Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 30

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.

July 30

Number of soldiers in a British Napoleonic Infantry Unit

Hi, could someone tell me the average number of soldiers in a British Napoleonic infantry unit, or perhaps list some references which might provide that information. Thanks, Uhlan ^talk 06:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This site gives numbers for various units in "Organization of infantry" (about halfway down), with a English/Scottish/Irish breakdown for three regiments in the preceding section. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Uhlan ^talk 05:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Thakombau, Vu-ni-valu, King of Mbau Fiji"

Thakombau, Vu-ni-valu, King of Mbau Fiji

Does anyone know who (artist) created this reproduction and who made the original? When was this reproduction made and when was the original made? The only I know is from the caption which reads: "Thakombau [Cakobau], Vu-ni-valu, King of Mbau [Bau] Fiji. Copied, by permission from an original portrtait in the possession of Captain Denham, R.N. made during the Officers survey of the Fji Islands in H.M.S. Herald.". Who is Captain Denham?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the answer to your last question is Henry Mangles Denham. - Karenjc 10:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The picture has a caption bottom right. If you enlarge it, it includes references to "La Rivière", "litho" and "Clifton St." The lithograph chart placed immediately above the portrait here is expressly credited to Anthony La Riviere, so it's possible that he's the creator of the reproduction. According to this site he was a lithographer working out of 18 Clifton Street, Finsbury, between 1855-65. The original portrait would presumably have been done by someone on board Herald during her Fiji surveys, probably one of the several naturalists on the voyage. It's tempting to assume it was Williams, since it's grouped with some of his other work on the justpacific.com page dedicated to him, and the face and head in particular resemble some of the other Williams work on the page. - Karenjc 13:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

When you say Williams are you talking about Thomas Williams? It seems Williams was the author of the book Fiji and the Fijians where this reproduction was used on the first few pages. Was he (Thomas Williams) on the Fiji survey abroad the Herald?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The first few paragraphs on this site are helpful. Thomas Williams wrote Fiji and the Fijians and illustrated it - he was apparently a renowned illustrator. He was a missionary in Fiji, not a member of the survey, but as the surveyors were around in the area for a long time, it's not an unreasonable assumption that the Europeans would have made contact, particularly since Williams was an enthusiastic artist and recorder of Fijian life and custom and the survey ships contained naturalists who were drawing and painting what they found there. There's a good biography of Williams here. If Williams is indeed the artist, rather than one of the Herald's complement, you could speculate that he may have given or sold his original to Denham, whose permission would then be required to make the lithograph copy for the book. There may be a minor clue in that the latter link names Williams' close colleague James Calvert as the person who took Fiji and the Fijians back to London and got it published. This biography of Calvert states that he was stationed on Viwa island between 1848-1855, where he met Thakombau. Maybe some of the contemporary print sources named in the articles would tell you more. - Karenjc 21:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Teaching slavery

I have a few questions dealing with the teaching slavery to slave-owning children/teens (let's say during 1700s to early 1800s):

1. Were they directly taught about slavery?
2. Were they taught to "hate" slaves?
3. Were lessons always truthful (e.g., saying the slaves were at fault and that's the reason they were enslaved)?
4. How was slavery justified in lessons? Were they justified at all?
5. What would happen if children questioned slavery?

