Humanities desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 16 >

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.

July 15

FOCAC

At first FOCAC the article said was held in 2000 with Jiang Zemin. At first time, is just few Africa leaders attend or it is attend by over 40 leaders in Africa went to Beijing. Daniel Arap Moi and Sam Nujoma and Benjamin Mkapa have been to Beijing. Did paul Biya, and throughout Africa peoples go like the 2006 one. 2003 FOCAC was at Egypt. Will they have another FOCAC? Or 2006 FOCAC is the last one.--69.231.5.71 (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FOCAC is a permanent and ongoing institution. See the official website (English version) for more information. In particular, the 4th ministerial summit is in the planning stages. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is FOCAC done just by few leaders, or it is most of the peoples at once.--69.231.5.71 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are different components, e.g. the ministerial summit as well as bilateral meetings. See the about page for some details. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Kings

Does anybody know the name of Donnchad Donn's third wife, Dublemna's father? And also which sept or clan did the King of Osraige belong to.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with Tad Lincoln?

Tad Lincoln, youngest son of Abraham Lincoln, was a runamuck lad who would not abide a tutor and never attended school or learned to read until he was past 13. He had a speech impediment. Has anyone figured out whether he was just "high spirited," spoiled , developmentally delayed, brain damaged, autism spectrum (Aspie), or what? He died at age 18.Edison (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] says he had Scarlet fever as a boy. How would that affect his speech and mentation so profoundly? His mother, Mary Todd Lincoln was "insane." Was it a case of the apple falling not far from the tree? Her mania seems far from the boy's eccentricity, speech impediment and slowness to learn reading and writing, as does the supposed depression of Abe Lincoln, who was highly intelligent, literate and articulate. Edison (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet fever can lead to rheumatic fever which can cause Sydenham's chorea "which causes emotional instability, muscle weakness and jerky movements of the hands, feet and face." Scarlet fever can also cause an auto-immune response which may worsen symptoms of "obsessive-compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)", though this effect is usually temporary.(Source: Mayo Clinic website) So it certainly could cause these things.--Boris straight (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Question That Requires Language Deskers Too

It seems to me that Croats and Serbs have been locked in an epic feud that has spanned the beginning of their existence. Looking into the articles of Croatian language, Serbian language, Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, Montenegrin language, they say that the languages are mutually intelligible. In the sample section, the differences seem even smaller than the differences between Danish and Norwegian. Looking into Croatian literature and Serbian literature, it would seem that Serbian emerged to follow Croatian more closely during Pre-Romantism or Modern literature.

This explains of the appearance of an epic feud: their languages are so similar, but it seems that the nationality can not be compromised to one. Notwithstanding the fact that language is crucial to nation formation, in a number of citations.174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what's your question? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tesla was Serbian!!!!!! No, he was Croatian!!!!!!! No, he was Montenegran!!!!!!! (from the gallery of profoundly WP:LAME edit wars). [2], [3], [4], [5],[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] etc, month after month, year after year. It is sad when small countries have so few notable residents that they fight over the questionable countrymen. Actually he was born Austro-Hungarian, and died American, naturalized, naturally. The two "languages" seem to be more similar than the "languages" of Massachusetts and Texas. The edit wars are far less when discussing which of Thomas Edison's supposed ancestries we should celebrate: Dutch, Canadian, American (or less plausibly, Mexican).Edison (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, my question is why are the languages so similar? And why did 2 literary traditions emerge? From Croatian literature, it would seem that Croatian literature appeared before Serbian literature. What was the reason that Serbia had to start it's own literature, if they already had something strong? Or maybe serbian really wasn't croatian, until the Serbian language reform by Vuk Karadžić and Đuro Daničić?174.3.103.39 (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czech and Slovakian are very similar, but they seem to get along without much bloodshed. Likewise Norwegian and Swedish, so I don't think language has anything to do with it. Most regions of Europe have different languages or dialects - Italy for instance has many different Italian dialects which are more or less mutually intelligible, while Switzerland, Austria and German regions have different versions of [{German]] - you could equally ask why Austrian German isn't considered a distinct language (presumably because of pan-German feeling, the Holy Roman Empire, etc). The difference between dialect and language is often a political one (nations have languages, regions have dialects), so the difference between languages spoken in what is now Serbia and what is now Croatia always existed, and without a central authority to impose a uniform language the differences will be free to express themselves.

