Humanities desk
< November 3	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 5 >

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.

November 4

World tree qn

Somehwere I remember a reference to the idea of the World Tree as having its roots in the sky and its top in the earth when most beliefs put it the other way round like normal trees. I've looked at the article including axis mundi and tree of life, but nothing. Any tips? Julia Rossi 04:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also have World tree. It doesn't seem to mention an upside-down tree, but clearly the motif appears in different forms in many cultures. Xn4 07:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed protests preceding WWI?

I recall reading that there were large international protests before [WWI] started, one somewhere around 1910 or so that put it off for a few years, and then another in 1914 that failed. Where can I find Wikipedia's articles on this?

209.51.73.60 05:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt whether any protests delayed WW1. There were certainly peace-minded people and groups in the early 20th-century, but in some European countries even Marxists who theoretically held an ideology of working-class internationalism effectively supported their governments after the war broke out... AnonMoos 14:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When governments decide to go to war, 209.51, no amount of protesting will ever put them off. Indeed, the only demonstrations that I know of associated with the war were those actively in favour of conflict, a great burst of national passion that embraced people from Paris to Petersburg. What you may conceivably have in mind is the Bosnian crisis of 1908-9, where the European powers came close to war over the Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina but pulled back at the last moment. Clio the Muse 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would depend on whether you consider the Russian Revolution a protest :) Exxolon 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Marx

I was told recently that there is some theory floating around that Karl Marx suffered from a skin condition, causing some form of personal depression reflected in his writings. Do any of you know anything about this? Stockmann 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Karl Marx skin condition. 152.16.59.190 07:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading a letter he wrote to Friedrich Engels in 1867 saying that the bourgeoisie would have occasion to remember the carbuncles on his backside! As for the more general aspects of Professor Shuster's thesis, he does not seem to grasp the huge difference berween alienation as a personal and as a philosophical concept. I have little sympathy for Marxism, but the suggestion that a complex set of ideas is reducible to boils and eruptions is truly absurd! I see some of the links flagged up by 152.16 have headings like 'Bad Skin made Marx a Communist.' Why not a Fascist? That particular form of political self-loathing seems altogether more likely! Clio the Muse 00:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is RMS Quetta located?

I want to know the exact location of the shipwreck RMS Quetta. I am about to write the Wikipedia article RMS Quetta and I think it would be good to locate the wreck on a map. This NASA map contains the area where the ship is and would be fine for the article, but I'm unsure of the exact location, although sportextreme.com has a rough location (No. 19). A book I have describes the location as near the middle of the Adolphus Channel, I don't know where that channel is either. Maybe a diver had recorded the GPS coordinates of the wreck? Or someone has access to a detailed map of the area? Thanks, --Commander Keane 08:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this interactive map? It should give enough detail at whatever scale you want so that you could create your own static map for the article. 152.16.16.75 01:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of waterboarding

The article about waterboarding states that: "In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex and can make the subject believe death is imminent."

However, why does the gag reflex makes us believe death is imminent? Could it not be just a extremely unpleasant or traumatic feeling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.66.241 (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence reads: "In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent while leaving no physical damage." The comma would lead me to believe that the gag reflex is not necessarily the part that makes the person feel that death is imminent. Although, gagging due to water can have a psychological effect in that the person associates the two together (gagging and water) as drowning which would lead to death. Dismas|^(talk) 12:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gagging is a reflex against choking which could indeed cause you to suffocate to death. -- Diletante 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan

Having just read about the Sudd in southern Sudan, I wondered when Sudan started using that name and what it meant. A quick scan of 5 different Sudanese history articles on Wikipedia did not help answer my question. When did Sudan get its name and what does it mean? 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This site indicates some of the confusion about the name, inasmuch as it was once a general term for most of sub-Saharan Africa. Our article on History of Sudan is not quite explicit regarding when the term came into use for the area (more or less) of today's nation of Sudan, but it seems likely that it was about when the Anglo-Egyptian co-dominium began in the late 1890s. That would have been about the earliest that borders were even vaguely defined - and they were not really defined until much later, and some are still disputed. Cheers Geologyguy 16:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, also, that on the basis of our articles Sudd and Sudan (region), the origins of the names Sudd and Sudan are not related. Cheers Geologyguy 16:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canary Islands part of Africa?

