Humanities desk
< June 14	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 16 >

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.

June 15

Cricket scoring

Reading Run (cricket) and Laws of cricket, I was unclear: do the batsmen always have to run whenever the ball is hit, or if it's really weakly hit, can they just stand still? In other words, does cricket have something comparable to baseball's force out? Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to run. So you can hit the ball and both batsmen can stay where they are. In backyard or schoolyard cricket, you may play rules where you are forced to run if you hit the ball. This is either called tippity or hit-n-run (depending on your location I suspect). - Akamad (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to step out of their crease if they don't want runs, unless the ball reaches the fence. So if the batsman thinks he has hit the ball well enough, he can just stand still and he'll get the 4 or 6, but if the ball doesn't reach there, its just that he doesn't get any runs of he doesn't run. There is no compulsion. Rkr1991 (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it interesting to know that, in opposite case, even if batsmen can possibly complete a run, a run (Leg bye) cannot be scored if batsman has neither attempted a stroke nor tried to avoid being hit. manya (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely common to hit the ball and not to run. The prevalence of this varies between different forms of the game (Twenty20, one day cricket, first class cricket, test matches). In the last two forms of the game, which are the slowest, taking three to five days, I'm pretty sure batsmen run less than half the times they hit the ball. That is what the fielders are there for, after all, to stop the batsmen from taking runs. Mowsbury (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Harkavy translation of Holy Scriptures changed in later printings

Hello, I read that Alexander Harkavy translated Isaiah 7:14 to say "virgin" when his translation of the Holy Scriptures was published in 1936; I bought a used copy of the same Bible printed in 1951 and the same verse says "young woman" - was it revised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am missing something in the question, It seems self-evident that, if the two editons are different, then the later one was revised. Are you asking if the earlier one said "virgin"? // BL \\ (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the versions you are referencing, but I know the language. In Hebrew, the word is "almah", which translates to young woman, not necessarily a virgin. If IN THIS CASE it means virgin is subject to fierce arguments. That also may explain your discrepancy. Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fierce arguments, of course, are whether the verse is a prophecy about Christ. Since the question the other day suggests Harkavy translated the Tanakh, and not the Christian Bible, I suppose this has to do with what the verse means from a Jewish perspective. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps I am missing something in the question, It seems self-evident that, if the two editons are different, then the later one was revised. Are you asking if the earlier one said "virgin"?" yes I guess I am asking if the first one did say "virgin" or if the source Iread saying it was translated this way was wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Landy, Derek series Skullduggery Pleasant discrepancy

The article lists the 3rd book as The Faceless Ones and the 4th book as unnamed. Amazon.com has the 3rd book (published April 09) as Sceptre of the Ancients,and the 4th book as The Faceless Ones. Which one is correct? http://www.amazon.com/Faceless-Ones-Skulduggery-Pleasant/dp/0061240915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245034486&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Scepter-Ancients-Skulduggery-Pleasant-Derek/dp/0061731552/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245034486&sr=1-4

Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the publisher is HarperCollins - I'd go straight to the source to confirm this. see here Contributions/69.156.124.118 (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. Sceptre of the Ancients is a renaming of the first novel. Of course you have to figure this out- It isn't actually listed that way. I'll change the entry to reflect this. Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bathtub Portrait

I'm having a name blank-out. Who was that French newspaperman who printed names of people to die in the Terror? After his death he was painted in a bathtub. It's a famous painting. 71.174.23.126 (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Brighton[reply]

Jean-Paul Marat? (The Death of Marat) Bus stop (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's him! Thank you. 71.174.23.126 (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Brighton[reply]