Thanks, 64.229.5.242 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Where? In the United States? In the North, or the South? In another country? Are you only talking about white children? Context matters a lot towards trying to answer such a question... In general, though, I don't think children of the slave-owning classes were ever taught to "hate" slaves. They would have been taught (not necessarily explicitly) that they were "above them" in every respect, but "hate" doesn't really become an part of it until they are no longer slaves and are considered legally to be equals of some sort or another. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that textbooks defended a different position than the mainstream perception of slavery of the relevant time or place. They were the product of there time, however, that also might include Yankee Protestant and the Second Great Awakening influences. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the general way black slavery was defended was to say that they were inferior, even subhuman. Thus slavery is just like owning cattle. The Bible also doesn't seem to have any qualms about slavery (you don't see any of the Ten Commandments forbidding it, for example). StuRat (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's incredibly simplistic, Stu. There's no Commandment against doing drugs, or using birth control measures, or cheating on your homework, or zillions of other specific things. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hold on. Stu has a point. The Bible and slavery states "The regulation of slavery in the Bible, and absence of outright condemnation of it as an institution, was later used to justify slavery by its defenders." Clarityfiend (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, slavery was widespread then, and the lack of a global condemnation of slavery amounts to tacit approval. Birth control barely existed then, although there is a prohibition on the "spilling of seed", apparently meaning ejaculation outside of the vagina. Cheating on homework wouldn't have come up before schools were widespread. Drugs weren't the problem they are now. StuRat (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, the simplistic analysis I referred to was your using the 10 Commandments as a sort of black-and-white tool with which to gauge the rightness or wrongness of anything. Or suggesting that slave owners or any other non-children ever did that. Not to defend them, but slave owners had a somewhat more sophisticated rationale than "The Ten Commandments don't explicitly prohibit it, so it must be perfectly OK". There was no prohibition of rape in the Ten Commandments either. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is the "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors' wife..." (not to mention his ass). StuRat (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn! -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thy neighbors' wife? (The grammar police never rest.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct, I should have said "neighbors' wives" or "neighbor's wife". StuRat (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The prohibition against adultery would also cover rape (unless you rape your wife, which was considered ok well into the 20th century in most countries). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, although it often has the odd result that the rape victim is also considered guilty of adultery, as under Shariah law. StuRat (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What the Bible says about that is at Deuteronomy 22:23-27. AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a gross misrepresentation of Sharia. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, in several places (Pakistan after Zia ul-Haq's Islamization, northern Nigeria in the Amina Lawal case, etc.), a woman's word in making a rape accusation, or the fact of an unmarried woman's being pregnant, has been considered to be sufficient to establish that adultery or fornication took place, but no rape accusation can lead to a conviction unless supported by the testimony of four eyewitnesses to the act of rape -- and of course a woman's testimony counts for only half of a man's under Islamic law. In those circumstances, any woman who makes an accusation of rape without having four eyewitnesses lined up is merely cutting her own throat... AnonMoos (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a tiny fraction of the muslim world, and the implications of Sharia there should not be conflated with those of namus. A woman's testimony being worth less than a man's is also not universal in Islamic jurisprudence. In other places where Sharia is observed, two eyewitnesses are sufficient for rape accusations, and you should also keep in mind that Sharia law does not normally replace the secular judicial system and works parallel to it. To quote Islam and secularism, "A majority of Muslim countries have a dual system in which the government is secular but Muslims can choose to bring familial and financial disputes to sharia courts. The exact jurisdiction of these courts varies from country to country, but usually includes marriage, divorce, inheritance, and guardianship." See Sharia#Contemporary_practice. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

They aren't likely to find 2 witnesses, either, since rapes are rarely done in public. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

They don't have to see the actual rape to bear witness. They may be the one that found the woman after the event, or may have had the rapist confess to them or may have witnessed any number of other things relating to the rape. I would frankly be much more horrified if they were putting people to death because they were found guilty of rape, when the only witness called by the prosecution was the alledged victim. I doubt such a case would even be prima facie under many western systems, let alone likely to lead to a conviction. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

W203.27.72.5 -- That's nice, but you really should be trying to convince the Islamic authorities in Pakistan and northern Nigeria that their interpretations of Islam are wrong, instead of chiding us for having noticed events that actually occurred in the real world. Furthermore, Islamists in a number of other areas seem to want to introduce laws similar to those of Pakistan and northern Nigeria... AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not expressed an opinion as to which interpretation is correct, as I don't have one. I'm pointing out that focusing on some extreme minority examples from fundamentalists and saying that it is Sharia is like someone pointing to Wild Bill Hickok's trial and saying that represents common law systems. Yes, there are some regions that apply a viciously misogynistic version of Sharia, but to say that under Sharia, a female rape victim is an adulterer, misrepresents an exteme outlier as the norm. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but by definition things which are implemented in countries having populations of 100 million plus cannot be "extreme minority examples". The great majority of non-Muslims cannot be expected to know anything about what "true" Islam is, and cannot be blamed for forming their opinions based on what is actually observed to happen in areas claimed to be administered according to Islamic principles... AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The children of slave owners were generally brought up by slaves, serving as nannies, cooks, etc., so their attitudes were bound to be complex. You just about have to read a book like Uncle Tom's Cabin or Gone with the Wind to get anything resembling a comprehensive picture. Looie496 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Or the fake history book embedded in Nat Lamp's 1964 High School Yearbook parody, which stated something like, "Horses were not only treated better than slaves; they were also generally better educated." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that in the South children were taught that blacks (all or almost all salves were black) were inferior to whites and that the Southern economy and their families' profits would collapse if these slaves were ever freed. Futurist110 (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, salves came in all colors: [1]. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

