Humanities desk
< January 19	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 21 >

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.

January 20

Worlde War 1 medals

He was a pilot and served in France for the army. I know he did receive the French legion of Honor medal.They are all mounted in shadow boxes but I will try and take pictures to forward them to you.```` My husbands father served in World War 1 and has several medals that we have no idea what they mean or why they were awarded to him. How can I go about finding out this information? Any info would be helpful```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.45.110 (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which country? Which armed service? (Army, Navy, etc.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And are there any inscription on them? If you can post a picture of them, I am sure they can be identified by one of our extremely knowledgeable reference deskers.--Lgriot (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epifanio Garay - English Language References

Recently I created a page on the Spanish language wiki for the Colombian painter, Epifanio Garay. Although I've found his name mentioned on several pages in the English language wiki I haven't found any English language references to use on a translated page. His named is mentioned, or his work is featured, in the following articles.

mrtony77 (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can translate the information into english, and it meets WP:GNG, there's nothing stopping you from writing the article in English as well. English language sources are nice where availible, but there's no prejudice against using sources from other languages. --Jayron32 02:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiculturalism in Quran and Hadith

By any chance does the Qur'an and hadiths ever mention anything about multiculturalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.76 (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran does permit a male Muslim to wed a chaste and pious woman of Jewish or Christian belief. I suspect this may be considered to be an example of multiculturalism. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islam has a lot to say on treatment of People of the Book (mainly Jews and Christians). One example of a time when this was put into practice is the Al-Andalus betwen 711 and 1492 CE. You may also be interested in Islam and other religions. But of course the reality of how Muslims live and lived is not always what Islam specifies, as is true for all religions. Slavery was rife, and was usually between different race, as in the Arab slave trade (see especially Arab_slavery#Arabic_views_on_black_people). BrainyBabe (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Muhammed's final sermon:

All mankind is from Adam and Hawwāʾ, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.

Michael Hardy (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lipstick

Do men use lipstick? --Questesns (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has a male ever used lipstick? Indisputably. Do any use it regularly? Undoubtedly. Is it a common aspect of average, contemporary, Western, heterosexual male culture? Not in my experience. --Mr.98 (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I can't think of any "mainstream" Western cultures where they normally do. Some subgroups like Goths will. Rmhermen (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and actors. [Maybe that includes Goths :-) ] HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And hair metal musicians; I love Dee Snider's, in particular. Also, when you get really into the deep recesses of black metal you'll find some of that; a lot of groups have abandoned it but not quite all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally when men used makeup, it was called "Greasepaint" (no very useful Wikipedia article...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, greasepaint is a specific type of make up, very resistant to sweating off, commonly used on stage. What makes you say it was typically what man make up was called? (And it is annoying that geeasepaint redirects to foundation (cosmetics), but it does at least mention what greasepaint is in a passing sentence) 86.164.164.183 (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because traditionally most men who wore makeup were actors. AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Wodaabe of Niger, whose men apply black greasepaint to thier lips. We obviously need new categories for men who wear lipstick, pigs that wear lipstick, etc. --Aspro (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By chance; for those that can receive BBC television broadcasts, a bit about the Gerewol beauty contest is showing tonight Deserts - Life in the Furnace Today, 20:00 on BBC One.--Aspro (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British comedian Eddie Izzard has often appeared wearing lipstick. Astronaut (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the train a few days ago I saw this average-looking twenty-something man sitting opposite me apply something to his lips, which I assumed was lip balm although it was not very cold. I think Gene Simmons wears a discrete dab occasionally, even though he's over 60. 92.28.255.115 (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK... so we have established that some men do wear lipstick (usually for professional reasons) but most men don't. I think we can leave it at that. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the OP needs to ask? Surely the answer is already well-known to everyone? 92.28.255.115 (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question was not "Do men wear lipstick?" but "Do men use lipstick?". I'm sure even men who would never wear lipstick use it for other purposes, such as writing notes on mirrors, or smearing on their shirt collars to make their wives jealous. Pais (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pee Wee Herman and Ronald Reagan.--Wetman (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who has declared war lately?

