Humanities desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

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.

June 17

Sociological topics

Is there any websites where I can view a sociological topic regarding culture, and theoretical prspectives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.151 (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look yet at our Portal:Sociology and Portal:Culture? Each has a "Categories" list that may be helpful. Tempshill (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism versus Nudism and Homosexual

Does Judaism support nudism and homosexuality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.151 (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Homosexuality and Judaism and Tzniut. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

religioustolerance.org claims that there is no prohibition on nudism in the Hebrew Bible (or New Testament)[1] and prophets often appear naked, though I don't know what subsequent rabbinical tradition (Talmud, Mishnah, etc) has to say about nudity. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maltelauridsbrigge, your comment about views of the Talmud & Mishna is covered by the Tzniut article quite thouroughly. Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin - Illegitimate Children

I was listenting to a talk show tonight and the host said Benjamin Franklin had 13 or 14 illegitimate children.

I read the article on Wikipedia and it only mentions 1 illegitimate son and the 2 children of his common-law marriage. I searched on several other sites and found no mention of additional children. Is there any proof that he had that many children?

Thank you ==== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellerwynn7 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no such proof, and, I think, no reasonable suspicion that he had any unacknowledged illegitimate children. Franklin's son Francis Folger died at age 4, meaning only two children survived him: his daughter Sarah, by Deborah Read, and his son William, by an unknown mother. Both are named in his will, and no other children are named. "Common-law marriage", of course, is the way history books have chosen to sanitize Franklin's relationship with Deborah Read; it was not a common-law marriage (she already had a husband), even though Wikipedia's article credulously "believes" it, citing an undependable source which even absurdly assigns a date to the "marriage"! Perhaps the talk show was confused by Franklin being the 15th (and last) child of his father Josiah Franklin (and the 8th of his mother Abiah Folger), meaning he had 14 siblings? - Nunh-huh 05:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, there's no "proof" at all, but of course that has never stood in the way of a good story. People have long enjoyed the legend of Franklin the ladies' man, and so writers over the years have invented affairs and illegitimate children for him. For example, because Franklin addressed one young woman in a letter as "my daughter", some writers decided to take him literally. For a scholarly view of the popular myths of Franklin's supposed dalliances, see Benjamin Franklin and Women (Penn State Press, 2000), edited by Lary Tise. There it is pointed out that there is no documentary evidence that Franklin had any illicit affairs after his common law marriage to Deborah Read. (It's even possible that Read was the mother of Franklin's illegitimate son.) Franklin had close, playful relationships with many women in his long life, relationships that appear to have been platonic. —Kevin Myers 05:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

help this guy out (short story ID)

from the College Confidential forums:

help me ID this short story please! argh this is bothering me! lol. for a practice AP English Lit we once read an excerpt from a story about people who never died, who were either do nows or do laters. they would have all the time in the world ot do everything, but never stood out and always felt the pressures of parents and other earlier generations, so many committed suicide.

This is really bugging me too. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it sounds remarkably like the plot of Zardoz, but it doesn't sound like a complete fit. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also sounds like a little section of Gulliver's Travels, but not quite, because I believe that those people couldn't commit suicide. I may be wrong. Steewi (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran protests

In the current protests, one of the reported slogans is "death to the dictator". Who are they referring to? F (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they're referring to current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Wolfgangus (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So they don't have problems with the Supreme Leader? F (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of Iranians according to recent (and not entirely reliable polls, it's difficult to poll there) polls do want the Supreme Leader elected. But he hasn't broken the rules to hold onto his position, so at the moment people are angry at Ahmadinejad. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that a better translation is "death to the dictatorship". Tempshill (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have signs that are clearly in English and say dictator. The Guardian suggested the slogan may be purposely ambiguous. 90.192.223.235 (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Rushmore