US inflation

In J. Edgar, DiCaprio is initially promoted (at around the 5 minute mark in the film) and tells his mother that he'll now be earning $3000.00 a year. Using an inflation calculator, I calculated that $3000.00 in 1924 is only inflated to a little over $40K in 2012 dollars -- am I missing something? It certainly doesn't seem like a sizable sum. Unless of course items for sale/rent haven't inflated at the same rate as incomes have, in which case I don't really understand how an inflation calculator works. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The average income of all industries was $1407 at the year 1920 and $1388 at the year 1930. I don't have the data for 1924, but I'm pretty sure it has to be in the ballpark of $1400. Even if you could only buy the equivalent of 2012's $40,000, you'll be earning double the average. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Something you are missing is that, until recently, incomes went up relative to things we can buy with them. For example, a radio might have cost the average person several day's income then, while now it's a better radio (smaller, with FM stereo added) and you can afford it on less than an hour's income (I bought one new for $1). So, you really need to compare his income with incomes back then, not adjust them for inflation and try to compare with current incomes. StuRat (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Many investors don't rely on the official government numbers to calculate CPI and other price indicies as they believe that they're under estimated. The way the Bureau of Labor Statistics has calculated the CPI in the US has changed over the years, and some believe that these changes were to mask higher real inflation rates. A quick google search will show private companies that produce data on inflation, but most require some sort of subscription to access the figures. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A while ago Australia had atypical weather, and it wiped out the banana crop. Australians like to eat bananas, and prefer to eat bananas as part of their diet (within certain regulatory and price restrictions). Australia's CPI inflation went up. Bourgeois economists complained, "CPI includes banana price increases, but obviously consumers will depreference bananas as an aspect of their consumption bundle, therefore the CPI is misleading because the consumption bundle doesn't represent reality." It was a great example of how CPI is meant to track—at least in Australia, but we use world's best practice—the allowable bundle of use-values consumed, required to reproduce labour power. CPI figures are useful figures for the "as-currently-emiserised" consumption level of the proletariat. They are less good for comparing proletarian incomes over time, as the consumption bundle both "wanes" as bananas are removed from it, and "waxes" as clock radios drop in price with economies of scale. The central problem is that proletarians consume utilities, but pay for them using exchange-values—CPI reflects reasonably well the "mainline" capitalist position on what consumption bundles ought to be. Pull in that gut, you're eating too many bananas at their current price point in the opinion of a major accounting consultancy firm. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You're using CPI inflation for a servant of the bourgeoisie, which isn't appropriate, measuringworth supplies the following table:

• contemporary standard of living value of that income or wealth is $80,100.00
• economic status value of that income or wealth is $184,000.00
• economic power value of that income or wealth is $501,000.00

I would suggest that the latter two figures represent Hoover's stipend. You don't appear to understand how inflation calculations work. CPI inflations are only good to determine how much it would cost in current dollars to buy a consumption bundle (as purchased by proletarians) in the year you calculate from. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For once I kind of agree with Fifelfoo - CPI here isn't a good measure for what you're trying to measure. Where this would have put him in relation to other people is probably a better one. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal aspect of mass murder and the insanity defense

What happens to people who commit mass murder (like the Aurora shooting) and are declared insane? Do they spend the rest of their life in a psychiatric facility? Or just until they are feeling better? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Start with insanity defense and you'll learn a lot. It depends on jurisdiction, of course. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Been there, read that, and I'm back. Was it ever applied by a planed mass murder or serial killer? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Harry Kendall Thaw, although apparently he only killed one person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

and apparently, no planning either. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

According to our article on Evelyn Nesbit, "In spite of the suffocating heat, which did not abate as night fell, Thaw inappropriately wore a long black overcoat over his tuxedo, which he refused to take off throughout the entire evening." The pistol was under it. That's a little bit of planning. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Gary Solis, Robert Bales will probably plead insanity. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It also seems likely that Jared Lee Loughner will plead insanity. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Surprise! This just in! See: Jared Lee Loughner To Plead Guilty To Tucson, Arizona Shooting That Injured Gabby Giffords: Report. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It has been speculated that Nidal Malik Hasan will plead insanity. I'm finding lots of cases where there's a chance that maybe they will plead that way and be found not guilty on the basis of a mental disease or defect, but I'm having a hard time finding any case where it has actually happened. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

John Hinckley, Jr. is an interesting case, he shot the president of the U.S. and was found "not guilty by reason of insanity" and sent to a psychiatric hospital. After 25 years or so he was allowed a few trips out to visit his family. A lot of Americans thought he got off with too light of a sentence and some laws were changed in the aftermath. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Obama ate dog?