Inspired by the Declaring War section above...

Since WWII, which countries have declared war, when and on whom? And who keeps track of such things? HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what counts as a "declaration of war". The Iraq Resolution seems to do everything just shy of sending a postcard to Saddam Hussein saying "We'll be stopping by in March, make up the guest bed for us". Does that count? --Jayron32 06:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm of the understanding that there is such a thing as a formal declaration of war, in words somewhat like that. It certainly happened in WWII. And I've just remembered that Wikipedia is your friend and looked at Declaration of war. But my question still stands. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it may be a nice addition to have a list of formal declarations of war, or at least those attested in history. --Lgriot (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually of the impression that the US formally declared war on Iraq, but I guess judging from the article that that was not the case. Which again makes me uncertain whether anyone has formally declared war since WWII. It just seems to have gone out of fashion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Falklands War, there was no declaration of war from either side, but there was a declaration of a ceasefire. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Falklands War was referred to by HMG as a "conflict" at the time - it seems to have become a war after it was over. What was likely to happen to anyone who got in the way of the Task Force was spelled out in no uncertain terms. The Argentinians arrived unannounced however; described by Rex Hunt as "An Ungentlemanly Act". Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of formal declarations of war in the modern world indicates a changing attitude towards wars. Prior to the modern era, in the Western world, wars were considered a normal, even acceptable means, towards resolving disputes between countries. Wars were usually highly regulated by convention; concepts which came to fruition during the 19th century (but which clearly existed before that) include the idea of Balance of Power, which informed the alliance system that led to World War I, the Concert of Europe, which was the system of congresses that attempted to provide a structure to resolve disputes and set "rules" for when warfare became necessary. A much older concept was casus belli, which was the list of reasons which would justify going to war with another country. Since war before the 20th century was a) limited, b) honorable, and c) an acceptable means of dispute resolution, it makes sense for a formal declaration between nations. The 20th century introduced the concept of total, expansive, world wars. The age of small-scale wars was gone as the death tolls skyrocketed from the thousands or tens of thousands into the millions, and as a result war became a less honorable venture. As a result, the UN charter specifically forbids almost all wars except wars for defending oneself against a prior act of aggression. If another country invades yours, its kinda pointless to declare war. Many of the post WWII wars are civil wars, with foreign participation on one side or both, such wars also don't often feature the need to formally declare war. Finally, given the speed at which war can be conducted, it makes little strategic sense to declare war. It just lets your enemy know you are coming. --Jayron32 13:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even before the United Nations were formed, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, adopted in 1928 by almost all the major powers of the day, prohibited the use of war as an instrument of national policy. It was useless in preventing World War II, but it reflected a significant shift in thinking about war. --Xuxl (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can someone explain this joke?

What does the joke "physics is to math is what sex is to masturbation" mean? I really want to understand this science joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.9.100 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a terribly funny joke (to me, at least) - it means that physics and math are basically the same but physics is inherently superior because math is self-centered, does nothing productive and has no connection to the real world. -- Ferkelparade π 13:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Physics is productive, while mathematics isn't. Physics applies the principles of mathematics to produce workable theories about how the world operates. Math, in isolation, doesn't produce anything practical in that way. Masturbation, while fun, is useless in a similar manner, as sex makes babies, while masturbation just makes dirty towels. That is at least the sentiment behind the joke. (To halt the coming criticism; yes, I know that is probably a gross misrepresentation of the importance of math, but that misrepresentation is inherant in the joke, so must be explained as such). --Jayron32 13:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, physics would get nowhere without a solid grounding in maths. Being all in the mind, new mathematical insights are rare, but when they come they can solve otherwise intractable problems in physics.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I daresay few people have ever had sex that didn't already have a solid grounding in masturbation. The joke is a form of rebuttal against the so-called "purity" of math (pure of course because it's unsullied by reality...) as explained neatly in this xkcd. Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC) edit: For people unfamiliar with xkcd, hover your pointer over the cartoon to get the other half of the joke. Matt Deres (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the exchange between a phonetician and a phonologist. The phonetician said, "Phonology is to phonetics as astrology is to astronomy." The phonologist replied, "Phonetics is to phonology as numismatics is to economics." Pais (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, just to give the counter-view, Plato would have said that it takes a mathematician to truly understand a horse, and a physicist to figure out how to yoke it to a plow.

