Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< November 23 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 25 >
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.


Contents


[edit] November 24

[edit] A Man For All Seasons and Becket

I am writting an essay comparing the plays, A Man For All Seasons and Becket, but we've only got to watch the film Becket. It is obvious that Henry II can be compared to Henry VIII and Thomas Becket to Thomas More, but what other characters can be compared? And what can be said about the "I belive" for Becket and the "I believe" for More? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.113.227 (talk • contribs)

Hello. I'm not really sure that there are any more direct parallels that can be drawn between the characters, other than those that you have mentioned. There were of course ambitious churchmen in the court of Henry II, enemies of Becket, who might be compared to Richard Rich or Thomas Cromwell, but this is perhaps stretching a point just a shade too far. Now, what I am about to say is based purely on the terms drawn up by the plays themselves; the depiction, in other words, of dramatic rather than historical characters. The real historical Thomas a Becket is not quite the saintly, self-denying figure often portrayed. Anyway, the situations depicted in both plays are really quite different. Becket is about the clash between different forms of institutional power, between the church, on the one hand, and the state on the other. Becket believes that royal power has clear limits, and he has no hesitation in defining what those limits are, risking, and provoking, the anger of the king. Thomas More, on the other hand, believes that there are areas of personal conscience on which the state has no right to intrude. He does not defy the king; he simply refuses to give positive assent to a particular course of action. Becket might be said to be looking for martyrdom; Thomas More most definitely is not. He is defending the church, or his view of the church, but by silence, not confrontation. I hope this helps, but please let me know if you need any more information. Clio the Muse 00:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Clio, I think you meant the English statesman and saint Thomas More (one "o"), not the Irish poet who spelled his name with two "o"s. JackofOz 00:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jack-typing too fast! Clio the Muse 00:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least you gave us more "o"s than necessary. Speaking of Thomases, I once heard a recording of Mozart's "Thamos, King of Egypt" on the radio, and the announcer said it was conducted by Sir "Thamos" Beecham. I'm still tittering about that. JackofOz 02:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pleasant memories

What's the name of the emotion that you get when thinking about extremely pleasant memories? I don't know how to describe it...it's kind of a combination of content (for having experienced the event in the memory), and sadness (because you can never experience the event again). It's a very intense emotion, but lasts for a very brief time. It's hard to characterize this as positive or negative; I would say neither. --Bowlhover 03:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nostalgia? Anchoress 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Wistfulness? Yearning? -THB 03:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there's no exact word for what you're describing. A music or a poem could express that feeling, though. Moonwalkerwiz 03:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Tears, idle tears, I know not what they mean,
Tears from the depth of some divine despair
Rise in the heart, and gather to the eyes,
In looking on the happy autumn-fields,
And thinking of the days that are no more.
Fresh as the first beam glittering on a sail,
That brings our friends up from the underworld,
Sad as the last which reddens over one
That sinks with all we love below the verge;
So sad, so fresh, the days that are no more.
Ah, sad and strange as in dark summer dawns
The earliest pipe of half-awakened birds
To dying ears, when unto dying eyes
The casement slowly grows a glimmering square;
So sad, so strange, the days that are no more.
Dear as remembered kisses after death,
And sweet as those by hopeless fancy feigned
On lips that are for others; deep as love,
Deep as first love, and wild with all regret;
O Death in Life, the days that are no more.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
--Rallette 06:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The Germans have a word that is similar to what you describe: Sehnsucht. --Richardrj talk email 08:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Into my heart an air that kills
From yon far country blows:
What are those blue remembered hills,
What spires, what farms are those?
That is the land of lost content,
I see it shining plain,
The happy highways where I went
And cannot come again. Clio the Muse 10:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fire making (prior to matches were invented) by tinder box and lyrstan - what is lyrstan?

