselves and wipe their own hind-ends before the decide which religion they choose to follow. Her family, as you note, were likely protestants, since most of Saxony fought on the protestant side of the Thirty Years' War (however, so didn't France, a firmly catholic country). However, Ms. Of Saxe-Hildburghausen lived after the Age of Enlightenment, a time of great secularism in Europe, so it is quite likely that during her time, religion ceased being the social barier it had been some 200 years before. --Jayron32 13:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculously pedantic, especially when dealing with Catholics. You don't have to have any clothes on, you're a Catholic the moment dad came! Adam Bishop (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty married across religious lines quite frequently both before and after the Enlightenment (for example the Stuarts), although, as mentioned in several earlier threads, the Act of Settlement 1701 disqualifies British royalty who wed Catholics or join the Catholic Church from succeeding to the Throne. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"When she was born, she likely didn't follow any religion, as infants don't usually have the cognitive ability to make such decisions for themselves. Usually people learn to feed themselves and wipe their own hind-ends before the decide which religion they choose to follow."

This is an extremely anachronistic comment. Any pre-modern religious community would consider its infants to belong automatically to its religion, at least after some early and involuntary rituals such as baptism (it's telling that only some of the most "revolutionary" Protestants have abolished that). You were born Catholic/Hindu/Jewish, whether you liked it or not, you would be raised in that religion, and while there were various initiation rituals (bar mitzvah, confirmation etc) that were supposed to make you a "full member of the club" as an adult, the point of them certainly wasn't to give you the opportunity to choose the religion that suits you best. The notion that each human being must choose freely what religion (if any) to believe in is a product of modernity and was quite alien to these societies.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What anachronism? She lived in the 19th century, well past the enlightenment and humanist movements swept through Europe. She lived in a post-Napoleonic Europe, a post French-Revolution Europe. The ideas of self-determiniation were certainly new but not unheard of. Heck, Luther had already established the basic principle of the direct relationship between the believer and God, and of the personal nature of salvation, some 250 years before this woman lived! --Jayron32 01:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure you think that's a very clever argument, if she actually was Catholic, that is all irrelevant. But thanks to this we haven't even attempted to answer the question in the first place. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three groundbreaking SF stories

In Stanley G. Weinbaum, it says that Isaac Asimov considered "A Martian Odyssey" one of the three stories that changed how all subsequent ones were written. Anybody know what the other two are? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This probably derives from the introduction 'The Second Nova' Asimov wrote for a Ballantine Books collection of short stories by Weinbaum (The Best of Stanley G Weinbaum, Ballantine 1974; aka A Martian Odyssey, Sphere UK 1977, pp 7-12), which is reprinted as 'Foreword 34. The Second Nova' in Asimov's essay collection Asimov on Science Fiction (1981, Granada 1st UK Edition 1983, pp 217-22).

The essay begins: "Three times in the half-century history of magazine science fiction a new writer has burst into the field like a nova, . . ." The bulk of the essay is of course devoted to Weinbaum and his first published story, which appeared in the July 1934 issue of Wonder Stories: before that material Asimov more briefly discusses his nominated "first and third novas". The first is E. E. 'Doc' Smith with his first published sf story (co-written with Lee Hawkins), the first installment of The Skylark of Space, which appeared in the August 1928 issue of Amazing Stories. The third is Robert A. Heinlein with his first published sf story 'Life-Line', which appeared in the August 1939 issue of Astounding Science Fiction. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was that beautiful Taste ?

In 1976, at the age of eight, at Avondale Primary School in Christchurch New Zealand, we were studying Arabs and their customs. One day we were given an Arab dish to try. It consisted of a kind of bread roll, which we dipped into a green coloured creamy dip, which tasted beautiful. I have no idea what the dip was called, and have never had it since. Does anyone have any ideas, as to what it could be ? Thanks. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 08:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Hummus ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps Raita? I know it's more 'indian' than arabic but colour wise it fits the description so worth mentioning. 09:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

