Humanities desk
< July 11	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 13 >

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.

July 12

Cultural variations in the perception of past & future

This question is inspired by a comment above (here) about the Maori word for past meaning in front and the word for future meaning behind, which struck a chord in this fan of Terry Pratchett's Discworld. Which cultures (past or present) see the past as being in front of them (logical in a way - one can see the past), and the future as being behind them (as one cannot see the future), and which cultures take the opposite view (as we do in England)? DuncanHill 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe China does something similar. The Welsh may as well, but I'm struggling to recall the exact terms for it in either language. The Jade Knight 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zonaras said that during the triumph of a victorious general in ancient Rome, "a public slave rode in the chariot with the general, holding above his head a crown with precious gems set in gold. And the slave kept saying to him, 'Look behind!' warning him to consider the future and events yet to come, and not to become haughty and arrogant because of present events." (Zonaras, Epitome 7.21; translation, Jo-Ann Shelton). --John Foxe 13:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Lakoff's work on metaphors (esp. Metaphors We Live By and Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things) might be an interesting point of departure for thinking about things like this... --24.147.86.187 14:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Aymara? Ratzd'mishukribo 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some related material can be found in the article about the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. 213.201.189.242 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Macbeth learns that most of the witches' prophecy has been fulfilled, he says, "The greatest is behind!" —Tamfang 22:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting and utterly alien to think of the future as "behind you". This seems to imply that we are walking backward into the future, which sneaks up on us, versus the common Western perception that we are walking forward into the future, and can see some big things coming, at least when they are near to us. StuRat 08:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Font ident please

Can someone ID the exact font used in the image http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/images/Splash.gif, (also see http://www.thebulletin.org/export/pics/newsletter_ad.gif and http://www.thebulletin.org/export/pics/media_ad.gif)? Many thanks.

Akzidenz Grotesk. --24.147.86.187 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm quite familiar with the font, it's amazing that I didn't recognize it.

By the way, there is a forum devoted to such questions: What The Font. —Tamfang 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is CNN wrong or am I?

While reading this article about the death of Lady Bird Johnson, I was confused. The article states, "Johnson died as a Roman Catholic priest was administering last rites, Spelce said. Johnson was Episcopalian; the priest, the Rev. Bob Scott, had been summoned by Johnson's daughter Luci, who is Catholic, Spelce said." I'm pretty familiar with the Roman Catholic faith and I've never heard a RC priest referred to as "Reverend". It's always been "Father" or in the case of a priest with a bigger hat, "his eminence", "bishop", "pope", or "his holiness". Priesthood (Catholic Church) doesn't mention the terms "father" or "reverend" at all. And the article for reverend says this about the Catholic Church: "However, none of these are ever addressed as "Reverend" or "the Reverend" alone" but that doesn't mention what happens if the full name of the priest is used. So, is CNN wrong in calling him a reverend or am I wrong and RC priests can be referred to as reverend? Dismas|^(talk) 13:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Spelce is wrong, of course, and that it was an Episcopalian priest, who can be "reverend." To an observer, the vestments are going to be very similar. However, no, it is not at all usual to call a RCC priest "reverend," and yes, CNN is really sloppy about their writing these days. They've pulled boners of all sizes in their news reading, so, if it was an RCC priest, CNN is wrong. N.b. these are issues of custom rather than law. You can call an RCC priest "reverend," and I doubt he'll care much, but the custom is "father." Protestant churches reject any "father" title emphatically, as Jesus said, "Call no man 'father,' for you have one Father who is in heaven." Geogre 14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case. It's standard to address a priest as Father Lastname (or sometimes Father Firstname), but you would refer to him in discussion as either Rev. Firstname Lastname or Father Lastname. A basic Google search under "reverend catholic" brings up literally thousands of pages from Roman Catholic Church websites that refer to priests in this manner. If they do it, why shouldn't CNN? --Charlene 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is using a proper title for a Catholic priest. See this article for the various titles in use by the Church. For example, the title held by the priest in my parish as a child was "The Right Reverend Monsignor", a slightly "higher" title than the typical priest, but still only a priest in the heirarchy. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII and Scotland