—tinder box and fire making

Might this metal implement be it?
Might this metal implement be it?
I am not an expert in this subject but I believe "lyrstan" refers to a lyre-shaped steel used, with a flint, to make a spark. See pic here. {Be cautioned that I may very well be wrong.) -THB 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Googling it gives only three results, of which this only mentions it and is probably what sparked the question (yes?) and the other two appear to be in some norse language, where it's someone's user name. If THB is right I would be interrested to know because I've got one too. Here's a photo of the content of my tinder box. DirkvdM 09:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, considering that that the design would fit in with the concept of "lyre shaped steel". The word just looks "Scandinavian", and I'm going to ask over at languages. My set has an oval steel - which was very common at a time. I assume it would then be called a "some-other-shape"-stan. The articles in WP on fire making and tinderboxes are inadequate and ill-informed, and whoever wrote it seems never to have made a flint/steel fire, nor studied the science of what happens. It reveals something about the historical perspectives of the editors of Wikipedia that one can find very little about the history of man's control and use of fire, but many pages on transient videogame fads. Ah well, some references to find ... Seejyb 11:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are knowledgable about the subject and have access to references, please share your knowledge by editing boldly and improving the articles. Edison 20:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Or as they mention on the language desk, it's likely a mis-spelling of fyrstan, Old English for "fire stone". -- Arwel (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art and Literature dealing with a man who knows he's going to die...

what are some major or minor artistic works that deal with this idea? A man who knows his time is up sort of.

The Stranger by Albert Camus, though Mersault only accepted his fate in the end. The New Testament also relates the story of how Christ knew he was going to die, but went on with saving the whole of sinful mankind anyway. Although Christ is half-man, half-god so maybe that doesn't count. How about The Iliad? Hector knew he was going to die in Achilles' hands, but went on to battle him anyway (after running away from him for miles,if I remember correctly). And even the gods there were trapped by Destiny. And how about a woman? Charlize Theron for example in Sweet November where she was nominated for a Razzie for worst actress. Moonwalkerwiz 06:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel García Márquez tells of a man, Santiago Násar, in a Colombian village, who everybody says is going to die, with a certain imperturbable determination that creates a sense of doom around the life of the innocent protagonist. It was inspired by the death of a friend of the author's, a journalist, whose early death was investigated by the author. The story reflects the irrational waves of violence that sweep Márquez' benighted country to this day.--Dom Ramos 15:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Lev Tolstoy's novella The Death of Ivan Ilyich leaps to mind. Also Ernest Hemingway's The Snows of Kilimanjaro. This theme might also encompass those who face execution, or are already on their way to the gallows, like Rubashov in Darkness at Noon, or Sydney Carton in a Tale of Two Cities. But the saddest account of a man facing death heroically and with great resolution is depicted in the The Last of the Just, a novel by Andre Schwartz-Bart, which deserves to be much better known in the Anglo-Saxon world. The last few pages left me completely numb: no easy thing, I assure you.Clio the Muse 06:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
In cinema, Ikiru by Akira Kurosawa, which is not unrelated to Tolstoy's story.--Rallette 06:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


D.O.A. (1950 film), D.O.A. (1988 film). --Mathew5000 08:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking for more modern culture and art, The Black Parade by My Chemical Romance is a concept album about a dying cancer patient coming to terms with his life, while Muse have a song called "Last Thoughts of a Dying Atheist" off their album Absolution, about...well, it does exactly what it says on the tin. Laïka 15:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact, for the ultimate "modern culture" about dealing with death, The Simpsons episode "One Fish, Two Fish, Blowfish, Blue Fish" is about Homer Simpson coming to terms with his impending "death" by fugu. Quite a few episodes of Scrubs have also dealt with a dying patient contemplating life ("My Five Stages", "My Rule of Thumb"). Whether these count as "art" however is up to you. Laïka 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
There are also songs. Seasons in the Sun is one that comes to mind (although I prefer ones based more accurately on the original French version, see below). I'm sure there are other's but none come to mind.
Goodbye Francoise, my trusted wife. Without you I'd had a lonely life. / You cheated lots of times with men. / But I forgave you in the end. / Though your lover was my friend.
Goodbye Francoise, it's hard to die. When all the birds are singing in the sky. Now that the spring is in the air. With your lovers everywhere. Just be careful, I'll be there.
Nil Einne 16:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Moses knew that he would die before entering the Kingdom of Israel. —Daniel (‽) 16:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I once started reading a book by a man who had been diagnosed with Alzheimers. It's called Losing my mind: An intimate look at life with Alzheimers. I checked Amazon, and listed under Customers who bought this also bought were several similar titles. --Shuttlebug 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] epistemology

Is "pragmatism" the same as "evolutionary epistemology" ? How do they differ? - willie

