Humanities desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

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.

February 13

Ethnic makeup of Ottoman imperial spouses

It seem that the Ottoman emperors married Greeks, Eastern European or Caucasian as in from the Caucasus region. How did the they choose their wives, was it through bride shows, matchmaking by nobles or their own parents? Also were any wives, who were former Christian, allow to keep their faith or if not did any practice it secretly.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know a whole lot about the the Sultan's household, but my understanding from skimming the relevent Wikipedia articles is that the organization of the Imperial Harem was complex; one member of that harem was often elevated to Haseki sultan who was the designated concubine to whom was given the dignity of being mother to the heir, I think Haseki sultan is sometimes translated as "wife", but I don't know if that's really accurate and if the Haseki was a legal wife, or just the top concubine in the pecking order. I've browsed the articles, and it isn't always clear the difference between Haseki and Wife; if they were really different concepts or merely different translations of the same idea. For example, Turhan Hatice is described as Haseki and NOT wife, while Amina Mihr-i Shah is described as "spouse" and Roxelana is described as both "wife" and "Haseki" in ways that make it seem as those were different concepts. Regarding the choosing of concubines and wives, my understanding is that that job went to the Valide Sultan, who was the mother of the Sultan. --Jayron32 05:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it, most of them most of the time were slave concubines from the point of view of Islamic law (not wives), and the only real female position of authority in the harem was the Valide Sultan or mother of the reigning Sultan (which you mentioned). The process of adding to the harem was more a matter of slave procurement than matchmaking... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What were the biggest bluffs ever made?

Not that they have to be successful. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, we may never know if they were bluffs or would have really been followed through on, like Mutually Assured Destruction. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What do you mean by bluff? Could you explain in more detail? In what context? --Jayron32 05:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As well as defining bluff you need to define "successful". Can 2.2 billion people be wrong?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moneymaker against Sam Farha [1], a key successful bluff in the Main Event of the World Series of Poker on his way to winning the championship. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bodyguard - although it might be classed as a bait-and-switch rather than a bluff in the conventional sense of the term. Roger (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would define the most common general use of "bluff" as a poker metaphor: A bluff is a statement "If you don't do what I want, then I will do what you don't want" uttered when the reality is that I will not or cannot do what I'm threatening. The bluff is successful if the recipient accedes to the demand. Example 1: "If you don't fold your poker hand, I'll top your hand" (spoken when I know I have a bad hand). Example 2: Mutual assured destruction: "If you don't refrain from nuking the US, we'll respond by nuking the USSR" (or vice versa), if spoken in the knowledge that we won't really retaliate. We'll never know whether the US or the USSR was bluffing about that -- that's the hallmark of a good successful bluff: if the other party follows the dictates of the bluffer ("don't nuke me in the first place"), then ex post no one ever finds out if the threat was real or a bluff. Example 3: possibly the Cuban missile crisis: "We might start a war that could spin out of control if you don't take the missiles out of Cuba". (Again, since the dictate was followed, albeit with compensating concessions, we don't know what would have happened if the missilies had been kept in Cuba, so we don't know if Kennedy was bluffing.) Example 4: possibly North Korea saying that they'll use a nuclear response if the US and South Korea invade. (Again, we don't know if they're bluffing or not.) Example 5: "We (the US) might invade you (Iran) if you don't dismantle your nuclear program" (again, in progress, so we don't know whether that implied threat is a bluff or not). Example 6: "If you (China) don't refrain from invading Taiwan, we (the US) will defend Taiwan militarily." (Maybe a bluff, maybe a true threat. If a bluff, maybe successful so far or maybe China wouldn't have invaded Taiwan by now anyway.) So there are lots of examples from the military and diplomatic sphere.

I wonder if there are any military/diplomatic examples that caused someone to obey the dictate but which archives have subsequently shown were bluffs. And I wonder if there are any non-military/diplomatic, non-poker examples. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mutually Assured Destruction, fiat currency. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A non-example: apparently Donald Trump was not bluffing when he threatened to sue Bill Maher if Maher didn't pay up on his "promise" to donate money if Trump could prove his father is not an orangutan. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I'm reluctant to mention this for BLP reasons but I guess it's no worse then what's already mentioned. May be it's still a bluff? From what I see, Donald Trump hasn't actually provided useful evidence to counter the claim (if we ignore whether such evidence is needed). All he's provided is a birth certificate, but we know how easy those are to fake; even if not fake, birth certificates are sometimes wrong about who the biological father is; in any case, the birth certificate even if true only tells us his father's name not his ge nus. And I don't see that his father's genus is established anymore then Donald's himself, probably less so since we don't have videos of him telling people they're fired, although depending on how we interpret the claim the father will have the be mostly 100% orangutan but Donald only around 50%. Why has he avoided a DNA test which while not telling us who his actual father is in the absence of someone's DNA to compare it to, should tell us whether there's any sign of any orangutan ancestors. Unless perhaps he has something to hide ;-) Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lavon Affair accounts

Is Ben Gurion's Spy generally well-regarded by historians? Are there works on the Lavon Affair which are better regarded than this book? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least one historian isn't impressed; "Teveth presents a systematic apology for Ben Gurion. He does not deign to engage and refute arguments that differ from his own. Therefore, Teveth should be used with great caution despite his access to many documents unavailable to others." From: Joel Beinin, The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora, University of California Press 1998, ISBN 0-520-211175-8 (p.278). Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I hadn't seen anything negative (from historians) until yours.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in Canadian films?

