Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 September 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 18 << Aug | Sep | Oct >> September 20 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

Contents

[edit] The first Christian response to the AIDS crisis

What Christian church (or denomination) was the first to respond positively to the AIDS crisis and when? Did secular agencies respond first?82.57.231.34 21:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The first Christian response was probably, "Praise Jesus! Them faggots got what they had a-coming to 'em." --Nelson Ricardo 03:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your question, but I can give you a little backround. The thing you have to remember is that when AIDS was first discovered, it was called GRID (Gay Related Immune Disease). This had two major affects. First of all, there was a general negative reaction against it because it was a "gay" disease. The obvious second result was that many churches reacted negatively, due to their position on homosexuality. To many, it appeared God was striking back against the impure homosexuals. Also, many heterosexual couples thought they were safe, and didn't protect themselves. One must consider the fact that if the first case discovered was of a heterosexual man or woman, if AIDS would be such a prevailing problem today. --AstoVidatu 03:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Unitarian Universalist Association adopted a policy statement opposing AIDS discrimination in 1986.[1] I don't know whether this was the first denomination to take such a stand, but given their longstanding endorsement of LGBT rights they were probably among the first. Durova 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what is wrong with the comment from Nelson Ricardo above but he should know that 10% of heterosexual men have continuing sexual relationship with other men and hide it from their so called wives...jonica 82.57.231.34 21:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Something which was never admited or accepted or even debated by the majority of Christian churches. I remember vaguely that the "venerable" Jerry Falwell told that "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.". Granted, Falwell is a "radical" example, but the trend is still there. Flamarande 13:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman Capitals

I'd like to know what the first capital of the Ottoman Empire was. I saw a documentary, and remember it was "Borsa", but I could not find a city by that name near the area in Turkey where it seemed to be on the maps on TV. Does anybody know their history? | AndonicO 00:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You mean Bursa. Actually I think there was one before that somewhere east of the Sea of Marmara but I cant remember the name. Jameswilson 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Söğüt, Osman I's native village, was the 'capital' until 1325/26. Then it became Bursa.---Sluzzelin 05:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The template in the Ottoman Empire article lists all the capitals chronologically, with links to each. StuRat 06:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheist's joke on Islam

Question: If an atheist says "No religion is better than Islam", is he telling the truth?

Answer: He is only telling the truth if his religion is no religion. -- 202.168.50.40 05:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This raises the question of "what is truth?" It seems like the question is a bit ambigous or unanswerable. Go ask the person that said it if he is telling the truth. — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
When I read What is truth? in your post, I was reminded of John 18:37–38a: Then Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" —Wayward Talk 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It reminds me of a paradox by Raymond Smullyan asking which is better, eternal happiness or a ham sandwich? Since nothing is better than eternal happiness, and a ham sandwich is, after all, better than nothing, it follows that a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.---Sluzzelin 05:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless he's a Muslim, of course. :) DirkvdM 11:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
A jihadist strapped an atheist to a polygraph machine and demanded that the atheist makes a truthful statement regarding Islam. The atheist replied "No religion is better than Islam". Now what would the polygraph machine register? 210.49.155.134 11:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I get your point, but polygraph machines measure stress, not truths. — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)21:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
After edit conflict:
What Sluzzelin probably means to say is that the statement "No religion is better than Islam" could be interpreted in two ways; "There is no religion better than Islam" or "Having no religion is better than being a Muslim", either of which could be applied to any other religion. The former could then be interpreted as "No religion is better than any other", which sounds like a basis for either pantheism (accept them all) or agnosticism (accept none). If we replace 'religion' with 'belief' (two different things) then the latter could be interpreted as "It is better not to belief in a god", which sounds pretty much like a basis for atheism. So if the atheist means the former, that could be the case (like MacDavis said, ask him). If he means the latter then that would make sense. But we don't know which he means and these are my interpretations anyway.
So is the atheist telling the truth? Beats me. :) DirkvdM 11:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
But to get back to the point, of course, given the above, he could be telling the truth.
And what is a 'polygraph' anyway? A 'multidrawer'? Sounds like a cupboard. DirkvdM 11:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
<gasp> - you didn't think to try the "double square brackets" method of finding out the 'Truth' about what a polygraph is? :-) Carcharoth 16:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Gasp to you too. Will anyone ever understand my sense of humour? Think about the word. Poly means 'more than one or many' and graph means some sort of drawing. Double square brackets to you too too (and that's not a funny skirt). :) DirkvdM 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Right. I got the 'multidrawer' comment in relation to poly-graph, but I thought you were serious in that you didn't know what a polygaph was. Double square brackets = red? Double square brackets is the next best thing. And I'm now trying to visualise double square brackets forming a skirt! Surreal. Carcharoth 19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
double square brackets - that's better! :-) Carcharoth 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Even a perfect polygraph could only detect whether the atheist thinks he's telling the truth. It cannot ascertain some kind of Platonic Truth (deliberately capitalised). --Dweller 11:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the "double square brackets" method of finding out the truth might not always work. Let's try it for the next question down: The meaning of life... Carcharoth 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It comes down to the belief that human logic is infallible. That is not remotely true. So, if you try to disprove some concept or belief by basing your argument on human logic, you are ignorantly professing an unfounded faith in something that is already known to be wrong. --Kainaw (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Have to admit, atheist jokes aren't the best in the world... These are the best ones! -- the GREAT Gavini 12:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whats the meaning of life???