What was Henry VIII's policy towards Scotland and why was it such a failure? Brodieset 13:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can start with the sections of articles like Scottish Reformation and Auld Alliance devoted to the years of Henry VIII's reign. (And I thought school was out for the summer!) Wareh 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It failed because Henry was a bull and Scotland his china shop! In political and strategic terms, Scotland was for Henry as Spain was for Napoleon: a 'running sore', a sideshow which effectively undermined the whole imperial strategy. He could conceivably have achieved much more by patience and diplomacy; for Scotland and England had been growing closer together, and the 1502 Treaty of Perpetual Peace, gave him a foundation on which to build. Rather, he preferred aggressive courses, encouraged by fleeting military sucesses, like the Battle of Flodden, where empty glory took the place of real achievment. A potential friend was turned into a resentful enemy, one that was willing to renew the ancient alliance with France, which had the effect of further weakening Henry's Continental ambitions.

In the great game of international poker Francis I, Henry's chief opponent, was a far better player than the English king, always recognising the strategic importance of the Scottish card, which he played effectively time and again. Henry had neither the patience nor the skill to adopt a piecemeal approach to his problems. Obsessed with conquest in France, he blustered and fumed in Scotland. He wanted the Scots to be co-operative and quiescent; but to ensure stability in the north he was prepared to commit only sufficinent resources to keep the problem alive, but not enough to bring a permanent solution. He was told by Thomas Cromwell, his most talented minister by far, that "Who that entendeyth Fraunce to wyn with Skotland let hym begyn." But Henry did not win in Scotland, in military or diplomatic terms. His victory at the Battle of Solway Moss in 1542 might have opened fresh opportunities; instead it only made an unsatisfactory sitution even worse. With the throne of Scotland occupied by the infant Mary, he saw the prospect of bringing the intractable northern realm under his direct control on the cheap, so to speak, by a marriage between the little Queen and Prince Edward, his own son and heir. Again diplomacy may have worked; again diplomacy gave way to bullying and bluster, this time in the form of the Rough Wooing. This violent attempt to 'persuade' the Scots of the advantages of an English alliance had the reverse effect, moving them ever deeper towards France. It was also in the Battle of Ancrum Moor to provide the occasion for the worst English military defeat of the whole reign. When Henry died in 1547 his ambitions in France and his schemes in Scotland had achieved virtually nothing. It was a reign of empty achievments and vanished opportunities. Clio the Muse 01:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had completely missed what a major article we have on The Rough Wooing, apparently largely the contribution of the departed editor Rcpaterson. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Wareh 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, Wareh. That is a good article, and it is nice to know the name of the person responsible. As with all Wikipedia pages some are good, some are bad, and some are ugly. The Auld Alliance page you linked is superb. Those on Solway Moss and Ancrum Moor manage to be both bad and ugly! That on Thomas Cromwell is just sad. I'm sure I've just made another dozen or so enemies! Clio the Muse 23:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but you're describing them as they are today, Clio. There's always tomorrow. After all, tomorrow is another day. If Scarlett O'Hara were alive today, I'm sure she'd be a committed Wikipedian. :) - JackofOz 23:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow/Creeps in this petty pace from day to day/To the last syllable of recorded time.... Yes, I know, and Scarlett and I are sisters. Over us the great tides of war wash in vain! Clio the Muse 00:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone from Chicago know...

