Humanities desk
< November 30	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 2 >

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.

December 1

Muslim nations Snow

Which Muslim-majority nations do receive snow during its winter season? I want the answer to be in a list so I can visit them during their winter season and feel the experience. Please and Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We had the same question several months ago. If you don't find the answer you're looking for there, just let us know. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) The most obvious answer is Turkey, which is reasonably far north and has extensive mountains. So does Iran, although it's harder to travel freely there (eg to the snowy bits) for visa and travel permit reasons. I am unable to supply a more comprehensive list at present, but if other people give useful answers too, you might try compiling a list yourself. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It snows in Morocco, according to their tourism commercials. There is snow in the mountains, at least. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ifrane is a ski resort in Morocco. It had the lowest ever recorded temperature in Africa: -24°C in 1935. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's Pakistan and Afghanistan. Tourist Meccas that they are in summer, they must be even more attractive in winter. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, are we joking about Pakistan receiving tourists? Pakistan receives LOTS of tourists. (Afghanistan fewer, admittedly, but it's got huge potential for future tourism including awesome winter sports on the snow which this question is about...)Your Username 23:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it does, but to Americans who keep up with overseas events, but who have no particular family or personal ties to Pakistan, the idea of a pleasure trip to Pakistan sounds slightly bizarre at the moment, considering that there are many other countries which are equally scenic, but with a whole lot fewer fanatical extremists, terrorists, and terrorist wannabes. If the Sri Lankan cricket team can't make to the stadium without being bombed, then it seems that U.S. visitors must be very cautious where they go... AnonMoos (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's Canada. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your link. Hope you don't mind. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks, everyone has a standing invitation to do so. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, in Russia: Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, North Caucasian Republics (mostly in the mountains, in the valleys snow is weak).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Albania has relatively warm winters but it gets some snow, especially in the mountains. There are apparently some ski resorts there. Wow. Also: Bosnia-Herzegovina has a Muslim plurality if that counts. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I got Kazakhstan, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, but what about Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan? don't they get snow in winter season? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've all forgotten Tanzania. I am surprised no one has simply quoted the entire discussion of this two moths back to this thread. It would save time. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that if you put two moths together you're liable to get some more moths. But I think that's a myth. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the first such comment by you I've come acrost. You seem to do it alot. In fact, it's curious whether you do much of anything else. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Jack would try to place hats on more discussions without any consensus to do so, but someone else seems to be doing that job quite well... --Jayron32 20:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for "much of anything else", *cough". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Every year or two it snows in Palestine. 75.34.30.62 (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan. And I've seen snowdrifts in Afghanistan (mentioned above) that were twice the height of an SUV. But I suppose that's original research. Maybe a shorter list would be Muslim countries that do not receive snow. And another question might be why would anybody assume that Muslim countries don't receive snow? Your Username 23:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most Muslim countries get snow on rare occasions and/or in mountains where few people live. Not so many Muslim-majority countries get snow every year in their main population centers. In Istanbul, there is little snow most winters. However, in Turkey's capital and second-largest city, Ankara, there is snow most winters. Tabriz in Iran has fairly snowy winters. So does Kabul, Afghanistan. The major cities of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan all see significant snow in the winter. (The main cities of Turkmenistan see a little snow most winters, but typically not enough to stay on the ground long.) They aren't countries, but the Caucasian "republics" of Russia, such as Chechnya, also see some snow in the winter, though their dry climates mean that snowfall is light and tends to melt or sublimate. None of the other majority Muslim countries see much snow in their main population centers most winters. Marco polo (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following was posted in response to the same user when he posted the same question September 9th [μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)]:[reply]

