Humanities desk
< April 2	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 4 >

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 3

jaded teams

would it be fraud to say that someone will be joining a passionate, world-case team if in fact the team is extremely mediocre and also jaded?--80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that is a matter of opinion. --Viennese Waltz 07:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud implies intentional deception, so unless they definitely provably knew the team was rubbish, it wouldn't be fraud. Even false/misleading advertising regulations are unlikely to apply, as Viennese Waltz says. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There might be grounds for a fraud claim if they had persuaded you to give them money on the basis of their promises. But to know if you'd have a viable case, you'd have to consult a lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World-class?
Sleigh (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also sounds like a simple case of fluffery, which is acceptable in marketing. XPPaul (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Swynford's mother

The article on Katherine Swynford does not name her mother. I was wondering if any academics have since discovered any documents pointing to her identity? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Alison Weir in Mistress of the Monarchy, no. Weir says her mother may have been related to the ruling dynasty of Hainault, which may explain the family's connections with Philippa of Hainault in England. Endnote 21 of the first chapter probably lists other works with speculation about her mother, but, of course, I can't see that page (319) in Amazon's preview. (Another reason why I hate, hate, hate endnotes.) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Ah, I see that book is also called Katherine Swynford: The Story of John of Gaunt and his Scandalous Duchess. Anyway I suppose Weir isn't the best source, but she's the first one that springs to mind. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Gustavo Durán at Darlington Hall in 1939 ?

Hello learned humanitarians ! I am translating the article Gustavo Durán for WP fr, and am puzzled by what I find in WP español & WP català : "he was welcomed in Darlington Hall" (after fleeing from Spain, and before meeting his fiancée Bonté Crompton, an opportunately wealthy american maid) . True fact (not mentionned in WP en) or "broma pesada" (bad joke) ? All I found about Darlington Hall is either a den in Australia or a hint at The Remains of the Day...Thanks beforehand for your answers, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was Dartington Hall, not Darlington - [1]. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 09:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Finlay . Arapaima (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Brunei in Jawi alphabet

Hello, I would like to know the name of Brunei written in Malay (the official language of Brunei) written in the Jawi alphabet (the co-official script). The article on Brunei just gives the official name of Brunei (State of Brunei, the Abode of Peace) which in Jawi is "نڬارا بروني دارالسلام". I want to know what part of that just means Brunei. Please leave a note on my talk page if you know. Thanks, Liam987 11:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"بروني" is the part that says "Brunei". Adam Bishop (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) If you look carefully the name in jawi contains 3 words with spaces between each word. The name for Brunei in Malay in rumi is Negara Brunei Darussalam. So Brunei is the middle word بروني . This can be confirmed by trying a rumi to jawi converter, e.g. [2] gives بروني for Brunei. It also gives نڬارا for negara and دارالسلام for darussalam which concur with the article (remembering that jawi is written right to left). Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darussalam is actually two words in Arabic ('dar' = House/Abode, 'salam' = peace). Not sure if there should be a space in between them when writing in Jawi script also? --Soman (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think darussalam is normally treated as one word in Malay ([3], Malaysian site but I don't think Brunei Malay differs much) and I guess this holds true to jawi, I'm not sure why but I presume it was adopted as a loan word early on. If it were two words, it would probably be darul salam in rumi [4] ~~(not sure how this affects the jawi name if at all, other then the space)~~. Similar to the various Malaysian states Terengganu Darul Iman, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Pahang Darul Makmur, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, Kelantan Darul Naim, Kedah Darul Aman and Johor Darul Ta'zim. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather then being lazy I checked with the converter and according to it, darul salam should be دارول سلام whereas darussalam is دارالسلام as per above. (Darulsalam would be دارولسلام and darus salam would be داروس سلام.) This [5] other converter seems to give the same results. Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange...maybe it just doesn't understand what you're inputting. "daru-l-salam" and "darussalam" should be the same word...but that's following Arabic rules, so maybe it's different for some reason in Malay? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Darussalam' is a term with a particular meaning in Islamic context. My guess is that there is certain freedom to experiment when transliterating, but in Arabic script it ought to stay the same. It is not a loan word, it refers to the original Arabic meaning. --Soman (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for detailed historical maps of India from 1350 to 1880