... if Juniper Bay actually exists? 68.39.174.238 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. I don't currently live in Chicago, but have lived there, and there is no such neighborhood. Also, the article mentions Cedarwood St. and Hughes St. as within the neighborhood, but no such streets exist anywhere in Chicago. Marco polo 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even more curious then, the article appears to have been created by an admin, JIP whose user page shows him to be Finnish. To what purpose was it created, I wonder, if it is not a real place? Bielle 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the mystery deepens! Some admin might want to take a look at the delete log displayed on what would usually be the User page for the OP, 68.39.174.238. Bielle 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything mysterious about that part. This prolific editor chooses to contribute anonymously and doesn't want a user page. Other users ignored (or weren't aware) of this wish and "created and re-created" the page, so the page was deleted several times in accordance with the user's preference, that's all. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it exists, but other than in Chicago, or perhaps it existed sometime in the past. Edison 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are places called Juniper Bay in other parts of North America, but not within 1,000 km of Chicago. The article clearly states that it is in Chicago, and it mentions streets that do not exist anywhere near Chicago. When I lived in Chicago, I took an interest in its history, and I do not recall a place formerly known as Juniper Bay in the area. Marco polo 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's gone. If anyone wishes to contest this, feel free on WP:DRV. In the meantime, even had the article been correct, it would have been inappropriate as an article. Saying that a place is a pleasant neighborhood is both POV and failing to discuss the subject in an encyclopedic manner. Geogre 19:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax deleted! Excellent! 68.39.174.238 14:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Christophe Napoléon

What does Jean-Christophe Napoléon do? Is he in school? Does he live in France? Corvus cornix 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the guys from this newsgroup may give you an answer. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satan

My question is how can satan/the devil possibly be evil; after all, he's punishing evil people? So how can it be that he is the ultimate perception of evil? --Hadseys 19:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of Satan punishing evil people is an invention of relatively recent tradition. The Satan that appears in the Bible and related works is an enemy of God that tempts all people, regardless of their current moral state. In fact, the suggestion in the belief systems based upon these books is that he will be a greater adversary to the righteous, since he already has the others in hand. The Satan entry should give you a starting point for his motivations, such as they are. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that Satan is evil does not emerge from the Tanakh. He is, rather, a member of God's heavenly court, having the function of prosecutor (with God as the judge). No connection is made between the serpent in the Garden of Eden and Satan. See also Devil in Christianity. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an important factor to mention, yes. The view of Satan in Judaism and Christianity is a bit different. My assumption was that the question was coming from the viewpoint of Christianity, since Judaism does not have a tradition of "punishment" from Satan at this stage, (and that was the concern mentioned) but you're perfectly right that this is a relevant issue to point out. The Devil in Christianity article you posted is a good reference, and more complete for the questioner's purposes than the one I provided. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, below, is an answer I gave to a previous question on the nature and purpose of Satan, which has, I think, some passing relevance. The important point is that, in Christianity at least, he is not, nor has he ever been, a figure constant in both appearance and purpose. Clio the Muse 23:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil, like everything else, has a history. If you ever visit the Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, you will see him depicted in a sixth century mosaic, sitting to the left of Christ, helping to separate the sheep from the goats. To the right of Christ sits an angel; but the only difference between him and the Devil is that the latter is depicted in blue and the former in red; both have halos and wings, and both have similar expressions on their faces. Now, travel one hundred kilometers to the west, and seven hundred years into the future, you will find him again, this time in the Florence Baptistery, as depicted by Fra Angelico. From angel in blue he has become the beast, devouring sinners by the handful. The question then arises, what happened in the intervening period, why has he moved from the periphery to the centre, and why has he become so loathsome? Is this the kind of figure that God would have admitted to his council, as he does in the Book of Job? The answer, of course, is to be found in the changing nature of western Christianity, and the kind of preoccupations that had emerged over the course of time, preoccupations that imbued Satan with a new malignacy and purpose.

