Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 18

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.

August 18

North Americal Aboriginal Treaties

Is there a compilation of Treaties between the various Aboriginal peoples of the Western Hemisphere (i.e. Canada, the United States, Cnetral America and South America) and the governments of these counties that include Treaties broken by either the Aboriginals or the governments (may as well include Britan, France and Spain in the mix). I am interested in how many treaties have been developed, how many broken and by whom. How does this compare to Treaties made with other Aboriginal peoples (e.g. Australia)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.242.32 (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We have Category:Treaties of indigenous peoples of North America, which is a start, although it is heavily skewed towards the US. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There has never been any sort of treaty between the indigenous peoples of Australia and the rest of the Australian populace. But New Zealand had its Treaty of Waitangi. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Treaty page of Canada's Department of Indian Affairs: [1]. Treaties are very much alive in contemporary Canadian law, and recent land claim settlements are considered to be modern-day treaties. Treaties benefit from special constitutional protection in Canada. --Xuxl (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations also conducted a comprehensive study of treaties with Aboriginal groups, in the 1990s, called the: "Study on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous populations". I don't have the time to go through the UN website, but there should be some documents there covering other countries in the Americas. --Xuxl (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Caucasian Eyes

If oriental eyes are called Epicanthic Fold. What is the technical word for the caucasian eyes? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not called an Epicanthic Fold, they have an epicanthic fold. Caucasian eyes do not generally have one. See our article titled epicanthic fold. --Jayron32 01:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

rotten vegetables at protests and theater

Where there vendors that sold the rotten vegetables during protests and theater acts for profit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.160.42 (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In the 19th century, Covent Garden was a theater district and also a flower, fruit, and vegetable market, so I imagine that materials would have been easily to hand... AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Danish titles

Ok I notice that throughout Danish history the King of Denmark had had many titles. Queen Magrathe II (spell it wrong) renounce all these century old titles except for Denmark's King. I was wondering what were the ALL the titles of she renounced and what were ALL the titles that were claimed by her predeccessor. Forget about the obvious ones, Norway and Sweden. And did Christian I of Denmark's descendant continued to use the title of Count of Oldenburg nominally even though Christian I gave the rule of the County to his younger brother? I read here that Christian IX of Denmark used it. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the ones I know.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• King of the Goths
• King of the Geats
• King of the Wends
• Duke of Schleswig
• Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg
• Duke and Count of Holstein also Holstein-Rendsburg
• Duke and Count of Stormarn
• Duke and Count of Dithmarschen
• Counts of Schauenburg
• Count of Oldenburg
• Count of Delmenhorst
• Count of Wildeshausen (maybe or maybe not?)

Anybody?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Logical fallacy: Good or bad based on who does it?

Hi there. I'm trying to remember the correct name for a logical fallacy that goes like this: "Doing X is only a bad thing if A does it. If B does it, it's a good thing." Does that fall under argument from authority? Regards SoWhy 13:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no fallacy involved. A fallacy is a type of flawed argument, and all you've got there is a pair of statements with no argument to support them. Algebraist 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst Algabraist is right per se, you may mean one of several fallacious arguments. I think you may mean the association fallacy. --Leon (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly cases where it is not a fallacy at all. Many people would consider that imprisonment, even killing, is proper when done by the state through a court of law. Hardly anyone considers the same things proper when done by a private individual. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(To DJ Clayworth) That's true, but I'm not sure if that's what the asker meant. My guess is that they were refering to the association fallacy as that is a common one. (To the asker) If you haven't time to check the link, the association fallacy is that in which anything associated with an individual or group perceived as bad is said to be bad. For instance, driving a car could be said to suggest criminal behaviour because criminals drive cars. This needn't always be a fallacy; the label is used for occasions when it is.--Leon (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's no fallacy, it's an assertion of contingency. Getting a heart transplant is good if the patient needs and wants one. It is not so good when they do not. If there were to be any objection to assertions of this nature, it would be more to the tone, perhaps less to the content. Condescension or dictation is rarely welcome. Vranak (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Would this be an example: two biologists are sitting around discussing the deficiencies of evolutionary theory, but when a fundamentalist Christian joins in the conversation, the biologists recoil with horror and refuse to grant any weight to the objections of the Fundamentalist? If so, then it's a sort of case of an argument from authority, but does not seem like a particularly striking case of it. The problem arises when the insiders require excessive demands on anyone joining their discussion. Chomsky has a section in an article where he discusses how folks in the political world demand degrees to establish your credentials when discussing political matters but mathematicians never objected to Chomsky's papers in their field without the proper set of credentials.--droptone (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics is different from biology. A mathematical paper can be carefully read and its accuracy and rigorosity checked regardless of who the author is; author's identity is not a factor. Biology is very different. It often takes years to perform an experiment, and the amount of subtle skill that is involved in planning, doing, and analyzing it properly is staggering. People reading biological papers do - and should - look at the list of authors to judge how low is the chance that the results are false. Politics is different from both mathematics and biology. Politics is not science, it is an opposite of science (namely, politics is a practice of concealing the facts whereas the science is a practice of uncovering the facts). Therefore, Chomsky's statement seems to be in the "mu" category, it is neither right, not wrong, nor meaningful. Now, regarding of the evolutionary theory, the biologists - if they are good biologists - will accept any new factual finding, no matter how strongly that would alter the established theories. Fundamentalist religion, however, does not permit such liberty. That is the core difference between modern science and dogmatic approach. It remains to be seen, however, how the biological community is really going to react to a finding that alters the established understanding radically. --Dr Dima (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think it "remains to be seen" at all, it happens all the time, not just in Biology but in all the sciences. Anyone who manages to prove something that "alters the established understanding" is typically awarded the highest accolades in science, like the Nobel Prize. It is after all what Darwin is so famous for: He crumbled the very pillars of established understanding at the time. Conversely, anyone who even questions the established understanding in theology was in the past typically burned at the stake for being a heretic. Vespine (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any religion where there are two good Gods?