Are the Canary Islands considered in any way to be part of Africa? I have read the Canary Islands article, and the impression I get from that is no, that they are geographically close to Africa, but that's all. I just wanted to confirm that answer in case I am misunderstanding the situation. Thanks, --Beloved Freak 14:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All these volcanic islands lie in oceanic crust shifting over a hotspot; they have never been connected to Africa: see here--Wetman 15:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Have there ever been any political connections to Africa? --Beloved Freak 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are controlled by Spain, and are considered to be actually part of Spain, not a "colony," which is one reason the issue of where they are "really" located doesn't come up more often. Newyorkbrad 15:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. That's a big help. --Beloved Freak 16:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However there are parts of Spain that are definitely in Africa - the ports of Ceuta and Melilla. Spain does not lie entirely in Europe, as most people assume. -- JackofOz 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A modern term for all the Atlantic archipelagos from the Azores to the Cape Verdes, including the Canaries, is Macaronesia. Pfly 01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its very name, Macaronesia, is redolent of the artificial assemblages of islands with various geological origins and disparate current political affiliations: cf. the artificially assembled Macaronic verse.--Wetman 12:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal's head in medieval illustrated manuscript

In one of the illuminated pages of a German book of courtly love songs from the 13th\14th Centuries called "Große Heidelberger Liederhandschrift" (a.k.a. "Codex Manesse") appears the image of a minnesinger named Heinrich von Sax. Above him at top left is a shield with the arms of the knights (barons?) of Sax , and at top right the head of an animal that might be a black feline (a black panther?). Is this a black panther (in the sense of a black leopard)? If not, what animal is this?

Thanks!

Ron Berger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergeronz (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(The image can be seen here, and another image with the Sax shield is here. --Lambiam 16:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I believe so, though leopards were more usually illustrated as having manes (like lions) and portrayed less naturally. Our article on leopard (heraldry) gives some info. Matt Deres 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a panther. The red line I at first took for a tongue is probably the flame it always has issuing from its mouth. It's facing the right way, but it's black. --Milkbreath 01:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is a Dogge (german) a special dogbreed. It is related to the de:Toggenburger, a noble family of todays Switzerland. Heinrich von Sax inherited part of their territory. See images.--Tresckow 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MANY THANKS to the kind members of the reference desk who answered my question! After viewing the sources they referred me to in their answers I feel confident that the animal is a heraldic panther - there is no mane so the leopard possibility looks weaker than the panther, and the face is too wide and the snout too short for it to be a dogge. The reference desk is a superb site for anyone looking for help in finding details for studies and articles. In the future I intend to place more questions here and if possible offer answers on subjects I know something about. To me sharing knowledge is the best mental "high" there can be. For the future - can someone refer me to a simple explanation on how to attach an illustration to a question or an answer? In a quick search the only explanation I found was too technical for me, and I think it didn't refer to the reference desk but to the encyclopedia in general - or are they the same in this respect?

To make an image appear with a question, just copy-and-paste what you see in the edit window and substitute the right name. Monkey with it if necessary, and use "Show preview" until it looks OK. Don't worry; if you mess it up, somebody here will come along and tidy it up. Of course, the image has to be somewhere the software can find it. You can search Commons or upload the picture you want to use to Commons first. To link to a picture outside of Wikipedia is easy; just put the address, a space, and the text you want inside square brackets . --Milkbreath 15:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details of service of a British navy needed

The British navy (i.e. military fleet, not including merchant and private vessels) had over the years several ships named "H.M.S. Panther". One of them was a ship of the mid 1800's (I know as a fact that it was in service in the Mediterranean in 1859). I also know that a ship of this name ran aground in the sea off Wallace Island, British Columbia (Canada) in 1874, and have reason to believe it is the same ship. Can someone find more details about this ship - years in service, history in the navy, identities of captain\s and officers, personnel, armament etc.? I am interested especially in its tour of duty in the Mediterranean during the first half of 1859, but all relevant details will be welcome.