Have a go at answering this  :¬)

See absurdism. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 08:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of life is 42.+

It's a movie by Monty Python.

This question has been asked many times before (e.g. Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Humanities/November_2005), and will be asked many times again, however good the answer.--Shantavira 10:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
In Dutch, my standard answer is "De zin van het leven is de zin in het leven", but that doesn't translate well into English. 'Zin in het leven' means 'lust for life', but translating it into English like that wuold lose the pun. One option to bring it back would be "The meaning of life is to have a meaningful life", but that's lame in comparison. Then again, it's a lame question, so there you go. You asked for it. DirkvdM 11:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't the Dutch translate into "The meaning of life is to avoid all work and sponge off of society ?". :-) StuRat 12:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Ouch StuRat, while I am well aware of why you wrote that, isn't that a bit of a personal attack :( ?Evilbu 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a running inside joke, Evilbu. StuRat 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I know what it's about, but I'm a little bit afraid (especially judging from DirkVDM's reactions) that he doesn't consider it a joke :(.Evilbu 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Then why did he sign his post with a smiley ? StuRat 05:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, are you still on about this? Evilbu, whenever you see StuRat and me bickering, don't worry, it's a bit of a harmless juvenile pissing contest between us that's been going on for the better part of a year. Next time better steer clear if you don't want to get wet. :) Or join in if you can stomach it. DirkvdM 09:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
He's been trying to piss me off with such remarks for a while now, but I remain blissfully stoic under it. :) DirkvdM 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

FOOLS!!!!! :-) You missed the obvious. Try putting [[ and ]] before and after the phrase in question. Click save. Click the blue link. Hey presto! Your answer. If there is a red link, write something to answer your own question, wait 100 years, and come back and see how much your answer has been "improved". ;-) ie. Meaning of life; Hey presto!; 42; The Meaning of Life. Carcharoth 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. 42 (number)#In_pop_culture and the disambiguation sentence at Presto - "Presto change-o, term coined for amateur stage magic" are what I was looking for. It seems the "double square bracket" method is not infallible yet. But it worked for this question. Carcharoth 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, the previous time this question was asked (or at least the 28 November 2005 example pointed out above), no-one thought to point to the article meaning of life. This article was created waaaaay back in October 2001. Here is the original article... Carcharoth 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering the lack of an apostrophe the question is gramatically malformed and therefore meaningless itself. DirkvdM 19:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"What is the meaning of live?" Easy: "To die, knowing our task is done!" Flamarande 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has said "Wikipedia" yet... :) Dar-Ape (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

FAQ??--Light current 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time periods