İmam bayıldı or mutabal? Those are made with aubergine (AKA eggplant) and the first is delicious enough to make an imam faint. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you find it, don't be surprised if it doesn't taste as good as you remember. As I child, I was once given a Worcester Pearmain [1] apple and the flavour was just incredible. Ever since I've been hoping to find an apple that tasted that good; so far without success. I've since read of others who have had a similar experience. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a very finely chopped Tabbouleh? But I would expect the unusual taste to have been mint which is used in several such Arabic dishes. Rmhermen (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baba ghanoush? --71.111.194.50 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all so much - I shall check them all out - and yes, I was afraid of that, that it might not taste the same now, but I shall see. C.B.Lilly 13:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

George Washington member of an Scandinavian society in Philadelphia around 1760

According to a Danish book (unfortinately only in Danish) "Danske rekorder og mærkværdigheder" (Danish records and strange occurences) by Alf Mørkeberg (ISBN 87-7365-334-9), George Washington joined a Scandinavian society in Philadelphia in 1760. In a later speech (still according to the book) he proclaimed:

Gentlemen. I have a surprise for You. The earliest trace of ancestry, my family has been able to locate was from Jutland. A Dane named Hvass.

I have googled for information to confirm this story, but so far I haven't had much luck. Any input would be appreciated. Someone has made a scanned portion of the book is available in the bottom of the first posting here (still only Danish). -- Hebster (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a bit like bullshit, since Washington is a place in England, Washington, Tyne and Wear, and our article there says that the name comes directly from the Anglo-Saxon "Hwæsa". Hwæsa is a cognate of the Swedish "Vasa" and possibly the Danish word you cite, however this is likely due to the fact that Swedish, Danish and Old Anglo-Saxon(from the same area of Jutland as the Danes originated) share a common history as Germanic Languages. The fantastical story of one of Washington's ancestors being a Dane named Hvass seems to be unsupported by what I see; of course, he could have had Danes in his ancestral background (many British Isles decendents do, see Danelaw), however the actual origin of Washington's name seems to be most likely to be that of the English town and thence from Anglo-Saxon and not Danish. --Jayron32 13:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Washington is in the Danelaw. However, the three groups supposed to have settled in Britain in the 5th century were the Angles, Saxons, and the somehow-always-forgotten Jutes, so he may have meant them, not the later Danes. It's not impossible (although still suspicious that there are genealogical records from the 5th century). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, it's hard to imagine why Washington would have been in Philadelphia in 1760. He had just married the previous year and was busy developing his plantation in Virginia. If he had needed to do business in a port, it would probably not have been Philadelphia, which would have been several days journey at that time and generally did not serve a hinterland as far south as Virginia. (Instead, if he needed to deal with merchants, he would have been likely to travel to the nearby new port of Alexandria or to the established ports of Baltimore or Yorktown, both of which were much closer than Philadelphia.) Marco polo (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say what Washington believed about his ancestry, but just for kicks I looked him up in the 2009 edition of Ancestors of American Presidents by Gary Boyd Roberts. Nothing Danish in first 7 generations; the Washingtons at that point are of Sulgrave & Nether Boddington, Northamptonshire. There's some French Huguenot ancestry. - Nunh-huh 01:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Washington Old Hall#HIstory... AnonMoos (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that people in earlier centuries have believed (and written) things about history which we now find wrong or even laughable. So just because we can be reasonably certain that he did not have Danish ancestors does not preclude his having believed that he had. However, in the absence of any other evidence that he believed this, I think we should be sceptical about this Danish book. --ColinFine (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry K Fish

Sirs, Please can you direct me to any articles concerning Larry K Fish ex-chief executive of Citizens Bank of Rhode Island then taken over by RBS. he is listed above red Goodwin as the highest paid beneficiary to his pension yet I cannot seem to find a dedicated entry for him unlike Fred Goodwin who is easily accessed. Can you guide me to more infoermation about him? Godfrey foster (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is as yet no Wikipedia article about him (or, seemingly, even mentioning him), but you may find more information through internet search engines (e.g. Google) than you may have already by using the more formal version of his name, Lawrence K Fish. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you have the right details? He is not mentioned on the Bank's website.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have some information and references at Bank of New England. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]