From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< March 27	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 29 >

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 1 March 28 1.1 scrabble replays 1.2 big buildings in pre-Columbian America 1.3 9/11 Lawsuit 1.4 Thomas Jefferson 1.5 Irish short story 1.6 Roger Casement's poem entitled The Nameless One 1.7 State to first throw 500,000 men into war? 1.8 State to first rule over 1 million people? 1.9 philosophy 1.10 Scotland and the Wars of the Roses 1.11 Letters of Danish parties 1.12 IQ and career success 1.13 Missing vessels

[edit] March 28

[edit] scrabble replays

where can i see scrabble replays to see how the masters do it? I wonder what kinds of points they usually score per turn too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.88.10 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your second question is partially answered in our Scrabble article. I have left a note on the talk page of that article asking for assistance here. Bovlb (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions. One is Joe Edley's book "Everything Scrabble". The other is Internet Scrabble Club where you can actually watch live games in progress or view previously played games. Gr8white (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] big buildings in pre-Columbian America

The Aztecs, Maya, and Incas all constructed cities with very large buildings with which nothing north of Mexico compares. What factors might explain this fact? --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agriculture and population density. And of course there were some relatively large buildings and cities north of Mexico (described in some detail in the Mound builder (people) article). Perhaps not comparable to the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas, but impressive nonetheless. --and also mainly due to agriculture and population density. Pfly (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This led me to the article on the city Cahokia and the Mississippian people, which was the motive behind my question. A lecturer had mentioned the name of the city, but I hadn't retained it, and I didn't get a chance to ask him this specific question. Thanks again! --12.217.182.50 (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Lawsuit

The Cantor Fitzgerald article states: On September 2, 2004, Cantor filed a civil lawsuit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, one of a number of organizations to do so.[2] It was later joined in the suit by the Port Authority of New York.[3]

What was the outcome of the lawsuit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.4.37 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

All the lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and members of the Saudi royal family got knocked on the head within a few months, because there are laws in the US that say you can't sue a foreign government. Of course, there are still appeals and wrangling and lawyers-profiting-from-tragedy-ad-nauseum going on, but no actual lawsuit has ever gotten over the first hurdle of finding a court that will hear the case. FiggyBee (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Jefferson

Although Bill Clinton is presumed to have only "misspoken" when he said that he did not inhale, that he did not have sexual relations with that women and that the events a Waco were Janet Reno's responsibility, did Thomas Jefferson ever make the claim that he did not commit adultery or that in his opinion adultery was not illegal or not wrong? Also, are the offspring resulting from adultery considered illegitimate in Thomas Jefferson's case? Mimus polyglottos (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I read an excellent biography of Jefferson two years ago. If memory serves me well, Jefferson never acknowledged the relationship. I was surprised that the situation was very public. Jefferson was far worse than an adulterer. He had absolute power over Sally Hemmings, the half-sister of his deceased wife. She could not walk away. Choice was not present. One presidential campaign revolved around this relationship. The Sally Hemmings relationship was a larger affair than the Monica Lewinsky matter. Another negative factor that affected his conduct of foreign affairs while he was president was his massive debt, owed to foreign countries. Virginia enacted a state lottery to support him shortly before his death. I was shocked when I read his biography. Elementary school taught me that he was perfect. Of course, he had wonderful traits, too. The biography was a library book so I do not have a copy here to which I can refer. 75Janice (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)75Janice

That's interesting. Jefferson has always been upheld as being ahead of his times, a man who had the foresight to make the Louisiana Purchase. A man who believed the way to eliminate the difference between American Indians and Whites was through interracial marriage. I probably need to read that book. Was the death of Meriwether Lewis mentioned in the book? Mimus polyglottos (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always loved Kurt Vonnegut's backhanded compliment of Jefferson where he refers to him as "a leading theorist on the topic of human liberty" (emphasis mine). :) --Sean 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and his theories are so well accepted that most people still look forward to a lifestyle based on borrowed money and lotto winnings even today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.15.236 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish short story

