Humanities desk
< October 15	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 17 >

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.

October 16

1960s-ish experiment regarding the effects of alcohol on driving

A few years I remember seeing a video, I think as part of a documentary (almost certainly a BBC one) about the history of road safety, of an experiment conducted (circa 1960s) to test the effects of alcohol on driving. The test was conducted at a bus depot, I think in Birmingham, and involved testing bus drivers of varying ages and experience on their ability to drive a bus through a narrow gap before and after drinking alcohol (pretty sure it was whisky). The conclusion was that alcohol impaired judgement but not skill.

Despite about an hour of searching I've not been able to find any more details about the experiment or a copy of the video of it. Ideally I'm looking for the video of the experiment, but the video of the whole documentary or details of the research would be good as well if anyone recognises it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My dad often talked about this. I understood that drivers were tested going through narrower and narrower challenges. As you remembered, their skill hardly diminished with drink, but as the test progressed they thought they could drive through the challenges that were narrower than the buses. I wonder how long was the queue for the experiment? Good luck with your search; I hope we'll see the result here. Hayttom (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one. Unfortunately I'm no closer to finding the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Risk Taken in Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol" by John Cohen, E. J. Dearnaley, and C. E. M. Hansel (British Medical Journal, Volume 1(5085)) 1958 Jun 21)? The experiment was carried out at the Training School for Bus Drivers of the Manchester Corporation Transport Department. (Generally it fits your description well: alcohol was provided "in the form of Scotch whisky (70° proof or 40% alcohol), with an equal amount of soda-water"). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is indeed the research I was thinking of (and it isn't the first time I've muddled Manchester and Birmingham in my memories!). Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which standard of Alcohol proof you use. In the UK, proof = 1.75 * Alcohol by volume percent, while in the US proof = 2.00 * ABV%. In most countries, is falling out of use. In the UK, I believe they no longer use it at all, and in the US, it is optional for labels. Many brewers, vintners and distillers are using only ABV (which is required). --Jayron 32 14:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jayron! The authors of the study did include a footnote "*In the United States the degrees proof is twice the percentage of alcohol by volume. So that in the U.S. this whisky would be described as 80° proof." I neglected to include that bit. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need help finding an article

I need some help finding an article. Basically, I don't remember what this article is called or the newspaper (or journal) that it was from, but I am pretty sure that it was written sometime between 1903 and 1915 (Yes, somewhere between those specific years) and talked about the possibility of a U.S. acquisition of one of the main islands in the Danish West Indies while leaving the rest of these islands to Denmark. Can anyone find this article?

Indeed, I want to add this information to this specific Wikipedia article: Treaty of the Danish West Indies. Futurist110 (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the name of the island? That would probably be a helpful search term. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's "St. Thomas" ("Saint Thomas"). However, there only appear to be three main islands--St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix (also known as Santa Cruz). Indeed, you could try putting in each of these names in the event that St. Thomas (Saint Thomas) doesn't result in anything. Futurist110 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands discusses the acquisition some. It was purchased along with St. John and St. Croix as you mention. A quick web search finds this interesting site, which says the US wanted to buy the islands in part to prevent Germany from building bases there. The idea of buying just one of the islands doesn't sound like a fit for that goal, but there are a bunch of archival sources listed there, so it might be more promising than the current glossy treatments. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I have now found this article:

http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/25th-october-1902/1/the-danish-landsthing-or-upper-house-has-refused-t

Also, here is another copy of this exact same article:

https://books.google.com/books?id=1_MhAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA594&lpg=PA594&dq=It+is+probable+that+the+dispute+will+end+in+a+compromise,+the+Government+of+Washington,+which+really+wants+St.+Thomas+as+a+dominant+commercial+point+in+the+Caribbean+Sea,+buying+that+island,+and+leaving+the+other+two+to+Denmark.&source=bl&ots=Xjkn_BxOaB&sig=-rt6KM1NrK9Jiia3P5FAIDA83Ec&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK8Oilr4baAhUX-GMKHUvbByoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here is the relevant text that I was looking for:

"It is probable that the dispute will end in a compromise, the Government of Washington, which really wants St. Thomas as a dominant commercial point in the Caribbean Sea, buying that island, and leaving the other two to Denmark."