What was the criteria of selecting the four presidents depicted on mt. rushmore?Shraktu (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal preference of Gutzon Borglum? Washington and Lincoln presided over the two greatest crises the U.S. has faced, while Jefferson was the most intellectually-influential president. Teddy Roosevelt is the choice which hasn't held up quite as well -- many nowadays would prefer FDR in his place... AnonMoos (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Mount Rushmore article: "Between October 4, 1927, and October 31, 1941, Gutzon Borglum and 400 workers sculpted the colossal 60-foot (18 m) carvings of U.S. presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln to represent the first 150 years of American history. These presidents were selected by Borglum because of their role in preserving the Republic and expanding its territory" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewireo (talk • contribs) 13:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In re Teddy Roosevelt ... Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded the Medal of Honor, founder of the National Park System. You might want to check out the essay "Red Wings in the Sunset" in Stephen Jay Gould's Bully for Brontosaurus, wherein he starts by asking what TR is doing on Rushmore with the other three, and explains why he'll never ask the question again. B00P (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning that Teddy still has his vocal supporters. However, is he really more important in American history than FDR? I doubt whether most people would now think so... AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apart from anything else, in 1941 FDR was very much alive and in power, and having monuments to living people is fraught with political obstacles. Borglum's concept was developed in 1927, before FDR was even president, and he was looking back, not forward. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda of Tuscany's marriage to Welf II

Matilda of Tuscany married to Welf II, Duke of Bavaria, around 1090. Welf II's article mentioned he left her and switched to Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor's side, in 1095. Even though Welf II left her would they still be consider married according to religous laws during the time. Was there ever a legal divorce between the two?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe she got annulment. Just a guess. --151.51.19.115 (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC) As far as I know he was impotent, thus unable to have children. She probably got annulment. --151.51.19.115 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Italian Wikipedia is written that she was the one to make the wedding proposal. It was a political stategy to counterbilance Henry IV. She received him in a very sumptous way, but for two days after the wedding, he refused the nuptial bed. The third day Matilda even lied down naked on a table, but even that was ineffective. She than started to insult him causing him to escape. --151.51.19.115 (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they had no children it would be fairly easy to get an annulment; they could just claim they never consummated the marriage, and no one would really bother checking to see if that was true. Matilda was also a huge supporter of Gregory VII, so it would be quite easy to get an annulment even if they did have children. It's all politics at this level, religious law actually has very little to do with it. (There is an example in crusader Jerusalem about a hundred years later where a marriage was annulled, the children were legitimized by a special dispensation, and they still succeeded to the throne.) If you're just a regular everyday peasant you'll be bound to canon law more strictly, of course, but Matilda was extremely powerful and had extremely powerful friends. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, naturally I picked an obscure example. The more obvious one is Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis VII of France, who, like Amalric I of Jerusalem and Agnes of Courtenay, had their marriage annulled on the grounds of consanguinity, an extremely convenient excuse for people who just didn't like each other anymore. Their children were also legitimized. However, if the pope didn't like you and you did something egregiously sinful, it would be hard to get an annulment. Philip I of France kicked out his first wife and declared himself married to someone else's wife and was excommunicated for it by Pope Urban II (who would have been responsible for Matilda's annulment, not Gregory VII as I mistakenly wrote above - but Urban had also been a close supporter of Gregory). Another possible excuse for an annulment in her case was that she was far older than Welf and past child-bearing age. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This book suggests that Welf expected to govern Tuscany and Matilda's other territories for himself once he married her, which is kind of amusing given how powerful she was. From the notes, apparently much of the info about their marriage comes from the Chronicon of Bernold of St Blasien, so if we can find that somewhere it should help. It seems that Welf just gave up and left; other books say only that they "separated", so I imagine they just considered the whole thing a failed experiment, and Urban II could magically undo whatever needed to be undone. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Aha, Ian S. Robinson, author of the book I linked to, seems to have published an edition of the Chronicon, in Die Chroniken Bertholds von Reichenau und Bernolds von Konstanz 1054-1100. I can get it from the library if you are really interested.) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polygamy and demographics

Is it true that the cause of young single men contemplating becoming suicide bombers in muslim countries is that they can't find a wife due to polygamy?--Marble Garden Zone (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me answer your question with another question. How many Mormon SB have you heard about? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many Mormon polygamists have you heard about? The Mormon faith moved away from polygamy years ago (except for a very small minority). --Tango (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is very rarely a single cause for such things. Difficulty finding a wife could be a factor in some cases, but it isn't likely to be the sole factor in any case and isn't likely to be factor in every case. --Tango (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the cause? No. Such motivations absolutely cannot be boiled down to such a simplistic statement. Is it a cause? Almost certainly; given the number of suicide bombings that occur, there's a good chance that at least one is motivated at least in part by this. Is it a significant cause? Probably not (though not for the Mormon example offered above; that has nothing to do with this). Our article on suicide attacks notes that religion generally, and martyrdom specifically, is a key influence on suicide bombers. Many additional resources can be found, including via Google Scholar. — Lomn 15:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fair number of women suicide bombers these days, and married men too. But, yes, a majority are single men, but I think that the reasons, which are certainly complex, are far more to do with lack of responsibility for a family and the traditional roles of men and women in radical Islamic circles. It's also about who is impressionable and who feels hopeless. And, it seems, many commentators believe it's about poverty too, but I think that's contentious.

