Humanities desk
< August 11	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 13 >

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.

August 12

Possible Updates for Two Wikipedia Entries

Hello - I am not sure if this is the right department to write to, but I have two suggestions for updating two Wikipedia Entries.

For the Entry about Cagliostro - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Cagliostro - you have a section 'Appearances in Fiction'. I have found numerous references to Cagliostro in the novel 'He Who Whispers' by John Dickson Carr (aka John Carter Dickson), one of his Dr Gideon Fell mysteries. In this book a French professor, Georges Antoine Rigaud, has written a history: 'Life of Cagliostro'. The name 'Cagliostro' gets mentioned 23 times.

For the Entry about the Sandyford Murder Case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandyford_murder_case - you mention various appearances in fiction of this case. I have found two references to this case in 'Seeing is Believing' (also published as 'Cross of Murder') a Sir Henry Merrivale novel by John Carter Dickson (aka John Dickson Carr) and in Chapter 20 there's quite a long account of the Sandyford Murder Mystery.

I hope that the above has been useful.

And by the way in the entry about the Sandyford Murder Mystery the word 'published' is spelt wrongly: "…novel, When Last I Died, publilshed in 1941…"

Yours sincerely - Duncan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.212.89.254 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know you can edit articles here yourself (except for cases where they are locked down due to repeated vandalism) ? A spelling error you can fix and just put "Fixed spelling error" in the comment line at the bottom. For the other cases, it would also be nice if you could add a reference, which in this case would be the books themselves. So, list the books, publish dates, pages, authors, etc. Just pick "Edit source" above the section you want to edit. StuRat (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks Duncan. I've left a message on your user talk page explaining how to make these changes. As StuRat mentioned, it's best you do it since we need to know the book details and you have the books. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midfielders

Would midfielders in association football be able to run at 10,000 metres events? Footballers run 11 kilometers a game [1] and midfielders especially run a lot.Pass a Method talk 08:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not without additional training. The running that football players do is quite different than distance runners. Football players run in fits and starts, with occasional sprints, lots of turns, etc. Distance runners run a straight line at a constant speed, building towards a sprint finish. Football players may have the necessary endurance, but would likely need training on pacing etc before they could be competitive. Now we just need some references. --Xuxl (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 10k runners run it in under 30 minutes, rather than for two 45 minute periods. Most midfielders wouldn't do much better than a casual runner. EamonnPKeane (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Long-distance Running Really Important in Soccer Training? says; "When analyzing the game, players run approximately 70 percent of the actual minutes of the game... Most of the runs made in soccer are explosive, high-intensity runs, rather than long, slow runs". I'm certain that I read an article claiming that Premiership footballers actually run for only 15 minutes during a game, but I may have been mistaken. Alansplodge (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More detail at How Far Do You Run During a Soccer Game? by Don Kirkendall, Ph. D. which says; "The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game... About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts... Subsequent work and maturation of the game has pushed this total distance up to around 10,000 meters for a men's professional European game with the South American game being contested at a little less total running distance... Don't brag too much about the running volume--10,000 meters (six miles) in 90 minutes is four miles per hour, something a good power walker can do." Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sociobiology and fashion

As opposed to today's fashion, suntan wan't fashionable in ancient times. For insance, the Bible writes

Look not upon me, that I am swarthy, that the sun hath tanned me; [...]
— The Shulamite, Song of Songs 1:6

It seems to make sense from an evolutionary point of view because tanning was common mostly among rednecks. But this is just one feeble evidance that evolution affected perceptions of beauty so accurately, and it makes one wonder: how significant is the role of evolution in fashion, especially in ancient times?

Also, I heard that the Japanese culture (or was it the Chinese?) used to accept chubby people as more attractive. Does that make sense according to evolution?