It looks like I got the year of this article wrong, though. This article is from 1902, not 1912.

Anyway, thank you very much for all of your help here, everyone! :) Futurist110 (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Why is Judas Iscariot such a reviled figure if the canonical gospels state that Jesus was aware of his plans?

According to the canonical Gospels, Jesus was aware that Judas Iscariot would betray him, and even essentially gave him permission to do so. If this is the case, then why has Judas Iscariot historically been such a hated figure if, according to the canonical Gospels, Jesus himself seemed to have no problem with this? Even some Christian theologians have suggested that, had Judas not betrayed Jesus, God's plan would have not come into fruition. I'm aware of the Gospel of Judas, but it's non-canonical and is essentially the Biblical equivalent of fanfiction, and it wasn't even rediscovered until relatively recently. Of course there are a number of scholarly theories that suggest that Jesus knowing of his betrayal may have been a Christian invention, and a few scholars have even suggested that Judas didn't exist at all, but those are outside the scope of this question. I've checked sites like Quora and Reddit, but the answers there weren't very adequate in addressing the topic. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 1 billion Christians in the world, so there are likely to be a plethora of opinions on the matter; Wikipedia's article titled Judas Iscariot contains several common interpretations of Judas's guilt, including several such interpretations which note the exact contradictions you do. The answer is "there is no one answer among all Christians" and if you start with the Wikipedia article on Judas Iscariot it will start to discuss some of the variety of opinion. --Jayron 32 10:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no Christian but I've often enough let a person go ahead with something wrong or silly knowing that saying or doing anything about it would be worse. Would a Christian do differently? Dmcq (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you would or would not do is not a reference for him to read to help him learn more to answer his question. --Jayron 32 12:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the questioner would get a better answer from Google than the article, for instance [1], or [2]. But I like to try and get people to think. Judas could have got himself a much better place in history like Peter by repenting and not committing suicide. Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to get deep into the story, you need to study all the main characters. You know Jesus and Judas. You also need to study Caiaphas. He is known for orchestrating the plan, which didn't require Judas. Caiaphas was aligned with Valerius Gratus. But, it was a strange situation. When Gratus took power, he deposed Annas. To regain power, Annas had his daughter marry Caiaphas and pushed Caiaphas into the high priesthood. So, Caiaphas was loyal to Annas through marriage, but to Gratus by position. Then, Gratus is replaced by Pontius Pilate. Annas wants power, but can't be reinstated in the high priests. Gratus wants power, but has been replaced. Caiaphas is in one of the highest positions available. Pilate is the new guy in the mess that they all want to take down. Jesus shows up and steps right into the middle of the fight. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The short story "Three Versions of Judas" by Jorge Luis Borges, mentioned in the article on Judas Iscariot, explores this paradox about Judas' guilt as opposed to his necessary role for Christ's passion to unfold as it does. I recommend it to the OP and others interested in this question. --Xuxl (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ Superstar and The Last Temptation of Christ also explore Judas as a complex multidimensional character rather than a generic villain. Staecker (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literary references aside, this question is related to the question of God's sovereignty versus man's responsibility. A quick Google search for <"god's sovereignty" and "man's responsibility"> will find plenty of sources that discuss this subject. Bear in mind that the gospels speak of Jesus as going knowingly to his death because this was what was always planned. See chapter 26 of the Gospel of Matthew, in particular verses 47-56, the Malchus incident; attempting to defend Jesus, Peter draws his sword and wounds a member of the mob that's trying to take Jesus, but Jesus says basically "if I needed to be defended, God the Father would send angels to resolve the situation, but then the biblical prophecies of my suffering and death wouldn't be able to happen". Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read arguments (doubtless findable on Wikipedia, or googlable) that Saul/Paul of Tarsus's takeover and re-targeting of the liberal Pharisaic and Messianic (anti-occupation) movement later called 'Christianity' away from its mainly Jewish focus towards Gentile, and especially Roman, converts necessitated shifting the 'blame' for Jesus's condemnation and execution from the Roman authorities legally and actually responsible, to "the Jews." Making Judas a villain (rather than, perhaps, a participant in a now-obscured scheme gone badly wrong) would be entirely in keeping with such an agenda. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.129.189 (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that general idea referred to in many sources as the "Pauline conspiracy." The conspiracy is that Saul was sent to end the Christianity movement (which makes no sense because he is the one who coined the term "Christian"). He realized that he couldn't stop it, so he made up a story about being appointed by Jesus and changed his name to Paul. Then, he engineered the movement to fit with Roman needs, eventually becoming the state religion of the empire. It makes for a good story, but the criticism doesn't hold up. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that Paul changed Christianity is not entirely inaccurate nor outside of Biblical writings (though of course the deep conspiracy stuff is entirely unsupported either from within or from without). The Acts of the Apostles reports the Council of Jerusalem, whereby the great debate within Christianity was settled between Peter and Paul. Peter argued that Christianity was intended for Jews, and that Gentiles had to first convert to Judaism, while Paul argued that Jesus created a New Covenant that obviated the need for circumcision and that salvation was available to all without the need for circumcision or following dietary laws, etc. Pauline Christianity focuses more on Jesus being a fulfillment of God's Law, especially focusing on Jesus's teachings regarding the Greatest commandment as the source of Christian law. So, it isn't wrong to say that the teachings of Paul altered Christianity in profound ways. Almost all Christians would recognize that, after all that's why so many of the Pauline epistles are included in the canon. The notion that he had nefarious plans and did evil by doing so is what is NOT mainstream Christianity. There's no conspiracy. --Jayron 32 13:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don't myself subscribe to the form of "Pauline conspiracy" described by 209.149.113.5. It's evident that Saul was, for a time, trying to "end the Christian movement" (though it wasn't yet called that), as he was reportedly a participant in the extra-judicial murder of Stephen, and was on a mission (see lede) from the Sadducean High Priest to arrest followers of Jesus in (supposedly) Damascus (though neither he nor the High Priest should have had any legal jurisdiction in Damascus, so that name might be a substitution) when he underwent an experience that led to his "conversion". I know of nothing to suggest that he was subsequently working anybody else's behalf as part of any conspiracy, but merely furthering his own ambitions to be a religious leader. I find the arguments of Hyam Maccoby in this area to be interesting though perhaps over-extended. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.0.129.189 (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cashiering

