Humanities desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

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.

January 2

Help identifying a children's book from my youth

I don't hold out much hope for anybody finding this, since my description is unfortunately quite vague... but I was hoping somebody here might recall a book I read as a child, around 1989-ish. The book itself may well have been a bit older, perhaps 1970s or thereabouts. It was a short novel probably aimed at the 7-12 age group. I'm in the UK, so there's a possibility that the book may have been British.

Although I remember enjoying it a lot, I can't remember much of the story. The main thing I remember is that it was set on an island that could float freely around the ocean, and the characters were talking animals (with, I suspect, some people too). The characters I recall most vividly were a group of tree monkeys. Each lived up their own tree on the island and were referred to simply by number (eg. Jungle Tree Monkey Number Five, or something like that). At one point, the characters encounter a talking whale, which I only recall because it taught me the word 'plankton'.

I feel a little silly posting this impossibly vague outline, but if anyone here read this too and could point me towards a title, I'd be hugely grateful. Dooky (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A long shot perhaps, since the original is in German, but my association was Die glücklichen Inseln hinter dem Winde written by James Krüss. The title's literal translation would be The Happy Islands Behind the Wind, but it seems it was translated and published in English under the title Return to the Happy Islands. I was a child in the 1970s and loved all of Krüss's books. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I checked the bibliography pdf-file linked at james-kruess.de, and it seems that the German version originally came out in two volumes with the same title + "Band 1" or "Band 2", but my copy was a single volume. The English translation by Edelgard von Heydekampf came out in two volumes titled The Happy Islands Behind the Winds " (plural, for some reason) and Return to the Happy Islands, published by Atheneum, New York, 1966/1967.---Sluzzelin talk 07:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle. It's British, it definitely has a floating island and animals talking (to the title character; nobody else understands them), and I read it myself as a child so I know it was in print long after its original publication. But I don't remember any further details. It's on Google Books if you want to check it out. --Anonymous, 10:27 UTC, December 2, 2009.

Can the Democratic or Republican Party refuse to seat primary winners?

Can the Democratic or Republican Party refuse to seat primary winners? If the candidate who wins is of bad character or has significant ideological/political differences with the party? --Gary123 (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a primary election is to choose a party's candidate for the general election, so there's no seating to be done. For example, fictional candidates Agnelli, Bedard, and Cathcart all run for the Republican nomination for the 99th congressional district of Delaware. Cathcart wins the primary, but he hasn't yet won the seat. Meanwhile, no one opposed incumbent Congresswoman Donnelly in the Democratic primary, and so she's the Democratic candidate in the general election.

Are you perhaps asking whether a party can refuse to support or endorse the winner of its primary? --- OtherDave (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What can happen if a sizable portion of a Party opposes the winner of the Primary is a split in the Party. The Bull Moose Party was one such result, having split off the Republican Party. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parties can refuse to support primary winners. One example is of David Duke, a KKK leader, who was won Republican primaries but has not been endorsed by the party in general elections. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant keep them off the ballot. --Gary123 (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political party begins with "A political party is a political organization that seeks to attain and maintain political power within government," it is my understanding that in the US, parties are essentially election machines. Use of the verb "seat" suggests someone who has won an election, along with the modifier "refuse" suggests they have some specific power after a person has won (the primary is not an election after which one is seated, so the question doesn't follow). While the parties certainly are the most likely candidate (being the vested interests and having the organization to do so) for challenging, say, the legality of a candidate to run (a less then serious example being 2008's Presidential election; a better example of cross-party then same-party, but the principle stands), or the registration (which would be before the primary; see Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008). The short of it is, in one narrow sense, once the Democratic and Republican parties have their primary winners, that's the gooey product of their election factory. The rest is left to the "real" election process. If the party doesn't like what they got, they can also run an "Independent," who isn't (or tack on an adjective, for example, Green party running a Green candidate and a Free Green candidate) 98.169.163.20 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 2000, Jim Traficant won the Democratic congressional primary against the wishes of the party bureaucracy. The official party refused to support Traficant in the general election. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Traficant, one of the more colorful if less sane members of Congress, won the 2000 election anyway. The support of the party is often helpful, though it's not always essential. Note that following his conviction for bribery in 2002, Traficant was expelled from the House. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and US Inaguration

