Humanities desk
< November 26	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 28 >

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 27

Muslims and Homosexuality

Are there known Muslims who have supported, or at least, been more open-minded toward homosexuals?. Or Muslim politicians, actors, footballers, don't know... --190.50.81.193 (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't this question show up recently on one of the ref desks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the articles

Irshad Manji? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also LGBT topics and Islam, especially the oddly named Homosexuality_in_Islam#LGBT_movements_within_Muslims. It also has a section called "people", which lists a dozen or so: Afdhere Jama, editor of Huriyah; Irshad Manji, Canadian lesbian and human rights activist; El-Farouk Khaki, founder of Salaam, the first queer Muslim group in Canada; Arsham Parsi, Iranian LGBT activist; Maryam Hatoon Molkara, campaigner of transsexual rights in Iran; Faisal Alam, Pakistani American LGBT activist and founder of Al-Fatiha Foundation; Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni; Malik Ayaz; Pav Akhtar; Usman Sani; Waheed Alli, Baron Alli, British gay politician; Yusuf Kabir; Enchant of Hope; Abdellah Taia, writer.

Perhaps there may be useful links within Human rights in Islamic countries. Imaan is the UK equivalent of Al-Fatiha. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from a more traditional historical religious point of view, Mukhannathun has a lot of references to interesting early Hadith (though a "Mukhannath" in early Islam is not precisely equivalent to a gay man in modern western societies). AnonMoos (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness Sayeeda Warsi is in favour of Civil Partnerships for gay couples, as stated on Question Time. Sam 16:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

I would suppose modern, secularized Muslims are generally as open-minded towards homosexuals as are modern, secularized Christians. E.G. (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for that assertion? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the burden on proof would be on the counter-claim. Unless there is some reason for Muslims to have different views on homosexuality than Christians, we should assume they don't. --Tango (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is "secularized." People who follow Abrahamaic religions, but are primarily secular in behavior, are often more tolerant of LGBT issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between personal per capita income and per capita income

The article States of the United States of America by income has separate lists for "States ranked by personal per capita income" and "States ranked by per capita income". But personal per capita income redirects to per capita income, and that article doesn't mention the term. What's the difference? — Sebastian 05:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per capita means per person, so "personal per capita" is redundent: there is no difference. However, be careful what you're using it for, as income isn't the same as disposable income or actual private consumption. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK law/crime question

I was discussing crime earlier with some friends, and a thought was raised, if a person with no prior record(meaning no fingerprints/dna/etc on the police database) in Britain committed a crime and was caught and they refused to say their name, or anything at all, would the police be able to find out who they are? If they couldn't, would that mean they wouldn't be able to charge them with anything? Thanks--86.189.5.207 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This scenario has been played out a number of times on The Bill and other cop shows, where they always end up identifying the person. In real life, there are cases where the person has remained unidentified for a long time, possibly forever. As for whether an unidentified person can be charged, I don't know. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The person would have to also have nothing on them that could link them to an address or other person, either of which would identify them. Given that people are typically arrested at a time not of their choosing, it is rare I would assume for this to occur. It's a fair thought though. Prokhorovka (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to establish the identity if you can establish that he or she did the crime. You can serve them in person. And especially in Britain the Queen can probably do you in personally with one of her theoretical reserve powers if needed ;-).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Queen visited me personally to do it, that would be worth committing a minor crime to meet her! Prokhorovka (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has servants to do that (called "The Police"). Being in prison in the UK is sometimes referred to as being "a guest of Her Majesty". Oscar Wilde said that if that was how she treated her guests, she had no right to have any. Alansplodge (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can of course be detained 'At Her Majesty's Pleasure' although I don't think that would happen for refusing to identify yourself Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The far more common scenario is where the criminal has a false identity, and they stick with it. This means their other identities (and any crimes committed under them) are not found. While less likely to work with computer fingerprint comparison, DNA, and facial recognition, this still happens surprisingly often (because data isn't shared between agencies, errors were made when taking samples, the old crimes were from before such samples were taken or added to the database, etc.). I disagree with the earlier statement that, since criminals are arrested when they aren't expecting it, they are likely to have identifying documents on them. They just don't carry such documents, and any they do carry refer to a false identity (maybe stolen from somebody else or maybe made up). StuRat (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the police can't identify someone they take a photo of them and send it around various agencies, take it round the local area showing people, give it to the media to distribute, etc. Usually somebody will recognise the person. --Tango (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like the famous 2005 "Sheppey Piano Man"[1]; although they didn't want to charge him, just find someone to take him off their hands! Alansplodge (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As others have stated they may not need to identify you if they already have sufficient evidence you commited a crime. They may just charge you as John or Jane Doe. But identifying you may be useful e.g. to find out if you have other criminal convictions, are in the UK legally and if you really refuse to identify yourself why you are refusing. As has also been stated they will probably attempt to identify you via other means. Note that they can arrest you if they suspect you've commited a crime (or are about to commit one etc) and you refuse to provide an identity [2]. This outlines what they may do (take photos etc) if you don't identify yourself [3].