In the context of UK terminology, does cashiering occur anymore, or does the term merely refer to the commission-purchasing period? Presumably the formal ceremony before an assembled unit isn't held, but I'm wondering if the term is used in current situations where you're expelled in disgrace. Charles Ingram was forced to resign his Army commission after being convicted on criminal charges of cheating his way to £1000000 on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and I'm wondering whether such a situation would today be described as cashiering. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the BBC News and Guardian websites and couldn't find any sign of recent cashiering. A Guardian article from 1999 describes a process called 'Pay Warrant' which is used to swiftly remove unwanted officers without going through the formal procedure. I wonder whether that formal procedure is being cashiered? Having a ceremonial formal process, but actually using a bureaucratic one, would be very typical MOD behaviour. I also searched ARRSE, the unofficial British Army forum, and there's a NSFW forum thread (p30 post #443) supporting the suggestion that it dates back to the purchase period, citing a discussion on the Articles of War; the squaddies also say it hasn't happened since WWI. They also claim that the Military Service Act 1916 was supposed to automatically conscript cashiered officers back into the Army as privates, but that this rule was largely ignored. If true (and ARRSE is definitely not a reliable source!), then that might explain why cashiering fell out of fashion, as I'd imagine having a disgraced officer in your squad was double punishment on both him and the men around him. The Armed Forces Act 2006 is now the relevant legislation and it might be worth looking through it. Matt's talk 16:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redacted version of the Pay Warrant 1964, as amended up to 2008 (presumably as a result of the 2006 AFA?), is available on the MOD website and article 257 strongly indicates that cashiering is still legal. It is very unclear whether dismissal (described in articles 253 to 256) and cashiering are two separate processes or different names for the same one. If pushed, I would interpret clause 257 as describing two separate processes: nominally voluntary retirement under articles 253-255 ('volunteering' at the request of the Defence Council really confirms all the stereotypes about how people get chosen to volunteer in the Army!) and involuntary dismissal, i.e. cashiering, under article 256 of the Pay Warrant, which I speculate is the same as the sentence imposed by section 265 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. I changed my mind on this after reading an adjournment debate in 1970 which discusses these articles. However, I note that the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2009 removes references to cashiering from certain delegated legislation. In summary, cashiering still seems to be a possibility, but the language is not used (in line with Bagehot's distinction between 'dignified' and 'efficient' parts of British constitutional procedure). Matt's talk 16:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was Ceres-Demeter depicted bare breasted in antiquity?