Hello, Willie. You could have a look at Pragmatism and Epistemology and make up your own mind. Once you have climbed these mountains we can have a look at any more specific questions that might arise. Clio the Muse 08:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree in part with Clio that more reading would help, but there isn't enough philosophy on the humanities desk, so I think I'll have a go. I read the articles, and wasn't fully clear on the difference, but I can offer the following thought. Consider the idea of Newtonian mechanics. To an evolutionary epistemologist, the truth of this was never determined by experiment. It held up very well, and served the intellectual needs of the time, but wasn't true, as Einstein later showed. Most pragmatists would (apparently) say that to show something holds up under experimentation, and to apply it successfully, actually makes it true. See http://www.friesian.com/relative.htm which says that pragmatism is a kind of relativism. Also observe the following quote by William James, a pragmatist: "If a second conception should not appear to have other consequences, then it must really be only the first conception under a different name." This shows that to James, truth essentially is about consequences, and is not intrinsic to an idea. An evolutionary epistemologist would probably disagree with this remark, but would argue that there is no way a human could distinguish between the two conceptions, or that human science collectively could not prefer one over the other. The Mad Echidna 05:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Good answer! Clio the Muse 09:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


But is it not that "evolution" is itself an "experiment" ... ? ---Willie

[edit] Is philosophy any longer relevant in the global culture

If the pursuit of truth brings us closer to understanding the meaning of life then the essence of this knowledge should be the guiding light of our governance and way of living. There is a code that all matter must follow for growth and sustenance, if left unchecked the market as an organism will pervade all spheres of human and other forms of living, eventually its culturation will kill its parent host. My query is this, is it the wise and intelligent conclusion to let science/technology and its propellent the market overrule the ethics of life ? should humanity be left to the vagaries of meaningless irresolutes and random mechanics ? is truth and its philosophy no longer relevant in this global culture ?

That's a pretty big question - indeed, several questions - and I don't have any answers. But I suggest that you need to think some more about the detail, in several ways: 1. is 'the market' really an organism? Or are market relations one of various kinds of interaction between human individuals? 2. Is it really true that markets will eventually 'pervade all spheres of human and other forms of living'? Why would they? 3. Are market processes really random? In what sense of randomness, if so? 4. What do you mean by philosophy? This non-answer is perhaps not what you're looking for, but one of the ways in which philosophy (in my understanding of that term) is useful and relevant, is in getting us to slow down and think in a more detailed way. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I too find it a little difficult to grasp what it is that you are looking for, and I do not believe that the division between 'markets' and 'ethics' is quite as clear as you contend. I have to confess, moreover, that I simply cannot follow parts of the preamble to your question, in particular the suggestion that the 'market will kill its parent host'. You make it sound a little like a biological parasite. In this regard you should note that Adam Smith, the man who defined the operation of markets in the first place, was also a professor of moral philosophy. You also seem to have a highly mechanistic view of markets, which exist, in your model, as things quite apart from other human constructs. There is, of course, a genuine and ongoing concern about some aspects of scientific development, and the implications for existing moral constructs; but this exists in a fluid and dynamic fashion. I would ask you to think a little more clearly about this whole question, and, indeed, about the nature of philosophy itself. Clio the Muse 10:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd interpret this to mean something like "consumerism and market forces are creating a society that is increasingly morally and intellectually bankrupt, promoting individual selfishness and short term gain" and the question heading itself is a partly rhetorical cry for help? I think the answer is yes - logic, reason and moral thinking are still relevant - but the world still seems to be going down the pan...87.102.33.100 14:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Has philosophy ever been relevant? It's simply something some people can't help doing. Like the free market it simply is and has ever been. We've always been materialists and the wealth that that gave us actually gave us more freedom to sit back and think things over, which is what philosophy is. Another question is if we've always been so obsessed with materialism. Some people can't seem to stop making more wealth and forget about enjoying it. But that's a passing phase. And it's not everywhere. I believe in the US it's normal to work for 60 hours per week. In the Netherlands it's more like 35, about half. DirkvdM 08:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes: the Anstatt dass Leid view of history: the belief that the material always preceeds the moral; that ethics only arise after appetite has been satisfied. Actually, the relationship between thought and action has always been fluid and complex, not linear and determinist. Philosophy, religion and need to think about ourselves, our environment and our destiny have always been part of the human condition, and might very well be said to define what it is to be human in the first place. Animals eat; only humans think. On your second point, Dirk, I think material gain and comfort is only part of the reward of labour; and for some people perhaps not even the most important part. For a great many, power would seem to be an end in itself. What other reason has Rupert Murdoch to continue as he does? It's certainly not for the love of wealth. Clio the Muse 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
What I meant is that people sometimes forget what producing material wealth is ultimately for, namely to form a basis for happiness. 'Some is good' is mistaken for 'more is better'. DirkvdM 09:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