WWII Switzerland

I was searching informations about the destiny of Switzerland if the Axis Powers won. I mean, do official projects regarding the annexation/partition between Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy exist? Did Hitler spoke about this, expecially considering the large germanic population of Sw.? Did Mussolini wanted the predominantly italian Canton Ticino for his Greater Italy? I'm aware of Operation Tannenbaum article but it doesn't refer to (ipotetical) post war effects. I've heard about secret plans to divide Sw. between Germany and Italy (in particular Ticino and Graubünden where to be assigned to Italy) but I can't find solid references. --Contributions/151.51.19.115 (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question, and despite being interested in WW2 I've never heard anything concrete about it either. They had a fairly close relationship with Nazi Germany throughout the war (Nazi Gold etc) so my guess would be it would have become a protectorate of the Reich, maybe a model protectorate to replace Denmark. Prokhorovka (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here might help. It's ogt a lot of stuff on German intentions, and other links. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 10:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was more specific about his intentions toward Switzerland, which he described in August 1942 as a pimple on the face of Europe and a state that could not be allowed to endure. He was filled with hatred and contempt for the materialistic and democratic values of the Swiss people, and he denounced them as a racial miscarriage, "a mishegotten branch of our Volk." Whereas he was anxious to attract Scandinavians and Dutch as peasant colonizers to the newly conquered territories of the east, he believed the Swiss could be of use there only as innkeepers.
Hitler did acknowledge the Swiss to be Germanic, however, much as he otherwise despised them. The probability is therefore great that when he carried out his intention to put an end to the existence of Switzerland as a state, he would at the same time have initiated policies designed to regain the Swiss for Germandom and to incorporate the bulk of the Swiss population into his Germanic Reich. This was certainly the intention of Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's grand inquisitor for racial affairs who, in September 1941, was exchanging views with his faithful lieutenant Gottlob Berger about the suitability of various personalities for the position of Reichsstatthalter in Switzerland and the chances for a genuine amalgamation (zusammenwachsen) of the German and Swiss peoples. A document from the Himmler files bearing the letterhead Reichsführer SS, SS Hauptamt, Aktion S[chweiz], contains a detailed plan for the establishment of Nazi rule in Switzerland. Although there is no evidence that this plan was endorsed by Himmler or any other high-level Nazi authorities, the fact that such a plan was drawn up at all may be interpreted as an indication of intent. Rich, N. (1974). Hitler's War Aims: The establishment of the new order. pp. 401-2. OCLC 256467476.

—eric 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communism Judaism

Do Jewish support Communism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.26 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article may shed some light on that: Jewish Bolshevism. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Jews support Communism, and the first groups to settle in Israel post-WW1 were socialist in nature. However I think it would be unreasonable to suggest Judaism is notably left-wing as a religion. Like other religions it has the left-wing elements of strong community values and charity, but the right-wing values of powerful leaders and old fashioned gender roles. Prokhorovka (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Americans possibly came to hold this view in light of the activities of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in the 1940's. Edison (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a large majority of Jews today do not support communism. Certainly there are some Jews today (like people of other religions or, more often, no religion) who support communism. However, supporters of communism, whether Jewish or not, are somewhat rare today. Marco polo (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Tsarist Russia, Jews were oppressed and persecuted by the central government, and they also tended to be much more literate and urban than the average of the population as a whole -- and the very natural result of this situation was that Jews were involved in most Russian left wing groups (not just Communist groups) at a rate much higher than their proportion of the population as a whole. However, the original disproportionate presence of Jews in the Soviet Communist party had pretty much dissipated by 1935, when Stalin had substantially remade the party according to his own specification -- and since that time, accusations of "Jewish Bolshevism" etc. have been pretty much slanted political rhetoric or ignorant hate speech... AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact that the original query is a bit trollish (considering the other q on judaism/nudism/homosexuality below), i think we should state two things; Whilst the vast majority of Jews are not communists (neither today or at any point in history), Jews were represented in the early Marxist movement far beyond their proportion in the population as a whole. This was true not just in Russia, but throughout Europe, Middle East, parts of Latin America and the US. I think AnonMoos' view is correct, that Jews as a highly urbanized, relatively more educated group which was also target for social discrimination/oppression, could easily relate to communist discourse than other communities. --Soman (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need an article on hyper-sensitivity to purported anti-semitisim. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? AnonMoos (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran

Has Iran had unrest of the magnitude they are currently experiencing at any other time since 1979, or is this unprecidented? Contributions/65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article has some answers, and certainly lots of commentators seem to think so. I guess no-one can say for sure, so look at the facts and make up your own mind. Prokhorovka (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have not seen this degree of popular uprising in Iran since 1979, when young folk turned out before the cameras to display their anger at the United States by shaking their fists and shouting something that sounded like "BOOM BOOM BOMB-EE-BOMB!" This resonated strangely with the contemporaneous record "Bomb Iran" by Vince Vance and the Valiants, to the tune of the Beach Boys' hit "Babarann." Despite this, the U.S. did not, at that time, bomb Iran. Edison (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotai

Hi, I requested an article on Gotai, but I'm trying to see if I can't get more information here, as the request an article page suggests.

I'm wondering if anyone knows any more about this cultural practice. I first came across it in my Introduction to Cultural Anthropology course, but I can't seem to locate any more information on it on the internet. I'll quote from the textbook:

In Japan, negative attitudes about cutting the body explain the much lower rates of surgery there than in North America. The Japanese Concept of gotai refers to the value of maintaining bodily intactness in life and death to the extent that even ear piercing is devalued. "Newspapers reported that onr of the qualifications of a bride for Crown Prince Naruhito was that she not have pierced ears." (Ohnuki-Tierney 1994:235).[...]

¹

The paragraph goes on to say this is why organ transplant rates are lower in Japan, etc. The citation for Ohunki-Tierney is: Ohnuki-Tierney, Emiko. 1994, Brain Death and Organ Transplantation: Cultural Bases of Medical Technology. Current Anthropology 35(3):233-242.

Any help locating information on this topic would be great, I've attempted to Google it, but nothing that came up seems to match as far as I can tell; I suspect 'Gotai' is the English pronuication of the Japanese word, so we may be out of luck.

thanks.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¹Miller, Barbara D., Penny Van Esterik, and John Van Esterik. Cultural Anthropology. 3rd Canadian ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon, 2005.

I don't know if this has anything to do with it: Gutai group, but I bring it to your attention just in case. Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible it's related, but I'm not sure how.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for "gotai manzoku".—eric 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does seem to be what my textbook was talking about, although I'm not too sure what I'm reading here- a lot of information from google seems to be related to Japanese activism to elevate disabled people to an equal status. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Lembe Sita and Chantal Biya

From Joseph Kabila's article said Kabila's daughter is born in 2001 and Joseph marry olive Kabila in 2006? How is this possible? Joseph marry one wife or two wives? And about Chantal Biya, it said she was born in Cameroon, but she is essentially white. Is her mom black or white. One of her parnts is white. And it said Chantal Biya was born in 1971 but what month? Is it going to be like April, May or July? To calculate the odds, is Chantal closer to 38 years younger han Paul or 39?--69.226.33.189 (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question about the daughter's birthdate ("Is it possible?") is simply answered. Of course, it is possible that she was born before her parents were married. Whether it is true or not, I don't know. The article on Chantal Biya answers your other question in respect of nationality. I have no idea how you might confirm skin colour. // BL \\ (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be possible for Olive Lembe di Sita to be marry with somebody else prior to Joseph Kabila. Mom have to have a dad to have a kid, if she wasn't marry at all in 2001, then this is impossible olive sita would have a kid. Chantal Biya article said born in 2001 only, but didn't say which month.--69.226.33.189 (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if this comes as a shock, but . . . you don't have to be married to have a child. As the child is said to be that of both Kabilas (Joseph and Olive) then it is certainly possible that Joseph is the father and Olive the mother, even though they were not married to each other when the child was born. "Possible" is different from "true". however, and I don't know the truth. The WP article says that Olive had been Joseph's fiancée since 2000. I have found nothing about an earlier marriage for her. // BL \\ (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how could this happen. Joseph Kabila's father die in 2001 he was only 61. olive lembe sita was single at then. Women have to have a men to give offsprings. This is no way for women to give birth without a man. I doubt the baby Kabila is adopt, since they have the same last names.--69.226.33.189 (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Kabila and Olive had a child together then it is almost certain they had sex together. None of this requires being married first. And what any of it has to do with the death of Kabila's father, I don't know. // BL \\ (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]