Thanks, 84.109.248.221 (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "sense according to evolution" on the numbers and timescales you are considering here. To put this into the common metaphor of "not seeing the forest for the trees", you're trying to understand the whole forest by examining a tiny patch of bark on one tree. Genetics certainly plays an important part in people's social behavior, but genetics is not purely deterministic in this way. Fashion is fickle, and drifts and changes at FAR to short a time scale to be subject to evolutionary pressures. --Jayron32 11:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have probably emphasized that I'm talking about any type of evolution, and thanks to you I noticed that this is probably an example of memetic evolution. 84.109.248.221 (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the appearance: it's what the appearance means. In an ancient context, everyone would be working, except for people who were unable to work (obviously not the case with the Shulamite) or for people who were rich enough that they didn't have to work; being fair-skinned and healthy showed that you were rich. Meanwhile, in a premodern culture, only the prosperous could afford to eat enough to get fat. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Also, I heard that the Japanese culture (or was it the Chinese?) used to accept chubby people as more attractive. Does that make sense according to evolution?" Obviously, if a population "used to" do something, it suggests there are reasons why it evolved away from doing it now, perhaps it was not "selected for" in competition with other propagating populations. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the theories of Thorstein Veblen (who, as our article notes, wrote from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective), fashions generally are examples of conspicuous consumption and seek to exhibit the individual's high status. Suntans were low-status when they indicated peasant labor, but high-status when they indicated the resources and leisure to travel from a northern city in the winter to a tropical resort. The advent of tanning salons, which cater to the lower end of the market, has lost a great deal of suntans' cachet. John M Baker (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may change with the increasing world-wide regulation and, in some places, outright banning of such places and the sale of personal tanning beds. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or the increasing world-wide nannyism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is too broad a term. Look at sexual selection as opposed to just natural selection. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you derive that "suntan wasn't fashionable in ancient times" on the basis of one old text reading "Look not upon me, that I am swarthy, that the sun hath tanned me"? Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A suntan particularly of the face still isn't fashionable in many cultures in Africa and Asia (including East, South East and South) where there is in fact a push towards extremely levels of Skin whitening using probably dodgy products, which may be seen in advertising etc. While there are some pushes towards tanning e.g. [2] and Ganguro, I don't think they've generally been that successful, at most partially counteracting the trend towards whiteness (helped sometimes by government regulations and/or social and government backlash against the whiteness messages) hopefully pushing towards recognising both ideas are silly. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John M Baker has it right -- down to about the 1920s or so, tanning was commonly a sign of long outdoors work (usually agricultural) and so a signal of relatively low status, and ladies carried parasols to protect their pale complexions. After that time, tanning started to acquire connotations of being able to take long vacations at the seaside, or remote sunny resorts, and so acquired more trendy connotations. As for fat vs. thin, a woman with a "pleasantly plump" figure is more likely to be fertile than a stick-figure thin model, and some signals of attractiveness are probably based on fertility indicators. Also, in some societies, plumpness means that you consistently have enough food to eat, and so are relatively well off. But in modern Western societies, thinness means that you probably have access to relatively high-quality food and have powers of self-control, so that thinness is now the signal of relative wealth or high status... AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of World War 1?