Did he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you hear/read this somewhere? Could you show us where so that we might read the same thing you are and have a little more to go off of? Dismas|^(talk) 19:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The place I read it is not worth commenting, let alone linking to. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you found this on a conservative web site, it's probably because he ate a hot dog. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Obama ate dog as a child in Indonesia, where it was a normal thing to do. He would not have had any idea at the time, nor even have had any reason to consider the fact that some people in his future home of the USA would think that was a good reason to not vote for him 50 years later. HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it was normal then or in the particular part of Indonesia that he was in, but my Indonesian wife was horrified when I asked her if dog was eaten where she was from (East Java) and she'd never heard of the practice anywhere in Indonesia at all. In all the time I've spent in Indonesia I've never heard of it other than from tourists claiming ignorantly that all the meat they see is dog and all the seafood was caught in the sewer. In reality, the only odd thing that I've noticed is that when you order lamb, you often get goat. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hardly a neutral source, but this does at least link the story to a quote from the President's own memoir, so the origin is checkable. If the quote is correct, he was apparently given it to try along with other local foods (namely raw chillies, snake meat and grasshoppers) during his time in Indonesia as a child. - Karenjc 19:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Indonesians definitely eat raw chilli (by the bucket load), but snake and grasshopper...it's not something I've ever come across. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OP: The thing that intrigues me most about this question is that you have no credible evidence the claim is true. You've declined to identify the source, but describe it as "not worth commenting on". If the source is crap, surely the information it contains is also suspect. That's unless you have some other corroborating source. But if you had, surely you'd have mentioned it, no? So, what's the deal with coming here to supposedly check on something you already know is rubbish, if not to give fuel to it? Why would one want to add fuel to something they know is rubbish? Is there any positive purpose in that? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As Karenjc mentioned, it was corroborated by Obama himself in Dreams from my Father, more specifically in chapter 2. We had an article on it before it was deleted at AFD. And to W203, we also have a small section on dog consumption in Indonesia: Dog_meat#Indonesia. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That came later. According to his own testimony, the OP had no reason to believe the story was true, and a good reason to discount it, at the time he asked his question. But he raised the topic anyway. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Jack, you must be far too immersed in proper Wikipedia practices if you think it's weird for someone to trust what they read on the web. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That was over my head, sorry. Some things you can trust, others not. The OP told us early on that he has such a low opinion of the source of this claim that he wasn't even prepared to identify it. Clearly, he had no reason to believe it. Who would, without any corroborative evidence? At that stage, it had the status of baseless scuttlebutt, with which the internet is bursting at the seams. If one came here to check every piece of such rubbish, we'd have literally a million questions a day. So why was this particular one given an airing? That's all I'm asking. It may be that it fits into the "Any rumour about Obama, no matter how absurd, is worth spreading". Or maybe not. Now, it turns out that the claim may be true. If so, that has nothing to do with my point about the OP's motives. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@JackofOZ: for me it's completely acceptable to question something we believe~in, no matter how evident it appears to be. When I read it I thought: it's impossible, but here you have the reaction of other people questioning it. Lots of questions are one of those myth busters type. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're telling me you initially thought it was impossible? And you had no other source backing up the claim? So, what was your motivation for raising it here? I agree that it's sometimes good to question received wisdom about stuff. But this wasn't like that. You'd never heard this story before you read it on some site you're not even prepared to identify. If you read that Obama is really the Creature from the Black Lagoon in disguise, would you come here for confirmation? Of course not. So, why is the dog-eat story any different? You can't use any post facto arguments, because you only discovered after you opened this thread that it was true after all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, JackofOz, I thought it was an invented story, made to compensate for the Mitt Romney dog incident. But, the dog-eat story is theoretically possible, contrary to the Creature from the Black Lagoon. I don't see why you think I shouldn't be asking questions about topics where I have no reasonable doubt about my knowledge of them. I also believed until recently that Australians didn't eat Kangaroos, but someone could contradict my belief. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So, having read this in some never-to-be-identified place, what prevented you from accessing a well known search engine such as Google and searching for other evidence to either confirm it or refute it? Not to have done that before coming here is a clear violation of the rules of the Ref Desk. If all you're asking us to do is to do what you could easily do for yourself, that is an abuse of this service. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The story isn't rubbish; it's completely true, assuming of course that Mr. Obama didn't make it up in order to spice up an otherwise dull Indonesian childhood. It's also completely irrelevant to the current state of American politics, but you know... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone linked to the Huffington Post above. They're generally a left-wing source (although reliable), so we can take what they say on this issue that Fox News reported as well and remain confident it's true (and yes, it is). Is it relevant? Should people vote or not vote for him because of this? Of course not. I've done my fair share of criticizing him, but it's just silly to make a big issue out of this. --Activism1234 03:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooh ooh! I wrote the article for such a dish, it's known as saksang. It's traditional among the Batak people, probably because islands didn't use to have a lot of large animals to hunt (note that the Bataks are also known for their previous practice of ritual cannibalism). And yes in modern Indonesia, the pork version is considered exotic, and definitely not eaten by the vast majority of Indonesians at all, as it's haraam. The dog version is an even more alarming dish to most Indonesians (also haram). Not to mention that it uses blood as a main ingredient, also haraam. It's only eaten by native Bataks of northern Sumatra (who have a Christian and animist majority) or Indonesians of Chinese descent. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(Wouldn't it be haraam, rather than halal?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I got confused, heh. Fixed. Thanks.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Our Dog meat article actually discusses the consumption of dogs in Indonesia. As Obsidian Soul has mention, dog meat is normally considered haram so isn't something a majority of Indonesians are likely to eat probably particularly not nowadays. I think it's already well established that although Obama's stepfather was muslim, he wasn't particularly adherent so the fact he ate dog meat is perhaps not surprising. Perhaps the more important thing to remember is giving the strange foreign kid a bunch of weird stuff which are rarely eaten by most Indonesians and perhaps even you isn't exactly particularly surprising. Since dog meat is eaten by some Indonesians, the fact you could find it somewhere in Indonesia where Obama went with his stepfather isn't surprising either. E.g. InN Malaysia I've definitely heard of snake meat, turtle meat (and more controversially turtle eggs [2]), frog meat, and I think other things I can't recall being eaten. I would expect if you look hard enough you would also get the opportunity to eat more exotics things like insects, particularly if visiting some of people who are or were until recently primarily hunter gatherers, e.g. the various Orang Asli tribes of Peninsular, the Penan in Sarawak. This doesn't mean it's common. Personally, I've never understood the fuss over dog meat, it seems to me shark's fin should be something more controversial. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

