Humanities desk
< April 11	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 13 >

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.

April 12

most affluent city in sub-saharan africa

Which city in Sub-Saharan Africa, outside of South Africa, has the highest standard of living? -hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 01:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an authoritative answer, but I would guess Libreville in oil-rich Gabon, which has the highest per-capital GDP in sub-Saharan Africa, followed by Gaborone in Botswana and Windhoek in Namibia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos is the most populous city in sub-saharan Africa, and is a huge metro area. Like New York, it would be hard to nail down the character of the entire city in a single concept, but Lagos#Economy indicates it is Nigeria's most "prosperous" city; I would imagine parts of it are quite well off. --Jayron32 06:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by quality of living, not quite what you asked for, though economy is one factor in the equation, features Port Louis (ranked 77th), even before Cape Town (85th) , and Johannesburg (90th). All three cities seem to surpass any North African city, of which none are featured among the top hundred. Again, this assessment is based on other factors as well, such as environment, personal safety, health, education, transportation, etc. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though technically, Port Louis is on an island nation a good distance away from the continent of Africa proper. Sort of similar to stating that the best city in North America is in Bermuda. Googlemeister (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analogically, yes, but is this altogether illegitimate? If we compare Oceania, we realize that a continent is an abstract construct in geography and not narrow physical category...--71.111.229.19 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest card game still played today?

What is the oldest card game still played in unbroken tradition, albeit having changed over time? I assume Tarot is the answer, but are there other candidates? --KnightMove (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Whist family of trick-taking card games, which includes such games as bridge and spades can be traced to the 17th century games of Ruff and Honours. Other than superficial differences in such matters as scoring, bidding, and determining trump, the actual play of the cards is virtually identical in all of the various forms, so that particular card game family can easily be traced back some 400 years, maybe longer. --Jayron32 03:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those "superficial" differences are not so superficial. On the other hand, as mentioned in the article, the original game of whist is still played today, and that is something like 300 years old with no major changes. But according to the article on Tarot, tarock and tarocchi games, that still doesn't come close to the oldest tarot games. --Anonymous, 05:47 UTC, April 12, 2010.

Basset, progenitor of a closely related class of games of which Faro (the popular game in the old West) and Baccarat are related, has been dated to the mid-15th century Italy, which would make it about as old as as the Tarot games noted above. --Jayron32 06:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing_card#Spread_across_Europe_and_early_design_changes indicates that the playing card arrived in, and spread across Europe, sometime in the late 14th century. So that gives us an earliest starting point. Since Tarot games have been dated to not long after that (early 15th century) that may be the limit. --Jayron32 06:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heritage

who are the bantus of africa,also which communities in africa are directly or indirectly related to the Jews?196.202.194.146 (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue that "Bantus" are essentially who people living outside Africa think of as "Africans", see Bantu expansion and Bantu peoples. For your second question, see African Jews. Jørgen (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The technical meaning of "Bantu" is someone who speaks one of the languages belonging to a specific language grouping which prevails over much of central, southern, and eastern sub-Saharan Africa (but not western sub-Saharan Africa). AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lemba are a group of Bantu speakers who claim a history as Jews. Rmhermen (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re indirect relatedness to the Jews, you might find the article Semitic useful. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert III of Saxe-Wittenberg, Duke of Lüneburg

I created this article without knowing much, I need some help with some questiions. Was he a reigning Duke of Saxe-Wittenberg? It seems like he should have been since his father Otto was older than his brother Wenceslas I, Duke of Saxe-Wittenberg (Albert's uncle) who inherited the ducal throne after Otto's and Wenceslas' elder brother, Rudolph II's death. One must note that Saxe-Wittenberg didn't have any joint rules or division like its cousin the Saxe-Lauenburgs even if there was more than one son before answering this. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how do I make a work of art that is epic, hyper-novel, groundbreaking, ambitious, engrossing, a world unto itself, without becoming a parody of itself?

When I consider those worlds, like Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings that were extremely ambitious, groundbreaking conceptions of an engrossing, whole world unto itself, what can I do in realizing them that will keep the work from becoming a parody of itself?

Obviously franchises like James Bond have suffered from this for what, thirty years, but even franchises like Indiana Jones, or Back to the Future, suffered from this at their onset, to say nothing of superhero or other comic book ventures.

What positive steps can a person take to keep their work from degenerating into such a parody of itself? Thank you. 84.153.204.187 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that anything that becomes apart of popular culture is open for parody. The only way to keep a work from being parodied is to not offer it to the public in the first place. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the poster means something that is considered to be just ridiculous from the get-go. I think a lot of this is in the eye of the beholder. My wife thinks that LOTR is pretty ridiculous even on its own terms (she finds the "richly imagined" world to be ridiculous pretentious). I enjoyed Dune but there's a way in which it puts it on a bit thick too. It's easy to see Star Wars as just being about space wizards who live in the past-future.