Note also that in certain circumstances, e.g. when they believe you've commited anti social behaviour [4] and a bunch of other stuff possibly depending on where you live (I mean beyond England & Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) [5] [6] they have the power to compel you to provide a name and address (meaning if you don't you'll be fined). This primarily refers to police community support officers and in cases that have been designated, my guess is that normal police officers have this right to without it having to be designated but I don't really know. In any case, it highlights the fact that committing a minor offence to see what happens is going to be a bad idea, not only are you likely to be charged with whatever offence, you'll probably get another fine for refusing to identify yourself. (And going to court has a number of bad effects, e.g. you'll likely have to report this whenever you visit another country and need to be interviewed etc and may be even denied entry, even if normally entilted to a visa on arrival.)

There may also be other things they could charge you with, e.g. hindering a police investigation but I'm not really sure about that since you do have a right to silence and in fact in a number of discussions about the "power to require name and address" I've seen it mentioned that the section may be regarded as going against the right to silence (and perhaps right to privacy) but it's considered necessary and proportionate e.g. [7] which suggests to me unless it's specificically outlined in law it won't be an offence.

Also as anyone who's ever watched a British police show will know while you do a have a right to silence, not saying something can have an effect on your defence in England & Wales as juries are allowed to draw inferences [8] [9] (also see the previous wikilink) although they can't convict you solely on your silence and I don't think it would be particularly common that refusing to identify yourself is likely to harm you defence (since AFAIK like here in NZ and a number of other commonwealth countries, it's rare that previous offences may be presented to juries therefore it's not going to be common that refusing to identify yourself can result in any negative inferences). I guess if you really never identified yourself and they never found out then it may count against you, e.g. they may say you're afraid they will find further evidence against you if they know who you are. Finally it's possible that you could be guilty of contempt of court if the court compels you to identify yourself and you don't, but again I don't really know if they could, since it may go against your right to silence. I'm presuming of course there isn't anything specific set out which allows them to do so, I haven't found any besides the power to compel which only results in a fine (well of what I've seen so far, there could be harsher penalties in some cases).

P.S. If we're wrong about them being able to charge you without identifying you, then the situation is likely to be quite different and I doubt holding you for contempt of court would be a problem.

P.P.S. It's possible that this issue has just never really came up in court, because few people try it, and of those that have they've been identified through some other means. As StuRat says, the greater risk is probably people providing a false identity. If you don't identify yourself, police know they need to try and find out who you are and probably eventually succeed. If you say you are StuRat when you are actually JackOfOz then they may just accept you are StuRat.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interest in this field, what is it called?

It includes things like the cultures of different communities, how communities and cultures develop over time, how people are influenced by their cultures/communities (as part of their identity) and interaction between communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.234 (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology and/or Sociology? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human geography TheFutureAwaits (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social capital covers part of this. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As does Psychogeography - the first two answers cover the field more thoroughly, though. Grutness...wha? 23:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychogeography is not a field, it's a joke.—eric 02:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social anthropology which is a sub-field of anthropology.
Sleigh (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Forint Certificates?

~15 years ago, I was in Hungary and a friend was exchanging *a lot* of money. If I remember correctly,the banknotes he got were large, cardboard certificates. I don't know which currencies he was exchanging - I would think that he was converting USD to Forint, but I can't find any reference to large FT currency certificates. Perhaps Kroners? This was probably before the "new" forint started circulating (what we used to call the "communist" Forint - don't know) if that helps. Any ideas what those certificates could have been? Tewner (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

psychology question

at exactly 1:00 into this video I don't understand why Aldrin doesn't just put his hand on the bible, which is held out nonthreateningly (with the person's other hand in his pocket) and say "I swear I walked on the moon". That's what I would have done, followed by: "now will you get away from me". Instead, it looks to me like he spent just a split second thinking about it, and decided, no, he wouldn't do that. I don't really understand why not. I mean, I know I wouldn't swear on the bible for things that aren't true, but for things that are? It just seems like, in economic terms, the marginal cost of sticking his hand out and putting it on the bible and saying he swears he walked on the moon is just much smaller than continuing the incident. I don't understand why it went down the way it did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.102 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also, more evidence of the split-second thinking about it is that he got really riled up by being called a coward (punched someone on camera), at the end of the video. For me, it would rile me up much more to be called a coward after I thought about doing something and decided not to, then at a random time. Is this a correct psychological analysis?