For much of the history of Yugoslavia, Serbians held more power than Croatians, so it seems unlikely they would submit to Croatian cultural norms and traditions. Furthermore the nations have been politically separate at various times in their history (though not usually both independent, but parts of different empires), and have different religions (Catholicism versus Orthodox Christianity), so they have different cultures, which would lead to different traditions in literature and other areas. --Boris straight (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that spoken Serbian and spoken Croatian are not all that different, nor were they ever different enough to impede intelligibility. I see your examples in point, but all the examples provided are all dialect continuum. Am I wrong to say that South West Slavic (i.e. Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin (yes, I know, this is not an accepted term, but I'm coining it)), is not a continuum?174.3.103.39 (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A language is a dialect with an army and navy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and Austria is landlocked. —Tamfang (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may have something more to do with Croatians being Catholic, and using the Latin alphabet, and Serbians being Orthodox, and using a Cyrillic alphabet. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm very aware of the quote by that linguist (A language is a dialect with an army and navy). Obviously, this has nothing to do with linguistics and everything to do with politics. My question is not the political status or political dealings of these "languages", but the linguistics forces that have shaped these languages and linguistics differences & evolution (convergence and divergence) between the languages.174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Actually, that quote says it all. You simply cannot aproach this question from a purely linguistic point - there is plenty of politics involved as well (as is in all language formation, I suspect). Both Serbian and Croatian developed from Old Church Slavic, and they could have been merely dialects (and were treated as such in ex-Yugoslavia), if it wasn't for the long history and culture of both peoples, as has been said before. As things stand today, they are treated as two distinct languages - again, for historical, cultural and political reasons. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How bout you give me a clear answer: We do not know why these languages are treated as languages, except for the fact they are likely not languages, but dialects because of extralinguistics reasons. Or that I'm wrong.174.3.103.39 (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're probably right - from a purely linguistic point of view it would probably be correct to say that these are dialects of the same language. There remains, however, the fact that both languages are spoken in different, sovereign countries and these countries (or better, the nations of these countries) chose to call them languages, rather than dialects, for reasons that have little to nothing to do with linguistics. Meh, politics trumps science in this case, apparently. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that in Josip Tito's time, Croatian and Serbian (and Bosnian) were considered the same language, called "Serbo-Croatian." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering that there can never be a clear difference between a language and a dialect anyway since they're both part of the same continuum. Also, countries don't have to be at odds for their languages to be considered different. By some regards, I'm guessing Indonesian and Malay may be considered dialects rather then different languages but as far as I'm aware they are usually considered seperate languages. They are mutually intelligible although from my personal experience, I would say understanding what conversation is far easier then understanding written text although this may be normal since when you don't understand something in conversation you can ask, when you are reading and you don't understand it's far more difficult. (On the other hand, understanding the Kelantanese dialect [warning, very crap article] is notoriously difficult for those who only understand standard Malay.) While Indonesia and Malaysia have had problems in the past and still have some more minor issues they don't have the persistent severe problems that Croatia and Serbia have. However (Malaysian) Malay and Indonesian started to diverge in the past due to the different colonial powers they ended up with and the nation building and different paths that followed only solidified this (mostly) Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology / Lying Videos

There are plenty of studies on facial tics, or microexpressions related to lying, but I'm curious if anyone knows of a source of videos or other resources on the specific issue. What I'm ultimately interested in are source videos that compare people lying to those that aren't, and in high enough format that they're useful. Bonus points if they involve law enforcement. I realize this is a tall order, but if there are any good studies (even without video) outside of what I can find on pubmed/jstor I'd be interested. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posted to the science page.

KQED video on Paul Ekman and the FACS Manual: [32] Pepso2 (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper titles of the Dukes of Schleswig and Holstein

A lot of questions. What were the proper titles of the all Dukes of consort Schleswig and Holstein? The Holstein-Gottrop line were originally Duke of Schleswig and Holstein in Gottorp, not Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp. But were the Sonderburg duchy and it many branches the same? Some Sonderburg branches had two or three other region besides Schleswig and Holstein, example:Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck and Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Plön-Rethwisch. Would the current duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg be Duke of Schleswig and Holstein in Sonderburg and Glücksburg? Why were the titular dukes of Schleswig and Holstein called Duke/Prince of Schleswig-Holstein, like Christoph, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein? I heard somewhere that Queen Margrathe II of Denmark renounce her right to the titles of Duchess of Schleswig and Holstein but when did she had a right to that title?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to some of them.

Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck and some of the others are genealogical designations, I doubt anyone would have used those as titles. Not sure about Sonderburg itself; the Sonderburg dukes still had some privileges even though they were not actual ruling dukes.
About present day titles: there are currently no titles in Germany -- it's a republic. What they do in Denmark, I don't know.
Schleswig-Holstein: it's just a shortcut for Schleswig and Holstein.
Margaret II: Seems funny. AFAIK the kings of Denmark renounced those titles in the Treaty of Vienna (1864).

--Chl (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cleanliness in japanese culture

i know japanese culture cares a lot about cleanliness and they have practises like keeping certain things inside the house and certain things inside. what do they call their concept of cleanliness and the practises? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.241 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They call it cleanliness and purity, in their own language of course. Vranak (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am looking for the japanese words then (but maybe they have a special name for the concept and practises, different from the direct translation of cleanliness into japanese). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.234 (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should ask at the Language Reference Desk? Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal question about The Wire

I'm currently making my way through watching The Wire (after being nagged on by umpteen friends of mine that it's the best show evar) and I had a question about some events that transpire during season two (I've seen the first four episodes so far). One of the major threads in this season is how a cargo-container containing thirteen suffocated girls winds up in the Baltimore docks. While they do realize pretty soon that it is in fact a homicide, at first the deaths were considered accidental (the container had an airtube that got crushed, presumably by shifting cargo, but it turns out that it was hammered down) and therefore there would be no extensive investigation. Essentially it would only be written up as thirteen accidental deaths.

This stunned me. How could this possibly be true? I mean, even if it isn't murder, surely human trafficking is a pretty darn serious crime, yes? And these girls were being smuggled into the country to be prostitutes, and last time I checked, forced prostitution and sex slavery was illegal too. And isn't there some legal thing where if someone dies because of someone else committing a crime, the culprit would still be charged with murder? Like if you rob a bank, and a shot goes off accidentally killing a by-stander, you're still charged with murder even if that's not the crime you were trying to commit?

Seriously, if a cargo-container filled with dead girls who were smuggled in to the country to be prostitutes was found in any American harbour, wouldn't there be a huge investigation, even if their deaths were technically accidental? I can't believe they would just be written off. 83.250.236.75 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems to me the problem wasn't that it wasn't considered a crime, but that it'd be extremely difficult for the police to successfully find who was responsible and so on. Further, because of this difficulty and because they were not even residents of the city, the Baltimore police (with their overstretched resources) weren't too pleased to be spending their time trying to find the perpetrators of an accident. Also, I think there was the other issue of whether it fell in their jurisdiction, or federal one. McNulty goes and forces it into their lap by showing they were murdered in the harbour rather than passing it off to other authorities, which the rest of the force would have rather done. The trafficking (unless i'm mistaken) is a federal crime that doesn't fall under Baltimore's responsibility. TastyCakes (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"How could this possibly be true?" Well, this is a work of fiction, so it's not true, and I don't think that it's an appropriate reaction to be "stunned" by Hollywood writers making mistakes when they write a script for a TV show. Tempshill (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wire isn't exactly "Hollywood" is the usual sense. TastyCakes has it right: many of the police characters on The Wire are homicide investigators—"murder police" in the parlance of the show—and so they won't get the case unless the deaths are murders. —Kevin Myers 23:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, human trafficking in the U.S. is covered by federal law and would generally be investigated by federal agents (likely ICE or FBI) and not by Baltimore City police. If my memory of The Wire serves me correctly, it wasn't that there'd be no investigation if it was an accident, but that the investigation would be handled by someone else. —D. Monack ^talk 00:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The jurisdictional question in that part of The Wire concerned where the crime had occurred, and was between the Baltimore PD (had it occurred in city waters) or the state police (had it not). WRT the feds, The Wire's feds pretty much cared only about terrorism; part of that season is about how the feds quit spending effort on organised crime and non-terrorism border stuff. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fisting in American porn

Why does fisting considered as obscenity by the US authority and Ass-to-Mouth, Squirting, Bukkake and Gaping do not? Read Adam Glasser for more details. 21:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.55.231 (talk)

