Humanities desk
< March 19	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 21 >

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.

March 20

Scalping

I have read the Wiki article on Scalping and know it was widely practiced in various contexts throughout history. My question is: would a bald person be scalped? A bald person does not have hair to grasp to pull the scalp off once the cuts were made. So, would there be a point in taking a scalp if it did not have hair? If not, then one would think that people would be inclined to shave their heads "just in case." 76.71.158.83 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to candid modern imagery a mostly hairless scalp would have looked less attractive within a row of trophies. It was in fact probably the reverse, that particular item prone instead to have attracted attention and to have been associated with supplementary tales of imposed humiliations on the original owner at the fatal moment. Sometimes or in some eras, under their helmet warriors had their head shaved, but the scalp still would have been a necessary completement to the headgear trophy, if and when the full set had remained in the manner of the times. --Askedonty (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how reliable (or relevant) this is, but "Scientific observation has discovered that some [Native American] tribes are apparently completely immune to the most common form of hair loss – male pattern baldness. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medical doctors as authors of pop science/health books

I know a couple of medical doctors who have written extensively on popular science and health. Dr. Lustig is one of them. He is known for his anti-sugar book, Fat Chance. He also has a cookbook, but the recipes are written by Cindy Gershen, not himself or his wife (even though he reports that he likes his wife's cooking). Dr. Campbell is known for The China Study book, and he has a cookbook that seems to be written by someone else while he only writes the foreword. Why do these people often have cookbooks written by someone else? What's the point in adding a different name on the cover? Why not just hire a ghostwriter to write all the recipes and let the doctor-author take the credit? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat doubt this can be answered on the RD (i.e. there's a good chance no one has commented on why these 2 medical doctors chose to do things that way so no references can be provided) but the obvious thought is that even if the 2 medical doctors are experts on nutrition and health, it doesn't mean they know jack about cooking or people will have a reason to think their recipes actually taste good. I'd also note these sort of companion pieces can be complicated marketing structures anyway with the person's who's name it was under and the owners of the trademark (if different) convinced to offer their support for an existing project or someone else's idea, for example.

Putting the recipes under the name of someone people think (for whatever reason) can make good tasting and hopefully easy & cheap to cook food with the advice for dietary issues allegedly coming from the doctors may make more sense from a marketing perspective than putting the recipes under the name of someone who's known expertise is on dietary issues. Based on your description, the wife may or may not fit into the later category, but there could be plenty of reasons (including a lack of desire on her part) why it won't work. It looks to me like Cindy Gershen already had some sort of profile [2] probably predating the cookbook.

As for the second, well if you mean The China Study Cookbook: Over 120 Whole Food, Plant-Based Recipes ISBN 978-1937856755 then the foreword was by T. Colin Campbell who does not appear to be a medical doctor. His son Thomas M. Campbell II also has his name on The China Study and is a medical doctor but isn't the person who's name the foreword of the cookbook/recipe book is under, so your claim a medical doctor is involved seems suspect although that's not really here or there. More relevant, T. Colin Campbell's daughter is the person who's name the cookbook is under, so this seems to fit with your family idea anyway plus she also has a PhD albeit in education [3]. One of the Amazon reviews says it's actually the same book as Whole Plants Cookbook ISBN 978-0983250913 with the same foreword and some different photos. BTW the author's name on that book combined with [4] seems to give a big clue who the photographer is. That last source suggests there are more books associated with The China Study, with the daughter involved and other people who again seem to already have had a profile relating to food.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are caskets used to store dead human bodies?