Note: all of the above questions are psychological ones. 92.230.68.102 (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what he experienced at that moment was a disconnect between religion and science and it made him pause to think for a moment. And also why should he comply with anyone accosting him? Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's a good, plausible reason for the pause. Any other ones people can suggest? As for your second question: becfause it's easier, faster, etc. There's just a small incremental (marginal) cost in that situation. 92.230.68.102 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth should he? Just to please some nutjob? Is this a troll? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The video shows him being harrassed, chased and his path blocked. The only sensible thing to do is get away, which he tried to do in several switches of direction. Your question is backwards, I think. What possible reason could the harrasser have for expecting anyone so approached (from behind, unawares) to react positively to his "request"? Thrusting something at anyone, even if you claim it is a Bible, is a bad idea if what you want is co-operation. Bielle (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he did swear on the Bible, the guy would still wouldn't have believed him. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that's hilarious. Unsurprisingly, Neil Armstrong refused as well. Bart Sibrel#Dealings with Apollo astronauts has more information. Astronaut (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The man has harassed Aldrin in front of his family, called him a liar and a thief, tried to interfere with what he is doing. The pause was probably to take a deep breath and calm down. He has every right to be extremely annoyed - I think Aldrin shows remarkable restraint throughout the whole thing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the whole movie? It's one hour consisting mainly of this guy harassing elderly gentlemen who happen to be ex-astronauts. And the moment in the video is not the first time he had harassed Aldrin, either. My guess, Aldrin just got really, really, really fed up with Sibrel, and the last thing on his mind was fulfilling some whim of his, no matter how brief a time it would take, and be it connected to the Bible or not. --TomorrowTime (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more important and interesting question, to me, is what makes Bart Sibrel do this? Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of these days, Bart, pow! straight to the moon! --TomorrowTime (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not allowed to provide medical diagnoses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Good punch. Why couldn't that policeman get rid of the nutter instead of letting him go on with his harassment? Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's not a policeman, I think it's just the hotel bellboy or doorman or something. He does say: "This is a hotel, you cannot solicit on this property." --TomorrowTime (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to learn that Buzz Aldrin is actually quite religious - see the last paragraph in Buzz Aldrin#NASA career. Astronaut (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religious people can also get narked by people calling them liars and thieves and cowards and generally harassing them. Is it the bit about being an elder? I suppose there is something there but the presbyterian church never struck me as one to turn the other cheek. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people would find it offensive to their religious beliefs to use the Bible in such a trivial way.There are admonissions in it about how you swear oaths and what you swear them on..hotclaws 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith, to which all stripes of Presbyterians have historically held, opposes the use of an oath in a situation such as this. Nyttend (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quakers (members of the Religious Society of Friends) and other denominations that began as radical dissenters often refuse to take any secular oaths, which is why "[solemn] affirmation" is an alternative accepted in the Constitution for things like officers' oaths of allegiance in Article Six, presidential inaugurations (Article Two, section 1) and the declaration required for a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The Biblical basis for such opposition to oaths is in Jesus' new commandment in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:33-37:

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

—— Shakescene (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrin (and the other Apollo astronauts) have been harrassed their whole lives by people like Sibrel. Do you really think Sibrel, or any other hoax-believer, would be mollified by a swear on a Bible? They've been accusing these astronauts of lying for decades. Swearing on the Bible won't do anything to help, and Sibrel knew that. This was just confrontation for the sake of making money on Sibrel's part. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was probably hoping to add perjury and blasphemy to the list. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Port city moved to another country

which are port cities which moved to another country during course of historyfor various reasons or for that matter list of cities which belonged to different countries at different points of time

a wikipedia entry compiling them may be of help to researchers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.77.148 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least in Europe and until WWII, borders were never very stable, so if you pick almost any city comparatively close to a border, chances are it has changed countries in the past. You should also bear in mind that "countries" as we know them now are a relatively recent development. Perhaps the best known port city to change hands is Gdansk, though. There are more, though, like Trieste, for instance --TomorrowTime (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others that come to mind include Vyborg and Pechenga (both formerly Finnish; Pechenga isn't much of a port, though) and Kaliningrad (formerly German), all taken by the USSR during WW2 and kept afterwards; Nice, ceded to France by Italy in 1860; and Antofagasta, Iquique, and Arica, all taken by Chile in the late 19th century from Bolivia (and Arica was also in Peru before that). Of course, these examples refer to cities or districts that have changed hands between already existing independent countries. Cases where a newly created country contains a port city, or where colonies of one country change hands to belong to another, are (I think) far too numerous to be interesting to list. --Anonymous, 22:27 UTC, November 27, 2009.