Which Muslim nations do tend to receive snow during the winter season? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.47 (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iran gets snow in its mountains, enough for quite a few skiing areas. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It depends how you define "Muslim nation." For example, Kazakhstan is a secular republic, but its population is about 70% Muslim. It is a fairly arid place, but it has cold winters with snow. The climate of the Islamic Republic of Iran is very diverse, but there are high-altitude basins, and numerous very tall mountain ranges; heavy snowfall is common in most of the country. Afghanistan is very snowy, and last time I checked, it is officially an Islamic Republic. And, I'd be remiss if I did not mention Lebanon... the Lebanese people are diverse, but there are many Muslims. As I learned the etymology, "Lebanon" and "lebneh" both come from the same root-word, describing the snowy mountains. Though, this is not in universal agreement. In fact, a senseless war was fought over it. Nimur (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mountains of Pakistan, such the Pakistani parts of the Karakoram, get a lot of snow. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are the Caucasus mountains. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This past February Bosnia and Albania were both hit by heavy snowfall, although this was unusual. Some parts of Turkey receive snow, as any reader of Orhan Pamuk will remember. Of course, there is a particular place in Dubai where it snows every night. LANTZY ^TALK 21:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP seems to be from Canada, (Toronto per geolocate), which may explain the implied bias. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What helpful information is conveyed by your comment on "implied bias"? Bielle (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the point of view that southern lands don't get snow? What in the world did you think I meant? μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That point of view might need readjusting. South America, Africa and Australia all get snow. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Syria: desperate Homs residents collect snow to drink as water is cut off and SNOW IN JORDAN Weird but True. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I found Bethlehem SNOW! - a mainly Christian town in the Muslim dominated West Bank. Alansplodge (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a roll now - It Snows in Alexandria (Egypt), Snowfall in Saudi Arabia and UAE's 'once in a lifetime' snow fall although the last sounds rather exceptional - there's a nice video of some chaps in traditional Bedouin robes building a snowman. Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan in particular is infamous for its deadly avalanches and cold waves. Also, if you count the Taklimakan Desert as a "Muslim region", then it has snowed there[1]. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Mix Stanley in Hawaii

John Mix Stanley painted portraits for King Kamehameha III and Queen Kalama in 1850. To the left and right. Were these pieces ever in color? I can't find anything online for them except the Hawaii States Archive where everything is black and white.

Have you tried contacting the Archive? If they're all that way, maybe the black-and-whites are merely for reference and no one has bothered to photograph them otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they were painted in color. The concept of "black and white" really came with photography. Certainly "charcoal drawing" existed, but it was rarely used for final products. Oil paintings in greyscale would seem very odd indeed. I would be surprised if these are not originally in color. --Jayron32 12:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think they were probably in color, but it isn't really correct that black and white came with photography. It was very common before photography for travelers who wanted to remember what something looked like to dash off a pencil sketch or an ink sketch. Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume Woodblock printing of images and Woodcut was also sometimes done solely in black and white. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably two issues here. These might well be lithographic reproductions of his paintings; and a lot of his originals were destroyed in a fire at the Smithsonian in 1865. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain it. I still think the way to find out for sure is to contact the museum directly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the paintings lost at the Smithsonian are described as his "Indian Gallery" (ie paintings of Native Americans that he was hoping to sell to Congress). See Pioneer Photographers of the Far West: A Biographical Dictionary, 1840-1865 By Peter E. Palmquist, Thomas R. Kailbourn (p.518). It seems a bit unlikely that he would be commissioned to paint portraits of the king and queen and then carry them off home with him. Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Catlin and His Contemporaries: The Politics of Patronage By Brian W. Dippie, Stanley was paid $5,000 for them, so certainly wouldn't have been allowed to leave with them. Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly inconceivable that the originals wouldn't have been in color, like his other similar works. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the approach in political science that do not focus on the rigorous mathematical empirical methods?

Behaviorist movement really made political science empirical by using mathematical foundations in order to provide precise conclusions, but this approach is only useful if the study is quantitative and comparative. Anyway since there is this scholarly movement pursuing the use of symbolic elements perhaps there is also another approach which is distinct and quite the opposite of the other much as like of Continental and Analytic philosophical divide. What is that distinct approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 07:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In anthropological fieldwork, Participant observation and Thick description are more common than statistics. They're meant to be factual/empirical in their own way, concerning things which can't be easily quantified. The problem with behavioralism/operationalism was that in their extreme forms they claimed that anything which couldn't be measured (or which you couldn't set out a procedure of steps to be able to theoretically measure) either didn't exist, or could be completely ignored in explaining observables (things which could be measured). In structural linguistics as practiced in the United States, behavioralism/operationalism entered a somewhat degenerate phase in the 1950s, imposing rigid methodological shackles ("biuniqueness" etc.) which focused much attention on side issues such as whether a linguistic analysis could be derived by specified procedural steps from a specified language corpus. AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of political philosophy is not quantitative at all (e.g. John Rawls). I don't know if that counts as political "science". 66.127.54.40 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political science and its sub-disciplines (e.g. international relations) all have quantitative and qualitative forms. They ask different questions and, they require different skills in answering them. I don't think they have special names, they are just different flavors for how people work within these disciplines — it is known by everyone in these fields that there are some people who are quants and some people who are concerned with qualitative issues. My experience has been that nobody in these disciplines thinks of them as quantitative-only, or even quantitative-by-default. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

