Humanities desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 26 >

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 25

New Chronology

Why is Anatoly Fomenko's New Chronology falsely considered pseudohistory if it's backed by solid scientific and mathematical data?Johndoe48 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't, despite what some conspiracy theorist echo-chambers insist. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, Fomenko ignores any material that doesn't fit into his theory, and imagines a variety of materials that some trace of would have to exist for his theory to be true. For example, he claims that Emperor Jingzong of Western Xia, Pope Gregory VII, and Jesus were the same person, whose name was corrupted into multiple identities. If that was the case, there should be some trace somewhere of corruption of manuscripts along the line. Since there are no traces, Occam's razor favors the idea that those three figures were separate. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much pseudohistry, then, as sheer loopiness. PiCo (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the trace of corruption of manuscripts was destroyed.199.119.235.217 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Occam's razor would call an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. It would also require that all literate persons at a particular time would decide to actively rewrite history they know is false -- an untenable position. It would also require that all of these perfectly coordinated diabolical masterminds would then immediately thereafter be stupid enough to miscopy "Jesu" as "Jingzong of Western Xia" and "Pope Gregory VII."

But let me guess, alien brainwashing? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that the lack of any evidence whatsoever that the moon landings were faked... simply goes to show how massive and all-encompassing the cover-up is.

--Shirt58 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember right, Fomenko says Byzantine Greece = pre-Norman England (I forget which is original and which the copy). Did he ever study linguistics, or art history? —Tamfang (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or archaeology, or anthropology, or history, or really anything? His work is so batshit insane, it isn't even worth refuting. --Jayron 32 15:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me later that the forgeries imply the oldest recorded conlangs, and probably the most elaborate. —Tamfang (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. Are you Johndoe48? If you are, I thought you said "it's backed by solid scientific and mathematical data". Now you're saying something fairly important to his theory was destroyed? How do we know whatever stuff which allegedly supports his theory isn't also a corruption, and in truth Emperor Jingzong of Western Xia, Pope Gregory VII, and Jesus were all my cat gone back in time a million years ago who BTW isn't called anything like those 3 names? Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Thomas and Mrs Thomas

The article on a Wilfrid Thomas who seems to have married a Swedish dancer called Marga... is full of information about Wilfred Thomas (broadcaster) who married an English dancer called Margo... you can check this quickly at state library of NSW under Margo Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.163.6.74 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ... I think. Why are you telling us all this? Please discuss any matters about Wilfrid Thomas at Talk:Wilfrid Thomas. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter the Great

When Peter the Great was abroad in Europe, who governed in his place?2602:306:C541:CC60:852A:86F6:9EC2:1BCF (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two princes: Fyodor Romodanovsky and Boris Galitzine. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Kline - US Chairman Education is given credit for introducing a bill he had not one thing to do with!

I will be glad to provide more information on this. I will go back to the page & try to make the corrections of my own, Kline was dead-set against President Obama's Education Reform plan -which he wrote in the first 3 1/2 years of office & presented to Congress & was of course refused. He then took it to the individual states & 10 took him up on his offer. John Kline said of such plan, that teachers would strike!!

Please advise me as to what to do to correct this grievous error! President Obama should go down in history for this one - the good side & not the bad! Is it perfect? NO, but a site better than "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND"! This must be corrected & give the President his dues & not John Kline, who will of course sit back & take all the credit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by America Jane (talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably we have an article on that, and these comments should go on the talk page there, along with any sources you have. StuRat (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As StuRat said, you need to deal with this in the appropriate article. Even if you want to seek help elsewhere appropriate like in some noticeboard, you'd need to be clear about what you're referring to. For example Student Success Act mentions John Kline, but doesn't seem to be what you're referring to since Obama threatened to veto it (but the Senate never passed it anyway). Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act does mention John Kline. I'm not sure what Obama's role, if any, on the bill is although if there is some and it and can be probably source this should probably be mentioned, but the claims about John Kline seem to be supported. Neither School Improvement Grant nor Race to the Top mention John Kline. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a political coatrack, not a real question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophiles per capita across modern-day societies and cultures

Firstly, for what its' worth, I ask this question in good faith, and hope I'm not accused of trolling. I am NOT assuming what the answer is likely to be; it's an open question. Neither am I making any moral statements of any sort.

My question is: from what we know, does the percentage of individuals who are pedophiles vary significantly between countries, religions, or cultures?

I am specifically asking about pedophilic orientation - i.e. the number per capita who have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children, whether or not they've acted on them. (I.e. those with the paraphilia or pedophilia)

I am NOT asking about the rate of child molestation - (this would likely vary greatly, I assume, based, to give an obvious example, on the likely ramifications for the molester, which can vary dramatically between jurisdictions).

I know this question may be a tad difficult to answer - we're not mind-readers, after all, and I'm not suggesting hooking random innocent men up to Penile plethysmographs. But can anyone source some expert answers, or at least hypotheses, to this question? 101.160.63.123 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a very good one for answering your question. Or, at least, telling you why it is very hard to answer your question. To wit, "There are pedophiles in the world who don't molest children, and never will. No one disputes that fact. So what portion of pedophiles actually victimize kids? We have no fucking idea. That is, in fact, the point." The article is on Cracked.com, which is ostensibly a humor site, but it is a very well written and often well researched one. As seen from the quote, they use non-scholarly writing, but their articles are usually very well done, and take a serious attempt to at least try to be accurate. They have links to more articles and studies and the like which indicate the problem with the question you're asking. And the problem is pedophilia (as in the attraction to children, not the crime of child molestation) is essentially unstudied in any culture. It's a worthwhile question to ask, but it does not have any answers. --Jayron 32 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in past cultures? Pederasty has a section on the practice in ancient times. This honors thesis, "ancient pedophilia" [1] may not be top notch research, but at the very least it has a decent bibliography. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for an English term

These pictures show jesters/fools/etc. and they carry an accessory which looks like an very old-fashiened pair of glasses. The German expression ist "Narrenbrille" (fool's glasses), a term which can be found in the literature and which is used in idioms.