---

It seems that Obama ate dog-meat (as a small child) more as part of his Indonesian step-father's toughening-up program for him, than because it was typical fare in Indonesia... AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Antonio Krastev's world record

The article says that his record is not recognized now due to restructured weight classes. However, since International Weightlifting Federation didn't remove superheavyweight, I still don't get it - why he is not categorized within modern 105+ kg IWF category?--176.241.247.17 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Do I have the right to call my self a philsopher?

This is my first time to ask here, for my past experiences in Yahoo Answers were unsatisfactory, for all questions were answered tactlessly and incoherently, I am greatly hoping that Wikipedia is far more better!

Though such question may somehow appear subjective it encompasses all men of such curiosity, which I am of these moment, Oftentimes when I read articles it approves of man being a philosopher by having the desire, eagerness, knowledge, and reason regardless of his life in an academe, though it may help, some men may choose a different path to a more specific philosophical school, it is not the title that I emphasize but rather the activity which is not only of the right of those with educational attainment, for so here is my predicament:

Right now and for the past years of my life I am deeply engaged with topics with relation to Ethics, God, Knowledge, and the mind, I have also prepared numerous essays and still continuing to do so which I wish to classify under Philosophy, I have that "unexplainable" desire and feeling that I really need to search and make answers to my questions with relation there unto, I may not have a degree for this moment for I focus to specific schools with the aid of different notable philosophers of that area rather than pouring my entire self to all of its branches, but despite such do I have the right to regard myself and be regarded as a philosopher, that if somebody asks me something and furthermore asks of me can I state and be acceptable to call myself such?

I am really of great craving to have a conforming answer from the scholars of Wikipedia, for this is one of the question that cannot be answered by a person for himself, Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.244.33 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you need external and anonymous people to give you approval for applying the term "philosopher" to yourself, then you're no philosopher. It's up to you what you call yourself (as long as you don't break any laws by doing so), not up to us or anyone else. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