Why are they used to store dead human bodies instead of burying the body naked and planting a tree above the corpse? Can a dead human body be dumped on a farm, allowing maggots to eat the flesh and chickens to eat the maggots and then the animal feces to fertilize the soil for the trees and shrubs that are going to feed other humans? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about contamination of groundwater, as mentioned in Cemetery? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain at least bodies are traditionally buried "six feet under". That would in the past often have been in a shroud rather than a coffin, and I think still may be in the case of a pauper's burial. Burying that deep means that the nutrients won't be available, even to trees (the long tap root is for stabilising not for takeup of nutrients). But it also minimises the possibility of dogs, other mammals, and birds scavenging the body and depositing pieces in places where they could quickly pose a serious health hazard. Having said that, woodland burials are increasingly popular in Britain, partly I'm sure because people like the idea of being returned to nature. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York City's paupers are buried in boxes on one of the most remote and restricted islands in the city. The boxes are stacked 3 deep in trenches of 144 adults, childrens' boxes are stacked 5 deep in bricks of 1,000 and the work's done by inmates who commute from the city's jail island bury severed limbs and babies and hopefully not severed babies etc. for $4/day. With 1 million paupers on 40 hectares they're running out of room so they're now also demolishing the bit of the island without bodies for more burial space (instead of buying new corpses on top of 25-50 year old corpses like they used to). Oh, and the entire island's in Hurricane Evacuation Zone 1 out of 6 (1's most easily flooded) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caskets are for the transport and display of bodies during a funeral, not necessarily burial. In many traditions, the coffin has a loose base and is re-used, the body in a shroud being left behind. In Western practice of the last century, especially the US, see Jessica Mitford's The American Way of Death, Evelyn Waugh's The Loved One etc., the purpose of many funeral trappings is simply to generate profits. This is encouraged when the bereaved are also encouraged to stage a more spectacular show of the body. Some cultures use only a shroud - many of them also focus the funeral ceremony around the buried body, rather than a ceremony beforehand. In Ghana, [5] exuberant fantasy coffins are popular. The last two coffins I used were a wicker basket (lighter to carry too) and cardboard, for a woodland burial. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence a life insurance policy just large enough to cover a funeral, hence the term "burial policy". It is indeed somewhat of a "racket". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The practice the OP refers to is called excarnation, more information in the linked article. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US the laws vary highly by state. Planting a tree over a corpse seems a bit space-expensive. But even the distribution of cremation ashes is based on state law. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The most obvious answer to "Why are caskets used to store dead human bodies?" is "Because unlike live human bodies, the dead ones don't object." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our natural burial atricle could be expanded, buy will suffice to show that green burial options can be exercised. - Nunh-huh 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In the country of Israel, bodies are buried merely "enshrouded", not in caskets. "The ancient Jewish custom of burying an enshrouded body without any casket ... is still practiced in Israel today".[6] Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same in Islamic burial. Fgf10 (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the first (zeroth?) Christian burial. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a purely practical matter, it's easier to deal with things that are packed into boxes. Coffin shaped cardboard boxes can theoretically be gotten pretty cheap, at about what you would expect for a heavy cardboard box, but funeral directors will sometimes mark them up ridiculously as part of a trendy "green burial" package. ApLundell (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arab spring countries successful and unsuccessful polls and documentaries

Is there a website that shows the polls that ask the ordinary Arab people on why the Arab Spring was successful in some countries like Egypt and Tunisia and why it did not in others like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Libya and also is are there documentaries on the same topic? Donmust90 (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me suggest an analogy. Is there a poll of English speakers that asks what the average person thinks was so great about the recent elections in England and Canada, but not the US or Australia? The question is so complicated, makes so many assumptions, and speaks of fictional "average anglophones" that you can't get a meaningful answer. There may be a set of various polls. A clearer request for discrete information might help. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donmust90 -- your list of successful and unsuccessful countries is a little strange. Egypt went through several periods of turbulence and emerged with a military-backed ruler not necessarily too different than what it had at the beginning. Saudi Arabia never had much of a visible public movement in the first place. Tunisia is arguably the only one that had a significant protest movement and emerged with a semi-stable system seemingly overall better than what it started with. AnonMoos (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to note that we're only 7 years removed from the Arab Spring. By analogy, the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe were immediately all unsuccessful in the short run, but represented a tide-turning towards liberalism in Europe that took up to a century to realize. Seven years is far too short a time period to decide the success or failure of such an event... --Jayron 32 02:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]