Humanities desk
< May 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	June 1 >

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.

May 31

Inquiry into the conviction of David Eastman

A judicial inquiry into the trial and conviction of David Eastman has concluded in the last couple of days. The inquiry was chaired by Justice Brian Martin. Was that Brian Frank Martin or Brian Ross Martin? Dolphin (t) 07:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ross Martin.[1] Thincat (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to Judaism

Is it true that one must pay a fee, like a dowry, to convert to the Jewish faith? Who does one give the money to, the rabbi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronypants (talk • contribs) 10:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but as I understand it, technically no, there's no "entry fee". BUT, 1) The rabbis and Jewish court which oversee the conversion may be entitled to charge for their time, and to cover their expenses, and 2) the studies and tutoring involved in learning about Judaism and its' obligations can cost the convert a fair sum of money. Remember, Jews, or at least Orthodox ones, don't go out seeking converts. They presumably only convert people who have become fully versed in the requirements of Jewish observance, and whom the Rabbi believes will faithfully fulfil their religious obligations. Does anyone else know more? 124.181.239.69 (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I considered converting to Judaism a number of years ago. I spoke to a Rabbi and a girl who converted and attended services at a synagogue for a year or so before deciding that it was going to be too complicated considering I was marrying a Catholic from a very Catholic family. Now, this was a reform congregation, so things may be different if you convert into an orthodox community. Fees were never mentioned to me at all, however I didn't get terribly far into the process. So I googled this and it appears that this is a question other people have looked up as well. It appears that there are costs associated with converting, however, it's not analogous to what a dowry would be. The costs go toward paying people for their services. This site details what you would likely find when converting to Orthodox Judaism. The costs are over $1000. This site, which includes an interview with a conservative rabbi, doesn't list specific costs, but makes it sound like the costs are reasonable and financial assistance can be provided for persons in need. I would imagine the fee distinction between orthodox conversion and conservative is because orthodox congregations follow much stricter laws than conservative Jews do. I did find this link which states that

"In ancient times, conversion candidates brought sacrifices or offerings to the Temple in Jerusalem. After the Temple was destroyed, this ceremony disappeared. Jewish law therefore does not require such an offering. However, some rabbis, especially among the Orthodox, mention it as an opportunity to engage in an act of donating money to the poor or another act of charity to make a symbolic offering. This step can voluntarily be added to the conversion process."

It's possible this is the fee that you're referring to. :-) Bali88 (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the subtext in the word "fee" is a cynical one; the idea is that the money's main purpose is to generate profit for someone, merely to enrich themselves above and beyond their basic needs, as opposed to other legitimate purposes. As noted, there can be lots of reasons why someone may give money for religious reasons, and the leaders of that religion are not necessarily asking for money just because they think the followers are rubes to be milked for their cash. Leaders have earnest reasons to ask people for money, and charitable donations are not entrance fees. --Jayron32 15:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with any situation in which the people in power ask others for money, it is not unreasonable to assume that some people may feel some kind of pressure, even if the leaders are entirely altruistic in their requests. 24.215.188.243 (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typically a given synagogue will have periodic "dues", which are really no different from church members being expected to contribute to their church. Religious organizations are supposed to be non-profit, so they depend on their membership for support. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the OP is yet another blocked sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I converted to Judaism many years ago through a Conservative bet din, and there was no fee for the actual conversion procedure, except a small fee for use of the mikveh. My wife and I were already members of a synagogue, and I was not charged any extra fees for studies and consultations with the rabbi. My experience is my own, and may not be typical. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Little Lee

Where is William Little Lee buried?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this find a grave website, but it does have a picture with the correct names and dates. William Little Lee, Union Cemetery, Fort Edward, NY You could contact the actual cemetery to confirm? A phone number here.184.147.127.96 (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Findagrave.com is a good resource for locations and (especially) pictures of gravesites. It's all user-input, so the written content is not necessarily gospel. Often it's taken from obituaries or from Wikipedia. (I'll let the audience ponder which of those sources is more likely to be accurate.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian toilets

According to www.poo2loo.com 594 million Indians defecate openly in the public streets every day. Is there a verifiable source for this claim? Astidlimpa (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

poo2loo is a legitimate source; it's a UNICEF campaign. This is the original UNICEF press release explaning; note it has a 620 million figure. 184.147.127.96 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the OP is not legitimate. It's yet another blocked sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And alas, in America, women are attacked in public with sockfuls of crap.

As for veracity, the amount of people crapping in any street on any day is going to fluctuate wildly. No one number is the right one, but 620 million per day is very wrong. The report says that was in 2011. So 1.7 million dumps a day is more in the ballpark. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the unicef doc twists statistics. Not all people that lack toilets of their own defecate oin the open, many use public toilets. And many of the people lacking toilets live in rural areas. It is not common that people defecate in the open in crowded urban areas. Soman (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did the majority of the Chinese and Soviet populations endure Axis occupation during WW2?