If philosophy is the pursuit of truth and if truth is the crucible of meaning of life then it transcends all dimensions and is absolute and infinite and our understanding vital. How we perceive truth will define our philosophy and articulate the ethics, values and culture our governance. Yet ironically and perplexingly logic appears to go the other way round as ‘the market’ is steadily culturing our perception of life, ethos, politics, ecology, environment, the sciences and crucially the economy. Policies of governments are tuned by the economics of employment but the perpetual need for growth and procreation must be tempered judiciously with the other laws of nature, and fine tuning and coordinating the roles the actors must play could rein in the randomity of bulls and bears.


Whether the nature of the cosmos and all its microcosm is a relationship of beneficial symbiosis, a collaboration, is upto the perceiver. As is said ‘how the truth of the whole depends on the truths of the parts’ My perception of Truth is, it is like the two faces of a coin, an anomalous pair, one is like the horizon at dawn giving shape and rationality to forms, the other is the fathomless dark of night mysterious and letting you dream the irrational, yes they are contrarian by nature but like a piece of string you can’t tell where one ends and the other starts yet there is a distinction between the two, one by itself is incomplete and bereft, but in their union, meaning, symmetry and wholeness emeges. Yes, it was a rhetorical cry, yes, truth should not have been interposed with philosophy. Forgive me this provocative misdemeanour. Sam, hope this clears the points you raised if not, I’m at fault and thanks for the time and civility.

Maybe you'll find Mr.William James' description of philosophy enlightening. I quote from "Pragmatism":
"Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits.
It works in the minutest crannies and it opens out the
widest vistas. It 'bakes no bread,' as has been said, but it can
inspire our souls with courage; and repugnant as its manners, its
doubting and challenging, its quibbling and dialectics, often are to
common people, no one of us can get along without the far-flashing
beams of light it sends over the world's perspectives. These
illuminations at least, and the contrast-effects of darkness and
mystery that accompany them, give to what it says an interest that
is much more than professional." Moonwalkerwiz 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redistricting question

How can I get a list of which party controlled the redistricting process for Congressional seats in 2000? thanks Plf515 11:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)plf515

Er surely redistricting seats should fall on a neutral body and be conducted in a transparent and open manner not by a political party? Nil Einne 14:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should be that way, but right now I am looking for a list of how it is. I've gotten very interested in gerrymandering, and am looking at ways to analyze it. Plf515 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)plf515
Assuming you're referring to the US, this is done by the States, and how it's done varies. Sometimes it's done by the legislature (and in highly partisan legislatures, this leads to Gerrymandering for their party), sometimes by a neutral body (e.g. Colorado's 7th congressional district is almost perfectly balanced - it's 32% Republican, 34% Democrat, 34% Independent, because it was drawn by a court when the CO legislature couldn't agree on one). For a more detailed example of how this can work, see 2003_Texas_redistricting --Mnemeson 14:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I am aware that it varies, and that some states do it through an independent body; but there does not appear to be a page (here or anywhere on the web that I can find) that makes a list with each state, how the reapportionment was done, and who was in charge. Plf515 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)plf515
Bit OT but does anyone know of any other nominally democratic (I mean considered to be supposed to be democratic even if they aren't really) country (i.e. not China, PDRK etc who's styles of government are not considered democratic) which relies on an explicitly partisan body to do this sort of thing? Wondering for personal interest. Singapore is an interesting one I found, from the gerrymandering article where the body (Elections Department) is nominally neutral and impartial but is under the Prime Minister's Office. However I've always believed in most other (commonwealth anyway) countries, even where there are perceived problems this usually isn't the case. E.g. Malaysia, the body is still nominally independent and not directly under the ruling party. Of course, the Election Commission of Malaysia is criticised and quite a number feel it isn't really neutral or impartial and the government has influence it's not supposed to (similar to the courts). Obviously in all countries there's going to be some controversy even when the body is nominally independent. Nil Einne 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
In California, although the legislature is dominated by the Democrats, the two parties have worked out a deal which allows incumbents every possible chance to retain their districts. So, districts which have a Republican majority are kept a Republican majority, districts which have a Democratic majority keep their Democratic majority. This gives the Democrats the chance to keep their majority status while appeasing the Republicans so they won't campaign for a fairer method. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of one page that lists everything, but if you can put your hands on THE ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS for 2002 or 2004, in each state section is a short description of how that state's 2000 congressional redistricting was done. That's probably your best source if you can use a print source. Online, typing "Methods Congressional Redistricting States" brought up some fairly decent leads. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Try FairVote's 2000 redistricting guide. -- Mwalcoff 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Simpsons