I've been trying for several days now to remember the name of an Irish short story I read a couple of years ago. It's nineteenth century I think, and concerns two old men looking for the precise location of an unmarked plot in an overcrowded church yard. Thanks for any prompts. Gifford Jnr (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gifford, this has to be The Weaver's Grave by Seumus O'Kelly. You should note that Cloon na Morav-the Meadow of the Dead-is not attached to a church-yard. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Casement's poem entitled The Nameless One

I'm trying to figure out the meaning of one part of a poem. It was written by Roger Casement some time close to 1900. Most consider this poem to point towards Casement's homosexuality. The whole poem can be found here [1], but I will only copy two stanzas out.

I look beyond the stricken sky

Where sunset paints its hopeless lie;

That way the flaming angel went

That sought by pride love's battlement.

I sought by love alone to go

Where God had writ an awful no.

Pride gave a guilty God to hell

I have no pride--by love I fell.

What is he trying to get at in the third and fourth line of the first stanza? Is it an allusion to Lucifer? What does he mean by "love's battlement"? In the second stanza, what is the meaning of the third line? Does it mean that one who is prideful places all guilt on God and dismisses him, as it were, to hell? I have several other ideas what the meanings could be, but I would be most appreciative if someone had other insights in to the possible meaning of these stanzas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.0.10 (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The title seems loaded, too. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"The love that dares not speak its name"? (When was that published, said she, lazily?) BrainyBabe (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Written in 1892, published in 1894. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Lucifer, yes. "Battlement" is the top of the castle wall; you get there when you've breached the castle's (heaven's) defenses, a sort of victory. The "guilty God" is Lucifer again, quite simply, not the same God as before (this isn't a religious work); his pride was his downfall (to Hell). As for homosexuality, I'd have to say that if he thought he was coming out of the closet with this poem, he needed to try a little harder with his next one. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think he was intending to come out, but the phrase "this love God made, not I" is quite telling. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. This poem was certainly not a "coming out" poem because it wasn't published, or meant to be published, during his lifetime. It was first published by H. Montgomery Hyde, the M.P. for Belfast North in the 1950's who fought for the decriminalization of homosexuality, a position that caused the UUP to eventually reject him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.0.10 (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State to first throw 500,000 men into war?

You did a great job on the last question guys. Thanks. Lotsofissues 07:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would still go with the Achaemenid Empire :) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State to first rule over 1 million people?

So many dates, so many states. This is my attempt to get a better idea of the span of history. Thanks guys for keeping up. Lotsofissues 08:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this question is that the population of all ancient kingdoms, empires, city states, etc. is a matter for speculation. Most of them had only a rough idea what their own populations were. Having said that, I think there's a scholarly consensus that the population of the Old Kingdom (between about 2575 and 2134 BC) was somewhere between one and two million. Perhaps there are other contenders in Asia? Xn4 08:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The first reliable population figures in Chinese history are for the Qin Dynasty (221 BC - 206 BC) which ruled over about 20 million people - though even that figure is fairly rough as it is based on a number of separate figures for various regions of the empire.

The earliest recorded population figure is for the time of Yu the Great of Xia Dynasty (about 2200 BC), which was 13 million - but this first appeared in records long after the Xia Dynasty, and so is fairly unreliable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] philosophy

bacon seems to challenge three kinds of what he calls false philosophy;"the sohistical,the emperical and the superstitious" why and how does he consider all three to corrupt philosophy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.0.118 (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in the following paragraph from the Francis Bacon article:

Bacon did not propose an actual philosophy, but rather a method of developing philosophy; he wrote that, whilst philosophy at the time used the deductive syllogism to interpret nature, the philosopher should instead proceed through inductive reasoning from fact to axiom to law. Before beginning this induction, the inquirer is to free his mind from certain false notions or tendencies which distort the truth. These are called "Idols"^[1] (idola), and are of four kinds: "Idols of the Tribe" (idola tribus), which are common to the race; "Idols of the Den" (idola specus), which are peculiar to the individual; "Idols of the Marketplace" (idola fori), coming from the misuse of language; and "Idols of the Theatre" (idola theatri), which result from an abuse of authority. The end of induction is the discovery of forms, the ways in which natural phenomena occur, the causes from which they proceed.

AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, sophistry (sohistical?) is false reasoning; empiricism restricts reasoning to example; and superstition is the negation of reason. All militate against purer forms of philosophical thought. Clio the Muse (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

socotland is so cool

[edit] Scotland and the Wars of the Roses

Here's an interesting question to which I have not yet found a definite answer. In the fifteenth century England was severely weakened by a prolonged period of upheaval that we now know as the Wars of the Roses. Considering the poor relations between England and Scotland ever since the Wars of Independence this was clearly an ideal time for the Scots to take advantage of the military and political weakness of their erstwhile powerful southern neighbour. So, to what extent did the Scots seek to exploit the situation in England for their own benefit? Clio, can you help me with this? Hamish MacLean (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well to put it bluntly: they didn't. Though you may find this information interesting: Margaret of Anjou actually travelled to Scotland to negotiate for the assistance of the Scottish. The Queen of Scots, Mary of Gueldres agreed to give Margaret military aid on the condition that she cede the town of Berwick to Scotland and Mary's daughter be betrothed to Prince Edward (Margaret's son). Margaret agreed. Her was defeated at the Battle of Tewkesbury where her son died. Berwick ceded to Scotland. Hope you found that helpful or at least interesting... --Cameron (t/c) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel a pantomime oh, yes, they did coming on here! The short answer, Hector, is that the Scots attempted to exploit the troubles in England, whenever they were in a position to do so. I would ask you to pay particular attention to the emphasis here; for more often than not during the whole period of The Wars of the Roses the Scots were beset by their own problems, arising, first, from a royal minority, and second, by the political problems caused by an unpopular king.

So, here are the simple facts. No sooner had James II heard of the death of Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland, the keeper of the northern march, at the First Battle of St Albans in 1455 than he ordered an attack on the English-held town of Berwick, in defiance of a prevailing truce. The attack was repulsed on this occasion, though James remained alter to the possibilities for renewed aggression, attacking the Isle of Man, a former Scottish possession, the following year. He also wrote to Charles VII of France in 1455, suggesting a co-ordinate attack on Calais and Berwick. Though Charles declined the offer, James continued to press his attacks, ravaging the county of Northumberland in 1456. His campaign came to a climax in 1460, when he laid siege to Roxburgh Castle, held by the English ever since the conclusion of the Scottish Wars of Independence. The castle was taken, though James was killed when one of his cannons exploded.

The succession of the eight-year-old James III brought a contest in the Scottish government between those who wished to continue the campaign of the dead king and those anxious for peace. The Queen Mother, Mary of Guelders, was reluctant to pursue a fresh adventure, though she was persuaded to enter into an alliance with Margaret of Anjou after hearing of the death of Richard, Duke of York at the Battle of Wakefield in December 1460. Scots auxiliaries then joined the Lancastrian army, advancing to defeat the Yorkists at the Second Battle of St Albans. But Margaret's wild northern host only served to alarm the south still further, galvanising people behind Edward IV, who subjected his enemy to a devastating defeat at the Battle of Towton.

With Edward secure on the throne-and the government of James III divided on policy and tactics-there was no further possibility for some time for interference in English affairs, though the unsettled situation in the north allowed the Scots to retain Berwick. When James took charge of affairs in his own right he proved more interested in peace than war. In the end tensions between James and his own nobility was to allow the English to take the initiative, particularly in the brief war of 1482, when Richard Duke of York, Edward's brother, recaptured Berwick. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Superb, Clio. I knew I could rely on you. Why not come and teach history in one of our great Scottish universities? You would be valued. Hamish MacLean (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I thank you, Hamish; but Clio is fully committed! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Letters of Danish parties