♬ Jack of Oz ♬ - you're right anyone can regard himself a philosopher! However this is not an egotistic world, philosophers create various ideas but if he is the only one considering himself as such then who would value his arguments? His knowledge then dies with him, for it is only himself that knows of such for nobody considers him to be like one, What I am asking is how does a person qualify to be known as a philosopher, is it by virtue or requirements, by the society of intellectuals? or in other words how do we know philosophers like Kant, Hume,etc.. up to this moment, it is not only him then that should know of this arguments he created but all or most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.244.33 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean "what, objectively, is a philosopher?"  Card Zero  (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Let us first acknowledge that there are people whose job title is "philosopher" — they usually work in Departments of Philosophy — and there are all of the others in the world who are recognized as philosophers despite never having a degree in it or having taught in a university. You're wanting to know, how does the person in the latter category get established as a philosopher? He or she writes, writes, writes! And if what they write is inspired and useful to others who like to think big ideas, they are thus, magically, considered a philosopher by posterity. (And that university professor who is not inspired or useful to others? Often as forgotten as the next man. Never be fooled into thinking that a published book and a fancy title is any guard against being irrelevant one generation hence. Out of all of the tens of thousands of would-be philosophers, only a handful are remembered today, much less remembered favorably.) The philosophers like Kant and Hume and etc. wrote things that sparked immense interest and controversy amongst other learned people of their times; that is why they are remembered today, and most of their contemporaries not. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the most suitable Philsophihcal Journal to which I can submit my work about Morality

I am currently finished of my essay about morality however which is the best, in your opinion with regards to specializing in the field of ethics, philosophical journal that accepts such essay to be part of their publication or library? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.244.33 (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We do have List of philosophy journals. Some of the following might be suitable: American Philosophical Quarterly, Erkenntnis, International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Journal of Moral Philosophy. Note that most scholarly journals have a publication process that involves peer review, and that one expectation reviewers will have is that the article is written in a scholarly manner and demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the literature (as evidenced by liberal use of references). Even then, acceptance rates can be quite low - somewhere around 30% is not unusual. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

how to make someone creative?

There's total math nerd who is completely uncreative in any way. If they were interested, could I make them become creative? How? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In any way? Really? I put it to you that you are using a narrow definition of "creative", and would accept the creation of art, but would not accept the creation of understanding of mathematics. Creativity can mean the creation of external novelty but can also mean personal novelty, such as new explanations in one's own mind.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Often, math lovers will take a step in venturing outside of a high school or college math curriculum (your friend, if you're describing one, may have done such) towards topics such as number theory. Topics like these often require a great deal of creativity.

Alternatively, you can have them babble for an hour, starting off with one topic and holding a conversation with them, until you shift through multiple topics and the person creates creative, albeit ludicrous, ideas that verge on the point of insanity. True story. --Activism1234 22:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For the general question of how to teach creativity, a teacher poses an open-ended problem to the class, like "How do we solve world hunger ?", then has each of them write down a list of ideas. They then critique each of their own ideas, to determine which is the best. Next they present their best idea to the class. You can have the class vote on the best idea. Do a secret ballot, though, as you want to avoid having anyone think their idea is bad, which also means no grading, at least in the early grades. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There are actual scientific studies on creativity. Some of them are in Jonah Lehrer's book, Imagine: How Creativity Works. Unfortunately, Lehrer has recently (just today) admitted to making a lot of stuff up (very creative?), and the publisher is withdrawing the book, so it may not be the most reliable source. But there are lots and lots of studies that have tried to really make sense of what actually works for stimulating creativity ("brainstorming" does not, interestingly enough). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

They shouldn't try too hard to make sense of it. Pablo Picasso said: "The enemy of creativity is common sense". Making perfect rational sense of creativity is like trying to relax. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The brain is ultimately a material object; creativity is an observable function of the brain. There is no reason any aspect of brain activity should be considered out of bounds for scientific investigation. Lots of people find it plausible to try to relax. I find reliance on quotations and aphorisms to be fairy wooly minded. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is my opinion that those who "find" things to be a certain way are engaging in judgmental behaviour. If you're serious about exploring the whys and hows of the universe, you'd better be prepared to drop that sort of attitude pronto. It will close your mind as nothing else can. And Fairy Wooly? He's my second-best friend.

Meditation does indeed take some discipline, but it is not about "trying", in the sense of expending effort or doing hard work. Unless you're talking about achieving a transcendent state via certain dance rituals, trying to relax or meditate is a contradiction in terms. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What you call "judgmental behavior," I call "critical thinking." But to each his own. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Post-Communist Transitions in Russia Versus Those in the Former Warsaw Pact Countries?