Hi all,

Does anyone know when films (ie, movies, or "cinematograph productions" to use the contemporary term) gained copyright protection in Canada?

In the UK, they seem to have first been covered by the Copyright Act 1911. It seems likely to me that they were brought under protection in Canada by the Copyright Act of Canada in 1921, brought into force in 1924, as this was essentially a local adoption of the 1911 Act; however, there were 1900 and 1905 amendments to existing legislation which may have covered them. On the other hand, there wasn't a Canadian film industry in any real sense before WWI, so there'd be no domestic impetus for protection.

Any ideas? I'm not completely sure where to look, and my cursory researches haven't been very productive. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany question

Horst Wessel was made a martyr of the Nazi cause, he belonged to the Sturmabteilung and was murdered by a Red in 1930. In 1934 Hitler murdered all the Sturmabteilung right?. My question is, so why Wessel remained as hero until the end of the Reich? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked says there were 3,000,000 members of the SA in 1934, and that the number of people killed in the purge was estimated at "between 150 and 200 persons". So "Hitler murdered all the Sturmabteilung" isn't true. Those 2,999,800 remainders either stayed in the SA (which the article says continued to exist) or were incorporated into the SS. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3 million is a lot. Are you sure about that? 86.163.209.18 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia claims it was 3.5 million. Röhm himself bragged about there being 4 million members. There is a reason nazism is termed a mass movement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the point, I thought the rest were already in the other side of the river. Kotjap (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worst Popes ever?

The outgoing Pope has come in for criticism about his Nazi past - however, I don't really suppose that the guy was really doing anything that wasn't expected of him at the time, as a young man in Germany and I've never really heard much evidence that he actually believed the nonsense that the Nazis were spouting - more that he went along with it because he had no real choice, along with millions of other German citizens.

Anyway - it got me thiking that in the grand scheme of things, in terms of 'popes who have done bad things', Benedict XVI's transgressions are pretty insignificant. Over the years I've heard stories about the nefarious deeds of previous popes throughout history (murder, rape, incest, bestiality, sodomy, financial impropriety, theft, devil worship, desecrating corpses, etc.), though most of the details escape me at present (the names tend to blend into each other for me), and I'm wondering now... Which popes are generally considered by historians to be the worst popes of all time? --91.125.221.136 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE. See The Bad Popes. RNealK (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some historians have criticized Pius XII for not condemning the Holocaust enough and for being too vague in the instances when he did condemn the Holocaust. Futurist110 (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the first pope to resign (basically selling the papacy) was Benedict IX. One of his successors, pope Victor III referred to his "rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it". Some possible candidates here. - Lindert (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first to resign was Pope Pontian, in the year 235. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two candidates are Pope Alexander VI, who led a life of lavish luxury and self-indulgence combined with cut-throat politics, at a time when thoughtful people were calling for church reform (and fearing what might happen if there was no reform), and Pope Pius V, who issued the infamous bull Regnans in Excelsis which required English Catholics to choose between being political traitors and bad Catholics -- this did basically nothing to depose Elizabeth, but together with the foamings and frothings at the mouth of Cardinal Allen it managed to set Catholicism in England back many decades. The next Pope after Pius V, Gregory XIII had to scale back on Regnans because it was self-evidently counter-productive (however, he apparently issued a medal in celebration of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me suggest Urban II, who kicked off the Crusades. Sort of a Catholic Osama bin Laden. StuRat (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so -- he incited straightforward army-against-army open declared warfare (not surprise terrorist attacks), at a time when serious people were worried about Christian Europe being caught up in a pincer movement of aggressive Muslim attacks along two fronts at once (a western front in Spain and an eastern front in Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert, threatening Greece and the Balkans), and Christians had a number of legitimate religious grievances in the Holy Land (such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre having been destroyed in 1009, and the Turks blocking Christian pilgrimages). The sleazy side of the first Crusade manifested itself much more against Jews than Muslims... AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that was nothing compared to the Fourth Crusade, which did a very good job of breaking down resistance by a Christian state that had fought Islam since Muhammad was in living memory. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the pope's idea, at least...but the same pope (Innocent III) was big on eradicating the Cathars, if you are looking for something to pin on him. It would be amusing if you tried to argue that Innocent III is the worst pope ever though (he is clearly the best pope ever). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royal inbreeding