In his modern guise the Devil only really begins to emerge around the time of the First Crusade. This was a time when the Christian west began to focus on new enemies, both from within and from without. Those who were different were isolated, persecuted and occasionally murdered, whether they be Jews, lepers or heretics. And, bit by bit, yet another malignant enemy was added to the old-those who were perceived to be practitioners of witchcraft. Of minor concern to the early church, witchcraft became steadily more important, and was most often associated with sexual excess. Behind all this one begins to detect the new shape of Satan. He is the consort of depraved women-and it was mostly women who were accused of witchcraft-and along with his erotic attributes he acquires a tail and cloven hooves, a confirmation of his bestial lasciviousness, and an echo of Pan and the Greek satyrs. By the fifteenth century he finally makes his appearance as a goat, horns and all, worshipped by heretics and witches. He is to be found depicted thus in stained glass, stone and paintings, from Fra Angelicio to Albrecht Dürer, as well as in literature. He was a monster born of the monstrous, very much a reflection of the historical mood which gave him shape. Clio the Muse 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florence is actually one hundred kilometers to the southwest of Ravenna. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is too: silly me! I've made the correction, least any innocent soul ends up swimming in the Adriatic on the hunt for Satan! Thanks, Lambiam. Clio the Muse 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A curious take on Satan's goat and fire aspects is put forth by Stephen J. Pyne in his book Vestal Fire. An Environmental History, Told Through Fire, of Europe and Europe's Encounter with the World. Although the book is about fire and not religion or Satan per se, Pyne points out the long history of conflict between farmers and farming (which he denotes with the Latin word "ager"), pastoralism ("saltus") ranging from Nomadism to Transhumance, and forestry ("silva"). In Europe, pastoralism has roots at least as ancient as farming, if not older yet. But in the in centuries since the Middle Ages, and especially since the Age of Enlightenment, pastoralism became increasingly targetted as the cause of many environmental woes, and pastoralists became increasingly portrayed as ignorant semi-barbarians. Of the animals kept by pastoralists, goats drew the most scorn. Of the common practices of pastoralism, the most obviously destructive, in the eyes of farmers and enlightenment thinkers, was the widespread use of anthropogenic fire; that is, setting the landscape on fire. This was done (and still is in places) to clear out woody growth and encourage a flush of grass. Typically it was done just before the pastoralists moved their herds. It was especially prevalent among sheep and goat herders. These days, the goat's "evil" qualities may not be so blatant, but setting forest fires is a criminal act in most places today. In many places there were ancient, pagan traditions relating to pastoralism and firing the land (Pyne gives numerous examples, but the one that comes to mind is the bonfires of Beltane). I could go on about the many connections, but it would take a long time. Suffice it to say that while Pyne does not say that Satan's goat and fire imagery comes from pastoralism and anthropogenic fire, he points out a long history of connection. Whatever the origins of Satan's goat and fire symbols, it seems that they were at least enhanced by these things, especially after the Age of Enlightenment, the increasing use of fertilizer instead of fire/fallow in farming, and the spreading timber shortages that gave rise to modern forestry. Pfly 05:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how relevant this is to your question, but if you need any proof that the Devil is evil, you could read the boook of Job in the Bible. He was a super-rich man totally devoted to God. One day, the Devil went to God and requested control over him, saying that when all his wealth had been taken away, he would turn his back on Job. God granted him control with one condition: he must not take Job's life. Job's experience under Satan's control wasn't a nice one, to put things lightly. Wealth, health and family were largely totally destroyed. (However, he refused to curse God and was returned to Him a stronger man - consequently, his previous wealth was restored and doubled.martianlostinspace 08:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is one bizarre story, from God and the Devil making bets like good buddies, to God abusing Job and killing his family to win the bet. It leaves me wondering if God is evil. Also, if evil is necessary to test people, then the Devil, and evil itself, are both necessary parts of God's plan, making God not pure goodness, but a mixture of good and evil, as in many eastern religions. StuRat 08:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

