Humanities desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 24 >

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 23

Quotation question

The quote goes something like this "a short answer is likely to be wrong, but a long enough answer will lose the attention of the audience" I can't remember the exact quote, or where I heard it or who said it, but I have a sense that it might have been about some aspect of the Roman Empire in Britain. I would love the full, accurate and attributed quote.... Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.81.183 (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saki once wrote: A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. But I'll bet others before him expressed similar views in different words. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that isn't it though - it definitely had something to do with losing the attention of your audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.163.82 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme penalty for collaboration?

Could somebody tell me why Ragnar Skancke was executed after the end of World War II? His article doesn't describe any acts that would seem to justify such a sentence. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His high position and general support of the Quisling government was likely justification enough. See Legal purge in Norway after World War II for a rather too-brief article. The lead to that article states "The scope, legal basis, and fairness of these trials has since been a matter of some debate.", in other words that, in the opinion of som, and in some cases, the retribution against some of those who collaborated with the Nazis may have been excessive. That does not mean that everyone feels this way, or that everyone who was executed was innocent, just that it is a source of contention. --Jayron32 07:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back around early 2002, a lot of people were wondering why Nazi nurse Hanna Kvanmo was ever appointed to the Nobel peace prize committee in the first place, and what possible moral right she had to launch into vitriolic ranting tirades condemning other people's putative sins. It seems that the purge wasn't strict enough in her case... AnonMoos (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Kvanmo's remarks about Peres figured prominently in her obituaries, but are absent from Wikipedia's article on her. So I suppose our readers will be left wondering why a lot of people were wondering. The omission is "grotesque and unbelievable". :) - Nunh-huh 19:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did she commit a crime? Her article says that she was found of treason but did she do anything else besides being a nurse to wounded German soldiers fighting in the Eastern front? Did she torture someone? Did she denounce a Jew or member of the resistance to the German authorities? Did she hurt someone? Flamarande (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least she seems to have: [1] volunteered to serve as a Nazi nurse on three separate occasions, at ages 16, 18, and 19; [2] joined the Nazi Party in Germany; and [3] worked as a translator for the Gestapo when they conducted interrogations of Norwegian Resistance fighters [1]. Whether this is 'hurting someone' is left as an exercise for the reader. - Nunh-huh 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to trust your word in this matter [1] A "Nazi nurse"? What the hell does that mean? Were all nurses from occupied countries which nursed German soldiers "Nazi nurses"? [2] I'm not defending that, but please notice that she was very young (and with youth comes foolishness) [3] Your link leads to a book but the description doesn't reveal anything (at least I was unable to find anything and no, I'm not going to buy it). Flamarande (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I'm interested in credible and clear sources.[reply]

That link takes me directly to p. 251. If it doesn't take you there, that's the page to look at. - Nunh-huh 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it doesn't lead me there. I also tried through Amazon but page 252 was unavailable. However I think that some of the details about Hanna Kvammo are unclear: she seems to have joined the Norwegian Red Cross (then under German control) at 16 [2] and was sent to Germany at 18 to work in a hospital. Details are sadly lacking but your statement that "she voluntered to serve as a Nazi nurse on three separate occasions, at ages 16, 18, and 19" is a bit unclear. I would still like to have some credible and clear sources. Flamarande (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Kvanmo got onto the Nobel peace committee in 1991. WWII ended in 1945, 40-50 years earlier. That somebody volunteered to help wounded soldiers 40 years earlier, at a time when ordinary Germans supported the Nazis and voluntarily ratted out Jews to the Gestapo, is hardly indicative of that person's current moral beliefs. Even if Kvanmo did torture people and abuse inmates at a concentration camp--and of course, it's highly unlikely that she did--it still wouldn't indicate that she's anything except a normal human being. --140.180.14.145 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way off-topic soapboxing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't know that it makes her a horrible person, but it makes her peculiarly unsuited to put on hypocritical airs of sanctimonious smugness and issue ranting tirades about other people's alleged moral failings (as she chose to do in a very public way in early 2002), and it contributed significantly to tarnishing the image of the Nobel peace prize in the minds of some. AnonMoos (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was she hypocritical? Did she ever deny her failings? Or did she suggest she was better then those she criticised? AFAIK she never received the Nobel Peace Prize herself so it seems a bit ridiculous to expect her to live up the standards in her ancient history she apparently expected in current times of those who do anyway. As others have noted it's not even clear what he crimes were. The International Committee of the Red Cross doesn't appear to think she was doing anything terrible (it's obviously not her fault that the Nazi's nationalised the German Red Cross although according to above it was the Norwegian Red Cross anyway) and to be honest I trust them more then I trust occupying powers intent on revenge (the victors write the history as they say). It's hardly uncommon that those who have made mistakes in their past live to regret these mistakes and publicly acknowledge their failings yet start to speak up against other people doing similar or other bad things. It's not unresonable to forgive people for the mistakes of their past, which they have done their best to make up for and to accept that these mistakes don't somehow justify others continuing to do bad things nor do these fully acknowledged mistakes somehow prevent people from speaking out against bad behaviour in current times. I would note many people have standards in their elected leaders, standards they may expect of other leaders even ones they didn't elect that go beyond what they impose on themselves precisely because they think such people have to meet higher standards, even if you think this is hypocritical. Note that I'm not suggesting her comments were fair, simply her failings in her ancient history have little bearing on them particularly if she had fully acknowledged them and tried to make up for them. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting on her high horse and assuming extravagantly haughty and lofty airs to condemn the "mote in her brother's eye" (as the Bible puts it) is certainly flagrantly flamingly hypocritical in my book, and it did more to discredit the Nobel peace prize bureaucracy than anything else in recent decades (giving the two northern Irish women the peace prize almost right at the moment when their movement was starting to fall apart, and without any evidence that they would have any meaningful lasting overall impact on the NI situation, was a little bit stupid, but was not open to being considered motivated by ugly malignant hatred, like Hanna Kvanmo's rantings). AnonMoos (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do Filipinos worship chicken bones?