I understand the causes of WW1, and how it started off. However I fail to understand what the objectives of the British and the French on one side, and the Germans on the other? If the Germans won WW1, what would the Germans want out of it? --Beerenhofft (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may already be familiar with the opinion that war is good for absolutely nothing, but I suppose that might be too simple an answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say it again. --Jayron32 22:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly more substantial answer comes from Fritz Fischer, who said the goal was to distract citizens from domestic problems and whip up patriotism, to counteract a rise in left-wing ideological popularity. So a bit more than nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the view from the left. I'm not sure that anybody much wanted Continental Europe to be dominated by the German Empire except maybe the Germans. From Britain's point of view, the main issue was protecting a neutral country that we had pledged to protect (Belgium); the same issue that led us into WWII (Poland) and the Gulf War (Kuwait). "But what good came of it at last?" / Quoth little Peterkin. / "Why that I cannot tell," said he, / "But 'twas a famous victory." Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should have been clearer. I meant German citizens, German domestic problems and the German goal. For the last part of the question. Being conquered isn't good for another citizenry's morale. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is that the Germans wanted dominance. A country that dominates the world is in control of its own fate (or at least feels like it), and doesn't have to defer to the wishes of other countries. Right now the US dominates the world militarily, and I believe most Americans feel that's a good thing. The primary objective of the British was to prevent the Germans from dominating the world. The primary objective of the French was to get back the territory they lost both in the early stages of the war and during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Looie496 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitically the late unification of Germany meant it lacked the colonies that nations that had unified earlier did, and wanted to achieve them. Germany saw itself as surrounded and nearly landlocked except for the North Sea, it wanted respect, and maybe the Netherlands. Ideologically the ruling Prussian Junkers were petty war barons whose highest value was the military prowess the needed to keep their Slavic and Baltic peasants subjugated. And there's the neurotic Kaiser with his wooden horses and shriveled arm, jealous of his cousins on their thrones, and wanting to prove he was better than them. See Causes of World War I. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The First World War was way more complicated than "the Germans were bad". It was about tensions between rival empires, and treaties of alliance that obliged countries to act in defence of their allies. It started because the Austro-Hungarian Empire wanted to grab the lands in the Balkans that had recently been vacated by the Ottoman Empire. They knew the Russians were allies of Serbia, so if they made a move against Serbia the Russians would likely move against them, and the French, who were allies of the Russians, might join in in support of their allies, leaving them having to fight a war on two fronts. So they got their own, ally, Germany, to invade France first, neutralising one potential opponent. The French-German border was well-defended, so the Germans invaded through Belgium. The British were allies of the Belgians, so that brought them in.

Germany was a relatively young country, and when the war started was if anything a junior partner to the Austro-Hungarians. It was certainly expansionist, but was in no position to threaten world domination. The threat Germany posed was of altering the balance of power in Europe. They got stuck with all of the blame when the war was over, because the Austro-Hungarian empire had collapsed, and a non-existent state can't be held liable for reparations. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A substantial issue for many countries was the safety of their allies. The alliance system meant that many countries were dependent on their allies, and because they believed that it wasn't in their best interest to let their allies get squished by multiple enemies, they thought it best to go to war to support their allies. Russia ended up doing really really badly, even though Germany had substantial resources diverted by the war in the West; imagine how it would have ended up for them if the full weight of the German military had been thrown eastward. Austria-Hungary didn't do the best against Russia early in the war, and they were repeatedly repulsed in their earliest invasions of Serbia; if Germany hadn't come to their aid, Russia may have overwhelmed them. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Germany was not the junior partner of Austria-Hungary, even if it was the younger state. Germany had a larger population and economy and a much larger industrial sector, as well as a military that had just one generation earlier single-handedly delivered a humiliating defeat to France, which until then had been the leading power of continental Europe. At the outset of World War I, Britain was clearly the world's dominant military power, even though both the United States and Germany had surpassed it in population and industrial output. With the United States initially neutral, German military leaders thought that the time was right to challenge Britain for hegemony over Europe. Austro-Hungarian leaders saw the alliance with their rising neighbor as an opportunity to strengthen their own position in Europe and particularly in the Balkans. Britain's leaders and public, meanwhile, were committed to defending their hegemonic position (and felt duty-bound to defend Belgium against the Germans). American sympathy toward democratic Britain (the mother country) and France (a historic ally) eventually led the United States to intervene on the side of the Allies to prevent a possible German victory in the West once Russia had in effect capitulated. As a result, of course, the United States began to eclipse Britain's military hegemony, but that was an outcome foreseen by the leaders of neither Britain nor Germany at the outset. Marco polo (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with MP's points 100%. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I have to disagree. Britain didn't have hegemony over Europe. Its imperial interests were elsewhere. It had an interest in there being a balance of power among the European powers, each cancelling the other out, which allowed it to stay aloof from European matters. Germany was a rising power that might upset that balance, but it did start the war following the Austro-Hungarian agenda. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Britain exercised its hegemony by acting as arbiter and enforcer of the European balance of power. Marco polo (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the run-up to WWI, diplomats and politicians on all sides tried to boost their own nation's power and reach, and some didn't seem to treat the possibility of future war with appropriate seriousness. However, there were several provocative moves by Germany which had the effect of somewhat destabilizing the situation, without particularly strengthening Germany's own position. To start with, the island of Great Britain was not self-sufficient in basic food production, so that the British viewed any attempt by another European power to build up a navy directly rivaling Britain's as a potential direct threat to Britain's food supply. By contrast, Germany's desire for a navy was based more on psychological prestige factors and a desire to obtain a few tropical colonies before the British and French snapped up all available territories, rather than any vital strategic need. So when Germany started a naval arms race at the beginning of the 20th century, the UK was unalterably determined to spend however much it took to stay ahead of Germany, as a matter of basic survival. In the end, the German surface navy ended up at the bottom of Scapa Flow without ever having struck any very decisive blow for Germany, and its real main function seemed to be to cater to Wilhelm II's semi-childlike glee in possessing shiny new military toys and lots of gold braid on his shoulders. If Germany not building a surface navy rivaling Britain's would have meant that Britain wouldn't have been driven into the arms of France (the Entente Cordiale alliance), then Germany really would have been much better off not building it.
Also, at a critical point in Summer 1914, the German political leadership allowed itself to be drawn into launching an invasion of France largely based on rather simplistic German military staff mobilization plans, which assumed that "the first army that gets the most troops into the field the earliest wins" and "the war will be over by Christmas". It seems a little strange that outmoded military logistic plans were allowed to dictate such a momentous decision... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Germany could knock France out in six weeks and seize the neutral coasts of Belgium and the Netherlands, Britain would be in grave danger while Russia could do little to help. This scenario was achieved 26 years later in 1940.--Hors-la-loi 07:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