How come the post-Communist transition in Russia was much worse than that of, say, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic? The former Warsaw Pact countries managed to have a relatively quick and successful transition without too much problems (other than a declining population), yet Russia also experienced economic stagnation up to 1999/2000, a period of almost ten years. Also, Russia experienced a large increase in crime, alcoholism, poverty, and a large HIV/AIDS epidemic, as well as large declines in life expectancy for both women and men. My question is--why? Futurist110 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It has to do with the successful nations having had a history of capitalism and, in some cases, democracy, before the communists took over, while Russia had neither. Also, being able to join the EU, and, in the case of East Germany, joining with West Germany, gave them an additional kick start. StuRat (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic quickly turned their aspirations toward the EU, and engaged on the membership path to the EU. The criteria for this emphasised the rule of law, an open and accountable democratic system, and a rational open-book state accounting. Money from the EU, and the influx of investors and industry from the EU, certainly helped, but Russia had lots of money too (from fossil fuels and minerals). Under Yeltsin, Russia degenerated into a kleptocracy - the assets which had sustained the state economy were sold off to the "New Russians" for peanuts. Bereft of income, the state couldn't pay its bills - doctors and policemen and school teachers didn't get paid and eventually stopped coming to work. Competent and educated professionals and managers either migrated to the private sector or left the country. Faced with poor funding, a broken market, and competition from European manufacturers (who'd by a Lada when you can buy a VW) many public and private enterprises failed. The idea was that the old Soviet central economic planning (which, while clumsy and bureaucratic just about managed to keep things working) would be replaced by the market. But a free market relies on the rule of law, where contracts are fairly enforced, corruption is suppressed, and fraud (by company insiders and government officials) is actively policed. So while the functions of the state disintegrated, there wasn't a matching rise in the private sector. Through the cold war, the Soviet propaganda was that the west was a broken society ruled by corrupt politicians and criminal businessmen, leaving the people suffering in a heartless anarchy - the tragic irony is that 1990s Russia achieved just that, while retaining much of cruelties and inefficiencies of the Soviet system. Chrystia Freeland's book Sale of the Century covers this period. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

East German manufacturing actually suffered quite a bit during the transition to part of the BRD. No one wanted a Trabant when they could have a VW. East German utilities such as the barely commissioned Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant were shut down due to the belief that communist designs were inherently bad (and because western companies wanted to supply power from their own sources). Employment in some regions has never really recovered. But I suppose it's not as bad as the Russian experience. As previously mentioned I think corruption is a key factor. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

20 years doesn't constitute a "never". If the nuke plant was of the Chernobyl design, I'd want to shut it down or made safe, too. Any other design should have been analyzed to see if it was safe, then sold to a West German power company, which presumably would need the additional capacity to power East Germany. The Trabant plant should have been converted to make VW's or some other West German car. StuRat (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at Stu. Unemployment hasn't recovered so far. I'm not saying it never will. And while the relative safety of nuclear power plant designs is way off topic for a discussion on geo-politics, the Greifswald reactor was not an RBMK like the one at Chernobyl. The plant was basically shut down because of West German commercial interests. Any safety concerns could have been rectified, but the government opined that it was not in Germany's economic interest to have so many plants to service so few consumers, so all of the engineers, operators, management and support staff who had permanently relocated to Greifswald were out of a job. And I don't see why the buyer would have to be West German. Was there something wrong with Energiewerke Nord (an East German firm) buying it? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumably the East German firm had questionable safety training. I also don't see how adding East Germany would lead to overcapacity, if they both added new plants and new customers, especially since there probably were many outdated plants that really did need to be shut down. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So basically the Russian govt. didn't do enough to fight corruption and fraud and to use Western investment properly in the 1990s, unlike the former Warsaw Pact countries? Here's the question, though--why did Russia not try following the Eastern European model sooner, say, in 1995 rather than in 2000 and onward? Also, democracy doesn't always matter when it comes to strong economic performance and economic growth. China, Russia (post-2000), South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, and other countries all had long periods of large economic growth and development with dictatorial (or in Russia's case, de facto dictatorial) governments. And for the record, I wasn't talking about Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary specifically. I was just using them as examples from the former Warsaw Pact countries. Futurist110 (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also a difference between being oppressed by a foreign occupier, in which case you want to throw off all signs off oppression, versus being the oppressor yourself, in which case you want to change things just enough so the people don't revolt. StuRat (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether Yelstin actually supported the Communist economic system or at least a most of it is up for debate. Keep in mind that a lot of Russians in the 1990s were also fed up with the failed Communist economic system that they had before. Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but not those in power. Unlike the more successful nations, who wanted to purge their society of all remnants of their Soviet overlords, those in power in Russia wanted to preserve their privileged status and wealth while giving the public just enough to prevent a revolt. StuRat (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, Russia had a capitalist economic system before 1917. Futurist110 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really, it was more like what you have now. That is, a few people made all the economic decisions, and everyone else had to do as they were told. Then the few people were friends of the Tsar, while, after the fall of the Soviet Union, they were friends of Yeltsin. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." StuRat (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See feudalism. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I am an American, not a Russian, though my ancestors did live in the U.S.S.R. for decades. Secondly, I'm pretty sure that the Tsar allowed Russians to have private property and to have private control over the means of production, which meant that Russians could have run their own businesses and make lots of profits if they did not anger the Tsar. There probably was some corruption in Russia under the Tsar, but I'm not sure how large the corruption was back then. Also, feudalism ended in Russia in 1861 when all its serfs became emancipated. Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