Where the Habsburg jaw originate in the family? I mean it got worse with each generation of inbreeding but there must have one individual farther up the line who had a pronounce jaw and the trait slowlying as his or her descendants intermarried. Also we hear a lot of the Habsburg inbreeding and the British but he Portuguese Braganzas were inbreeding along the same scale as the Habsburgs, did their descendants acquire any distinguishing disabilities or traits from this?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty. Alansplodge (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

de:Habsburger Unterlippe gives several possibilities, in other words: it is unknown. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lewes

Is there records someplace as to the length of the battle lines and how many?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading English Heritage Battlefield Report: Lewes 1264. Alansplodge (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an excellent source at first glance. Will have to study it. Thanks for lead.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious conversion to Catholicism

What and how does a person say to a priest in order to convert to Roman Catholicism? Once converted, can the person attend and participate in an Eastern Orthodox or Protestant church, or must only be affiliated with the Roman Catholic church at all times? How hard is it to convert to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Protestantism? Do the priests ask the potential convert an exhaustive list of questions, detailing the rigorous and disciplined life of a Christian in order to persuade the non-Christian that the Christian life is not as glamourous as he/she thinks it is? Would a child being born in a Christian household have an easier time being a Christian than someone who converts as an adult? 140.254.121.60 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These days, conversion to Catholicism generally involves RCIA. Typically, this involves a fairly lengthy process (ideally, it is supposed to take at least a year), and is supposed to prepare the candidate and ensure they are making an informed decision. Technically, RCIA itself is only really for unbaptised adults, with slightly different (shorter) processes for candidates who are baptised. RCIA will involve an unbaptised person being baptised, confirmed, receiving reconciliation and communion (the Sacraments of Initiation). Conversion will involve a baptised person being confirmed, and receiving reconciliation and communion.

One of the duties of a Catholic is to try to make it to a Catholic Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation when reasonably possible. This could be at a Roman Catholic church, or an Eastern Catholic church, but it cannot be at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy or a Protestant service. That doesn't mean Catholics cannot attend those services, but they still need to attend Mass at a Catholic church as well. When a Catholic attends a service at a non-Catholic church, they shouldn't receive Communion there, so that it doesn't look like they think Communion in a Catholic church is the same as people in that church think theirs is, and so that it doesn't look like the churches are in more agreement than they are.

A good, accessible resource for learning about how people convert to Catholicism is www.beginningcatholic.com. Warning: this is a website aimed at converts to Catholicism and is written from a Catholic perspective, so treat accordingly. I am sure others will provide similar guides for converts to the main forms of Orthodoxy and Protestantism: I gather it is highly variable, so specifics will probably be interesting. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These days? How did people convert back in the olden days? During the Middle Ages or Dark Ages? How did the missionaries manage to convert populations in Central and South America and the Phillippines? 140.254.229.147 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Way, way back in early Christianity, people converted by a long secretive process. The modern RCIA process is supposed to be modelled on this in some ways, but much more open. Through the Middle Ages until the late 20th century, there wasn't really a properly formalised route for converts, because adult converts weren't really expected for the most part: the Church was established, and people were generally born into the faith. The conversion process was much more variable and depended on the convert chatting to a priest over a period of time in which they learnt about Catholicism and thought about what converting would mean, followed by the Sacraments of Initiation as discussed above. RCIA was created as a more formalised modern process with a set structure because of an awareness that the Church was getting more adult converts in established areas. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Middle Ages there were tons of adult converts. There were lots of Jews, Muslims, and pagans who converted...often by force, of course, but that was different. Sometimes they converted willingly, and there certainly was a formalized process for them. Basically you just have to be a catechumen for a certain amount of time first...not quite so formalized as it is now, but not too different. This happened a lot in Spain, Sicily, the crusader states, anywhere where Catholics lived with non-Catholics. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.229.147 -- for the early days of Christianity, see article Catechumen. Collective group conversions would have been less individually rigorous. AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cuius regio eius religio for the old method. My maternal grandparents woke up one day and found out they were Catholic instead of Orthodox when their Eparchate switched from Russian to Romish. Their priest was married, and they kept the Eastern Rite in which I was baptized and confirmed at the same time as an infant. My Lutheran grandfather spent a year converting to Catholicism on his deathbed. I witnessed his confirmation. Anyone can baptize in extremis. μηδείς (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your maternal grandparents belong to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, that's not really a conversion, and they never became Roman Catholic. Their Church just moved into a full Communion with the Church in Rome, and potentially out of Communion with the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches (if they started out in Communion with one of those groups). Historically, the various ancient Particular Churches have moved in and out of communion with each other repeatedly, without anyone involved 'converting' to or from anything. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't need to tell me that, and you will notice I didn't say that my maternal grandparents converted or that they became Roman Catholic. But yes, what you say is correct. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]