Indeed so - Colón, Dili, Tel Aviv, Karachi, Chittagong, Singapore, Riga... not to mention all those cities which used to be city states - Venice, Hamburg, and the like. Another that's been missed between two existing cities is Walvis Bay - and, of course, there's both Hong Kong and Macau. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So lemme get this right: by saying "indeed so" you are agreeing that it's not interesting to list them, and then you're doing it? --Anon, 00:52 UTC, Nov. 28.

'm saying indeed so to the idea that there are a lot of them, and them listing half a dozen or so easy examples followed by ellipsis to indicate that the list is a long one. I'm then getting onto more relevant material with one that changed hands between already-existing countries. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And many formerly-dependent but now-independent countries with long coastlines, for starters: South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (Dhaka), Chile, Mexico, Peru, Kenya (Mombasa), Ireland (Dublin, Cork), the United States of America, Greece, Slovenia, Croatia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, .... —— Shakescene (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalian, aka Dairen aka Port Arthur has changed hands many times; see First Sino-Japanese War and Treaty of Shimonoseki, Russo-Japanese War and Treaty of Portsmouth... --Jayron32 04:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the most-noted loss of an English port was that of Calais in 1558, after England's unsuccessful involvement in Continental wars as a result of the Spanish King Philip II's marriage to Queen Mary I Tudor (one of a number of such unfortunate continental entanglements brought by royal marriages and inheritances, e.g. William and Mary's.) Mary I (1553-1558) said that when she died, "Calais" would be engraved on her heart. This loss of England's last Continental port was later balanced by the winning of another seaport, Gibraltar, in the Treaty of Utrecht (1714) after a more successful war on the Continent. ¶ Portugal's overseas empire consisted of a string of seaports around the world which later changed hands (often to the Dutch), including Cape Town, Macau, Goa, Damao, Colombo, Malacca and Dili (Portuguese Timor, now East Timor). France kept a few Indian enclaves (after losing Indiad and and Canada to Britain in the Seven Years War of 1756-63), such as Pondicherry and Chandigarh. Both the Portuguese and French enclaves were later absorbed into the Republic of India.—— Shakescene (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's Berwick-upon-Tweed, at one time responsible for a quarter of all Scotland's customs revenues, which changed hands between Scotland and England at least 13 times between 1147 and 1482. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every port city in Finland, since Finland was part of Sweden until 1809, then ceded to Russia and then independent from 1917 onwards. Most port cities along the southern and western shores of Sweden and on Gotland, becuase those areas used to belong to Denmark and Norway until the 17th Century. Every port city on the eastern and southern side of the Baltic, because Estonia, Latvia, Livonia and Poland has been parts of other realms for long times and Germany used to be many states (Prussia, Mecklenburg, Holstein, the free cities of Hamburg and Lübeck). Every port city on the Mediterranean, becuase the realms have changed there many times since before Christ. Probably every port city on the shores of Africa, since most of them were founded before the present countries gained independence during the second half of the last century. We can go on... a list of ports which have never changed hands would be much shorter. E.G. (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Women liberation reform of Peter the great

When Peter the Great modernized Russia, it must have meant great changes for women. Russian noblewomen, I believe, were confined to their homes quite like muslim women and forced to vear veils. Peter forced the noblemen to take their wives to court, dance with them and sit at the table with them openly. Exactly when did these reformes occur?--85.226.46.84 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reforms of Peter I of Russia gives a date, 1702.--Wetman (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Can you or some one else tell me: when was the first ball held at court, and the first banquet with both genders? Was it the same year, 1702? --85.226.46.84 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Magnesia

In this article it gives a breakdown of military groups under Background. Is there a good online reference of this, like from Plutarch or the like? Would like to get further on the two phalanxes and the 16,000 "semi-professional" military settlers giving as total apparently around 25,000 to 26,000 men. Is there further reference on the 1,200 steppe-nomad horse-archers? Also reference for Antiochus also arrayed scythed chariots? And an online reference (Livy perhaps) where Antiochus also had 6,000 heavy cataphract cavalry. Is there an online reference of Antiochus III the Great being called "Basileus Megas"? Thanks. 64.138.237.101 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Livy XXXVII.39-40.—eric 01:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appian 11.31-32.—eric 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any online references for 'Basileus Megas', but apparently Ma, John. (1999). Antiochus III and the cities of Western Asia Minor. pp. 272-6. OCLC 41137527. concludes he was 'Great' after 205 and 'Great King' after 200.—eric 02:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks eric, appreciate your great answers. --64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]