Is it really? Surely as long as you're not doing it in public there's no laws against it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and dunno. Fisting and piss very popular in germany aparently, but not US, often wondered myself. Just cultural differences I expect.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In US law, no certain acts are obscene and not obscene. Read Obscenity#United_States_obscenity_law for more information. The current standard is from Miller v. California: the Supreme Court ruled that materials were obscene if they appealed, "to a prurient interest," showed "patently offensive sexual conduct" that was specifically defined by a state obscenity law, and "lacked serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value." Decisions regarding whether material was obscene should be based on local, not national, standards. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it would be interesting to see if a new obscenity test case ever reached the courts what would happen. Obscene is also about venue; having missionary-style sex in public is obscene in just about any jurisdiction; fisting porn watched in the privacy of your own home is likely unregulated and perfectly legal. Except for non-consensual sexual acts (minors, animals, and actual rape) I am pretty sure that ANYTHING done between two consenting adults is de facto legal anywhere in the U.S.; even if in a few places there are laws against it. If actually tested in court, I have doubts that such laws would actually be enforcable. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 01:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it falls afoul of U.S. porn laws because it ~~is sick shit which~~ clearly harms the female victim. Edison (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm female and I would NEVER want to do fisting because I fucking HATE the idea of anything inside me, but I can't really see that it harms the "victim" (who probably consented, yes?). I mean this is where entire babies come out if you're pregnant

If someone consented to being tortured, in the sense of severe damage and not merely play (burns, broken bones, lacerations0 it would also be objectionable in a film. There are lots of things people might do for pay or under duress which a country might not wish to allow to be circulated on video. "Consent" does not overrule community values and laws.. "Fisting," seems more sadistic than sexual. Edison (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure I agree, but I respect your opinion. I guess it depends on the exact way it's done; either rough and possibly damaging or gently and with care for the partner which is probably ok imo. Then again I admit to knowing nothing about this other than one or two lesbian porn videos I watched and just the idea of a ANYTHING inside me makes me almost want to vomit right now.

Porn producer Max Hardcore was convicted on "10 counts of federal obscenity charges relating to 5 movies showing fisting, urination and vomiting" recently, and is doing four years in federal prison. I seem to recall another porn producer (with a similarly fanciful name) and his wife are also doing time for extreme-porn obscenity (you can't imagine how hard it is to fruitfully Google for that kind of thing). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's Rob Zicari and Lizzy Borden (pornographic actress); see United States v. Extreme Associates. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Here I thought that "anything goes". I guess it doesn't. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a couple of decades that was largely true, but part of George W. Bush's platform was a crackdown on obscene porn - he and his supporters accused the Clinton administration of being "soft on porn" (I kid you not). They seem to have been mostly distracted by foreign affairs, but the latter years of their administration saw instructions to federal prosecutors to pursue matters (ref). That said, given the massive amount of commercial porn the US produces, the prosecutions seem to have moved the threshold of legality only marginally. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about possible crime, particularly (as in this case) in the absence of much jurisprudence (and very hazily written legislation), is that something is illegal if a court says it is, and isn't illegal if it doesn't. As Mr. Hardcore and Ms. Borden now know to their cost, if a federal prosecutor can persuade any jury (anywhere in the US, not open-minded San Fernando) that something is illegal, then a federal conviction awaits. A few years ago the US porno industry engaged a lawyer (darned if I can remember who) and asked him to draft a list of activities that he thought might (given his understanding of the current state of federal law and the mood of federal prosecutors) attract. His list was very long (fnarr fnarr), and ranged from stuff commonly described as "extreme" (simulated rape, strangling, fisting, scat) to stuff that's common in the US porno industry. Notably he recommended against interracial porn (particularly black-man-white-woman, I think), not because it was "obscene", but because he felt a jury in certain areas would be more likely to find something obscene it it had an added racial element - a conviction in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama carries the same term as one in Oregon or Vermont. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is so special about San Fernando, and do you mean mean the Spanish or American?174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The San Fernando Valley is where much of US porn is made; one might imagine that a jury there would be less offended by porn product that would one in other, more conservative parts of the US. That said, Seymore Butts (gosh, what names these people have) was prosecuted by California prosecutors for fisting obscenity in People of the State of California v. Adam Glasser, et al, although all but a very minor charge was dropped. Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it's Van Nuys, which is widely considered the Hollywood of the porn industry. Almost the entire industry is based there. Our article (perhaps rightly) makes no mention of it, but a quick google search will confirm the fact. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The top 3 are Chatsworth, Canoga Park and Van Nuys. [33] 89.139.108.63 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, This was a best selling book on Amazon.com for a while. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know US porn companies don't sell fisting porn in American stores in order to avoid obscenity charges. But they are not afraid to sell other "naughty" stuff (like Ass-to-Mouth, Squirting, Bukkake and Gaping). Why? I know fisting scenes made in the US are distributed to Europe. 89.139.108.63 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...you fellows know a suspicious amount of detail on this subject...Rhinoracer (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an English criminal case in which fisting constituted grievous bodily harm, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - the way it was done caused huge internal injury. I regret I can't cite the name of the defendant. 78.144.178.19 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]