I try to search the English literature but find surprisingly little. What would be the correct terms for the "fool" and which one for the "glasses"?

In addition, is there an English expression for "looking/glimpsing/peeking through/between the fingers" ? (as seen in the pictures) THX GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 14:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~ 1540)
Jester
The Laughing Jester
No glasses, but gesture...

I fixed the link to the first image. Richard Avery (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "playing peekaboo" means hiding the eyes and uncovering them, although not necessarily looking between the fingers. StuRat (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to a Swedish saying (looking between the fingers; the Danes know it, too; Brueghel shows it in one of his paintings) the meaning is "it appears (to you) that I do not see/know, BUT I DO" - in relation to the jester "I do and say stuff, as if I didn't know (that it hurts/that it is insulting/bad), but of course I know!". So peekaboo may be a little bit off... :-) GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lorgnette is probably the closest thing to fool's glasses, but that term, and the actual item, aren't much used, at least in US English. StuRat (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The English term for those style of glasses, AFAIK, is Pince-nez, which is not a native term, but a borrowing from French. There isn't a particular term for them when associated with Jesters, AFAIK. --Jayron 32 15:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have good ref for the glasses as common accessory? I don't get it... SemanticMantis (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the gesture: going off Geezer's description, in English the phrases "a wink and a nod" [2] or "tongue in cheek" convey a similar attitude of being facetious or "in-on" a joke, though it isn't conveyed by a hand gesture. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only term that I'm aware of for the gesture in English is the very literal "laughing behind your hand". Tevildo (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence this is not simply an earlier version of the facepalm? Obviously the latter didn't originate n 1890. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statue is actually hiding his eyes, while the jester is only pretending to do so. Huge difference. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started out with "facepalm!", too, but the situation/feeling is different. Facepalm ist "despair"/frustration/shame about what someone else said ("Fremdschämen").

I am not sure whether gesture and glasses actually are recognized in English-speaking cultures. It also could be an (a) very old and (b) continental Europe thing, which caused no feedback in English. It seems a bit so ... GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 08:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the College of Optometrists has an article called Rivet spectacles, which apparently is the correct name for the medieval glasses in the paintings shown above. At the bottom of the right-hand column, there is a photograph of "a 'joke' pair of rivet spectacles... in the Royal Armouries, supposedly worn by Henry VIII's court jester, Will Somers." So it seems that taking the piss out those of us who wear glasses has a long history. Curiously, I only knew the right search term because yesterday, I watched a repeat of the 2004 edition of Time Team which is referenced at the bottom of this article. A strange coincidence. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard the phrase "laughing behind your hand" which Tevildo brought up, but it's appropriate for the jester because people frequently will instinctively partially cover their faces like this when they have uncontrollable laughter. Searching with Google on "can't stop laughing" brings up numerous videos of this reflex including this compilation [3] (it includes Dustin Hoffman at 6:53 cutting up at the end of it). -Modocc (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd call that "peeping", wikt:peep#Etymology_2. You could also ask at WP:RDL. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not adopt the german meaning of (looking at things or some situation or topic) "seen with jester's eyes" by saying: "seen through jester's glasses"? comp. as well: jester's license (=Jester's_privilege) (DE:Narrenfreiheit). I'm afraid for the gesture, you'll have to call it the "medieval_painting's_jester's-You_think_I_don't_see_but_I_do-hand_before_the_face" :o]p ;o]) --217.84.85.167 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Japan

In Japan in the 1870's, what were the important national and local government institutions, and how was the country administratively divided?2602:306:C541:CC60:852A:86F6:9EC2:1BCF (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out our articles on the Meiji period, Meiji Restoration, Meiji oligarchy, Government of Meiji Japan, and Meiji Constitution. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bokassa

After he became leader of the Central African Republic, what ministerial portfolios did Bokassa have, and when did he have them?2602:306:C541:CC60:852A:86F6:9EC2:1BCF (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's coverage of the CAR isn't detailed enough to find out through Wikipedia's articles. We do have articles about Jean-Bédel Bokassa, Politics of the Central African Republic, and the History of the Central African Republic. None of them get into that level of detail, describing his various ministers and whatnot. I looked into the articles over at fr.wikipedia (since CAR is nominally French speaking and a former French colony) but their articles are less well developed even than those here at en.wikipedia. Sorry we couldn't be of more help. --Jayron 32 01:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact we don't have an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean the information doesn't exist. What I can find is that Bokassa did not occupy any ministerial functions before becoming President of the CAR following a coup on January 1, 1966. He proclaimed himself President, then made that President for life in 1972 and Emperor in 1976, until being deposed by a coup in 1979. [4]. But he did hold various ministerial functions during his time as Head of State, including Minister of Defense (1966-1976) (I guess it was unbecoming for an Emperor to be a minister after that) and Minister of Interior and Justice. [5]. According to this article [6], he was Minister of Justice (garde des sceaux) from the time of the 1966 coup, but not minister of interior (that was Jean-Arthur Bandio, who already held the position before the coup). Bandio was named minister of Foreign Affairs on January 13, 1967 [7], so that may be when Bokassa took on that portfolio as well. --Xuxl (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]