In the US Presidential Inauguration, there are many ties to Christianity. Swearing in on a bible, "...so help me God", and such. How is this abiding the first Amendment? I understand that it is tradition and every president in history has had no problem with it, but it doesn't separate Church & State. There could be a copy of the constitution or something. Why has this been going on for hundreds of years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.197.20 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in reading our article about it. Nowhere in the oath do the words "so help me God" appear. You might also want to read the article on the Pledge of Allegiance. And the pres. saying "so help me God" doesn't really infringe on the separation of church and state. He's not making policy by saying that any particular God has a hand in what he's doing or saying that the country much go along with his beliefs. He's said the words of the oath as they need to be said. After that, it's just him babbling. Dismas|^(talk) 06:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that the phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the US Constitution, and even if it did, it's "separation of Church and State" and not "separation of religion and State". Most Founding Fathers didn't mind mixing a little religion with government, but they emphatically didn't want the national government to officially back ("establish") any specific Christian denomination or to make people pay taxes to support churches. Bibles and optional religious oaths are okay; official religions are not. —Kevin Myers 14:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no requirement that you either use a bible, mention god, or even use the word "swear". The oath of office merely requires the president to state publicly that he will do his job in such a way that is in line with the Contitution. See Oath of office of the President of the United States. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I guess a little research would have helped before I went on a rampage :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.197.20 (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the constution has the phrase "swear or affirm", where "affirm" was added specifically to address the objections of Quakers regarding religious oaths... AnonMoos (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I developed expertise in Establishment Clause law researching faith-based social welfare organizations. I was surprised by much of what I discovered. As someone stated, "separation of church and state" is not an accurate term. The Constitution precludes establishment of religion only at the federal level until after the Civil War when the prohibtion was extended to the states, too. Although the founders wanted to bar an established national religion such as the Church of England, there was lack of agreement concerning the exact outlines of an establishment. Several states had established religions until the 1800s. I could not find out why such state establishments petered out. Many people point to statements by James Madison, drafter of the Bill of Rights, and a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote shortly before assuming the presidency. They were only two influential founders out of hundreds. The state ratifying constitutions reveal almost no discussion of the meaning of Establishment. It seems the term was deliberately vague so that ratification could occur. Actual experience with the provision would flesh out its details.

The Supreme Court is presently deeply divided concerning what is permissible. The conservative majority is favoring accomodating religion unless actual religious use occurs. For instance, the Court ruled that the Congressional chaplain could continue to open sessions with a prayer because it was mere custom, according to the justices. Displays of the Ten Commendments are permitted if no religious purpose exists. The actual text of the commendments are forbidden if a minister presides at their installation and the discerned intent was clearly religious. Displays such as in the Supreme Court itself of a sketchy artistic rendition of the commandments showing only the Roman numerals is all right. Reading many of these cases I found not much correlation between the legal principles pronounced and the actual factual details that determined the result. Lower federal courts rule all over the place. The political party of the judge seems to me to be the determining factor.

Everyone is dissatisfied with the results. The Court frequently announces its frustration with its failure to determine clear lines. Progressive justices strongly disagree. They favor much stricter separation of church and state. Few areas of law reflect such deep political divisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how frustrated they really are, but I presume they're very aware that if they took a strong line against "ceremonial deism", then they'd be stirring up a big political hornet's nest without accomplishing anything very clearly positive... AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the least understood aspects of the "separation of church and state" is that -- on the principles of religious freedom -- the entire purpose was to prevent the State from interfering in religion. The fact that religion became so powerful and wealthy as to threaten the State was unanticipated. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here there be monsters