Does anyone have any idea why Channel 4 just broadcast a special Halloween edition of The Simpsons a full three weeks after Halloween? Are they obliged to broadcast episodes in a particular order?--Shantavira 14:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably not obliged but it is normal practice for stations to broadcast in series order Nil Einne 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
In general, broadcasts of the Simpsons in the UK just go out whenever. In general, with 360-odd episodes, of which 17 are Halloween, there's a Halloween episode every three weeks or so. Laïka 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Have the no idea about the UK, but in the US (due to various schedule adjustments) new "Treehouse of Horror" episodes have been generally broadcast in early November for some years now. Kang and Kodos even make fun of this in one of the episodes. AnonMoos 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. Beginning in 2000 (and continuing until at least 2013), the FOX network in the U.S. airs the World Series during the last week of October. I would imagine that international networks are prohibited by contract to broadcast episodes before they have premiered in the U.S. ×Meegs 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John E. Douglas inspiration for Jack Crawford or not

This is an issue covered in several wikipedia articles which suggest JED is the inspiration for JC. It also appears to be repeated in numerous sources. But I read a comment in the talk page which disputes this which makes sense to me so hopefully someone can look in to it. Specifically check out Talk:John E. Douglas#inspirations. Amongst the key issues IMHO are: 1) Several sources who know the author appear to dispute the claim. 2) The author has apparently never made any comment (which isn't surprising since he doesn't do interviews). 3) Although JED was head of the BSU at some stage, he is primarily known because of his profiling work. JC isn't the star profiler in the books, only the head of the BSU. 4) Red Dragon was the first book to feature JC and was published in 1981. As such, if JC were based on JED, he would be based on JED in 1981 not now.

One key issue here is when did JED become the head of the BSU? If it were after 1981, this throws cold water on the theory IMHO. Personally I think the view apparently from someone who knows the author is most likely to be correct. JC is probably inspired by a number of characters. Some more then others and JED is perhaps a key one but it's probably not fair or accurate to say JED is THE inspiration for JC.

Amongst the articles affected (probably more) John E. Douglas, The Silence of the Lambs, Jack Crawford (character).

Nil Einne 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

NB, I know this isn't really a reference desk question but given it covers several articles and is rather convulated, I thought it best to address it here Nil Einne 15:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any further information, but it seems to me that the argument made on the talk page is conclusive: this is an unsupported rumour, and shouldn't be reported as fact in WP. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Males-only aesthetic mutilation (non-genital)

