Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 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.

November 18

King George III

A scene in a film depicts King George III throwing a lap dog at American Colonists(?) when they asked him for an Archbishop for the colonies with him saying "...here is your Archbishop." Is there a Wikipedia reference for this event and if so does it include the name and the bred of the dog and all of the particulars surrounding the event? 71.100.7.248 (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like a question that's already been asked at the Entertainment desk... Grutness...wha? 04:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's deja vu all over again, by George. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

When you visit the reference or go to the Wikipedia article and search on "dog" your find nothing. 71.100.7.248 (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the other ref desk entry [1] as originally posted by one of your subnet brethren 71.100.7.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from Tampa, and it even seems to have something resembling an answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for revealing your true purpose for working the reference desk. Most stalkers like to keep their intent a secret. 71.100.11.112 (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line is that the Wikipedia in all of its glory then does not have any reference for this happening, which may turn out to be well documented elsewhere? 71.100.7.248 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that a question? If so: Wikipedia has never claimed to have documented all knowledge. It will never do so and has never sought to do so. It is constantly being added to with all manner of notable information. But somebody has to be the first to add any particular piece of information. Why, only the other day I created an article for Peregrine Thimblethorpe, surely a name that's perennially on the lips of ordinary decent people, and you would have thought his would have been one of the very first Wikipedia articles written way back in 2002. But no. Life can be surprising sometimes. --

202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's Peregrine Thimblethorpe? You got me interested, and I can't find the article, and Google isn't very helpful, either. --TomorrowTime (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The general rule seems to be that if it can not be found on the WP then it probably has not been been published elsewhere since orgiginal research is prohibited on the WP. However, one would think if it does not turn up in firm documentation the the next place to search is in the humanities section. Now, however, there appears to be another rule that if you do not find it in film documentation then you can not lok for it in the humanities section. No effort seems to be made to distinguish one section from the other. Even if the questions were identical the context of the sections appears to be ignored. Perhaps I should post the question to Answers instead. (small> 71.100.11.112 (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious about that "general rule". Despite the enormous expansion of Wikipedia, it is still expanding constantly, so one could ask, if that new stuff is so notable, why didn't it get added years ago? Well, some subjects attract more contributors than others, and there will always be important new stuff being added. I could write a very long list of notable topics that are currently just the humblest of stubs, or worse. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus teaching at a Temple

The New Testament gives many examples of Jesus standing before a congregation,reading from the Scriptures and teaching. In order for a person (let alone a "Travelling Preacher")to be permitted to do this, what credentials would he need to have? I assume that not just anyone could stand and teach. The reason for this query is that if a person had to have certain credentials to "preach" then perhaps the "lost years" of Jesus' life were his education years. He would not be the first person to enter a religious education establishment in order to get an (academic) education and move up a social class or two. -- 05:26, 18 November 2009 99.250.117.26

The Temple wasn't like a modern church. Think of it more as a large, enclosed public square. Except for rooms in the temple like the Holy of Holies, the rest of it was probably pretty much open and public space, not unlike the Roman Forum, and as such there was probably all sorts of people speaking in different parts of it at various times. As long as actual religious ceremonies weren't going on at the time, all SORTS of stuff went on in the temple. Remember that it was also a place of business during most times, like an impromptu bazaar; such commercialization in "God's house" is what led Jesus to overturn the tables of the money changers. I'd imagine that anyone could just wander into the temple and start speaking on any subject; so long as they didn't disturb the peace, and people would listen, it would not be any more unusal than someone doing so in a modern place like Central Park.