--Ludwigs2 18:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The joke is normally credited to Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman, who may have been a bit biased. Right, but biased. 90.217.64.202 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the joke is that all of truths of mathematics are such that they can be discovered while sitting by oneself on the couch. To discover the truths of physics you actually need to get out in the real world and get your hands dirty.Greg Bard (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I dunno. Stephen Hawking seems to do alright. (But I'd agree with your statement in general.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation means getting your hands "dirty" too. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've inadvertently made a poorly mixed metaphor. It's not about getting hands dirty, however a scientist may need to "romance" the equipment in order to make the experiment work.Greg Bard (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Math is the building blocks of physics; masturbation is the building blocks of sex. It is absurd. That, I guess, is funny. Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. It's not absurd at all, from a certain point of view, and I think that's the point. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daily online cartoon?

What daily online cartoon or cartoon strip would people recommend? I've already tried searching on Google. I'm looking for cartoons that make me laugh or are witty or clever. Thanks 92.28.255.115 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. You will find a variety of things to check out at Category:Webcomics, but you have to do the judging and choosing yourself. –Henning Makholm (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structurally the question is no different to asking people to recommend literary books to read, which has often been asked here without quibble. 92.29.123.151 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to be more specific than that - we can't possibly know what you think is funny or witty or clever. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My two favorites are xkcd and Dinosaur Comics, but you probably have different tastes from me. Pais (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.comics.com Has alot of nice daily comics. xkcd and Cyanide and Happiness are also very nice (although not daily) comics. 216.120.192.143 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbert.com is also a good choice. Quest09 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't qualify as a daily cartoon, actually it's discontinued, and you can probably get through the archives in one decent sitting, but IMHO it qualifies as witty, clever and funny, perry bible fellowship. Vespine (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to drop non-daily titles, here's one I cannot recommend enough: subnormality, a let's-say-sort-of-weekly-shall-we? wall of text comic - most of the time it's more insightful than witty or funny, and sure, most of them would take half a workday to read, and most people would just go tl;dr, but I find it very good. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the thrice-weekly Basic Instructions (comic) very funny. (direct link) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are Haddanites?

In a genealogical essay, I found this sentence: “Marriage between close kin of various types is permitted in Jewish law, and such alliances are still common in groups like the Haddanites, of Israel, whose first-cousin marriage rate was recently determined to be fifty-six per cent.” However, I cannot find a single mention online of a group known as the Haddanites (except for another copy of the same essay). Does anyone know who these are? And if they do not exist, why does the author of the essay think they do, and how does he know their first-cousin marriage rate? (By the way, if there is an endogamous ethnic group small enough not to be found on Google, I should be surprised if they can avoid inter-sibling marriages, let alone marriage between cousins.) Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo or spelling mistake, or mistransliteration? c (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had-Dani in Hebrew means "the Danite", i.e. the descendant of the Tribe of Dan, one of the Ten Lost Tribes (cf. Eldad Hadani). According to our article on the tribe, the Ethiopian Beta Israel claim to be descended from Dan, so maybe that article is using "Haddanites" to refer to Ethiopian Jews living in Israel??? There's also an Arabic name Haddani, as in the Moroccan songwriter Ali Haddani. Pais (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the guy in the essay is just pulling numbers and names out of his ass. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've resolved it myself - BrainyBabe is right, it's a typo, it should say Habbanites, and it refers to Habbani Jews, whose first-cousin intermarriage rate is indeed 56% according to this article. Many thanks! Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Shield of arms" for surnames?