I've been trying to find maps that show the political changes the Indian subcontinent has gone through during this period....there's a lot of detailed maps with clear borders for Europe but none for most Asian countries. I'm looking for something that would show the changes in increments, probably 10 to 50 year increments.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.98.193.43.114 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A problem would be that records have been lost for many areas outside of or prior to the Mughal Empire, so it wouldn't be possible to draw "clear borders" for those areas. Also, sovereignty wasn't always as clearly defined in India as it was in Europe, so there would have been some overlapping spheres of influence. (Though there were some similar cases that are hard to map clearly at the edges of the Holy Roman Empire, for example.) That said, some world history atlases, such as the DK Atlas of World History have series of maps showing the political geography of South Asia at several points during your period. Marco polo (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism/conservatism

The impression I get is that Western and Northern European countries are more liberal in terms of both economics and social issues than the United States. Certainly the United States is heavily religious for a developed democracy, while European countries tend to be more secular. First, is my impression correct? Second, if it is correct, why is this the case? Given their histories--many European countries have only been democracies for the past few decades, and very few adopted Enlightenment ideas as early as the US--I would have expected the US to be more liberal. --140.180.39.146 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a previous discussion on this exact question, see why is the USA more right-wing than europe and the rest of the westrn world? Alansplodge (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word liberal has a meaning in the United States that is different from its meaning in other countries. In the United States, liberalism has a vague meaning with implications of social liberalism and/or social democracy. Everywhere else, liberalism has a meaning that would be best translated as mild libertarianism in U.S. terms. As the rest of the world defines liberalism, the United States is one of the most economically liberal countries. Socially, however, the United States as a nation is relatively conservative in areas such as social welfare, reproductive rights, and a punitive approach to criminal justice. That said, some U.S. states, such as Massachusetts, are not so far from a European norm when it comes to social liberalism. See Liberalism. Marco polo (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that many early colonists to what would become the US were religious nut-jobs, like the Puritans. It does seem odd, however, that the area they moved to, New England, is now the most liberal part of the US, while the deep South is the most conservative. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I ignored your question about why this is so, I will take a stab at that. I would argue that there are at least three main reasons: 1) the relatively more thorough control of the capitalist class in the United States over political discourse (based on their control of the media and campaign spending); 2) the strength of individualism in the United States and suspicion of government control, which really dates back to colonial times and which is connected to cultural idealization of entrepreneurialism and economic independence, probably dating to a historical past in which most citizens were part of households owning small to medium-sized farms; and 3) the use of race as a wedge by the capitalist class. This third factor allows capitalists to encourage opposition to social benefits among large segments of non-affluent whites by suggesting that benefits, funded by tax dollars, will flow disproportionately to nonwhites. I agree with StuRat that religion plays a part in this, as What's the Matter with Kansas? has argued. Why Americans (away from the the west coast and the Northeast, at least) are more religious than Europeans is a problem that I don't fully understand. Maybe it's because 1) religion has always been central to identity and community in many parts of the United States, whereas in Europe, where in most regions everyone in that region belonged to the same religious denomination, religion was not as important to people's identity (except in places like Ireland under British control or Poland under Russian/Soviet control). Likewise, 2) in Europe, labor unions offered a venue for building community institutions with left politics, whereas these were systematically squelched both culturally in the media and as a matter of government policy in the United States after the 1930s. Marco polo (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic church in The Republic of Ireland had enormous power up until recent years with a Catholic identify being part of the people's collective psyche. It's only that Northern Ireland with the guns and the bombs got all the media attention as "a place where Catholics and Protestants fought over religion", and Ireland as a quasi-theocracy was largely ignored. I live in southern Italy where the people are far more conservative than US southerners. Don't let the bare tits and pubes on Italian television fool you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously had the same picture of Ireland as I had of Italy as overrun by priests! The Mother and Child Scheme in the 1950's is probably a good read, I think it shows the sort of thing that was happening sixty years ago in Europe and they're still fighting over in America. Dmcq (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also question the OPs claim that few European countries "adopted Enlightenment ideas as early as the US". On the contrary, enlightenment ideas were adopted and incoorporated in laws of most European countries very early on from the time they were first proposed. Enlightenment ideas comes in many forms, and in the 18th century it was not necessarily in the form of a democratic government, see for example enlightened absolutism and natural and legal rights (although neither of the articles can be said to be exhaustive on the subject). --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the OP says that "many European countries have only been democracies for the past few decades" - but by modern standards of democracy (universal suffrage, for example), there haven't been any democracies for more than a few decades, and which (if any) countries should be considered democracies today is debatable. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Puritans were a boring, unattractive lot, however many people are not aware that Enlightened European Father Antonio De Sedella was appointed by the King of Spain to establish the Inquisition in Louisiana territory. Ooooo, now wouldn't that have been a barrel of monkees?!!! I ned to point out that the words liberal and conservative mean different things to different people. My personal idea of liberal is having the freedom as a woman to be judged for my character and mental accomplishments (few as they are) rather than my ability to scrub pots. On the other hand, some people think it means to give killers house arrest and plenty of naked bouncing boobies to ogle on TV; hence the belief that "Europeans are more liberal".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add confusion to the discussion on meanings of the words, here in Australia the Liberal Party is our major conservative party. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republican ballot in Pennsylvania