Maps seem to underplay just how deep the Axis penetration of China and USSR was, since only a relatively small percentage of the national territory was occupied. But given the population center of gravity, it would be much deeper than the map suggests. I would think that the majority of the USSR population lived west of Moscow, while that of China, East of Hunan. And nearly all of this territory was occupied by the Axis. Thus while the USSR and China, never surrendered, and were ultimately victorious Allies, they were in a sense occupied nations, during WW2, at least for most of their citizens.

IDK if its possible to give any accurate proportions of the populations during WW2. Perhaps it could be based on 2014. The main shifts since 1945, would probably be more towards Central Asian Russia and Coastal China.

I would like to know what proportion of the USSR and ROC populations were occupied by the Axis, and if this was the majority?

--Gary123 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that large percentages of the USSR's population were no longer in the occupied zones by the time the Germans et al arrived there. Some had been forcibly removed, essentially as a form of punishment for various nationalities; see Deportation of the Crimean Tatars and the history of the Volga Germans. Others, industrial workers, were moved because they were highly valued: the government began a program to mass-move industrial resources east of the Urals, to make them less vulnerable to capture, and their workers of course were moved with the factories. Moreover, Effect of the Siege of Leningrad on the city says that 2.6 million Leningrad residents were evacuated from or died in the city, and there were of course many who survived and never left; I can't find a pre-war national population figure, but of course the Leningrad residents would be a measurable percentage of the national population, and they weren't occupied. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, but what it means is that there are two interesting questions here. What percentage of the population lived, pre-war, in zones that would be occupied; and what percentage were still living there during the occupation? --69.158.92.137 (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japan's occupation of China was largely confined to areas near Eastern cities. While these were (and are) large population centers, they certainly did not constitute the majority of the Chinese people. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romans

Were the Romans as intelligent as modern humans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tainohi (talk • contribs) 12:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may depend on the definition of intelligence. Intelligence as measured in standard tests is influenced by education, so the wider availability of quality education may mean that people today are more intelligent. If you're asking however about the inherent ability to learn or comprehend things, there's no indication that the Romans were any less smart than we are, nor is there a known credible mechanism by which humans could have developed significantly higher inherent intelligence in just 2000 years. (I'm assuming you're asking about people living in the ancient Roman civilization, not simply inhabitants of Rome) - Lindert (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Average intelligence certainly could have been increased significantly since ancient Roman times, by use of eugenics. Of course, that could also have side effects, such as making people more prone to mental instability. And we already developed the intelligence to destroy the world before the wisdom to avoid doing so, therefore more intelligent people might mean we would have all nuked ourselves into extinction long ago. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it this way... in the modern day, humans have more knowledge, not more intelligence. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how one defines these many nebulous terms, one could consider any large enough population of either Anatomically modern humans or behaviorally modern humans to have equivalent intelligence. While I don't know of a single reliable way to actually quantify it, hypothetically intelligence should be some sort of innate biological capacity to learn (all purported "intelligence" tests are ultimately tests of your training, i.e. what you have already learned, and not what your capacity is.) Under that definition, all human populations should be broadly similar in intelligence. Since Romans peoples are far more recent than either anatomical modernity or behavioral modernity, I wouldn't expect any significant significant difference in innate intelligence. --Jayron32 15:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should all populations be equivalent in intelligence? Are they all equivalent in, say, height? --Trovatore (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence is not in populations, it's in individuals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Height is also in individuals. Nevertheless, the distribution of height is different in different populations. --Trovatore (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the average height of a given population, as with the average IQ, has nothing to do with the height or IQ of individuals. To suppose that it does is one of the pseudo-scientific bases for alleged racial superiority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has something to do with the height or IQ of individuals. Namely, it's the average of them. Bugs, are you sure you're responding to what I actually said? Maybe you should go back and check. --Trovatore (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would continue this fine-tuning except that the OP is now blocked as a sock, and its question was not sincere, but was intended to foment an argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most attempts to compare the effects of anything on "intelligence" rely on the use of IQ tests. IQ tests do not give an 'objective' measure of intelligence: they give a subjective IQ score relative to a given population. A foundational principle of IQ test scores is that every population averages out to 100: that is how they are made, and how the scores are calculated. That is why an average American and an average Norwegian should both score 100 if they take tests designed and administered in their own countries, even if it is entirely feasible that they would get different numbers of questions right on the same test. It is why if a man and a woman take the same test, the woman has to get more questions right to get the same score as the man: for men and women, as populations, to both have an average IQ of 100 on the same tests requires that women's scores get adjusted down, or men's scores adjusted up, however you want to look at it. This is because IQ tests are really about identifying how individuals perform relative to the population they belong to. We don't really have tools, even dodgy tools, for comparing the average intelligence of populations, no matter how you define "intelligence". 86.146.28.105 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, that's a nontrivial answer, but to a slightly different question. Jayron's claim was that the intelligence of any two populations "should" be "broadly the same". I asked why. Your response is not about the underlying thing being measured, but about whether we have reliable tools to measure it.