After considering you're answers if satan is so bad why is he not being punished; instead, he is appointed supreme overlord of hell? Is it just me this doesn't make any sense to? --82.36.182.217 01:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If religion made any sense whatsoever, then people wouldn't need faith, and without faith, god is nothing. DuncanHill 01:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of stretch to me. Faith is reasonable—here on Wikipedia, we're always encouraged to assume good faith, and with reason. The Jade Knight 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm religious, but the reason many people place store in what religions tell them is that they have faith in things that they cannot prove one way or another using scientific or rational means. If there was proof of the existence of God, say, the question of faith would not arise. Some people say, there is no proof of his existence and therefore he doesn't exist. Others say, there is no proof of his existence but I believe in him anyway. -- JackofOz 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belief and faith are not the same thing and should not be confused. Unfortunately, the two are frequently confused in modern usage. The Jade Knight 03:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think they certainly have overlapping meanings. What do you understand to be the difference? -- JackofOz 23:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faith is a reasonable, but ultimately uncertain, trust, drawn from other obersations. For example: You go into a restaurant, sit down, and order a meal. You have faith that, because you're in a restaurant that is currently operating in your country, and have heard no horror stories about it, that you will be given an edible meal for what you have paid. You have faith that a) they will give you food, and that b) it will not be particularly lethal. You have very good reasons for having this faith, but it is faith nonetheless—it is certainly possible that one of the chefs could decide to throw in something toxic, and kill you. Faith in God is somewhat similar, but more tenuous—people see things that make them believe that a) God exists, and b) God wants to help them. Using these "signs", if you will, they draw the conclusion that they should trust God in general, or at least in certain ways. Belief is an entirely different phenomenon, and does not require any sort of trust. The Jade Knight 06:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... Can you give me an example of belief, then? -- JackofOz 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belief is simply a trust that something is true, or a consideration that something is likely (but not necessarily true). You can say "I believe someone will be at this event." It does not necessarily mean you have faith that he'll be there, or that you have any sort of trust in him being there, but perhaps you know he likes that sort of event, and so you think he might come. Faith is perhaps a subset of belief, in that regard—though I usually consider belief to mean exclusively non-faith belief (as in the given example). The Jade Knight 02:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused now. You earlier said "Belief ... does not require any sort of trust", but now you're saying "Belief is simply a trust that something is true ...". The scenario you're now painting sounds a bit unlikely to me. Just because I know that my friend Bob likes this kind of event, does not mean that I believe/have faith/trust that he will be at this specific event - unless I knew he'd expressed an interest or desire to do so, or if I knew that he attends as many of these events as he can manage. Without that information, I might say things like "Bob might be here today", "I wonder if Bob will be here today", or "I wouldn't be surprised if Bob was here today" (the unspoken message being that I also wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't here), which are a long way from "I believe he will be here". -- JackofOz 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many Christian religions do not place Satan as surpreme overlord of hell. Consider, for example, Mormonism, which believes (though there may be exceptions with some of the individual denominations) that Satan rules nothing but those who willingly submit to him—and he himself cannot enter hell (he is, instead, cast into "outer darkness"), as even it is above his desert. The Jade Knight 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is not hell the ultimate punishment, the pit of despair?

Through me you pass into the city of woe:

Through me you pass into eternal pain:

Through me among the people lost for aye...

Before me things create were none, save things

Eternal, and eternal I endure.

All hope abandon ye who enter here

Or is it better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven? Clio the Muse 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was Satan in fact "appointed" supreme overlord? Was he subject to confirmation by the councils of Cherubim and Seraphim? On a more serious note, some modern Christian thinking tends to view Hell as a metaphor for separation from God. As Satan was the original rebel against God he was

Hurld headlong flaming from th' Ethereal Skie

With hideous ruine and combustion down

To bottomless perdition, there to dwell

In Adamantine Chains and penal Fire,

...As far remov'd from God and light of Heav'n

As from the Center thrice to th' utmost Pole. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not die, yet nothing of life remained Clio the Muse 02:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jude v6 says Satan is only there temporarily until he is to be judged by God: "And remember the angels who did not keep their place of power, but left their proper home. The Lord has kept these angels in darkness, bout with everlasting chains, to be judged on the great day." (New Century Version) Perhaps that would explain the notion of Hell's purpose as to separate Satan from God - because Heaven is perfect, and anything which has sinned and not been forgiven cannot enter it. Remember, Satan is not a god, he is only an angel (at least, Biblically speaking) so he isn't the "Supreme Over lord" - he is inferior to God. 2 Peter 2:4: "When angels sinned, God did not let them go free without punishment. He sent them to hell and put them in caves of darkness where they are being held for judgement." In other words, he will be punished, but now is not yet his time. martianlostinspace 08:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at this is that Satan is not the warden of hell, rather, he is the biggest bully amonst the prisoners.