The List of political parties in Denmark links a letter to each party. A for Social Democrats, B for Danish Social Liberal Party and C for Conservative People's Party etc. Could some one explain how these letters are used, in the media, by the parties, in the electoral system? - C mon (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC) (on behalf of user:free socialist, who asked the same question here)

After searching: "The Standing Orders of the Folketing, it looks like these are designations for the parliamentary groups rather than the parties themselves ("The groups...are referred to in the Folketing by a designation decided by the group, and the Speaker will decide on an abbreviation of this designation not exceeding 3 letters..."). The party names seem to be abbreviated more conventionally, e.g. SD for Social Democrats.—eric 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on da:Partibogstav and de:Parteibuchstabe (Dänemark): Single-letter designations identify political partes on ballots and political posters, and usually don't correspond to the abbreviations of the parties' names, which are used in the press etc. Such letters were used for the first time in 1901. The designations that are used today were chosen in the parlamentary elections in 1943, based on the size of the parties in Copenhagen. The use of these letters is regulated by the Law of parlamentary elections, §14. The Minister of internal affairs assigns a letter to each party, which is to be shown on its ballot. Letters should be assigned such that they whenever possible correspond to the letters that have been used in previous elections. Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands use a similar system. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IQ and career success

A psychologist today told me IQ isn't very strongly connected to the ability to achieve distinction in a career. Is that right? NeonMerlin 17:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

See Intelligence quotient#Income. It looks like a yes. Algebraist 18:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is only a minor factor, yes. Wrad (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact it might even be a negative factor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.15.236 (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The cynic in me might suggest that being a 'shameless self publicist' is strongly connected to acchieving distinction. Though I'd say yes - though note the difference between 'distinction' and other measures of success such as income - you might not even get any credit until after you are dead...87.102.16.238 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

People of low IQ who are organized, hard working, determined and good at achieving rapport with and gaining respect from other generally go very far in life. But when it comes to difficult verbal or mathematical challenges, they just don't "get it." Having rich and/or connected relatives helps a lot. Edison (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Exhibit A: George W. Bush. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this guy "organized, hard working, determined"?Mr.K. (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice the indentation. I was referring to the original question. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the IQ article over and over, you may start to understand it a little. IQ was developed to identify how well students will do in school in the future. For example, how well will a current first grader do in school in the second, third, fourth, and fifth grades? It was not a test of intelligence. It was a test of schooling aptitude. It was altered to be a quotient without the purpose being changed. Then, since it only applied to school children, it was adapted to be relative to a value of 100 for the mean population of any certain age - which changed the purpose, but not the test. So, if you are 30 and you take the IQ test, you are taking a test of how well you will do in school and your score will be above 100 if you do better than the average 30 year old and below 100 if you do worse than the average 30 year old. Because it is not a test of artistic ability, singing ability, driving ability, running ability, or anything else other than schooling ability, it cannot be considered a test for how well a person will do at anything other than school. The funny thing is that children with high IQs that are given normal schooling tend to do very poorly in school (such as Einstein). So, even there it contradicts itself. -- kainaw™ 03:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your unsourced claim that high IQ students do poorly with "normal schooling." Actually, cream rises to the top, even in poor schools. Edison (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Einstein was an excellent student. Especially in math and science, as you would expect. The idea that he wasn't is a myth based on a misinterpretation of old school records. APL (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't remember if he got good or bad grades. Einstein always clashed with the authority figures at school and resented the fact that there was so much rote learning involved in being a good pupil at school.Mr.K. (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Einstein got excellent grades. It is commonly reported that he did poorly, which I think is based on the fact that his later high school years were spent in one country (Austria?) that used a number grading system opposite to that of the country he had previously lived in (Germany?), ie one country graded 1-6 with 6 as the highest, the other with 1 as the highest. Or something like that. --superioridad ^(discusión) 12:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Einstein attended school in Munich (the Luitpold Gymnasium) and later in Aarau and Zurich, both in Switzerland.