On paper, yes, but capitalism never really got started in Russia. It was very backward up until the Russian Revolution, with minimal industry. Mostly what we might call sharecroppers. Also note that pretty much anyone who remembered how things were under the Tsar was dead by the time the Soviet Union fell, whereas in the more successful nations, there were still plenty of older people who remembered. StuRat (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There was probably a decent number of 82+ year olds alive in the USSR in 1991 who remembered how things were under the Tsar. Ages 82-95 aren't nearly as hard to reach as ages 100+. Futurist110 (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

An 82 year old would barely remember life under the Tsar, and those much older than that wouldn't be in any position to lead the nation into capitalism. StuRat (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Some people could have good memories from when they were 5-10. And while people aged 82+ in 1991 would probably not be in any current leadership positions, they could have always spoken out or perhaps even influenced govt. policy if they were famous/notable and/or former govt. officials (this would be kinda like an old former Congressman appearing on a prominent news station today to discuss current issues and his views on them). Futurist110 (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

They won't have experience running their own businesses which they can then use to restart new businesses. And most former gov officials would have been staunch communists then. StuRat (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that a little country like West Germany can steadily spend $100+ billion a year on East Germany for 20 years, have it stay at an 18% unemployment rate, and still end up as "the powerhouse of Europe", overshadowing countries like Spain or Greece that have no such excuse. Wnt (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's the best of a bad lot. With a few exceptions like Ireland, no European countries had really great economic performance in the previous decade. And it's also the most populous European nation, so for it not to be the "powerhouse" there would have to be something very wrong in Germany. And Germany is at least somewhat fiscally responsible. I've often heard it said that this is due to their historical experience with hyperinflation. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

3/4 of the German population lives in the former West Germany, so the former East Germany isn't dragging Germany down by much. West Germany was an economic powerhouse even during the Cold War, so it's no surprise that Germany is the economic powerhouse of Europe right now with its huge population. Also, I've read that the situation in the former East Germany has improved lately, though I'll need to find the article again. Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

...or the situation in the rest of Europe has deteriorated to match East Germany. However, there is something about the German zeitgeist that rejects the "live for today and to hell with tomorrow" attitude you tend to get closer to the Mediterranean. Perhaps it's the Puritan work ethic. StuRat (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The situation in the New states of Germany has improved lately in what way? I would definitely like to see that source. I've lived there as recently as 2008 and I doubt it's improved much in the interim given the prevailing global economic conditions. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Our article has some minor discussion of this:

Ever since the reunification, the unemployment rate in the east has been almost twice that of the west, currently at 12.7%[12] (as of April 2010) after having reached a maximum of 18.7% in 2005. In the 1999-2009 decade, economic activity per person has risen from 67% to 71% of western Germany.[10] According to Wolfgang Tiefensee in 2009, the minister then responsible for the development of the new federal states, “The gap is closing.”[10] Eastern Germany is also the part of the country least affected by the current financial crisis.[13]

Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If the gap only closes by 4% per decade, it will take over 70 years to close completely. StuRat (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The change was not boolean. Several soviet institutions and norms were retained in the new Russia, just given a new name or a spring-clean. This had knock-on effects. For instance, on the commercial side, Russia suffered from capital flight, some murky abuses of minority shareholders, and drastic state intervention in supposedly-privatised areas. Its neighbours to the west were generally making honest attempts to build a new clean system, so such abuses were much less likely. bobrayner (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the reasons for why Russia fared so badly I have seen offered over the years, loosely ordered from prosaic to extravagant:

• Lack of democratic tradition.
• Abundance of natural resources, being a disincentive to creating a functioning society.
• Malice (IMF etc.).
• Inadequacy of liberal democracy to Russia's demographics (ethnic and religious diversity; no middle class; smartest people killed or chased away starting 1917)
• "Macro-historic": nations accumulated most wealth before they became liberal democracies in the word's today sense. The transition to liberal democracy and the service sector economy, i.e. away from making stuff, is, essentially, decline. Russia or not.
• Too much Turkic blood.

Still, I think no one really knows and the best, if not the only, summary of Russia's newest history that springs to (my, and I think most Russians') mind is "dafuq was THAT?" Уга-уга12 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC) It now occurred to me that all of these are basically variations on a theme - "too much, too soon" Уга-уга12 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)