Name of a concept

What is the name of the concept that when a crime is being committed, an passerby is less likely to involve himself if he is in a crowd than if he is alone? 70.17.196.188 21:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bystander effect. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 70.17.196.188 21:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as the "Genovese syndrome" based on the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese in New York. Reportedly, dozens of people witnessed her murder, and no one helped or called 911. (JosephASpadaro 09:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Read the Kitty Genovese article, Joseph. "Witnessed the murder" is misleading. Quoted from the article: "None of the witnesses observed the attacks in their entirety. Because of the layout of the complex and the fact that the attacks took place in different locations, no witness saw the entire sequence. Most only heard portions of the incident without realizing its seriousness, a few saw only small portions of the initial assault, and no witnesses directly saw the final rape and attack in an exterior hallway which resulted in Genovese's death." Dismas|^(talk) 15:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in 2002, the New York Times Magazine revisited the attack and suggested that the original report was largely concocted, that there was no pounding on doors, no length of hours, etc. The phenomenon is real, but the incident in question is something of a misunderstanding. Geogre 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To both Dismas and Geogre -- yes, I am fully aware of the points that you make. I am intimately familiar with the Genovese case. That is why, in my original reply, I specifically said "reportedly" to describe the event. It was reported and, as you point out, the reports were misleading and/or inaccurate. Nonetheless, they were reported. So, my original statement stands: Reportedly, dozens of people witnessed her murder, and no one helped or called 911. And with regard to the original question, it was the title of the phenomenon that was important -- so I was indicating where the (alternate) title came from. Erroneous or not, the term arose from the reported conduct of the Genovese bystanders. (JosephASpadaro 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I wasn't saying you were wrong at all, just offering supplemental information. I agree that the phenomenon is real, or at least really discussed, and therefore your answer was sufficient to the question. There are several received wisdom cases from the same time that are now getting reconsideration (most noisily, the Zimbardo Stanford prison experiments). It's true that, when people make contact, bystanders tend to intervene more than if they can maintain that the victim is a stranger, but there are big limits here, and the Genovese Effect's original story suggests something that's too far, but there is an effect. (My students once ran an experiment with a "bike thief." In one set, the "victim" just walked into the library, and no one stopped the thief. In the next set, they said, to a total stranger, "Could you watch this for me for a second" and didn't wait for an answer before leaving. There was 100% intervention in those cases.) Geogre 00:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that you said that I was wrong. I also was offering supplementary info and presenting my reasons for use of the word "reportedly". This is a fascinating field with many fascinating experiments. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 03:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

serious quest- not crazy

does anyone have- or has heard of- a man named punka** in their head sort of liek a deity- im researching it, i've heard stories from people of it- its strange because things their told come true- thanks for your help

- - p.s.- i am am experiencer of the phenomenon- new too it- and he keeps repeating the word "eye", or maybe "I", but the main page of wikipedia has a pict. of an eye, and eight hours of the word must have meant i would see the picture- please comment if youve expericenced or heard of this man, deity,voice, whatever it is

If you are saying that you hear a voice in your head, and you are asking if other people do too (you are trying to determine if this is normal), I strongly suggest you discuss this with people you know and who care about you. It might be even better if you talk to a doctor, since they are more likely to have encountered this sort of thing before and be able to give you more information. Skittle 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ive talked to 10 people who have heard the same thing- author

I would still strongly advise talking to somebody you know who cares about you about this. Also to talk to a doctor. Who knows, if this is widespread they are likely to have heard about it and know any theories. Also, they'd be able to help you test it (or know someone who could), since they'd be more experienced in this area. Skittle 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not looking for a puka (aka Puck), are you? That's an Irish devil/spirit of the wood. Geogre 03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Puka: "The word "puka" appears in the American play by Mary Chase, HARVEY. It is used to describe the large invisible rabbit named Harvey who can only be seen by the main character of that play. A "puka" is some kind of garden variety sprite." See also Hallucination. Edison 04:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - he calls himself harvey- from the author, (seriously)

percentage

if there is a 50:50 sex ratio between men and women and there are more gay men than there are lesbian women, then are there more straight women than straight men. And if so, why can't I get a girl?