When those kinds of works work right, it's not because they have some sort of intricate cosmology behind them. (Any dummy can make an intricate cosmology where the House of Shmurbitts and the House of Florfees have been at war for 500 years, and there are funny Kwoozars and Toolmoos that have their own intricate culture and system of magic, etc.) It's because the larger works resonate it some sort of way with more basic human concerns, needs, conditions. Star Wars isn't good because Lucas has 8 million muppets running around in it, it's good (if it's good) because it contains a nice amount of Jungian archetypes that resonate with a large number of its viewers. LOTR isn't good (if it's good) because there are intricate descriptions of creepy critters, it's good because the writing is (mostly) solid and the "epic quest against evil, even though the odds are pretty impossible" is a strong story. My suggestion is that instead of worrying about the density of the back story, focus on the overall construction of the narrative. Do like George Lucas did: read The Hero with a Thousand Faces, figure out what the inherently human story is you want to tell. The detailed world—that can be filled in later, once you know what is worth filling in. Just my two cents. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-stated. Somewhere there's a wikipedia article that discusses a short list of what could be called "basic story concepts". There are many ways of retelling the same story, and it's not so much the story that matters, it's the presentation. And I would have to say that if a story gets parodied, that's actually a form of flattery. No one parodies something that no one cares about. A parody of Star Wars, such as Hardware Wars, is not a put-down, it's a form of affection. Likewise with Galaxy Quest and Star Trek. Many of those who loved Star Trek (me included) also loved Galaxy Quest. The Indiana Jones movies were an homage to serials, while in some ways making fun of them too. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if no one parodies an artwork, then probably no one much cares about it. As you indicate, you can't control the marketplace of ideas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more immediate danger is that the goal from the outset, a narrative that is designed to be epic, hyper-novel, groundbreaking, ambitious, engrossing, a world unto utself, is already a parody of market-driven motivation: novelty, for example, itself untrustworthy as an end, not being sufficient in this case, which seeks to be hyper-novel.--Wetman (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's trying to "control the market", which generally doesn't work. You put it out there, and it either works or it doesn't. As Dick Clark told Congress during the payola investigation in the late 1950s, "No amount of airplay will turn a dud into a hit." And conversely, a work of art might not be recognized as such in the lifetime of its author. The history of the humanities is loaded with individuals who were not "honored in their own time". There are no guarantees... of either success or failure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, the thing that distinguishes 'epic' art is that it springs out of complete and sophisticated worldview. Tolkien is the iconic example of this - he was actually interested in philosophical matters of the derivations of language and myth, and The Lord of the Rings was a kind of by-product. rather than trying to craft a story, craft a worldview and let the story make itself. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, these massive properties were created by chance, with someone taking a shot at a story and it catching on, continuing, etc. builds until it becomes epic blah-blah-blah on its own. Think Discworld. That hasn't become self-parody and the writing is brilliant, all after 30-something novels (If anything, they've improved and eliminated much of the silliness from the earlier, more parody-of-other-works novels). Aaronite (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works of art can also come into and go out of fashion. Works of art are not immune to fashion trends. An artist should be aware of the criteria considered important but an artist shouldn't be entirely controlled by what the art world "thinks" it wants. Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt the way to stop it being a parody is to consistently and persistantly always present your work as something deadly serious? Gearge Lucas has never done a comedy version of Star Wars. If other people parody it, then that's a good thing as its a sign that its well known, and it is further promotion. Take Scientology as a random example - bursting with parodiable and laughably riduculous material, yet consistently presented year after year in a deadly serious manner, with the people involved all acting their serious parts, without sniggering. Similarly in fine art - something that anyone could make in five minutes gradually becomes, by the persistance of the artist, accepted as something of value. 78.146.107.183 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one approach is to be self-referential about epicness in the title itself (as in A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius), which takes the piss right from the beginning, so reviewers and readers won't think you're actually pompous ... but there will be that little seed of doubt planted in their minds: Maybe it really will be ... I'd better read it now... Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just paraphrase the Icelandic Sagas but set in Outer Space, and Bingo! you have an epic Space Opera. Other works such as the Odyssey, the Illiad, or the more serious plays of Shakespeare could also be used. In the later case you get an automatic approval from critics as they can show how clever they are by recognising the source. 78.149.114.89 (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 89.240.34.241 (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reichsmark Conversion