professions where thinking logically is a disadvantage

Are there professions where thinking logically is a disadvantage? --178.48.114.143 (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was going to say the creative arts, but certainly all forms of music follow their own structures and logic, regardless of whether they are immediately obvious to the observer. I suggest spiritual healer. ;) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The church, alternative therapies, the tobacco industry, the alcohol industry, the meat industry....--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In several of those areas, there's a lot of logical reasoning based on possibly-dubious premises. For that matter, formal logic was basically kept alive by theologians for centuries during the Middle Ages... AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically it: It's not necessarily that the logic is flawed, it's that the basic assumptions are flawed. As one of my math teachers once said, rather charitably, "If you start with false assumptions, you're liable to get interesting results." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politician? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not define logic too broadly. Logic is just how you concatenate ideas in a non-contradictory way. There is nothing illogical in the alcohol, tobacco or meat industry, even if you don't agree with their world-view.

And we also have to draw a line between producers of some theories and consumers of the same. For being politician, clergy, even for creating a sect, logical thinking won't be a hindrance. Indeed, I dare to say that under no circumstances you'll have any disadvantage by thinking straight. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealist. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the case of surrealism, you'll need to think logically to produce illogical effects. Otherwise, how would you know at all that you are surrealist? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "thinking logically". It is never a benefit to think illogically. (Osman's correct that even professional liars need to think straight.) But there are situations like sports (say, golfing) or piano playing, or touch typing where thinking about what you are doing, like consciously concentrating on your fingers as you type, will throw you off and cause you to choke. In those cases your mode of consciousness is not logical/verbal and your focus is on the ball, the music, or the composition, not what steps you are actually going through to move your body. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really effective persuaders (politicians, salespeople, etc.) actually do apparently believe their own bullshit, at least some of the time. Of course that is illogical but they benefit a lot from it. Believing it means they can pitch it with unfaked sincerity that makes it all the more convincing. See reality distortion field. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believing one's own rhetoric is one of humanity's most cherished traditions. For example, we see it demonstrated here on the Ref Desk almost every day of the week. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. An effective salesman (which in a broad sense includes politicians) has to be not only willing to lie, but to believe the lie himself... that is, to believe a false premise regardless of evidence to the contrary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but reality distortion field is just pseudoscience. And lots of people refuse to acknowledge consciously what they know subconsciously, it's called cognitive dissonance. Those are the slick politician types. Some politicians are actually sincere, like James Trafficant, Dubya, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan. There are also actually some good salesmen. They are the ones who have good products to sell. It happens. μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who should I believe... You? Or my own eyes? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

That sounds like a salesman talking. "Oldie Von Moldy's Used Cars." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astrologer or fortune teller. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney's campaign manager. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes, especially at the highest levels, tend to avoid thinking about the game situation because they believe it adversely affects their reaction time. They train to rely on instinct rather than examining the situation. As Yogi Berra supposedly said, "You can't think and hit at the same time." → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

geometrical buildings

There is a page on Wikipedia which shows the buildings which are in geometrical shape like Luxor Las Vegas which is in pyramidal shape , etc . Please find it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.224.21.87 (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Category:Buildings and structures by shape. Mikenorton (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked the Luxor and removed the ref markup.Mikenorton (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burke's Landed Gentry 2003 ed. Murdoch family

How can I find this online please? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless somebody torrented it (in which case we wouldn't point you to it here) you will probably have to go to the library. It's worth the trip, they are interesting places, buildings full of high quality copyrighted materials that you can read as much as you want for free. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Resource Request. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all the due respect, can we say that these countries are not completely independent?

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.

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

Marshall Islands, Palau, Nauru, Micronesia, etc. I am asking this because of the Palestine vote at the UN. Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One would have to define "completely independent" in a sensible way. All countries are to some degree practically limited in their actions by the responses of other states, especially those to whom they have close alliances. I would see "independence" as a spectrum of possibilities, with "complete independence" as something that perhaps no country has. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And see Finlandization for other things that might be relevant. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal. It seems that these tiny states always vote pro-US position, and that they are dependent from the US regarding their defense. BTW, you talk as if every independent country should vote against the Israeli/US position, and those that didn't had some obscure reason to it. That's not the case. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Aroche city

How can I to know how long time the Aroche city is existing? I would like to know if this city was before 700 year ego 109.253.224.113 (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before the reconquest, you mean? Why 700 years?

Aroche seems to have an archaeological museum with evidence of much earlier settlement - ie. Roman. The local tourism site has some an outline of the area's history. bobrayner (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are claims that Aroche is Turobriga, see es:Turobriga. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article at Spanish Wikipedia, the city has existed as far back as the 1200s. --Jayron32 00:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]