THANK YOU!!!!

Ron Berger

We only have articles for three ships named HMS Panther. The Royal Navy has an excellent web site Tha you can try. -Arch dude 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arch Dude - I need to consult in more details than is proper here. Can you please let me know how to get in touch with you? Do you have a web page with e-mail link to you? I awear I am not a spammer nor do I have any intentions to take up a lot of your time. Being new here I don't know if you can access my registration with the reference desk. I you can, my e-mail address is there and you are welcome to contact me that way. Please respond. Thanks! Bergeronz 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

broadband for intellectuals

I've been using dialup for ages on the internet, and I'm thinking of upgrading to broadband. However, this comes at a price, in the form of 12 month contracts and the like. What does broadband offer an intellectual that a dial up user wouldn't (realistically) have access to? I'm interested in things like archival audio/video footage of significant events, and playing intellectual games with some historical flavour (e.g. those involving recreation of an historical era in the form of an online world). Online tutoring (by me or for me) is also an idea I might toy with at some point. Any opinions from satisfied/ disgruntled users? 203.221.127.45 15:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the speed difference is important, even more importat isthe fact that the broadband connection is always on. This changed the way you thinks about the Internet and the way you interact with it, because ou never need to actually establish a connection. If your dial-up line is also your phone line, you also have a feeling that you really must get off the internet ocasionally to free up the phone line: this goes away with boradband. I suspect that many users care about video, but I find it a waste of time. -Arch dude 16:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you might appreciate the fact that you can download software and documents faster with broadband but how often does anyone download a 25 MiB document in PDF ? My advice, if you don't need it, don't get it. --Kushal^t 19:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note—given that many online databases full of journal and newspaper articles in PDF format are now available, it is not at all uncommon to download large PDFs for someone who does work in an academic field that relies heavily on citation and journals. When I am in the throes of research I can easily download 25 MB of PDFs in a day. I currently have about 10GB of space devoted just to PDFs on my hard drive at the moment. --24.147.86.187 15:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ Arch dude - We have a campaign going in Australia to turn computers off at the wall when not in use, to help reduce greenhouse gases. There may be similar campaigns elsewhere. This is good in itself, but it does have the effect that your broadband connection has to be re-established every time you log on. You don't incur a call cost as you would with a dialup connection, but there's still the waiting for it come up, and it still feels like dialup. -- JackofOz 22:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing broadband with a neighbor has been good for me. If you are in an urban area, it is possible you can locate people with wireless networks and make an arrangement with them.Polypipe Wrangler 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The speed difference can be astronomical. In my dialup days I was lucky to download 300k a minute - now I get up to 300k a second and my broadband is a bog standard type one. This is great for downloading large video files or photo archives or for transferring files. You can stream video directly off the net and not wait for it to download before watching it. Pages load much faster, your phone is always available. Best thing I can advise is borrow a friends broadband connection and experiment to see how much it changes your net experience. Exxolon 00:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just think how much more Wikipedia you will be able to enjoy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.95.158 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing that you have segregated the world into "intellectuals" and "everybody else", with the former only using communications and media in the most low-tech, image-free, video-free forms. Alas, intellectuals too look at images, moving pictures, large files of all sorts, and sometimes want to be able to communicate at less-than-crawling speeds with the world around them. Perhaps you mean "an intellectual who does not really know how to use the internet". In any case, intellectualism is not really the main factor you are getting at. There are many media- and communications-savvy intellectuals, and I count myself among them. The life of the mind is not specific to a medium. --24.147.86.187 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those answers. I like the suggestion of borrowing it for a while, but I don't think I'd be able to do that. I think I'll stick with dial-up for a while. I didn't quite get the "killer app" I was looking for, so maybe it isn't out there. Still, I'm a research student, and may need to do pdf's in the next year. Thanks for the advice on that one, 24.147 203.221.126.81 04:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopters in the rain