I'm currently trying to expand the list of historical time periods given at List_of_time_periods. See also the suggestions at Talk:List_of_time_periods#Page is still very incomplete. Can anyone here think of any more time periods to add to this, or find any other articles that treat this is a more organised manner? Thanks. Carcharoth 10:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • "War on Terrorism" (2001-present) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, later Somalia, Iran, and more. "War against Islamists" (1979-present) driven by elite wealthy clerics with robes, their wives screaming with a headscarf; Islamist who wants to kill dissidents in the name of God, funnel taxes to their own bank accounts, force everyone to study Quran in schools, etc.--11:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Since when is an event a time period? Are you going to claim next that we need the "Opening Season of Survivor" time period. How about the "Twisted Sister's Nationwide Tour" time period? I know, I know... "That day I was driving home, but there was a gas truck that hit the median and spilled gas on the road, so the highway was shut down and I had to backtrack and go home on the side roads" time period. --Kainaw (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, wasnt history supposed to have ended sometime in the early 90's? Jameswilson 02:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Bold text you are all insufferable idiots. STOP IT WITH THE HAIR-SPLITTING!

The End of History - but doesn't anyone want to suggest more time periods? Periodization is a bit helpful, but not enough examples. I would like to have a comprehensive list. Carcharoth 13:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A term for manipulating someone's environment

I've found this 2 word term on wiki before, but I can't remember it now for the life of me.

The term refers to the act of altering another person's environment without telling her/him so that s/he gets paranoid or starts to think that s/he is losing her/his mind.

Examples would be moving her items when she is out of the room and acting like you didn't do anything, or dimming the lights while he is out of the room. I can remember reading an example on the wiki page where a man would pretend to leave the house and actually go to the attic or something and walk around up there, so that his wife would hear footsteps when she was supposedly alone in the house. To freak her out. What a guy, right?

It's actions like that where you manipulate the environment but act like nothing is out of the ordinary, making the other person think that it's "all in their head."

I would appreciate any help out there.... Thanks.

Gaslighting Durova 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU so much. You are my hero.

Aw, shucks... :) Durova 18:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Egyptian army? 14th Russian army? Just how many are there and

Hello,

I often hear about the "3rd Egyptian Army" being stranded on the Sinai during [Yom Kippur War]] and the "14th Russian Army" that sticked around in Moldova. However, I know next to nothing about military structures. Just how big is "one Army"... and much more importantly : just how many are there? (Is there a 35th Egyptian Army?) Who is in charge of one Army (Supreme General or something?) I have been going through Wikipedia, but the fact that Yom Kippur is more than three decades ago, and the formation of Transnistria more than a decade ago, doesn't make things easier... Thank you.Evilbu 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay... you know roughly what a division is? A group of divisions is a Corps; a group of Corps is an Army (or "Field Army", sometimes, to reduce ambiguity). A group of armies would then be an Army Group, though that's somewhat larger than ever operates these days. Category:Field armies may be of some use. Shimgray | talk | 17:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, so "Army" is not the biggest subdivision of an army, Army Group is even above that. But how big are they and how many are there?
The size depends on a number of factors - anywhere from fifty thousand up? Soviet "armies" were historically smaller, the equivalent of a Western corps; don't know if modern ex=Soviet-bloc ones are still that way. Armies may also be administrative formaitions only controlling a small number of combat units - it's not unknown to declare a regional area to be under the control of a specific field army regardless of whether it has half the armed forces in it or twelve militiamen with shotguns.
As to how many exist... again, hard to say. Many are paper formations, which are just administrative bodies. Usually, anything of army-level only exists in wartime - people rarely need to handle units with that kind of broad scope in peacetime, unless you have a massive standing army. In many ways they're just bureaucratic conveniences until you have a major war, and don't bear much resemblance to the actual size of an army. Shimgray | talk | 18:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How many armies are currently in the US Army? How come a collection of armies is an army, and an air force is a colection of air forces (c.f the 8th Air Force in WW2) but a navy is a collection of fleets?Edison 04:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the US Army has 6 field armies, mostly organized as regional HQs. 8th Army (Korea) is the only one specifically confined to a particular region. — Lomn 13:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patty Chayefsky