See Sex ratio to see why there isn't a 50:50 ratio between men and women. As to you being unable to get a girl - I feel sure there is a policy somewhere on the lines of Wikipedia is not a relationship counsellor. DuncanHill 22:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are assuming a straight division between gay people (who have sex with people of their own sex, and only with people of their own sex) and straight people (who have sex with people of the opposite sex, and only with people of the opposite sex). The real world is more complicated than that. In addition, the sex ratio could be very skewed in the area you live. On top of this, it is possible that the women who are not currently dating men are pickier than the ones who are currently dating men :-) (joke) Skittle 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they don't think someone vandalizing Wikipedia is as cool as you seem to think. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth has this to do with Humanities? Clio the Muse 23:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gee, girls are human, aren't they? :-) --Anonymous, July 12, 23:46 (UTC).

The jury is still out on that, some feel that they are Venutians, after all. StuRat 07:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to check out How Women Select Men (yes, Wikibooks to the rescue!). The Jade Knight 00:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confident there is a girl somewhere who would be delighted to meet you. But I must ask: are you looking in the right place? Have you set a standard of physical appearance based on starlets of TV and movies? Edison 04:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way you've indented makes it seem like you're addressing this to me. The Jade Knight 09:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster did not clarify if he/she was male or female. We need to be 100% sure before answering this question. Of course, it is implied that that OP is male, but I think there needs to be information on how Women select Women as well.--GTPoompt (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of gay men around makes me wonder if it's womens fault, that their coldness or haughtyness is driving men gay out of frustration or lonliness.

What's the punchline? Bhumiya (said/done) 09:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History and evolution of Shaivism

A short time ago you had an excellent article posted on the history and evolution of Shaivism. I say 'excellent' in that it made specific references to recorded historical events that were significant, but now I cannot find the article or any references to said events.

These events gave evidence that the movement of Shaivism may have been an original religious movement dating somewhere between 300 to 1000 c.e., and did not even have a name yet. Somewhere during that period (via said events) religious traditions existing at the time laid claim to the new original, citing relatively obsure sources dating as far back as the Harrapan culture some 2500 years prior (ie history of the lingam and hymns to the god Yama in early Rig Vedic period and what had been a relative unimportant and much later hymn to a god Rudra.)

These claims have a modern counterpart as to the roots of the Shaivite tradition, as well as whether or not the word 'Shiva' is a Vedic-Sanskrit word meaning 'auspicious' or a Tamil word meaning 'red'.

Whether their claims are valid or not is, of course, open to dispute, and is not reason for this inquiry. I cannot find this article now in order to research those historical events, but instead I have found several expanded articles that simply cite evidence that support claims to Vedic roots, with no reference at all --nada-- to the recorded medieval events which give evidence of its being unique and quite apart from pre-existing religious traditions.

What I want is to find the article that cites said recorded events, and if the article has been mothballed, if you could explain why it was removed.

On a feedback perspective, the removal or modifying of the missing article smacks of soft censorship on the part of the modern religious traditions that find those historical events inconvenient. On the other hand, let us hope that I have been using the wrong keywords in the search box.

I assume this submission will automatically include my email address, but if it does not, please feel free to use [Please do not include your email address, since you will receive a lot of spam from the robots that crawl the internet. Instead, check back here for an answer :D Skittle 23:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Thank you, Ronald Girty

Is Shaivism or History of Shaivism not it? Maybe the information you seek has been removed. Have you looked at the history page for History of Shaivism? You may find what you need if you go back to an older version of the page. --mglg_(talk) 00:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another place where you can look: History of Hinduism. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]