Is there a name for the monsters early cartographers placed in their ocean scenes? Here are a couple of examples of what I'm talking about. Note that even though they were drawn by different men (Abraham Ortelius and Olaus Magnus) from different countries (Belgium and Sweden) decades apart, the monsters are drawn very similarly, as if they were inspired by a common source. Has anyone studied these little beasties? If you look closely, you can often see a bit of text describing what they're supposed to be (for example, the pale guy in the second image is balena (likely a gray whale) and he seems to be getting munched on by an orca, which is rather accurate according to our gray whale article. I'd like to know more about them and it would help if I knew what they were called. Matt Deres (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it doesn't answer your question directly, you might be interested in our article here be dragons. Perhaps the sources cited may be helpful. - Nunh-huh 07:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A key to the monsters on the Ortelius map is on the back of the original, according to helmink.com. There is a high-resolution jpg of it here. I hope you can read Latinized antique Icelandic, because I can't. Monster "A" is a narwhal, I guess. We get a little help here, where we don't have to strain our eyes. Anyway, they have names like "Skautuhvalur" and "Rostunger". --Milkbreath (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gorgons, and Hydras, and Chimæras dire." I couldn't find any answer to your specific question, but Chapter XII of Road to Xanadu was fun reading, and there are some neat illustrations in Book IV of Gesner's Historiae animalium (a few shown here.) Legend for the bit of text along with the image is from 1903. A "common source" would probably be Pliny's Natural History.—eric 03:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French translation please

Question moved to Language Desk Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graves of humans

Why haven't we found graves of 'humans' that date, before 3000bc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.40.184 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have. See "Qafzeh", where a burial has been dated to around 90,000 years ago. The Wikipedia article "Paleolithic religion", section "Middle Paleolithic", says, "The earliest undisputed human burial dates back 90,000 years." If your scare quotes around "human" mean "humanoid", see "Shanidar", where Neanderthals buried their fellows some 60–80,000 years ago. See also "Burial". --Milkbreath (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In burial it says the earliest undisputed one is 130000 years ago. Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) First of all, I don't know why you put "humans" in quotes. Modern humans have been "humans" for about two hundred thousand years now. Secondly, you're mistaken: there are graves that are far older than that. In the Zagros Mountains of Iraq, you can find Shanidar Cave, which contains buried Neanderthal skeletons, which are around 60,000 to 80,000 years old. Of course, strictly speaking, these weren't the same species as humans, but close enough for our purposes, I think. If you want to stick to good old Homo Sapiens, though, look no further than the Mungo Man, who was put in the ground around 40,000 years ago.

The reasons why finding old graves is difficult are pretty obvious when you think about it: first of all, decomposition is no joke. You put something in the ground, it tends to break down over time, and it takes pretty specific conditions for a corpse to not simply entirely disappear over the centuries. Secondly, the thing about the Earth is that it's a fairly large place -- undoubtedly there are plenty of undiscovered burial sites out there, but finding them isn't all that easy. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue, in Europe at least, is that many (but not all) prehistoric culture groups are believed to have disposed of their dead by means other than burial. Marco polo (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I suspect that so many Reference Desk questions are simply rephrased versions of "So, there is really no evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, aren't I right?" ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my thought as well... but I figure that's all the more reason to correct misconceptions like this -- and anyway, it's not a bad question. Hey, at least it's not homework. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Evolution

Which Christian churches or denominations fully accept evolutionary theory? 206.188.60.177 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been posted in multiple places: see[1] --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholics tend to fully accept Evolution (in the form of Theistic evolution - or the view that God used evolution to create humanity and life on earth), Pope John Paul 2 said that religious teachings are not contradicted by scientific concepts such as evolution and the big bang.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serb citizenship for Kosovars

Do former residents or former residents of Kosovo (who presumably formerly had the Yougoslavian or Serbian nationality or citizenship), of Serbian origin, automatically own the Serbian nationality ? Serbian passport says that "Inhabitants of Kosovo have the right to apply for a Serbian passport", but my question is not about naturalization (people who can become Serbs) or passports, but rather if they already automatically have this nationality, even if this is not certified by a document. Apokrif (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The government of Serbia considers Kosovo an integral part of its territory. As such, in the eyes of the Serbian government, anyone who would qualify for Serbian citizenship in any other Serbian province, whether ethnically Serb or Albanian, would qualify for Serbian citizenship in Kosovo. (Presumably a person would qualify for Serbian citizenship by virtue of being born or naturalized in Serbia—including Kosovo—or perhaps being born to Serbian parents, including Kosovar parents, elsewhere.) Essentially, to Serbia, all Kosovars are Serbians. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POW WWII Pacific

How many Allied POW were held by Japan at end of WWII?74.178.217.69 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In our article on Prisoner of War some basic statistics on released prisoners of war at the end of the war for some countries exist. Look in the World War II section. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Bulow

Any information about this Danish seascape painter Berendvers1 (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an artnet entry.—eric 03:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct cigarette brands?