... or Speakers' Corner Mitch Ames (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Modern church!? Nothing like this, I'm sorry. From the physical aspect[2] it was much, much larger, I mean, until today we find underground huge structures in all parts of Jerusalem. From others aspects, we know that the temple had Guard and they probably would intervene in a case of someone preaching against the Cohenim and the entire Jewish religious establishment.--Gilisa (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that you'd asked, but, Jesus and his disciples's also taught in Synagogues when they traveled to various other Jewish communities. Again, a synagogue was more like a community center than merely a church sanctuary, and was likely a common public meeting place for all sorts of people in the Jewish community. Whatever the 1st century equivalent of boy scout meetings and AA meetings and committees and support groups and the like probably used it. One probably had to get permission from the local authorities to use it, but the response was likely "sure, go ahead, and turn out the lights when you leave..." --Jayron32 05:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- the original questioner probably had in mind passages such as Luke 4:16-20. AnonMoos (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In that passage, Jesus isn't preaching so much as reading a bit of scripture. Its hard to get context, but it is entirely likely that various members of a congregation would read scripture passages during a religious service. Its clear that in THAT passage, Jesus is at his "home synagogue", so he may have had specific rights, as a member, to participate in worship services and/or to preach. But Jesus also specificaly taught in the Temple. The OP is more likely thinking of passages like Matthew 21:23-27, where Jesus is stated to have been "teaching" in the temple. Still, the configuration of the temple was such that he was probably off in one corner of the huge, open area that occupied most of the temple, with various people gathering around. He wasn't standing at a pulpit infront of worshipers seated in pews, as people familiar with modern churches may envision. Its much more like some guy in a public park talking loudly and gathering a crowd of interested onlookers. See also Matthew 26:55, Mark 12:35, Luke 21:37, much of John 7, etc, etc. Jesus taught extensively in the Temple, and there was lots of other stuff going on there as well. --Jayron32 06:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

First off, in those days the central Jewish temple (in Jerusalem) was completely separate and distinct from synagogues. Synagogues were founded and funded by local community initiative, and were not really centrally organized from above. I really doubt whether there were formal academic credentials as such, but if you were known to have studied with a well-known religious scholar, that would certainly increase your reputation among those who respected that person. AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AnonMoos is correct. The OP's question indicates that he is uninformed or misinformed about certain prectices. With the synagogue — congregation / assembly / meeting house — the Jews invented congregationalism. Each synagogue was independant, electing its own officials. As all of its adult males were literate, any member was deemed capable of conducting the service. It was often the case that a visitor to the community would be invited to lead the service. This both (1) made him feel welcome, and (2) gave the membership access to fresh ideas and ways of doing things. The one Temple was a different kettle of fish. B00P (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can A professional Accounting Qualification can be considered as equal to Masters Degree

I am working as internal auditor for a college in Oman. We need to decide something on whether it is possible to consider professional accounting qualifiation (ACA) as equivalent to Masrers degree.

nidhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by JOSEPHTACI (talk • contribs) 08:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is a legal-obligation involved in comparison - you can compare things like this in anyway that feels appropriate. E.g. A Masters in Philosophy is undoubtedly a higher-level of education than an NVQ in Woodwork - but if i'm hiring an apprentice for my joinery firm suddenly the lesser-qualification looks better, and the higher looks worse. Essentiall the context of why they are being compared is important. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll stick my neck out and say "No". A Masters degree normally is the second highest academic qualification one can earn. It usually requires an entry level degree (often a Bachelor) and several years of advanced study. A "professional Accounting Qualification", on the other hand, sounds like something from a trade school or trade association. It will not usually have the same breadth and depth than a proper university education, although it might very well qualify the holder to perform in his or her particular field to a much higher degree than a masters. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but Isn't in USA MA degree have different nature and meaning, mostly, than in Europe and other places where MA is mostly a prerequisite for PhD studies?--Gilisa (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In the UK we have the National Qualifications Framework, which is how politicians determine the equivalence of qualifications (the general population tend to favour academic qualifications over vocational ones). A Masters degree is "Level 7", the description of which includes: "Learning at this level involves the demonstration of high level specialist professional knowledge and is appropriate for senior professionals and managers." Since all accountants, not just senior ones, need a professional accounting qualification I don't think it meets that description. --Tango (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In the UK to become a Chartered accountant (as far as I know) requires two years' training contract after the completion of a bachelors' degree. So it is a postgraduate qualification, although not necessarily the same level as a Masters. Also, I don't know what the situation is in Oman. --Joe^Talk_Work 01:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of my CIMA studies at the moment and according to the UK it is equivalent to a masters. See this link CIMA --Coolcato (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of immigration, anyway. That's not the same as being completely equivalent. --Tango (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Azeri anthem