In contrast, Britain wasn't any more ethical than Germany. For one, as part of the arms race leading up to WWI, Britain wiped entire nations off the map, all just to fill their coffers with gold and diamonds. That travesty is still celebrated today. What is worse, is that they dare claim those victories in the name of equality and humanity. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Can you cite a source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which part? Their official statement on their war objectives, their heavy garnering of the profits generated by the mining industry, or that commemorations in honour of the victories are held? Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that "That travesty is still celebrated today". You linked the Boer war. Provide sources for your assertion that Britain still celebrates the 'travesty'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, Australia was part of the commonwealth, so here you go: [3]. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also included in annual ANZAC commemorations. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So events in Australia organised by the National Boer War Memorial Association (Australia) - which incidentally seems to have a more nuanced outlook on history than their name might suggest - become evidence that Britain 'celebrates wiping nations off the map'? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmic Physics -- considering what the Germans did in Hereroland, they wouldn't have had much right to reproach the British for the Boer War. In any case, colonial skullduggeries in remote corners of the globe are not what had the largest destabilizing effect on European power politics in the run-up to the outbreak of WWI. AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be the largest, but it definitely contributed to increasing tensions. FYI, Germany was allied to some degree with those nations and provided support against the British invasion, in the form of munitions and such. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened in Hereroland? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1904, General Lothar von Trotha supressed a rebellion in German South West Africa by the Herero tribe. "70,000 Herero fell to 16,000 in a year. 75-80% of the Herero died as a result of the war."[4]