I'm having a hard time finding a list of cigarette brands that no longer exist. What I specifically need is American cigarettes that were widely available in the late '70s but aren't any more; that's obviously a tall order. I don't mind doing my own homework if somebody can help point me in the right direction.

I'd start at [2] - there are 91 so you should be able to go through them manually and check. Exxolon (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimas are the only one I can come up with offhand. Most of the brands that were old-fashioned even in the '70s, like unfiltered Camels (which is what I smoke), Luckies, Old Golds, and Pall Malls, are still around. The trend in the latter part of the twentieth century seems to have been to continually create new brands, and varieties of established brands—most of them targeted at niche markets—without phasing out the old ones. Deor (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatio Pulici

I have been playing a recorder trio by this composer which I found on the Werner Icking music archive; it is listed as being from the Biliotech Versailles,but I would like to know something about him - where he lived, what he composed, was he working at Versailles as a court composer? I looked at Versailles website but am not good enough at French to find out how to access information there. Google brings up a lot of Ignacio Pulici references but my man is definitely Ignatio with a "t". Could be Pullici with two ll's I suppose. he is not listed in Grove's musical dictionary, though this is a rather old copy. I can't get into Grove on the internet as I'm not a member.Can you help?RBroudbren (talk)

Instead of Ignatio from Versailles, could i interest you in an Ignazio from Palermo?—eric 01:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EricR is right -- that's your man. Sicilian composer of the Baroque era. He's from Palermo, and he opened the Teatro S Cecilia there in 1693 with L'innocenza pentita: o vero la Santa Rosalia (to a libretto by Vincenzo Giattino). He has no dedicated biography in the most current New Grove, however he gets a brief mention in the article on Palermo. They spell his name Ignazio Pollice (which gives a slightly more profitable Google search). He was a representative of the Neapolitan School during the period it was dominated by Alessandro Scarlatti (also from Palermo). To learn more, one would have to dig in the archives in Palermo. Hope this helps! Antandrus (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's creating the Ignazio Pollice Wikipedia stub then?--Wetman (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golly, someone did it! :) Antandrus (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Travelers

Could someone name some famous Arab travelers? Especially those that traveled to African countries around 8th to 13th century? 99.226.138.202 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab explorers has three, and Category:Arab geographers has a few more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Battuta lived in the 14th century, but may be of interest to you. Matt Deres (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Masudi traveled to parts of Africa during the 10th century. Marco polo (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Jubayr in the 12th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar in the 11th century, although as a general and conqueror rather than a trader. Warofdreams talk 03:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Battuta probably traveled farthest of all. Travels in Africa were included. And in my hasty reading, I didn't notice that I was anticipated by Matt Deres, probably because of his indentation deficiency. :-) Deor (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_{I only indented once because I was replying to the OP, not the first respondent. YMMV, o' course. Matt Deres (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you guys very much, this was a lot of help. =] 99.226.138.202 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham ben Jacob was possibly Jewish, but certainly Arabified. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh political parties 2008

Who were the 14 parties that allied with Awami League and Ershad's Jatiya Party during the 2008 election? Who were the three political parties that allied with Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.183 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. That should really be added to the Bangladesh general election, 2008. The 4-party alliance consisted of BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, Bangladesh Jatiya Party-BJP and Islami Oikya Jote and Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Islam. The 14-party alliance included Awami League, Workers Party of Bangladesh, Jatiya Party, Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (Jasad), and several others. --Soman (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democratic Party and Islamic Front Bangladesh are also allies of AL. --Soman (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the article but it didn't help because you didn't categorize the parties into two alliances.76.64.53.183 (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.212 (talk) [reply]