Well, do they?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Do Roman Catholics worship statues? Do Protestants worship dog-eared Bibles? I'm sure their is a reference to religion in the Philippines somewhere in Wikipedia, and I'm sure you are capable of finding it. As for what constitutes 'worship', and whether people anywhere apply this specifically to the skeletal remains of domesticated fowl, I'm not sure there is likely to be a definitive answer. Why do you ask?

Before trying the Reference Desk, I read the Religion in the Philippines article, and it didn't say anything about chicken bones, so perhaps I was simply misinformed, or the article needs to be updated.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you could give an indication of where this (mis)information came from, perhaps we might be able to throw some light on the matter. The article says that more than 90% of Filipinos are Christian, and between 5 and 10% are Moslem, and as far as I'm aware, chicken bones don't feature notably in either faith. The article also mentions "Animism, folk religion, and shamanism", where chicken bones might conceivably be involved somehow, but without further data, any suggestion that "the article needs to be updated" seems a little premature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Catholicism in the Philippines is anything like Catholicism in much of Latin America and other post-colonial Catholic countries, it may be highly syncretic in some areas and incorporate some traditional local customs that aren't a part of the mainstream religion elsewhere. That said, I've never heard of any such custom and can't find any reliable sources mentioning it (or anything at all unrelated to some comments made by comedian Adam Carolla). -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this and this say something about it, albeit sarcastically. LiteralKa (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the 'source' for this is a rant from an ignorant comedian? And on this basis, a regular 'contributor' to Wikipedia thinks we should edit an article? Jeeez... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I don't worship chicken bones, and I'm Filipino. :| --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call this life stance?