I can confirm that I have never heard of any celebration of the Second Boer War in the UK, where it is widely perceived to be a low point in our national story. The whole thing had been over for 12 years by 1914 and I've never heard it mentioned as a casus belli, rather a cause of irritation between the UK and Germany. A more pertinent case would be the German supply of rifles to Irish separatists. Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found our article; Herero and Namaqua Genocide. Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I may be wrong on the point about celebration. Why would your suggested case be more pertinent, simply because it was more recent relative to WWI? Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Alansplodge (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't at all about ethics, it was about allies and tactics. If you were Germany, it would be nice to know that you have an extra port along the south of Africa, and you don't have to manage it. Oh, and if nothing else, it would also impede the UK's acquisition of yet more resources for a probably future war. Germany wasn't all that excited about having colonies, so strategically located allies was becoming more important by that time. Germany and the UK were already involved in war by proxy since the second half of the 19th century, it only became formal in 1914. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Germany wasn't all that excited about having colonies"? Germany was - according to our Scramble for Africa article - the third largest colonial power in Africa (prior to WWI) and, having come a little late to the party, pursued a rigorously imperialist policy following the resignation of Bismarck! Valiantis (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Which Bismarck?~~ According to German colonial empire, it says that colonisation was an experiment, which Otto initiated at the behest of another. In fact, five years later he regretted his decision and tried to give away one of his African colonies to British. The endevour was even called a "colonial burden". Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia

While some irrational prejudices have a kernel of truth, homophobia seems baseless and defies rational explanation. Most stereotypes - e.g. greedy, stupid, violent - are negative traits but the "gay sterotype" is harmless, so why does it elicit such hostile responses? Religion aside, are there any social or evolutionary explanations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.119.208 (talk) 7:42 am, Today (UTC−4)

You say "some irrational prejudices have a kernel of truth". I can't think of any offhand. Can you give an example or two? Which "irrational prejudices have a kernel of truth"? Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is worded in a very POV manner, that is hard for someone who doesn't share your point-of-view to wrap one's head around. It would be less inflammatory if you at least attempted a resemblance of neutral point of view. Yes, I'm sure obviously many people can without difficulty come up with plenty of "non-religious social and evolutionary reasons" for why populations that practice homosexuality are selected against, and populations discouraging it have been selected for, on a global scale over the course of thousands of years...! So, who is now arguing that it is suddenly the other way around? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not noticed: your statement "...the 'gay stereotype' is harmless" is widely contradicted by many sectors of the world population who perceive it as harmful and react accordingly. In fact, a great deal of harm is done to homosexuals by people who object to them. Why don't you consider and perhaps acknowledge that, before any of us proceed here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the original poster has noticed those things, and that's pretty clearly the question: Why do so many sectors of the world population perceive homosexuality as harmful and react so strongly against it? Why is so much harm done to homosexuals by people who object to them? That's what I assumed the original poster was asking, and it's something I've wondered about, too. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if people may be misunderstanding the 'harmless' bit, it sounds to me like all the OP is saying is that many gay stereotypes don't seem particularly negative compared to other stereotypes. For example, the stereotype of Jewish people as greedy or abusive moneylenders, black people as violent criminals or lazy, Muslims as being always willing to use violence to defend or or spread their religion and as terrorists are all obviously quite negative whereas a number of the stereotypes of gay people like being effeminate, speaking with a lisp, dressing in certain ways, highly caring about their appearance, interested in and good at the arts etc may not seem particularly negative to the OP or at least a lot less negative than many of the other stereptypes. I don't think the OP is denying stereotypying is harmful rather they are saying since gay stereotypes don't aren't that negative, why do people react so strongly against gays? (Whereas it's easier for the OP to see why people may reac against others based on the highly negative stereotypes.) I'm not saying the OP is correct. There are obviously many stereotypes of people besides gays which are not particularly negative, e.g. the penis size of black males, Asians (depending on the country possibly East, SE and South) being studious, hard working and carring about family etc. More importantly many of the gay stereotypes can be negative depending on the person and culture, the OP may do to take a read of LGBT stereotypes. For example the stereotype of gays being highly promiscious and unwilling to enter in to long term commitments is obviously quite negative in for those with highly conservative attitudes towards sexuality. Similarly the stereotype of hard drug use. Let alone more serious ones like gays being paedophiles and sexual predators or considering paedophilia harmless. Even being effiminate while it may only be slightly negative in much of the developed Western world, can be quite negative in cultures which still emphasise traditional gender roles and where male masculinity is important. Of course, the biggest point which the OP is missing is that negative stereotypes, are only one factor in why people react against another group of people. If people are ingrained from a young age from a variety of sources in to thinking a group of people are harmful to them or their society, many will keep thinking it even if logically there's no reason even from their warped perceptions of these people in thinking these people are so harmful (or so much more harmful than others). Note in the particularly case of gay people the fact that they have sex with men (well obviously not all gay people will end up doing so for a variety of reasons) is something some people consider harmful and not to be tolerated based on their religious or other world views and so something they react against (not helped by the fictitious belief that most gay people want to convert others in to being gay). P.S. I'm only talking about gay men here as I think that' what the OP is referring to and they also tend to be what people react what most strongly against, which is not to deny the horrific crimes like corrective rapes and other forms of hate lesbian women face. Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might want to read Homophobia where i hold confidence that his bias will be rubbished in the lede section alone and countless other times by reliable scientific studies and journals. Or just read the account of yet another of the victims to have killed themselves this week. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 16:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's bias is not "homophobia is nonexistent", so you don't have to cite references that it exists. The question is, why does it exist? Why do people hate or fear gays so much that they enshrine violent stigmatization of it into their religions, and outlaw it in their civil societies? The Homophobia article you cite contains plenty of examples of those stigmatizing religions and those prohibitory laws, but it doesn't go much into the why, either. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears likely i have misread and my earlier post should be disregarded, although the Homophobia article is still a good source of information on this. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually rather easy from the men's point of view. Gay sex is obviously 'icky', it involves contact with the anus or oral contact with where pee comes from. You might get poo on your wiener or pee in your mouth (or worse!) Gay men might make you uncomfortable by suggesting such activity, or forcing you into it. Lesbians (the 'obvious ones') are manly and unavailable to and in competition with straight men. Arguments from the women's side are similar. There are habits that I find positively disgusting, like chewing and (god forbid) bubble gum. I don't find it hard to believe some people are disgusted by "sodomy" and fear having it thrust on them. There is also contempt for "sissies" among men, and the most overt gay men are the effeminates, which leads to the belief homosexuality is demasculinizing. And most people are biologically very naive, and have a contagion-based view of morality, that being around gay people will make you gay, just like being around unclean people will make you unclean, or being around uncool people will make you uncool. It's prescientific pre-rational thinking on the level of animism.