I once read that the anthem of Azerbaijan is the only national anthem, written in minor scale, akin to Mozart's "Requiem", instead of major scale. Is that true? 94.20.25.96 (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The national anthem of Israel is another example, apparently. FiggyBee (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, my country anthem (I don't realy know many other anthems)Hatikvah is also in minor scale.--Gilisa (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So is the Turkish one, it seems. Karenjc 16:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

need an interesting building

Apparently I have to choose a building that shows an interesting use of natural light, heat or ventilation and write an essay on it. When I read that I just thought

..?

It seems I do not have a list of such buildings stored away somewhere in my mind that I can just look down and pick one, instead I am hoping someone else might be able to point me in the right direction.

148.197.114.207 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should have a look through Category:Buildings. One interesting one would be City Hall (London). Or 30 St Mary Axe. Dismas|^(talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And have a look through any of Norman Foster's other recent works. Nanonic (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You may find our article Earthship interesting too, if generic rather than specific individual buildings are allowed. Karenjc 16:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Liège-Guillemins railway station. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I find Iranian windcatchers, such as seen at the Borujerdis House, to be a fascinating use of ventilation, but I'm partial to appropriate technology. --Sean 20:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

30 St Mary Axe, aka 'The Gherkin', in London, is an interesting one. --Joe^Talk_Work 01:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't ever go wrong with Fallingwater -- Pfranson (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

LGBT and crime

Serial killer William Bonin was in Category:LGBT people from the United States, because he RAPED and killed as many as 36 young boys and men and was arrested while trying to perform oral sex on a 15 year old boy. And now, user ukexpat removed to category because there is no source. Is that a joke?.... --190.50.79.48 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about this case in particular, but having sex with people of the same gender doesn't automatically make people LGBT. Through whatever strange justifications they may have, most men who rape other men in prison don't claim to be anything other than heterosexual. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There are two motivations for sex. One is erotic (this person turns me on). The other relates to existential power (I can do what I want with this person because I do not fear the consequences). Sounds like Mr. Bonin falls into the latter category, as do all rapists. Vranak (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, its not that simple. Some people derive sexual excitement from existential power. That is some people get turned on by forcing others to do things against their will. Sometimes rape is about power only, but sometimes it is about erotic sexual excitement derived from the power. You can't always seperate the two. However, sexual orientation is entirely, 100%, a self-identified characteristic, so if William Bonin did not consider himself to be homosexual, then no one else has the right to call him that either. --Jayron32 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing about rights is that they are extremely tenuous. In the last resort, there are no rights. Vranak (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

100% self-identified? Is there really no room for self-denial? Pollinosisss (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No. There is no room for self denial. Absolutely none. None whatsoever. Don't even think about it. There is not even such a thing as self-denial. Got that? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That kind of puts an end to "outing" people, doesn't it. Presumably if people say they are not homosexual then they are not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, all those boys would be bisexual because they had sex with a man. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Amory... those boys were RAPED. Bonin wanted to have sex with boys. --190.50.79.48 (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Did he now? Do you have a reference where he stated he wanted to have sex with boys? That's a very specific sort of motivation... --Jayron32 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between homosexual behavior, which apparently Bonin practiced, and a gay or bisexual orientation, which is a matter of self-identification. A person can decide whether another person's behavior is homosexual through objective, empirical observation of actions or evidence of actions. However, a gay or bisexual orientation is a subjective question of identity that depends entirely on the beliefs and/or claims of the person concerned. A person could engage in sexual interaction only with others of the same sex and still consider him or herself "straight". There are certainly such people. It may be that they are in "denial" about their sexuality, but we are unable to change their identity for them, no matter how self-deluded it may be. So, while we can say—if what 190.50.79.48 says is true—that Bonin engaged in homosexual behavior, we can't say that Bonin was gay or bisexual without knowing how he identified. Marco polo (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to see such questionable self-identifications in action need only search for "str8" on their local Craigslist, which consist of ads along the lines of "looking for man to suck my penis; no homos!". --Sean 21:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I find this a little odd.