Last night while watching the pilot episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, I heard serveral references to Patty Chayefsky. I'm hoping that you know who this person is and how s/he fits into the storyline of a network tv show about a network tv show. Thanks very much for your time. I appreciate it. Thanks, Kari

Paddy Chayefsky. Go rent Network - it's decades ahead of its time. Durova 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more that people don't know about Paddy Chayefsky. I want you to go to your windows and put your heads out and shout out his name. JackofOz 20:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
He was parodied in Mad Magazine in the 1950s or 1960'sas "Paddy Chafed-knee." Edison 04:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Forget the nonsense. Go rent Marty. B00P 03:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] usefulness of popular history

When I was studying history, they told us you weren't allowed to use encyclopedias as references. I think we also weren't allowed to use popular history books. I never got around to asking many of the professors why we couldn't do this, if we did it carefully. The one that I remember asking told me that encyclopedias were sometimes unreliable even for factual information, which I found surprising. So, can anyone tell me 1. Why would encyclopedias get things wrong when (presumably) they have scholars checking the facts? 2. Can you use popular history books as references in scholarly history papers/ books? and 3. If not, how reliable are popular history books, whether by historians or by lay people? The Mad Echidna 19:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are tertiary sources and, as such, don't really belong in a term paper. An encyclopedia can be a good starting point for research, but the practice of history is done by getting as close to original sources as possible. As an editor on Wikipedia's history articles, I've sometimes found myself in the position of wording a side issue very carefully within an article - one simply can't meander on endless tangents to discuss every possible scholarly dispute.
Here are a couple of examples from the FA Joan of Arc where I've worked extensively:
The future French king, Charles VII, assumed the title of dauphin as heir to the throne at the age of fourteen after all four of his older brothers had died. His first significant official act was to conclude a peace treaty with Burgundy in 1419. This ended in disaster when Armagnac partisans murdered John the Fearless during a meeting under Charles's guarantee of protection. The new Duke of Burgundy, Philip the Good, blamed Charles and entered an alliance with the English.
There's actually considerable debate over whether Charles VII conspired in this crime. Some scholars exonerate him as an innocent bystander, others consider him an accessory to murder. Since this discussion is background to Joan of Arc's career, the controversy is too much of a side issue to really discuss - so I worded this in terms of points where the opposing sides do agree: that the new duke blamed Charles VII.
In the aftermath of the unexpected victory, she persuaded Charles VII to grant her co-command of the army with Duke John II of Alençon and gained royal permission for her plan to recapture nearby bridges along the Loire as a prelude to an advance on Reims and a coronation.
The word bridges is carefully chosen. The French army captured three bridges, but only two of the three associated towns.
Compare the background discussion about the disputed French royal succession in Wikipedia's article to the comparable Encyclopedia Britannica article: Britannica mentions only that the English were attempting a military conquest in France, which in my opinion simplifies the issue to the point of inaccuracy: it's impossible to understand why some French people were loyal to the English government and persecuted Joan of Arc unless a reader understands how strong a claim the English monarch had to the throne of France.
Regarding the second part of your question, "popular" history books are often written by people who aren't historians. They might not be able to read the original languages of the source material, so they perpetuate errors in secondary sources or they support faulty conjecture through selection bias. Sometimes they introduce mistaken interpretations due to lack of background understanding. Joan of Arc facts and trivia outlines a few of the more famous fringe hypotheses. Durova 20:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Popular histories are usually highly synthetic and highly narrative driven. Academic historians usually prefer works which are more analytic and take more care to attending to the places where narratives are not clean. That's a very simplistic explanation, but as an academic historian I think it sums up the attitudes of the profession well. It is not that academics do not appreciate synthesis and narrative, but they generally find that popular histories flatten the past in order to make for a better story. Works which manage to be synthetic and narrative that do not do damage to the past are highly valued, but unfortunately relatively rare, both inside and outside of academia. --Fastfission 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent replies, some of the best I've read on wiki. Also, if anyone is still reading, could someone clarify what the status is for popular history books written specifically by academic historians? I accept that popular history must tend in the general direction of narrative and synthetic aims, but is it at least reliable (factually reliable and interpretatively reasonable)? I would have thought academics in writing popular history would be careful with filling in blanks, and at least declare any ambiguities. If anyone has any specific examples of faults in such literature, I would be highly interested. Thanks. The Mad Echidna 22:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for the slow response - I'd ask that professor for a clearer explanation about class policy regarding works written by professional historians. In borderline cases, drop by during office hours and ask whether something is acceptable. 72.199.30.31 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Takao Aoki