On a tangent, but related to this, how widespread is polygamy in the modern Islamic world? What, in particular, do the more radical Islamic clerics have to say on the subject? --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Arab countries, it's really not too prevalent outside Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries... AnonMoos (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about in Palestine and in Iraq, where most of the suicide bombings are taking place? --Dweller (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the poverty angle. Finding a wife would depend a lot less on the availability of women, a lot more on the ability to support a wife and family. This would add to feelings of hopelessness, which could be harnessed into attacks on those identified as being to blame.-KoolerStill (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon general election 2009 results

How did you guys get the results of the Lebanese election 2009 showing Future Movement- 30 seats, P.S.P. with 10 seats, Hezbollah with 13, Amal with 11, Lebanese Democratic Party with 2, Marada with 4, Free Patriotic Movement with 19? According to this website, it showed less than what you wrote for the results. Did you make the results up?

Yeah, there's no source for the results in the article. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 18:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad hijab crackdown

Mahmoud said he would do a crackdown on women who were wearing the hijab inapprppiately and would send them to jail if they did. the question is all Iranian women, reagrdless of their religion wore hijab. How would the police know which Iranian women is a Christian, Jew, Sunni or Zoroastrian? This crackdown was meant on Shi'a Muslim women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.227 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're posing an argument here and not really a question for a reference desk. Tempshill (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Iran, but a I know other highly religious countries often require you to state your religion on your ID. --Tango (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, Tango. Your religion is on your ID card. All women must still wear hijab, though, Muslim, Christian or foreign. Steewi (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper of General Circulation

What is the definition of "newspaper of general circulation"?

To illustrate: Brainerd is a medium size town in Minnesota and it has its own newspaper. Minneapolis is a large city over 200 miles away and has a newspaper, the Star Tribune, which is sold throughout Minnesota, including in Brainerd.

Clearly the newspaper in Brainerd is a newspaper of general circulation in Brainerd. The question I must answer is whether the Star Tribune is also a newspaper of general circulation in the Brainerd area. What are the criteria to determine whether it is?

Background: I am obligated to place an ad for a job opening in "the newspaper of general circulation" in the Brainerd area that is "most appropriate" to the job. If the Star Tribune is a newspaper of general circulation in Brainerd, then I must consider whether it is a more appropriate newspaper than the local Brainerd newspaper. But if the Star Tribune is not a newspaper of general circulation in Brainerd, then I would not meet my obligation by placing an ad there.

I have spoken with people at two newspapers and at one State newspaper association, and so far have not gotten a definitive answer. One person suggested that if the newspaper has any circulation at all in Brainerd, it is a newspaper of general circulation there - but she admitted that she was merely expressing her opinion and did not have any source for it.67.139.18.115 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could place the ad in both papers, which would ensure your compliance. Anyway, you already said that the local Brainerd paper is unquestionably a newspaper of general circulation in Brainerd, so why are you obligated to consider whether another paper is "more appropriate"? Tempshill (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One consideration is whether you want people in the wider area to apply for the job. Sometimes the government wants to make sure that a diverse range of people become aware of job openings. Depending on the cities and papers, advertising only locally might make the applicant pool more homogeneous than is desired by whomever is "obligating" you to advertise in a "general circulation" paper. Edison (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought the basic criterion for a "newspaper of general circulation" is that anyone can buy a copy at a newsagency or subscribe to delivery, assuming it's made available in the place where the person lives. As distinct from some publication that's sent only to people on a mailing list, for example. Where I live in rural Victoria, there's a local paper produced twice weekly, and two dailies that come from Melbourne and are written predominantly with Melbourne people in mind, but are available all over the state in any newsagency. All three papers are generally available where I live. But go to a newsagency in Sydney, for example, and you'd be unlikely to find any of them on sale (definitely not the local one). People do read all sorts of interstate and overseas papers online, and some have them delivered (although they wouldn't usually get them on their day of publication, and they wouldn't be described as "generally available" in such places). Maybe I'm conflating "general circulation" with "general availability", but they're not unconnected (if I can choose not to avoid the use of a double negative). -- JackofOz (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the easist way to get at a problem is from the opposite perspective. What would be a restricted circulation newspaper? In China, there are such publications which are subscription only and limited to certain party and government officials. So, a "general circulation" newspaper would one that is broadly available to anyone, without restrictions. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A school newsletter, a club newsletter, a political party newspaper intended for its members (as you mentioned - I realise political parties operate differently in the US, but such newspapers also exist in other parts of the world) -- any other type of newsprint intended for distribution within a subset of the community in question, is one of restricted circulation. One available only on subscription could also be one - though that depends on the size of the subscriber population, of course. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German heel-click salute