Someone who rapes people is considered a rapist, even if he doesn't identify himself as such. Why is it different for homosexuality? Pollinosisss (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Because "rapist" refers to someone who has committed a specific crime. "Homosexuality" refers to something that, for want of a better phrase, I'll call a "state of mind". Someone is a "rapist" if they commit a rape, regardless of their motives. To identify a "Homosexual" you need to know not his actions, but his wants and desires. They probably correspond, but it's not hard to think up crazy reasons it wouldn't.(And the person in question is likely crazy!) APL (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But the lethal injection killed Bonin 13 years ago. So, he will never be considered gay or bisexual. Even when all of us know that he was or gay or bisexual. --190.50.79.48 (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you know do you. It must be nice to live in a world where one can know things with no evidence. Back here where the rest of us live, we generally look for things called "evidence" before calling an idea we have "knowledge"... --Jayron32 02:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

We manage nicely without a Category: Heterosexual people tag to slap on serial killers who assault people of the opposite sex, and that's because they are notorious for being assailants, not because of the sex of the people they assaulted. This man is notorious because he sexually assaulted and murdered people, not because the people he attacked were of the same sex as him. He certainly belongs in Category:American serial killers. Putting him in Category:LGBT people from the United States would be to categorise him, without any direct evidence about his own self-identification, along with the vast majority of American LGBT people whose idea of a good night out does not include molestation, rape or murder. In what way would it make sense, encyclopaedically speaking, to do so? Karenjc 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We'll also never know Shakespeare's orientation, and his is actually a notable subject. Suffice to say that people, sex, and people having sex is and will always continue to be a confusing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I will just say one thing here, which is that if the category in question is supposed to be about how people are known to self-identify rather than about what acts they are known to have repeatedly and voluntarily performed, then there should be something on the category page to say so. Otherwise different people, each acting in good faith, are likely to make edits based on the sort of conflicting ideas that led to this question. --Anonymous, 03:44 UTC, November 19, 2009.

It sounds like the label is being used as POV-pushing. As someone suggested above, we don't have a "straight people" category at all, let alone lumping the endless list of hetero serial killers into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Using one's penis to do horrible things to people is no more a sexual act than using one's penis to urinate. And even if Bonin did just have sex with them, given the ages of most of his victims, it would be classified as pedophilia, not homosexuality. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Most Inbred European Royal Family

Who were the most inbred European Royals in all of European history? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Define family. European family naming practices place an artificial emphasis on male-line decent; though genetically female and male are exactly equivalent. A group of cousins who share a common grandfather would all have the same last name, and would be considered a "family" or "dynasty" or "house". A different group of cousins who share a common grandmother may all have different last names, and be considered parts of different royal houses, but would be no less related than the first group. Consider the family tree of Queen Victoria. Among her grandchildren were:

• George V of the United Kingdom, officially of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
• Wilhelm II, German Emperor, officially of the House of Hohenzollern
• Sophia of Prussia, queen consort to Constantine I of Greece and whose children would have been officially part of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
• Tsaritsa Alexandra, consort of Nicholas II of Russia, whose children would have been officially part of the House of Romanov.

Thus, we could count the great-grandchildren of Victoria to be 4 different royal families (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov)

The grandchildren and (male decent) great grandchildren of a MALE monarch would all be considered part of the same royal family. So, it becomes hard to say what "family" means in this context.