Is there anyway to find out how much M27.75 from 1925 Germany would be today in Dollars or Euros? Thanks 85.244.195.253 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because relative prices have changed so much since 1925, there is no way to calculate an exact equivalent to an amount from that date. M27.75 was equal to US$6.61 in 1925. [1] The tricky thing is determining what that $6.61 is worth today. According to this site, that amount is worth $80.90 today in terms of its ability to purchase goods and services. However, relative to unskilled wages, it is worth around $300. That is, since an unskilled worker today might make around $400 a week, M27.75 probably represented a large share of a week's earnings in 1925. Once you decide which present-day dollar value is more relevant, you can convert to euros if you like at today's rate of about $1.358 to the euro, per this site. Marco polo (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply... Extremely helpful 85.244.195.253 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William "Bart" Bush

Cannot find any info on William "Bart" Bush, the Regional Commissioner of the National Capital Region in the Public Buildings Service of the U.S. General Services Administration. I searched Google and Wikipedia with various versions of the commissioner's name. All in vain.Punctilious-one (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

google 'William B. "Bart" Bush'. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-signer removal ____?

Co-signer removal ____________________. Can someone fill that line in. I need to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.81.22 (talk • contribs) Moved from Co-signing by Tanner Swett (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain the context. Where did you read this? Is it at the bottom of a legal document, for example, or is it the answer in a crossword puzzle? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality = Paedophilia? Studies?

According to Secretary of State of the Vatican City, Tarcisio Bertone, "many psychologists, many psychiatrists have proved that there is no relation between pedophilia and celibacy, but many others have proved, and have recently told me, that there is relation between homosexuality and pedophilia". I want to know, are these studies known?, who are those psychologists and psychiatrists? The news is in Spanish because it's breaking news and I didn't find it in English yet. Source --SouthAmerican (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not what you asked for directly, but here's one editorial from The Atlantic about why this argument is a smokescreen, and that "the sin is the abuse of power, and the use of religious authority to subject the defenseless to an adult's sexual gratification," and that "the sexual orientation of the perpetrator is, strictly speaking, irrelevant to the matter at hand". Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the story in English from Reuters. What a shitty shitty man is State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. What a shitty shitty church. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for debate or soapboxing. --Anonymous, 04:40 UTC, April 13, 2010.

In part, at least. For the Church, or anyone affiliated with it, to be defending pedophilia or homosexuality or any other type of sexual behavior, on the grounds that it somehow doesn't violate the celibacy rules, is highly offensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the church is defending their celibacy rules from the assertion that they cause priest to engage in homosexual or pedophilic behavior (not defending pedophilia, as you've read it). Buddy431 (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The celibacy rules do not "cause" priests to engage in this stuff. However, the rules might tend to attract the kind of man who has no desire for sex with women. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is a good place to look for studies pedophilia+homosexuality and pedophilia+celibacy. Of course pedophilia is related to homosexuality, just as it is also related to heterosexuality, so every study is going to make reference to the gender of the victim and abuser but less frequently celibacy part of the equation. You would have to ask him what these conveniently comforting to the vatican, studies are meltBanana 00:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of ways to slice and dice this, but the research seems to indicate that openly gay men are much less likely to engage in pedophilia than men who identify as straight or heterosexual. It seems plausible that these Church officials are trying to divert attention from their own moral bankruptcy by attempting to scapegoat gay people. Marco polo (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat in concurrence although I don't really want to come across as soapboxing but although the CC likes to bring the issue of homosexuality into it, I've never seen any real evidence that many of the CC abusers can be considered 'homosexual' even if you include paedophiles who are attracted to prepubuscent boys and/or ephebophiles who are attracted to postpubscent boys in the that definition. While it may be true most of the victims are (post-pubsecent/young teen) boys, obvious things like access issues (altar boys etc and the lower acceptance of a teenage girls spending a lot of time with an adult male, even a priest, then teenage boys spending time with an adult male) and perhaps also a lower 'acceptance' of sexual abuse of girls by society (and the corresponding easier ability for the victim to speak out) and the CC, would seem to be big confounding factors that have never been addressed by the CC that I've noticed. (Similar to the way many prison rapists are men who have sex with men but probably don't have a homosexual orientation.) Of course the CC perhaps doesn't even always recognise the distinction given the views of some of their members on a homosexual identity so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Edit: To make this less soapboxy, here are some sources touching on these issues [2] [3]. Ironically I'm guessing the CC uses this sort of research to prove their point about how most of the priests aren't paedophiles and how they are only a very small number etc yet ignores the other key point is that there is no link with homosexuality and most don't identify as homosexual... Nil Einne (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican Statement Regarding Comments by Card. Bertone
- Interview with Scicluna --88.66.204.235 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Catholic Church has done more to protect paedophiles and silence their victims than pretty much any other organization, even NAMBLA, while at the same time actively promoting prejudice and discrimination against gay men. It's no surprise that they should try to deflect attention from their own profound immorality by attacking their traditional whipping boys. DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]