See:

Law of contagion, a folk belief related to magical thinking
Emotional contagion, a tendency to feel others' emotions
Behavioral contagion, a tendency to mimic others' behavior
Hysterical contagion, an effect in which a group exhibits physical symptoms due to a psychological cause
Sacred contagion, the belief that spiritual properties pass from one entity to another

See also Popo Bawa and the African panics over penis theft. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what's more, while most people have that view, the same most people would not agree themselves that they are practising pre-scientific pre-rational thinking on the level of animism. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia has been associated with bigotry (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Distribution_of_attitudes) and many of the LGBT stereotypes are negative. Besides religion, the article on group conflict may help explain hostilities and stigmatization. -Modocc (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From a politico-socio-economic perspective: most aggravated and pernicious homophobia is probably on the part of heterosexual men, who hold the top position in dominance and are heavily invested in staying there by any means. Homosexual men who are otherwise qualified to challenge them for a slot at the top of the food chain, present a threat to the status quo as much as do competent women (of any sexual orientation). -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting that the threat is not that the gay man might seek to topple the alpha male from his perch, it's that he is comfortable in not seeking to do so? (I.e., that he has the temerity to deny the superiority of the perch?) —Steve Summit (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion goes back to the OP's premise, that there's nothing inherently noxious in the stereotypical "gay," but rather, possibly appealing and positive qualities - which is a threat to the straight male who jealously claims superiority as his birthright regardless of actually deserving it - and has to suppress all challengers. How better than to cultivate and even legislate homophobia (or homo-cide?) to tidy up the playing field in the titleholder's favor? -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historians may also be aware of other reasons, such as particularly unfond popular memories of homosexual kings, and their style of statecraft, in the old days! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some homophobia is also derived from Abrahamic religious ideology. The legalistic parts of the Old Testament were compiled at various times by the secular rulers of the Hebrew states in part to help them get or retain independence from their neighbors and overlords, among whom numbered several large and aggressive empires (inter alia Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Persia, Rome...). Part of retaining independence is being able to field a military force, which you cannot do without a surplus population. Without refs this counts as OR, but functionally speaking the end effect of every law regarding sexual conduct in the Old Testament is to maximize the population increase of "well-raised" people who will bear arms in defense of their nation. In a nutshell, no sexual energy is to be spent on anyone other than a member of the opposite sex, in marriage if possible (to ensure good values and traditional loyalties): no bestiality, no homosexuality, no masturbating ("Better to spill your seed in the belly of an whore than on the ground"), and no mixing with other countries who might corrupt or weaken your offspring's loyalties. So violators of these laws either must be put to death, or are struck down by God himself (as with Onan). I'm absolutely not comparing homosexuality to bestiality, either morally or in terms of my personal reaction thereto, but they share the common theme of being part of the comprehensive moral worldview of the Old Testament; which is driven by the Hebrew state itself and its need to survive or resurface by constantly being fruitful and multiplying. Hence the slew of laws and traditions which became Leviticus. And hence modern humans behaving as if Bronze Age tribesmen have the last word on sexuality for the globe-spanning human civilization of the 21st century. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In many cultures past and present, homosexuality is a taboo. People in every culture internalize taboos and view the breaking of taboos with dread and revulsion. Breakers of taboos are seen as threatening to the whole culture and society. Other members of the society may be moved to violence, even murder, to stop the breaking of taboos and to defend the integrity of the culture and society. Violent responses to homosexuality are especially likely among men who identify as straight but who secretly or subconsciously find other men attractive, as this study, among others, demonstrates. These men feel personally threatened by open homosexuals and in effect violently attack or even murder men that they think are homosexual to try to combat their own hidden, threatening feelings. Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can also go to google scholar and search "homophobia authoritarianism", and you will find plenty of references suggesting a link. I'm putting this below Marco's response because it could add to his suggestion, rather than being a different thread. It is perfectly possible that authoritarian people who have suppressed homosexual desires are even more likely still to be homophobic - but the exact links between these are something you would have to look into. IBE (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Carlin, never one to hold back, talked about this in his typical politically incorrect way: "In my day, a 'fag' was not the same as a 'queer'. Everyone knew what a queer was. A fag was someone who wouldn't go downtown with the rest of the guys and help beat up queers." The general point being that the real stereotype is the appearance of being unmanly. Or to put it another way, "acting like a girl". When I see some of these very openly gay public figures on TV, the enlightened adult side of me recognizes that that's just who they are, and that's that; while the old-school side of me still asks, "Why does he act like a girl?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then there are the multitudes of male public figures who are gay or have sex with men, but are not out, whose private sexual lives are unknown to the public, who show no overt signs of apparent homosexuality, and hence about whom such questions are never asked. But they're still there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. There used to be a TV reality series called "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", an entertaining twist on the generic "makeover" show. There were four or five guys, running the spectrum. Carson (sp?) was so "out there", you could tell from a mile away. But the food expert, the guy with the glasses (can't recall the name) appeared as straight as can be, at least within the narrow framework of that show (or maybe just compared to Carson). The stereotype is typically not about what they do in private, it's how they act in public... which is why Liberace was made fun of, while Rock Hudson wasn't, in general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Allen hosts probably the most entertaining cooking show left on the air these days. About which more here. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 03:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attending Christian schools during the week and Christian churches on Sundays, I was taught that the laws in the Pentateuch/Torah had good reasonable bases. Since then, reading about non-canonical Jewish writings and about the cultures surrounding the ancient Jews, it has become clear that many are more mythical and magical than rational. Can I suggest two potential motivations behind the taboo on homosexual activity (which, by the way, includes cross-dressing)? One is difference: that the Jews wished to distinguish themselves from surrounding cultures where homosexuality was not forbidden, for example the Greeks. Another theoretical cause, that may strike you as highly contentious and almost certainly unprovable, would be if homosexual acts were not abominable but in fact sacred. If they were strictly reserved for ritual occasions, ordinary people doing them would be committing sacrilege.--Hors-la-loi 09:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