I'm gathering material for counseling young people on self-image in contemporary culture, including a global and historical perspective. In studying the topic of aesthetic mutilation, I've read numerous pages in the category of body modification. Some of these practices are performed on both sexes, whether in childhood, puberty, or adulthood; others are only for women and girls. What I still haven't found are males-only practices of mutilation for aesthetic effect, other than modifications of the genitalia. Any ideas? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, difficult as the genitalia are the only thing that defines as male that has any aesthetic affect, i.e. any other form of self mutilation could easily be practisied by females aswell surely? I dont know if its quite what you are looking for as its indirectly self harmful, but some teenage boys feel pressure to bulk out (appear physically stronger), or perform athletically, and may turn to steroids to improve their appearance by working out more, this can cause various forms of ill health depending on the steroid, and can cause mental instability. Philc TECI 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The female-only practices to which I refer, e.g. foot binding among the Chinese, or ambisexual such as lip disks worn by Amazonian tribal peoples, aren't forms of genital mutilation, but culturally dictated aesthetic standards for one or both sexes. Your suggestion of muscle bulking by taking potentially harmful substances is definitely a form of bodily modification I hadn't thought of -- thanks! Is it reversible, though, when the substance is discontinued? -- Deborahjay 17:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
the HGH controversies article suggests that that drug in particular increases cancer and hodgkins disease risk, other side affects can include carpal tunnel syndrome and diabetes which are permanent, and during use of the drug, Hypertension. People who take amphetamines hoave been known to, as a result, show signs of psychosis, disorientation, temporary symptoms associated with schizophrenia, aggression, delusions, lockjaw (tetanus), diarrhea, palpitations, arrhythmia, syncope, hyperpyrexia, and hyperreflexia progressing to convulsions and coma. Whilst I know I have heard many of the psychological ones will remain after stopping taking the drug; unfortunately, it is addictive, so that is not likely to happen anyway. Philc TECI 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the background and details; I'd mainly been looking at steroid usage in bodybuilding, and this provides further support. I'm also going to note stature (height) as a body image factor, certainly more difficult to modify -- and a motive for the markedly short of stature to consider medical HGH use despite the risks. -- Deborahjay 12:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Facial feminization surgery. -THB 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 ? As I understand this, it isn't a mainstream-culture, conventional practice for heterosexual-identified males -- which is what I'm looking for. -- Deborahjay 17:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it males like to compare their scars - however these scars are obtained through manly pursuits such as bear fighting, not by girly self-multilation. (Sincere apologies for any offence caused.) 87.102.33.100 17:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Mm-hmmm, sort of like "war stories" being by default primarily an outgrowth of males-only experiences. However, I'm looking for practices of deliberate mutilation -- not necessarily self-inflicted, rather often by a sanctioned practicioner -- for aesthetic purposes. Scarification is quite widespread, but for both sexes. -- Deborahjay 17:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of scarification too, but as you say both sexes do it - how about if different sexes do it on different parts of the body or use different patterns/motifs - would that count?87.102.33.100 18:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it's probably worth a look at which cultures restrict the practice to males vs. females, vs. both sexes, and why -- see next response, too. -- Deborahjay 12:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The scarification practiced as part of initiatiation rites in PNG is solely for young men - is that the sort of thing you mean? Natgoo 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks; this will help me get to the meaning behind the divergence in M/F practices. -- Deborahjay 12:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Some teenage boys scratch holes in a finger and compete to see how big, deep, raw and long-lasting the wound is. There may be some cultures where men do non-genital mutilation that women don't do, but not in "developed" nations. By ruling out genital mutilation, you're ruling out most of the difference between men and women. Restricting it to heterosexual men doesn't make any sense to me at all. Usually heterosexual men pick up the trends homosexual men start, such as trimming body hair. Now all the Italian guys from Jersey and Staten Island have "female" eyebrows, tatoos, pumped-up bodies, winter tans, baseball caps, etc. No doubt they all have prince alberts to go with the nipple piercings. -THB 17:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstand the nature of Facial feminization surgery; I would consider it to be a numerically marginal phenomenon. The primary thrust of my topic has to do with practicing mutilation for the sake of a cultural norm of aesthetics. My exclusion of genital mutilation is in light of the focus on mainstream "fashion" in the wider sense (i.e. not only apparel), particularly in the present-day developed world (where apart from the entertainment industry and intimate settings, the genitalia are concealed) rather than among tribal peoples or historical cases. Does that help clarify my intentions? -- Deborahjay 18:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether you'd count this, but some criminal gangs cut their fingertips off; originally it was just to avoid being found by fingerprint ID, but its now used as a kind of gang symbol, like a tattoo. Laïka 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Above: Yakuza are ones that spring to mind (little finger removed for making a mistake I've read.)87.102.33.100 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The gangsters' fingerprint obliteration and the Yakuza practice of yubitsume, finger joint amputation, are essentially occupation-related, not aesthetically based. Thanks for the suggestions, though! -- Deborahjay 19:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It's genital mutilation, but I heard that yakuza also inserted small pearls into their penises' outer skin for each month or year or something they served in prison... =S 惑乱 分からん 20:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Do the scars from Mensur duels – incurring one came to be a major aim of dueling – count? For a "beautiful" example, see Otto Skorzeny.  --LambiamTalk 20:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Although dueling scars are the result of an activity, rather than a modification to be deliberately acquired for their own sake (i.e. by surgery, self-inflicted, etc.), this is certainly a male image enhancer, as it's considered a desirable feature for display rather than a disfigurement to be concealed. Quite a dramatic picture! -- Thanks, Deborahjay 12:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
How about pectoral implants? -- hm, there doesn't seem to be an article; I've definitely heard about them, though. Very unlikely to be performed on females because the pectoralis major muscle usually isn't visible. EdC 22:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I hadn't been aware of this, and it's on target... and reminded me there's also a mammoplasty procedure for men afflicted with gynecomastia, or just flab in the form of "man boobs"...! -- Deborahjay 12:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
What about anabolic steroid abuse? Not surgical, but pharmaceutical. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Customs and Traditions Regarding Death

Hello, My stepdad recently passed away. We are trying to plan his services based on his religious belief. May I get some information regarding customs and traditions for a U.S. born of Jewish belief. He was raised Orthodox Jew, born in 1917. His mother was born in Kiev and his father was born in the U.S.