Who is Takao Aoki? What manga series has he made? Where did he learn how to draw manga like that? How old is he? I want a biography on him

Please be more polite. :) We're not robots. Type "Takao Aoki" into the find box on the left. — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alpro advert

What is the name of the song in the Alpro Soya Milk adverts in the UK with the song line "that's what happy people do". Christopher x

It's a song by Junior Jazz (real name Eline).


Thank you. Do you know where it is available to purchase? I looked around for it and never seen it anywhere.

[edit] Canadians from the Boer War

I am doing a project for my History class. I need to find put how many people form my town went to the Boer War.

Country Canada. My Town name is Lindsay. Province Ontario.

My question. How many people from Lindsay, went to the Boer War.

I have searched the Web for about and Hour, and I have searched Wiki, and its Links.

And Thank you in Advance ^_^

Did you try your town library or Town Hall? I bet you that they have that sort of thing stored there. Ask the librarians, they like helping people find stuff; I'm not sure why. --AstoVidatu 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Everything is closed, and my teacher gave us one day to do it -_-, so this is my last resort. Please help me. I also live out of town, and my parents wouldn't have been able to drive me into town in time because of there jobs.

Your teacher gives you 24 hours time to find the number of people in a lesser know town who went to fight in a lesser known war more than a century ago?Evilbu 23:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed that other topic of yours. There is no problem with several people answering several times, in fact it happens all the time, making the craziest and fiercest degenerations possible too!:)Evilbu 00:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer is readily available in your town if think of the right place to check, like a memorial plaque or monument somewhere. Does that suggest anything to you? alteripse 03:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Google "Boer War" Canadians and get http://www.afhs.ab.ca/publications/armstrong/boer/ "Canadians in the Boer War."

Lindsay has a cenotaph, which presumably has names from the Boer War on it...that would at least tell you how many people died there, if any (I mean, Lindsay is small enough that maybe no one died, or even went at all). Adam Bishop 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
At least one person went there: [2]. --LambiamTalk 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The name of that person is Sam Hughes. A bit more about him here. Wonder if... Sam Hughes? Carcharoth 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Aaah. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? :-) Carcharoth 21:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Sam Hughes is fifth on this Wikipedia search. I know it doesn't say how many people went to the Boer War, but it's something you can report back with. Is this Sam Hughes the most famous person to have lived in Lindsay, Canada? Carcharoth 21:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I was looking for Sam Hughes on that list of Canadians in the Boer War, but he is not there. A look at this biography of Hughes tells us why: "As the century came to a close, his business ventures were only sources of trouble. He found personal compensation in the militia where, in 1897, he had been given command of the 45th Battalion and promoted lieutenant-colonel. [Hughes then agitated to get a force sent to fight in the Boer War, but the higher-ups were having none of it, sending a force under someone else - Hughes was forced to join them as a civilian!] Once in South Africa, in the spring of 1900, he used his influence with British friends to gain command of a small force of irregulars fighting behind the main line of battle, under a British lieutenant-general, Sir Charles Warren. In two brief campaigns Hughes had some success clearing out pockets of Boer resistance. He was proud of his display of leadership. In a series of letters to newspapers at home and in the Cape Colony he boasted of his exploits, continued his fulminations against Hutton, and criticized the competence of the senior British command. Together with his refusal to carry out a crucial order from Warren, Hughes’s outrageous letters swiftly led to his dismissal by the British army with orders to return to Canada."
LOL! Sounds like a right character! :-) Carcharoth 21:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah...interestingly, I created that article! :) Adam Bishop 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)