I was assured on the talk page that the purpose of this thread in particular was to request "references", not an invitation to engage in personal speculation, not in the least because the OP stipulated "religion aside". This is not a reasonable answer to a request for references, and consists of personal speculation about religion that is potentially offensive to adherents of those religions. I would advise you to pray about questions like these or talk to a religious leader or use a blog since they clearly should not be allowed on wikipedia's public forum by several of our policies. I was told that everyone's opinion is welcome here except for mine, so I am going to unwatch this page and voluntarily ban myself from participating in this reference desk where I have been participating for the last couple of months. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...voluntarily ban yourself? You mean as in, just not do it for a while? Well, anyway, feel free to return anytime. You may be reacting to the work of a minority. IBE (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Til does this all the time. Apparently, there is a powerful cabal of editors out to get him. Paul B (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestions that upset Til were not personal speculation and could be backed up by references if anybody seriously wanted to mount an academic challenge. While the original question did exclude religion, doesn’t this artificially close off a key area of the subject? Two main roots of current Western civilisation, which I assume we are discussing, are the Judaeo-Christian tradition and the Greco-Roman tradition. The latter was tolerant of homosexual activity while the former, following Jewish observance, condemns it. As the source of the taboo lies among the ancient Jews, don’t we need to think why they adopted it when their neighbours did not? --Hors-la-loi 08:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A metal picture of Christ's Last Supper

A friend saw a metal picture of Christ's Last Supper with the Crown Jewels in London, England. He said there was a dog lying at the front of the table. I would like to know if you have a picture of it and what is the significance of the dog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.115.74 (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our articleLast Supper in Christian art suggests that a dog is a common motif in Last Supper paintings, representing Satan and used to indicate which disciple is Judas. I couldn’t find a picture on Wikipedia of such an engraving at the Tower of London, but if you wish to be sure you can look through the categories again: Crown jewels of the United Kingdom, Tower of London and Last Supper. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The communion plate shown in the third picture on this page is probably what your friend saw. Deor (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People named Prince

Is "Prince" a common name among Anglophones anywhere outside of West Africa? I know that it's common in Liberia (e.g. Prince Johnson), but I just noticed that Prince (musician) was born as Prince Rogers Nelson, and my first thought was "was he born in Liberia" because I've never heard of "Prince" as a given name in the USA or anywhere else outside of Liberia. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've played around with this site from time to time but I don't know how accurate it is or just what areas of the world it covers. It claims that the numbers for "Prince" peaked in 2012 with 150 per million babies. Dismas|^(talk) 21:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Michael Jackson I and his brother were born in the USA. - Ka renjc 21:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"King" has been a fairly common first name for a long time. Why they feel a need to demote their child to "Prince" is hard to figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"My prince" has an honoured history in the annals of lovemaking, while "My king" doesn't. Imagine if this song ended "A king of love in every way". No, it just doesn't fit, does it. Maybe it's because "prince" conjures up ideas of youthful virility and heroism, while "king" is more about father figures. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly certain this guy's not a prince. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by this question: Prince (given name). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite is Prince Fielder, body double for the Michelin Man (who is on the list linked above). --Xuxl (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a second there I thought you meant M. Bibendum's first name was Prince too! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown as far as I know in the UK, but would be handy when booking a restaurant, especially if your surname was Philip, Andrew, Charles or Harry ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]