However, I am not convinced your last sentence is correct. There are intelligence tests that are not in any obvious way culturally biased; for example, Raven's Progressive Matrices. Certainly, a cultural effect cannot be ruled out a priori, but there does not seem to be any reason to assume it until such an effect is identified, explained, and supported. --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THEY JUST ARE, OK?! Asmrulz (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is the Greco-Roman upper classes and intellectuals were far smarter than ours. Read Suetonius or the novel I, Claudius, based on it or the works of Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Plato and Lucretius as examples. Look at the works of Archimedes. Classic Greek sculpture compared to, say, the painting of Francis Bacon. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several environmental poisons are known to affect intelligence. In various eras -lead pipes and drinking vessels, mercury poisoning from medicines, arsenic poisoning from hair powder, - also malnutrition and some parasites affect intelligence. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget The Learning Channel, The Daily Mirror or Facebook warnings leaking through the walls. We've fewer ticks, but all that coffee and electric light breeds new tics (and so many spiders). Not such widely-proven deadly poisons in our drugs today, but much has been written about even the known unknowns in the new stuff. We'll always be smart enough to fuck ourselves for progress' sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romans were modern Homo sapiens, but they used lead vessels despite knowing their effects. 24.215.188.243 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movement of Soviet infrastructure east of the Urals during the GPW

Scroll up for my response to the "Did the majority of the Chinese and Soviet..." section regarding the movement of Soviet infrastructure east of the Urals during the Great Patriotic War. Do we have an article on this process? I planned on giving a link to it, but I couldn't find anything. Nyttend (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be an article but it's mentioned in Soviet Union in World War II#Homefront. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homework

Why do many internet communities, including Wikipedia, frown on helping children with their homework? Where does the misconception that helping someone with a task means they don't lean anything from it? Arknado3 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question includes a false assumption. See the top of the page, where it says "We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point." The reference desk doesn't do people's homework for them, but we do provide help. If someone asked us to explain the themes in Macbeth, we wouldn't do it -- but if they asked if there are sources discussing the theme of witchcraft in Macbeth, we would provide them with sources and maybe even summaries of those sources.

The purpose of such homework assignments is not to regurgitate an answer but develop the ability to examine sources for oneself and come up with their own conclusions. To have someone else do it would miss the point of the assignment completely, regardless of how "good" the answer is. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between helping, and simply giving the answer. It is the latter which is frowned upon. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, AOL had a homework helper page specifically for asking homework questions. Despite the apparent contrast with the Ref Desk, the reality was exactly the same. In both cases the goal was to help the student learn how to solve the problem, not to do it for them. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the OP is yet another blocked sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody's looking for help with a two-hour homework job to build a sock monster, Ms. Patchett has you covered. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Longest tenure in a US House district

What's the longest time that anyone has represented the same US House district, and who was it? It's not John Dingell, currently the most senior Representative (he had "only" 38 years from Michigan's 16th congressional district), as he and the two next most senior representatives have had their district numbers changed multiple times over the years. Among current Representatives, it's Don Young (Alaska, having just one seat, can't change the district number on him), but I wonder if his 41 years might be shorter than someone no longer in the House. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Rayburn served as the representative for Texas's 4th congressional district from March 4, 1913 - November 16, 1961, or over 48 years. According to List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service, that would be the absolute record for a single district. --Jayron32 16:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen that list; thanks! Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Structure of Shakespearean Tragedy

Hi. I want to read some good books on Shakespeare's tragedies, how they're structured, how the various plots are interwoven to create maximum catharsis, etc. I've read "Shakespeare After All," but I'm wondering if there are any other books on the subject.

- Thanks! ~~SketchesbyBoze — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.131.210 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are just what I can find, and my initial impressions of skimming through them on Google books:

The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy, edited by Claire McEachern, Cambridge University Press, 31 Aug 2013 - It's from Cambridge, so it can't be too bad. Includes a variety of essays covering diverse topics such as religion, political authority, gender, and family in the tragedies.
Shakespearean Tragedy, by A.C. Bradley, Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 1905 - Written before New Criticism became popular, the book still discusses Shakespeare's works in isolation (which can be good if you want to focus only on his works, but bad if you want historical context).
Patterns in Shakespearian Tragedy, by Irving Ribner, Psychology Press, 23 Dec 2004 (reprint of 1960) - focuses on different patterns within types of tragedies.
Shakespearean Tragedy and Its Double: The Rhythms of Audience Response, by Kent Cartwright, Penn State Press, 1 Nov 2010 - Focuses on audience response, so would be the most likely to focus on catharsis.

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare The Invention of the Human, by Harold Bloom, Riverhead Books (Penguin Putnam) 1998. From the dustjacket blurb: Bloom leads us through a comprehensive reading of every one of Shakespeare's plays... He charts each breakthrough in human characterization... As we are made aware of the distinctive features of Shakespeare's fully realized characters...we come to sense Shakespeare's own obsessions, and an insightful and deeply moving portrait emerges of the enigmatic playwright who, Bloom maintains, created us. 745 pages. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]