Moved to the Science Desk. 80.200.238.237 09:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the question? :) --Bowlhover 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard III

I was wondering why Richard III continues to have such a draw on the imagination considering his reign was one of the shortest in English history. Any ideas? 86.153.161.62 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that has more to do with Shakespeare's treatment of him, than his actual reign. Note that Shakespeare wasn't exactly accurate in his portrayal, I hear Richard III was a very pleasant and benign ruler. risk 18:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are rulers ever pleasant and benign? This was a time when the pleasant and benign were likely to end up pleasantly and benignly dead! Our image of Richard, the abiding fascination we have for him, does indeed owe a lot to the malevolent figure depicted by Shakespeare, just as Shakespeare owed a lot to the history of Sir Thomas More. Why does he fascinate? Because he is our very own English MacBeth, a kingship full of drama, thunder, blood, and still more blood. No witches, though. The Cat the Rat and Lovel our Dog, Rule all England under a Hog. Clio the Muse 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor old MacBeth. Killing one's predecessor was hardly uncommon in 10th-11th century Scotland, which seems to have been even harder on kings than late medieval England. He reigned a good while, and may have been secure enough to undertake a pilgrimage to Rome. He certainly wasn't the subject of a near-contemporary damnatio memoriae. The Duan Albanach - which seems to date from the reign of Duncan's son Malcolm - calls him "Mac Bethad the renowned" and the slightly later and very bizarre Prophecy of Berchán says (§192): "The ruddy,pale-yellow-haired, tall one, I shall be joyful in him. Scotland will be brimful, in the west and in the east, during the reign of the furious Red one." It seems to be a good while before the Macbeth seen in Holinshed and Shakespeare emerges. Richard III was a miserable failure as a king. Macbeth seems to have been well-regarded and successful. If he died by violence, well every other Scots ruler in the 11th century until Edgar, with the possible exception of Malcolm II, died the same way or was deposed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Angus, my allusion was not the historical MacBeth but to the Shakespeare play of the same name; hence the nod in the direction of the witches. So, please sheath your claymore, extinguish the fiery cross, and take the clans back over the border! Pax vobiscum. Clio the Muse 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between Caucus and Primary?

In U.S. Presidential election what is the difference between a caucus and a primary. My understanding is that caucus is a non-binding primary and, since it is the primary that chooses the candidate, caucus is not as significant as primary. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyeditor (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to United States presidential primary,

The primary elections are run by state and local governments in the states which do not have caucuses instead.

Does it have any significance? --Kushal^t 20:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Iowa caucus#Process. In a primary, you go in and vote. In a caucus, those supporting a candidate all stand in a corner of a room and try to convince others to join them. Big difference. Rmhermen 20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nivelle Offensive

I've been readong through your pages on the battles of the First World War, some of which are very good but, hey, look at the one on the Second Battle of the Aisne which contains the following stunning assesment "Although often characterized as a dismal failure, the offensive did net gains of as much as seven kilometers". Seven muddy kilometers at the cost of 187,000 casualties! This must be a joke, right? Anyway, sorry, my question relates to the Nivelle Offensive as a whole. Your articles say little about the German defensive response and why it was so effective. Can any of you war experts fill me in on this blind spot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plekhanov (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may have a point, Plekhanov; that statement about 'gains' seems woefully out of place. I'm reminded of an episode of the comedy Blackadder Goes Forth where General Melchet is looking at what appears to be a scale model of the front laid out on a table, which turns out to be the actual amount of land captured in a British offensive.

Anyway, to your question. To begin with the Germans had ample warning of Nivelle's plan to rupture the front. In anticipation they put in place a scheme for defence in depth, devised by Colonel von Lossberg, which meant leaving the forward trench virtually unmanned apart from observers, while an intermediate zone to the rear was held by machine gunners dispersed in strongpoints. The artillery was arranged not in a line but in a haphazard fashion, ensuring almost total coverage of the French line of advance at several points. Finally, and most decisively, strong infantry reserves were held back from the line, well outside the range of the French artillery. It was to be devastatingly effective. Clio the Muse 01:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two Revolutions?