Am I correct in thinking that there are no coat of arms for surnames, in the same way that there are no tartans for surnames? That coat of arms only apply to the descendents of someone who had a coat of arms granted by the College of Arms?

In which case, the section that describes the "shield of arms" in the Portillo (surname) article should be deleted. 92.15.24.22 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The College of Arms has relevance only to the British Isles or parts thereof. They cannot dictate to people from other countries what arms they may or may not have. Portillo may be a well-known name in the UK these days, but it's of foreign origin, and who knows what rules apply in its country of origin in relation to coats of arms? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article it has jurisdiction (sp?) over all the Commonwealth except Canada and South Africa. And over any coat of arms that are purported to originate in Britain, unless you are just some foriegn-based con-artiste ripping off Americans. 92.29.123.151 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did Scotland leave the Commonwealth since I last checked? –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several companies in the UK and Ireland that will "research" the "family coat of arms" of credulous Americans. (Don't have one? No problem, we will create one for you and include it in our "register"). The fact is, anyone can create a coat of arms for themselves. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the OPs perception was not incorrect. A coat of arms belonged to a noble family, and was only bestowed to members of that particular family, not everyone that happened to share the same surname as that family. But there does seem to be a number of companies, that makes their money by not taking that fact very seriously. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, you could run foul of the Law of Arms and be hauled up before the Court of Chivalry - a bit unlikely though, since it doesn't seem to have convened since 1954. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the offending, unsourced, section from Portillo (surname). If anybody can source a way in which it makes sense for a surname to have a coat of arms, feel free to reinstate it from the article history. –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few brief points.

(1) As Henning Makholm alludes, heraldic jurisdiction in Scotland lies with the Lyon Court, which (unlike the England/Wales/Northern Ireland College of Arms whose Court of Chivalry is indeed defunct) still exercises legal powers within Scotland and can, for example, confiscate objects bearing Scottish arms incorrectly and fine the usurper (who is perpetrating a form of identity theft). Scots or descendents of Scots living outside the UK can choose to apply for arms to the Lyon Court rather than the College of Arms.

(2) Contrary to Saddhiyama's belief, arms in Britain have for many centuries not been restricted to 'noble families.' Anyone in 'good standing', which now broadly means without a criminal record or similarly murky associations, can apply for and be granted arms from the College or Court as appropriate (as can Corporations, Companies and other non-human legal entities).

(3) Arms (in the UK) are granted not to a family (still less to all families with the same name), but to an individual, and are inherited by the grantee's heir on death: until recently a UK arms holder's descendents during his/her lifetime were supposed to use 'differenced' versions of those arms (see Cadence) provided that they "matriculated" them with the granting body, who would rule on what the differences should be. When the current holder died, all the differences changed according to the cadency system being used and should have been re-matriculated: fees were due for the administration of all this. It appears that the College of Arms has recently relaxed these rules, but the Lyon Court (which also uses a different form of cadency) still applies them. Some European continental heraldic jurisdictions, however, have always operated differently and allowed all living male members of a family to use the same arms. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that it is and was not only noble families that could purchase a coat of arms, I admit I misused the term "noble". But the main point of my answer still stands (and I am speaking as a "continental" here, and I guess that would also apply to the rules concerning the "Portillo"-family of Spain, which I doubt is under the jurisdiction of the UK rules): the coat of arms of the family is only for the family for which it was made, not for everyone that just happens to share the same surname. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the Court of Chivalry really is defunct and not just having a very long tea break, could someone find a reference and add it to the article please? Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are Spanish coat of arms organised? 92.15.25.92 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From left to right. Oh, wait... you mean... nevermind. :>) Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]