Also, my stepdad was a veteran of WWII.

Thank you for your assistance. KTK

Kaddish. AnonMoos 22:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The whole subject is covered in Bereavement in Judaism. My sympathies to you and your family. Clio the Muse 23:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
My sympathies as well. You may wish to contact a local synagogue, Jewish funeral home and/or Jewish War Veterans [1] chapter. -- Mwalcoff 04:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian law with international impact

Just heard an interview with Bill Gasperini on The World that "There is a law that allows Russian security services to strike at anyone perceived as terrorist, not just in Russia, but anywhere in the world." Is this true? Has there been any diplomatic efforts of governments by other countries to protect their citizens from this law? — Sebastian (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian security services-or any other security service, for that matter-would not be allowed to act contrary to the laws of another country. That is not to say that they do not operate in an extra-legal fashion when their nation is under a perceived threat. But then the Russians are hardly unique in this regard. Clio the Muse 23:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, sure, the other country's laws would forbid such extra-legal action - the question is whether Russian law would permit it. Such laws do exist; Mossad was (is?) authorised to kidnap and assassinate Nazi war criminals and enemies of the Jewish state. EdC 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Russian law could, in theory, permit Vladimir Putin to be first citizen of the world, or President of the Moon, if it so desired. Please point out a specific law in the Russian statute book authorising FSB agents to take action regardless of the laws of other countries, and I will point out to you a major diplomatic incident in the making. But, I come back to the point already made-security agencies, Mossad among them, will always operate in a covert and extra-legal fashion as the situation, in their estimation, demands. Clio the Muse 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The laws of a country apply only inside the same. Russian laws only have the strength of legality inside Russia. Any Russian agent who strikes against terrorists (suspect or not) inside another country can be hold accountable to the courts of that country. To be blunt : A Russian agent shoots a terrorist in Paris. If he is caught by the French police and if the French goverment cares enough about it (a pair of brass bal*s is required) he will be tried in a French court-of-law. If he is found guilty of murder he will spend a lot of years in a French prison. The Russian goverment can scream about its laws all that it wants, they don't apply in other countries (and thank God for that). The problem is that countries cut deals with each other all the time, and close their eyes to each others actions far too much. Flamarande 02:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Some laws of some countries also apply outside, such as in case of sexual child abuse, or war crimes. Germany claims jurisdiction over any crime committed anywhere involving a German citizen.  --LambiamTalk 07:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Never heard about that. I know that German citizens are arrested in other countries and tried there and if found guilty punished according to the 'local' law. Flamarande 13:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
But imagine now that the agent is not caught and returns to Russia. The French have found out her identity and have strong evidence of her guilt, and list her on Interpol's "wanted" list. Suppose – rather hypothetically – that the agent is arrested by the Russian police, and France requests her extradition. She fights this in court. Can she argue now: "What I did was entirely lawful by Russian law"? Or is that not a defense, because no such law is on the books?  --LambiamTalk 07:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If the agent was caught in Russia he will request (it is his right I believe) to be presented to a Russian court. There the Russian court will examine if any extradition agreement with France exists or not (and look for any loopholes). If the laywer can prove that the agent followed lawfull orders of the state and didn't break Russian law the whole matter will be dismissed and the agent released (he will be advised never to visit French territory though :). I believe that Interpol can act only in international agreed maters, and I suspect that the prosecution of govermental secret agents is not under their jurisdiction (it is a hot potato noone wants to hold) Flamarande 13:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Read over again what I have written about a major diplomatic incident. But this is all speculative and academic: no such law exists. On your point about Germany, I think this refers specifically to citizens who have committed crimes abroad, and then returned home before being caught. If a German citizen commits a sex crime in London, for instance, he or she will be tried under the law of England. Clio the Muse 08:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It does seem to a fairly widespread urban myth (if it isn't true). Just heard Ian Hislop recounting it as fact on Have I Got News For You. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)