Hello! I have seen several statues from the 17th-century an onward, that depicts the goddess Demeter/Ceres with bare breasts. However, as far as I can recall, I have not seen any statues from antiquity when she was depicted that way. So I wonder: was the goddess ever depicted with bare breasts during the antiquity, when she was actually worshiped? I suppose it would not be impossible, considering that she was a fertility goddess, but I don't know. Maybe someone with more knowledge in art can tell me? I have seen a figurine of Demeter, where she is depicted with bare breasts, and I have been wondering whether she is depicted as she would have been in the antiquity. Thank you --Aciram (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This statue of Demeter The Louvre is from 3rd century, see [3] and has a bare breast. --Jayron 32 16:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search of Google images shows that most of the Greek or Roman originals had the breasts covered (though often with quite flimsy drapery) but there are a few statues shown with one breast bared. Wymspen (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also classical statues were often (always?) painted (i.e. the scleras were white) but the paint came off long ago so who knows if their beautiful breasts were painted less realistically (similar to how the female pubic triangle was featureless and the penis and scrotum were unusually small) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? --Jayron 32 11:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there were bare Demeters then perhaps the areola was not painted a different color like some would expect to censor them a little like they did with genitalia. Or maybe not. Perhaps pigment traces or surviving descriptions tell which it was (and if less matronly dieties like Venus could be painted more anatomically correct) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there were bare Demeters, they wouldn't be carved to have cloth covering their breasts. The painting has nothing to do with it. You don't need paint to see where the cloth stops. --Jayron 32 11:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the replies! I was wondering whether this figurine should be regarded as more of a 17th-century image of Demeter, rather than a classical one: [[4]]? Any thoughts? --Aciram (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's obviously a 17th century sculpture. The greeks would not have carved a hairstyle from a mid-17th century courtier onto Demeter's head! --Jayron 32 11:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought from the beginning that it looked like more of a 17th-century image of her. But I thought that was a crown/garland of flowers/plants rather than hair... maybe I can't distinguish it clearly. Did she never wear such a thing in antiquity? It seemed appropriate, since she ruled over the harvest. But even if it is a 17th-century image, it does depict Demeter? Does anyone recognize this particular image? Is it from a famous palace garden from somewhere perhaps? --Aciram (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

State recognition and travel docs

If a country accepts travel documents as valid docs, wouldn't that imply somehow recognizing this state? I have the case of Taiwan in mind.Hofhof (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure state recognition counts as state recognition, and that playing "gotcha" games generally doesn't work all that well in adult situations like diplomatic recognition. --Jayron 32 01:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan_passport#Limitation_in_usage and Visa_requirements_for_Taiwanese_citizens have information on how this works in practice.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was an incident involving UK and US recognition of passports of a Tibetan diplomatic envoy in 1948 that may be of interest. A description can be found online on p.39 of The Snow Lion and the Dragon by Melvyn Goldstein [5].--Wikimedes (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]