Who will be on the April 24, 2012 Republican primary ballot in Pennsylvania? Presidential (I think the main 4 all suck; I want to vote for a relative unknown like Buddy Roemer or something) and statewide candidates; added bonus if you can identify the local candidates (my city is correctly identified by the geolocation service [6]). 98.235.166.47 (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list of candidates that will be on the ballot is one of the "hot topic" links here: [7] RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do these pieces of cloisonne come from?

I purchased four large pieces of cloisonne work many years ago from an interior decorating store that was going out of business. The largest piece looks like a cat with fangs like a saber tooth tiger. The piece is about fifteen inches long and nine inches high. Two of the pieces are a matched pair of ducks with removable backs, with each piece about five inches long. I have tried for a long time to find out where the pieces were made, including by many searches on the web, and asking in art stores in various countries including China by showing photos. No one has ever seen anything like them. Who could help me identify them if I sent photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GolferInFL (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This won't answer your question, but I just thought I'd point out that we have an article on Cloisonné. Also perhaps of interest are Porcelain and Meissen porcelain. Bus stop (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had read the referenced article on Cloisonné, and got no help from it in trying to answer my question. The pieces are definitely not porcelain - they are colored enamel and metal on metal. I have searched the web numerous times, and don't seem to find anything that is remotely like the pieces I have. Most cloisonné pieces tend to be much smaller than these artifacts.

Humanities may the be most neutral

I could have put this in language or entertainment, but it may be more esoteric. It seems that we may have a language issue in entertainment that may cause dictionaries to fill up as well as lots of aggression amoungst musicians. How have these issues been dealt with in the past, and are we still dealing with them in the same way? I posed a query here: Talk:Heavy_metal_music#How_can_we_codify.3F, although it may go beyond wikipedia in the next few years. On the other hand wikipedians may have the best diversity and discussion methods to work with it. I am not sure which fora it will finally be decided in, possibly we should decide on that venue first. The article I started it in may get the most world wide exposure.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedic way to go would be to follow the lead of reputable, non-encyclopedic sources. How, for example, does Rolling Stone categorize these subgenres? We should not be coining new terms but merely following established usage. Marco polo (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought. I will try and email them and ask. Something tells me that they may wish to avoid it with multi-cubit poles though. They may lose (????) if they decide.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(note) I sent the email.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emails do no good, unless the people you email can point you to a published source. What do published sources call a particular band? That's what you look for. Whatever the preponderance of published sources indicate a genre is, that's what it is. Find good Heavy Metal literature, books, journals (is Keraang stil around?) stuff like that, and find out how they categorize a band. Don't ask people who work for those sources, find it written and published somewhere. --Jayron32 03:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect an authoritive decision from my email. I just made them aware that it may be an issue beyond the mainstream culture. If every new metal band wishes to coin a new genre and fill wikipedia and wiktionary with it, then so be it. I just feel there seem to be far too many. It may have to be decided by a board of music scholars with >PHD credentials.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you e-mailed Rolling Stone hoping to recruit knowledgeable editors? I suppose there's conceivably some value in that, but it does seem a bit far afield from your original question. --Trovatore (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. If I needed editing help, I would go to the help desk. My original query had more than more than one question. Which one is it far afield from?--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in your original post that your action in e-mailing Rolling Stone is particularly relevant to. I don't really understand why you did that. But I suppose I don't really need to understand, and I am not criticizing that action. --Trovatore (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, sorry. My original query was in the wikilink to the heavy metal music talk page that I posted above.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]