Is there any religion where there are two good Gods? I know there are certain dualist religions like Manicheanism and Zoroastrianism that have one good and one evil God. And certain polytheistic that have many good Gods. IS there any religion that has only 2 Gods, both of whom are good?--Gary123 (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wicca has two, a God and a Goddess. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

At least some Wiccans would disagree with atributing a good (or evil) label to their gods though. Rmhermen (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a very "organic" example, but I believe the Manianga Christians of what is now Zaire were visited by Christian missionaries at a time when they already worshipped a single god - so they adopted the new Christian god while keeping their old one. Don't have it to hand but this is from Simon Bockie's Death and the Invisible Powers.--Declan Clam (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cao Dai. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I see no evidence of "two good gods" in the Cao Dai article. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Caodaiists worship not only God, the father, but also the Goddess..." 152.16.59.102 (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see it now. Thanks. In the wider context of that article section, it seems potentially arguable whether this represents belief in two separate deities (as per the OP's enquiry) or merely two aspects of a single deity, much like the concept of the Christian One God being at the same time a Trinity, an interpretation that some have argued was introduced into early Christian thought from Celtic Druidism, in which the triune nature of deities was/is a commonplace. Some modern Wiccans embrace a similar approach, wherein the Lord and Lady can be considered the male and female aspects of a single Great Spirit, and at the same time can be approached through their functional triune aspects (e.g. Maiden/Mother/Crone), and also as related but distinguishable geo-temporal manifestations (e.g. "Isis, Astarte, Diana, Hecate, Demeter, Kali, Inanna", as the popular chant runs). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic groups of India vs. Buddhism

So far, I know that ethnic group Bengali has some Buddhist followers, according to Bengali people article. What about ethnic groups Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, Assamese, Gujarati, and Oriya? Do they have some Buddhist population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.24 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All of these ethnic groups number in the millions. At those numbers, you are likely to find "some" of any of the worlds major religions. I would expect not only Buddhists, but Christians, Muslims, and Hindus in all of these ethnic groups. You can search our articles on these people, for example the article titled Marathi people mentions Buddhism as one of the minority religions of the Marathi people; though it does not give numbers. Still, since your threshold is "some", I think that you will find Buddhists among all of these people. Just search for the Wikipedia articles on these people groups, and most of them should describe the religion of those people. --Jayron32 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Buddhist

So far, Bangladeshi Buddhists celebrate only Buddha Purnima? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.24 (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia sentient?

Is Wikipedia sentient?

Obvious question.. We got sentience when cells got organised into humans, we know that.

How about when atoms got organised into molecules and molecules into cells??

Or when humans got organised into classes, like classes of knowing..

Our neurons got together by talking and made me

and you, and everything

and all that

just lying all around

You want references.. look through your eyes and listen.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayelamb (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, now we have to add to the disclaimer that Wikipedia's Reference Desk is not a place for original free verse.209.244.187.155 (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not sentient. See sentience. If you want to make up your own definition of sentience to be what you think Wikipedia is, then it may meet your special little definition. By the real definition, Wikipedia in no way is remotely sentient. -- kainaw™ 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If an entity is sentient, it will take steps to thwart decay and evaporation. Without contributors and the tech support guys, Wikipedia will disappear. So no, it is not sentient by any sensible definition. Vranak (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not sentient. What would lead you to think such a thing? Wikipedia (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

One could apply the turing test to the Wikipedia servers and determine it that way... --Jayron32 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to scare the shit out of the tester, sure. I've seen what passes for language in some of these people. HalfShadow 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just the other day, Wikipedia was heard singing the old standard, "I'm Getting Sentiental Over You". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Could be. Is an ant colony sentient? Dmcq (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to start by defining "Wikipedia". Do we mean the encyclopaedia or the project as a whole? If we mean the whole project, including the contributors, then we're into the realms of crowd psychology. There are arguments that a crowd acts as a sentient being in its own right. Not arguments I think a great deal of, admittedly, but they do exist. --Tango (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is now, I reach out with my noodly appendages. FSM (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

16th century

I am working on a series of books set in the late 16th century, but would really like more information than I have found so far on the period. i was wondering if there were any websites with a lot of detailed and reliable information on the time, particularly of england and france during the months leading up to Henry IVs coronation. I would like to find more details of the events leading up to that, so far I have only been able to find about three things happening in the coutry for that whole year. I am hoping to make the series as historically accurate as possible, the way people act, how places look, clothes people wear, news events heard about by different characters, is there any way I can find such things on the internet, rather than trying to find a library with all the relevant books.