Our article on grade (education) implies that 1..5 (top to fail) is common in Europe and is used in Germany. The Swiss system is 6..1 (top to fail) and thus the reverse. I could not find a reference which makes it clear if these opposing systems were already used at the end of the 19th century. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have heard both versions several times: one group affirms that Einstein got good grades and that it is a myth that he was a bad pupil at school and other group that says exactly the contraty. I still have not found a primary source that corroborate any version. Furthermore I also ask myself if Einstein was a good student at university. I remember some anecdotal evidence about one teacher of him asking if the Einstein that got famous was the same that sat on his lectures. Mr.K. (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, my definition of "do poorly in school" is not the same as other people's definition. I do not mean to imply that Einstein got bad grades. I meant to imply that he did not do well with the daily process of repeating things that he already learned while waiting painfully for the class to catch up. This is not limited to Einstein because it doesn't take a genius to have this experience. I do not consider myself a genius, but I do learn very quickly. So, I graduated school with perfect grades. However, I spent half of my time in detention for causing problems in class. By some definitions, I did not do poorly because of my grades. By mine, I did poorly because I couldn't be assimilated into the public school system. -- kainaw™ 14:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the two definitions of "do poorly in school" - don't fit or get bad grades. I know that Einstein didn't fit well at school and at the university, but I still miss a reliable source about his grades. I wouldn't say he was a fast learner. I always believed that he got hanged on some minor points and thought more detailedly about things that others took for granted. Apparently his job as a patent lawyer after graduation was rather a modest occupation, obtained through a friend. He was actually after a teaching position. This fact suggests that possibly his grades were not exceptional. Mr.K. (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Einstein biography by Pais, Subtle is the Lord, presents grades at various stages of Einstein's educational career.  --Lambiam 23:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be both theoretical and relative. There must be a memorable catch phrase for this all which people will know without knowing anything about it, neither general ly nor special ly... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would just call it a hypothesis or hypothetical. I have also asked myself if the myth was that Einstein was good at school (concerning grades or 'fitness') or that indeed he got good grades. Due to the huge amount of fake quotes of Einstein and perhaps even more people backing their arguments with him, I suppose the hole topic must be rife with urban legends. See here. WikiWiking (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The only thing doing well in an IQ test proves is how good the person is at IQ tests. 'Intelligence' is a minefield. Doing well in an IQ test is arguably completely dependant on a persons experiance, particularly education, rather than latent 'intelligence'. For example someone who has had no formal education will fail any IQ test questions relating to mathematics. Does this mean they are inherantly less 'intelligent' than someone who has been taught maths? Of course not. They are less knowledgable, but not less intelligent. With regards to achieving distinction in a career, it will obviously vary regarding what your career is. For example one could achieve distiction in the field of modeling despite having no intelligence or education. Whereas achieving distinction in quantam physics would require both. If achieving distinction equates to earning a lot of money, remember that your income is determined by the supply of and demand for your skills, and nothing else, certainly not your IQ score. Willy turner (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read funny articles by persons of moderate intelligence who complain about standardized tests, and quote a question and the possible answers, and question how anyone can state that the "correct" answer is better than the others. Then persons with greater IQ are quite able to explain why the "correct " answer actually is the right one. Edison (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why this example reminds me of the mad Hatter's riddle, but it does. Maybe it's the arbitrariness and cultural specificity of iq tests. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing vessels

There is a List of shipwrecks that have been located. Is there a list of missing vessels (ship or aircraft) whose wreck (assumed so after long disappearance or known destruction) that has never been located? --Kvasir (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How about Category:Disappeared ships? Bovlb (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome thanks! I will start a list. Anything on aircraft? --Kvasir (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't rush to create a list if a category is sufficient. You might be better putting the work into making sure the categories are complete and consistent. There's at least one aircraft under Category:Unexplained disappearances and you could poke around in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents. You'll find more ships under Category:Mysteries. The trick is to find examples, and see what categories they're in. Bovlb (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)