Life is like a movie. The screenplay is written (depending on your religious stance) by God or collectively by the characters. The story is logical and everything happens for a reason; even disasters that come out of nowhere serve to make the characters better characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.219.60 (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predeterminism? TomorrowTime (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalism, pre-destination. 92.15.6.86 (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the movie could be shown in Plato's cave. Matt Deres (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panglossianism. -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the story is "written", do you mean in advance? Before the universe started? Or now, as we go along? APL (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The story is written as we go along. The present words and actions of the characters "write" the story. Everyone's movie is different, of course, but as the main character in your movie, you do the most "writing". You cannot write for the other characters but much of their "writing" is influenced by you. Also, in the variation I believe in, God is like another character, but with a bit more powers. Based on your actions, he can choose to reward or punish your, or he can make you have an accident, hoping that you will grow as a character, but of course whether you actually grow as a character depends on what you write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.216.11 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This really just sounds like a metaphorical way of expressing a pretty mainstream Judeo-Christian view of life. It seems to boil down to "one's own actions have the greatest impact on his life, but the actions of others and the will of God also play a role." I think most followers of Western religions (except those believing in predestination or a completely inactive Watchmaker god) would generally agree with this view. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In philosophy of mathematics, there is a theory called fictionalism. This is to say that mathematics doesn't express any deep truths about the world, but rather all of the equations, expressions, etcetera are convenient fictions. They make it more convenient to understand the world, but do not express deep truths about the world. Perhaps you are looking for a form of fictionalism.`The "screenplay is written" by logicians and mathematicians. (In fact, the rules of inference and/or axioms used in formal systems are chosen by their authors by fiat.) The "stories told" by mathematics all are portrayed as "happening for a reason." Even the idea about "disasters" serving to make the "characters better" can be seen in non-classical systems such as non-Euclidean geometry or paraconsistent logic.Greg Bard (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your life is already 'written', then so are the answers you read here. They are neither 'true' nor 'false', but merely the answers you will see, and therefore not worth reading. If you think you have any choice in whether you read them or not, then exercise this choice by not reading them (except this one of course). Go out and stare at the Moon instead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "everything happens for a reason" phrase seems to come up a lot in folk-psychology, it gets 885000 hits in a Google search, including a quote by Marilyn Monroe. I dislike that sentiment: it encourages people to be passive and not take responsibility for running their own lives. Edit: see locus of control and self-efficacy. 92.15.15.224 (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what they think the "reason" is. Some think it's God micro-managing the universe. Others think it's more generically an "opportunity". To many people, the notion of things happening purely randomly, without any grand design, is very unsettling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare had Macbeth saying that life "is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." 92.28.251.194 (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Vonnegut parodied that idea in his book, The Sirens of Titan, indicating that the entire course of human history had something to do with extraterrestrials trying to get a spare part for their spacecraft. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

42 is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. 92.29.115.8 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life plot or a predetermined meaning of life/fate. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We will wear Bally's"

I was looking at a slide-show of pictures about the English Defence League, and in one of the pictures, there was an EDL sign that read "If they wear burkhas, then we will wear Bally's". (It's picture number 6 at http://english.aljazeera.net/photo_galleries/europe/2010112275625847519.html.) As an American, the only Bally's I'm familiar with off-hand is the gym chain -- I assume the sign isn't about the threat of well-defined abs, but a couple of google searches turned up nothing relevant except companies that made belts or shoes, and I can't see how that would relate to burkhas. Anyone able to shed light on this? 96.246.58.133 (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being from the UK, I've never heard it as a term before. Looking at the image, however, it appears (in a misspelt way) to refer to balaclavas. Warofdreams talk 16:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, judging by the photo's, by "Bally's" they mean balaclavas: often worn by individuals intending to engage in political violence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the wrong link or is there some reference to ballys or even balaclavas in that 1913 article about rabbit foot company that I missed? BTW the image mentioned above appears to be number 5 for me. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! That's what happens when you're in a rush, click on the wrong tab, and don't check things before you rush out to visit the real world for a few hours. Profuse apologies all round - now corrected (I hope...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. But if you don't mind sharing, why were you looking in to the rabbit food company thing? Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not food, foot. I was checking a new ref added at The Rabbit's Foot Company. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I knew it was foot, must have not been thinking when writing that. Didn't think of searching either which is why I didn't realise it was actually something we had an article on :-P Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, that makes a lot more sense than bragging about muscle tone. 96.246.58.133 (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly more comfortable than wearing a pinball machine, which is the first thing that "Bally's" made me think of! --Anonymous, 23:57 UTC, November 23, 2010.

Me too. That's the thing with those pesky apostrophes - put them in where they're not needed and people will think you're talking about something possessive in nature, when actually you're talking about something plural in nature. Big difference. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the pinball games were actually marked "Bally". Just goes to show you. --Anon, 00:07 UTC, November 25, 2010.

It's difficult to eat Baklava while wearing a Balaclava. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I thought I was the Bally table king......" from the Who and Elton John's Pinball Wizard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's always Bally Shoes, but I suspect that "balaclava" is the right answer. Alansplodge (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's a runekjevle?

81.131.33.14 (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to this article a "runekjevle" is a "cylinder shaped piece of wood with a smooth side for the runes". There are a few photos online of the remains of such items. Here's one I found: http://www.arild-hauge.com/arild-hauge/rune-N648.jpg --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I recognise it. There are several like that in an illustration in a book I've got where it calls them "a selection of merchants' labels excavated in Bergen". Wouldn't have figured that out from "cylinder shaped piece of wood". Thank you. 81.131.33.14 (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]