To start with, for the first few pages, going out for a drink in london, what might the pub/tavern/whatever be like inside, what would people be doing there?

88.108.78.104 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few pointers: Be careful not to project present-day categories onto this much earlier time period. For example, Europeans in the late 16th century didn't have the same idea of news that we have. Certainly there were events, but there were no news media. There was the occasional poster or broadsheet commenting on current events, but most "news" would have traveled by word of mouth, mainly in public meeting places, and particularly in churches, where sermons might address issues of the day. Common people would not have been interested or have wanted to discuss distant battles or coronations, for example. The only reason a distant battle might matter was if a loved one (or perhaps one's lord) had died in it. Speaking of lords, it is important to remember that class relations were much more formal and probably more rigid than they are now. Most people acknowledged fealty to lords beneath their king. Land-owning aristocrats were much higher than merchants in the social order. Wealthy merchants were typically lower in the social order than the gentry (affluent commoners who owned land). Farmers who owned even small plots of land and barely subsisted were higher in the social order than landless laborers. If someone from our time were to travel back to that time, one of the first things we would notice would be the stench and the filth, especially of cities. People seldom bathed during this period, and raw sewage often flowed through the streets and waterways. Mangy dogs and livestock would be a common sight, even on city streets. As for people's appearance, my advice would be to look at art drawn during your period. That art is more likely to show aristocrats and wealthy merchants than commoners, but as long as you are aware of this bias, you can pay special attention to the poor to middling peasants, who made up around 80% of the population of England and France at this time, or to the low to middling shopkeepers and craftsmen whose families made up a large majority of townspeople. In terms of how people acted, be careful not to project Victorian morals back onto this earlier period. Certainly most people were aware of Christian moral strictures, but that is not to say that most obeyed them strictly, though upper middle class townspeople, with their bourgeois sense of discipline, typically tried harder than most. During this time, prostitution was carried out relatively openly, and venereal disease (along with many other kinds of disease) was widespread. Marco polo (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I do recommend a trip to a good library for research. Marco polo (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fugger family ran one of the most systematic news-gathering operations of the late 16th-century (and historians have found their archives to be of interest), but it was run for the commercial benefit of the Fugger private trading house. There were no real newspapers during that period, but in some of the countries with relatively widespread literacy and less repressive governments there was a lot of pamphleteering... AnonMoos (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Backing up, I would also point out that, while we would find people and places at that time filthy and smelly, people of the time would have taken the filth and stench for granted. They would probably be surprised by our well-scrubbed and antiseptic persons and places.

It is hard to do more than speculate about what one might have found in a London tavern in the late 16th century. It probably varied a lot from tavern to tavern. This was before the spread of modern restaurants, so these would have been both eating and drinking places. I don't think, though, that we have many accounts of what went on in these taverns, so it is really hard to do more than speculate, starting from an understanding of the social history of the period.

AnonMoos is right about pamphlets during this time, though these were not impartial sources of news but partisan tracts. Also, they would have been read only by the educated minority. A large share of the population during this time was probably illiterate. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Google " Shakespeare's London ".--Wetman (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's set a few years earlier, but you might find the many novels and books in the 1632 (novel) series interesting, including 1632 series. I'm reading "Grantville Gazette" volume 9 at present. Edison (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, does anyone know how longit would have taken then to travel from London to Bath, or from London to Paris? And where might someone in the city have gone to gather provisions for such a journey? 88.108.78.29 (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Latin Language in Hieroglyphic Bible

I have obtained 80 digital photograph negatives taken in 1996 at the Library of Congress in Washington DC of the "Hieroglyphic Bible". These photographs are of the story of Christ's Birth. I have verified the language to be Latin.

I would like to know the origin of this Hieroglyphic Bible written in Latin.

I don't know anything else about this book except; In 1996, "The Easton Press" out of Connecticut commissioned IGT to do the digital photographs of several rare books at the Library of Congress. The Hieroglyphic Bible was one of those books.

Can you help?

Thank you

>>>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.239.156 (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is this article, but you have to log in...do you have any pictures? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)]

This must be it! Yes?--Wetman (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so, as the item to which you link is clearly written in English, not Latin. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So "Hieroglyphic Bible" just means "illustrated Bible"? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The one Wetman linked to seems more a "rebus Bible" than an illustrated one. Deor (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)