There are many examples of royal first cousins being married (for example Haakon VII of Norway married his first cousin Maud of Wales. There are probably examples of the children of first cousins marrying children of first cousins, creating a severely non-forking family tree. I haven't found any examples yet, but I am looking. --Jayron32 20:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Royal intermarriage and Inbreeding#Royalty and nobility might be of use here. In particular, they mention the House of Wittelsbach as another prime example of inbreeding, and the disturbing John V of Armagnac, who married his sister, with whom he had a child. Warofdreams talk 02:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ancestors of Don Carlos of the Asturias

16. Maximilian I

8. Philip von Habsburg

17. Mary “the Rich” of Burgundy

4. Charles V

18. Ferdinand I of Spain

9. Juana of Castile

19. Isabella of Castile

2. Felipe II of Spain

20. Fernando de Viseu

10. Manuel I of Portugal

21. Brites de Portugal

5. Isabella of Portugal

22. Ferdinand I of Spain (=18)

11. Maria of Aragon

23. Isabella of Castile (=19)

1. Don Carlos of the Asturias

24. Fernando de Viseu ( =20)

12. Manuel I of Portugal (=10)

25. Brites de Portugal (= 21)

6. Joao III of Portugal

26. Ferdinand I of Spain (=18)

13. Maria of Aragon (=11)

27. Isabella of Castile (=19)

3. Maria of Portugal

28. Maximilian I (= 16)

14. Philip von Habsburg (= 8)

29. Mary “the Rich” of Burgundy (= 17)

7. Katherina of Austria

30. Ferdinand I of Spain (= 18)

15. Juana of Castile (= 9)

31. Isabella of Castile (= 19)

I think the Habsburgs are the clear winners here. William Reitwiesner used to have a page called something along the lines of "Some Remarkable Instances of Inbreeding in European Royal Families" at his site (www.wargs.com), though I can't find it now - he may have removed it. But among other things it pointed out the ancestry of Don Carlos of the Asturias, who had 4 great-grandparents (while most people would have 8). - Nunh-huh 21:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Addendum: This article on the Hapsburgs may be of interest. - Nunh-huh 00:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with all of the above. Questioner asks "in all of European history". You can't get more tangled and incestuously inbred than the Roman Emperors, and I'd pick Nero as a prime example. --Dweller (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Although both Nero and his father were reputed to have committed incest, Nero did not have nearly as much overlap in his family tree as (for example) Don Carlos of the Asturias, who had half the normal complement of great-grandparents, as noted by Nunh-huh above. Another pathological example would be that of Carlos II, whose father (Felipe IV) and mother (Mariana of Austria) were uncle and niece. Mariana's parents were first cousins to one another (and thus her father (Ferdinand III) was cousin to her husband/uncle, too). Ferdinand's own parents were first cousins, too. Felipe IV's parents were second cousins, and his maternal grandparents (Ferdinand III's paternal grandparents) were uncle and niece too, as were Felipe IV's paternal grandparents. Moreover, every single person I've just mentioned was a descendant of Felipe of Castile and Juana la Loca. Our article suggests that this would make Carlos' gene pool even more restricted than that of the offspring of Jean V d'Armagnac's incestuous marriage to his sister. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Victoria and Albert were themselves first cousins, both being grandchildren of the same Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. See Victoria of the United Kingdom#Ancestors and descendants. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Films in the public domain

I like watching old films. Where can I find a list of them, and where can I download them from please? 92.29.45.37 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Internet Archive (www.archive.org) should be good for that. Munci (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there something in English worth watching in www.archive.org? The site seems so dominated by Arabic, Urdu and the like.--Mr.K. (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance reveals that there are many treasures for film buffs to watch: His Girl Friday, The Lady Vanishes, Detour, Scarlet Street, Kansas City Confidential, The Stranger, Angel and the Badman, My Favorite Brunette, etc. A good place to browse for titles that might be there is List of films in the public domain in the United States. —Kevin Myers 14:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

www.watch-movies-links.tv one of my favorites Zionist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)