While I'm waiting for an answer to the above I thought I'd lob in another, just to keep your brains active. Here it is: can any comparison be made between the French Army Mutinies of 1917 and the events that led to the outbreak of the Revolution in Russia? And this time I remembered that I had to sign! Plekhanov 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no basis for comparison. The very term French Army Mutinies is really quite misleading, in that, unlike Russia, there was no collapse in military order and no attacks on officers. If anything the whole event was more of a strike than a mutiny. Even then the front at no time was left undefended. But the biggest difference is that in Russia disorder in the army was a symptom of the wider collapse in the economy and in the authority of the state. Although the Russian Army continued to function up to a point in the period between the February Revolution and the October Revolution, the establishment of soldiers' Soviets weakened the authority of the officer corps still further. Clio the Muse 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a star, Clio the Muse. Thank you for such illuminating answers to both of my questions. I have one other that you might care to tackle-how important was Philippe Petain in bringing the mutinies under control? Could Alexi Brusilov not have acted as a Russian Petain? Sorry, that's two. Plekhanov 17:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Petain played a vital part, both in restoring order and in addressing some of the concerns of the ordinary poilu over their conditions of service. Aleksei Brusilov, a brilliant commander and a decent man, would doubtless have done the same in similar circumstances; but in Russia the situation had slipped beyond remedy. Clio the Muse 00:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-WW2 U.S. soldiers being sent to Europe

How many U.S. soldiers were sent to Europe right after the fall of Nazi Germany? They had to provide law and order. They also had to replace wounded and tired soldiers. -- Toytoy 21:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't know how many but here is the medal they earned: Army of Occupation Medal. Rmhermen 01:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Army's historical series on the occupation of Germany. Chapter 18 notes that the occupation began with 1.6 million troops in Germany (p 319) with a goal of about a 400,000-man occupation force (p 333) and a later 40,000-man constabulary (p 340). Now, to get around to your actual question: Zero troops were sent to Europe right after the fall of Nazi Germany. In the immediate aftermath, there were far more troops in Europe than necessary and the effort was to redeploy soldiers to the Pacific front for the invasion of Japan, as well as rotating veterans with enough points home. Even once Japan surrendered, the efforts of the first few months were still to get veterans back to the States while reducing the occupation size. While some soldiers did deploy to Europe post-war (my grandfather being one), this wasn't until 1946 and even then was probably only to maintain that 40,000 number. In 1949, West Germany assumed self-rule and became fully sovereign in 1955. US troops have been in Germany on a continuous basis, though, as part of NATO and as a defensive foil to perceived Soviet aggressions. All that is to say that picking a stopping point to "occupation troops" gets kind of fuzzy.

Not strictly a clear answer, I know, but hopefully an enlightening one. — Lomn 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

history of theatre in Paris

Sorry - this should be easy, but I need it in a hurry, and Google isn't helping - can someome give me the names of a couple of theatres extant in Paris in about 1650?

Thanks a lot Adambrowne666 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Théâtre du Marais, L'Hôtel de Bourgogne (Comédiens ordinaires du Roi). Le Théâtre du XVIIème siècle (typed in a hurry) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna give you Reference Desk guys a big thank you when my novel's published. Thanks yet again, Sluzzelin Adambrowne666 02:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious: why would you need anything in a hurry when writing a novel? --Sean 16:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - it was for a single line in a chapter that had already been drafted, and deserved only a few minutes thought, rather than taking an hour away from other work that needed doing on other unfinished chapters - I'd already spent at least 40 minutes on it, and was growing increasingly frustrated. Writing is such a time-consuming pursuit that it is best left to immortals - the rest of us have to muddle along as well as we can in the alotted four score and ten. Adambrowne666 20:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think of Wikisource when the book is finished! Keria 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will, thanks again Adambrowne666 19:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]