Some time ago, it came to my attention that members of the German military used to salute by clicking their heels together. When was this introduced and did it ever end? Was it used instead of a hand salute? With the use of a free hand, one can salute while walking but this is not possible for the heel-mediated salute, so what was the protocol/guidance for it's use? ----Seans Potato Business 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An 1873 publication referred to the German military manner: "well squared shoulders, a well belted waist, a regulation spine, an angular elbow, a click of the heels, a salute that is meant to be at once fascinating and haughty..." I found a reference to its use in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War (though in fiction written in 1897). Google book search shows many references to in in the First and in the Second World War, by German soldiers. It plays an important role in the James Garner World War 2 movie 36 Hours. It accompanied the hand raised Hitler Salute in the Hitler years [2]. Presumably it became an official part of the German or Prussian military customs by 1870, continuing through WW1 and perhaps WW2. It was possibly discontinued by East and West Germany as part of de-nazification, but I could find no account of its banning. Edison (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read German, there is an interesting discussion of this practice here, though I can't judge the reliability of the contributers. According to the contributors, German soldiers didn't really click their heels together so much as snap their left (booted) foot sharply against their parallel right (booted) foot when ordered to stand at attention, which created a loud clicking or knocking sound, especially when a large group of soldiers responded to the same command. The practice apparently dates back to the Prussian army, therefore to before the Franco-Prussian War. It was apparently discontinued in the West German army (the forerunner of the present German Army) but continued in the East German army. Marco polo (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen UK soldiers drilling who march along and come to attention with a little stomp having much the same effect.Edison (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two generations ago, Hungarian men would click their heels when extending a hand to kiss a lady's hand in greeting. I don't know if this had anything to do with military practice at the time. It certainly had a "snapping to attention" formal appearance to it. I've also seen it done by other nationalities during the hand-kiss, in old movies. - KoolerStill (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More information here: de.metapedia.org/wiki/Hackenknallen --91.66.12.32 (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and violence

Are there any theories that explain why very religious societies are often also very violent? Eg Northern Ireland and other places/ 89.241.37.231 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could start with Clash of Civilisations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has more to do with conflict, power, etc. Some extremely religious societies (such as Tibet or the Australian Aborigines) are not very violent at all.Popcorn II (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First you'd need to demonstrate that such a correlation existed. Only then would you be able to attempt to demonstrate causation, and then move on to explanation. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religious societies are often very violent, but non-religious societies are also often very violent. (the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge, etc.) Religion is likely a red herring for the cause of violence. The reason it's often quoted, though, is that humans suffer from tribalism and ingroup bias - the tendency to think that people who are part of "our group" (even when that group is as arbitrary as having the same birthday) should get preferential treatment, and outsiders are little better than animals. In that respect, religion makes a *great* ingroup/outgroup divider. But the thing to realize is that religion is not causing the violence associated with the us vs. them conflict, it's just a convenient separator. Other dividers (capitalist vs. communist, immigrant vs. native, black vs. white, poor vs. rich, town vs. gown, etc.) can and have been used as excuses for ingroup vs. outgroup violence. -- 128.104.112.114 (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a very woolly term in your question: 'very religious societies'. What do you mean by a very religious society? Two obvious meanings would be 'having a large proportion of believers' and 'having a large proportion of practicing adherents' (these two are not even necessarily the same). In this sense, I doubt that Northern Ireland is significantly more 'religious' than a number of other parts of the British Isles. What is significant in Northern Ireland is the degree to which people tend to identify themselves by their religion. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]