Humanities desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

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.

May 10

Yemen's water system

Are there any figures or estimates available about how much money it would take to improve Yemen's water system? You can interpret the word "improve" broadly, I'm just looking for general info on the subject. Thanks. 24.6.46.177 (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which flag is this ?

I tried for searching for country flags and nothing turned up. http://img5.imageshack.us/my.php?image=10898827.jpg Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a flag of any known country. Not all designs are used in flags. It's vaguely reminiscent of the Scandinavian flags and the flag of England, but the position of the cross is not right for any of them and the colours are all wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The position of the cross might not be right because I made it in Microsoft Paint. It's a flag that I saw while driving around today. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the flag of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as the Land of the Blind (I believe Popeye is the king there). Egad, what an ugly flag. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful if you had said where you saw it while driving around. Astronaut (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Mulatto

Did the Pre-Islamic Arab slave owners by any chance marry their female black slaves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they may have had sex with them and produced offspring. Marriage is not required to produce offspring. And the term "mulatto" is a bit disfavored nowadays, considering its root (mule) puts the subject in an unfavorable light, implying their parents were of different species. The correct term is usually biracial or racially mixed. But I think it would have occured at least once that an arab who owned black female slaves may have had sexual relations with one of them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footballs before the air pump

How were the ancient footballs made? Before the air pump, were they flat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.49.121 (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balls were often made from animal bladders, or leather as they are now. And people may not have had pumps, but they had lips, lungs, and fingers, and a passable attempt at inflating a ball can be made using those... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to read History of association football balls and Development of Soccer Ball (which seem redundant and likely to be merged in the near future.) --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church and IVF

What, if any, is the Roman Catholic Church's official line on in vitro fertilization? --Bluegrouper (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any means of procreation that is separate from sexual intercourse between a married man and woman is supposed to be forbidden. However, GIFT (gamete intra-fallopian transfer) is the only assisted reproductive technology that is considered acceptable to the Catholic church. GIFT is acceptable because fertilization occurs within the female's body, not outside. - Nunh-huh 06:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any authority that the Church accepts this 'GIFT' method? --Joe^Talk_Work 22:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Pope John Center, in consultation with Msgr. Carlo Caffarra, head of the Pope John Paul II Institute for the Family in Rome, approved the GIFT procedure in 1985, with the restriction that sperm are collected during an act of sexual intercourse. However, the legitimacy of the GIFT procedure was not accepted by all theologians, and the controversy continued through the decade of the 1990's. Nevertheless, the GIFT procedure has not, to date, been explicitly rejected by the magisterium. Because of the lack of agreement among reputable theologians, and concomitantly, because of the lack of an explicit pronouncement of approval by the magisterium, the handbook's policy statement is stated cautiously, namely, that the use of GIFT by marital spouses is not excluded." [1] The only reason a couple would choose GIFT at this point in time is religious, as it is more invasive, more expensive, and less effective than in vitro fertilization. - Nunh-huh 22:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's very interesting. --Joe^Talk_Work 17:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HIV and the U.S. Military

What is the U.S. Military's regulations regarding soldiers that are HIV-positive, are they allowed to join, stay, reenlist, or are they automatically medically discharged? if they are not, did they use to, has the policy changed over time at all?

Question about perception biases in art

Hello! I am currently thinking about aesthetics (philosophy of art) for a University course, and am particualrly interested in the problem of forgeries, and of the significance they can have for aesthetic theory. In particular, I am interested in copies (ie not forgeries, like the infamous van Meegeren affair, where forgers make new works and attribute them to other people). My question is this: imagine a machine that, if you fed in a painting (say), could produce a molecule-for-molecule identical copy of it. (A photocopier is a good real-world approximation for black-and-white ink to paper works of art). They copy would, ex hypothesis, be identical to the original. Yet does that mean that it is indistinguishable, if one knew which was which? In particular, I am thinking of whether, if you knew which was which, some sort of cognitive bias (an expectation or confirmation bias, maybe?) could make you actually perceive them differently. For example, you might see the lines as sharper or the colours as more vivid in the original, because (most people at least) value authenticity. The stimuli would be the same, but is there any evidence that people can perceive two identical stimuli differently because of preconceptions, or any known psychological effect that might explain this? (Incidentally, this is, I think somewhat similar to the hostile media effect, although how, in what way, and what disanalogies there are is something else I may look into philosophically in the near-future). Thanks! Batmanand | Talk 12:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They would differ in provenance. The copy would not be object that the famous artist touched, looked at, worried over, etc. "Is there any evidence that people can perceive two identical stimuli differently because of preconceptions" - lots I think, this is what the psychology of perception is all about. I also recall the experiment where a group of people get the subject to say one line is longer than the other, even when it isnt - cannot remember what this is called, might be the group effect. 84.13.171.69 (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how could any machine produce an identical copy of a painting? We (humanity) will discover a means to boundless life before a machine will be invented to produce an "exact" copy of your average painting produced by a human being, nominally called an artist.

Or to say more about your original question, and to address it more directly, certainly preconceptions influence outcomes. Isn't this the basis of the placebo effect, and countless other perceptual phenomena? But it has to be considered that this may be hypothetical. As a hypothetical problem, I don't know if any real answers are available, but I will keep thinking about it.

What your question does challenge, in an interesting way, is what art is itself. In particular it challenges the notions of machine-made art, conceptual art, and even minimalism in some of its forms. It may challenge much more. But I am just giving my responses that first leap to mind. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the IP above calls provenance was called "historicity" by Philip K. Dick in the novel The Man in the High Castle - one of the characters in the novel deals in antiques and is shocked to realize that the items he has been selling are perfect forgeries. He then goes through a similar thought-process that the opening poster describes: "if these are forgeries, then they are worthless. But, on the other hand, I myself, a professional, thought them worth something, until I realised they were forgeries. Isn't then all of their worth in simply not knowing they were forgeries? Isn't all their historicity in the fact that I never knew they weren't real?" TomorrowTime (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this Tedtalk by Dan Gilbert where he discusses 'happiness'. In particular there is a section discussing studies on people's happiness around a choice of photograph, it covers at the 'perceive the same thing different' idea you mention. (http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/dan_gilbert.html). The book is called Stumbling on happiness. ny156uk (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We value authenticity. But the problem you pose, rules out any differences whatsoever. Do I understand you correctly? Therefore we know that the two works of art cannot possibly be viewed differently, except for the knowledge of the authenticity of one and the knowledge of the inauthenticity of the other -- and knowledge and visual perception may or may not be linked. If I am misunderstanding the question of the original poster, I trust he will set me straight about this. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The related interesting question that the OP's question brings up to me is the valuing of the "hand" in the work. Sunflowers (series of paintings) are exalted by the public. If Van Gogh had created those exact pieces of artwork with a Wacom tablet and Adobe Photoshop instead of with paintbrushes, they would not be exalted by the public. Why? Tempshill (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I was getting at is that there is a whole literature in the philosophy of forgeries about why we value non-authentic works less (or rather, why apart from brute snobbery we might rationally downgrade our evaluation of a work because we discovered it was not an original). Goldman has an interesting suggestion that two indistinguishable works might nonetheless differ in aesthetic value because, in the future, we (or some future critics) might be able to distinguish them - for example, we can train our ears to distinguish sounds that previously we heard as the same - this is part of what becoming a good critic is all about. Goldman's idea is good as far as it goes, but what if the two works were molecule-for-molecule identical? I was wondering whether psychology had anything to say about whether or not we can see the same image differently depending on bias. And no, it is not like the Muller-Lyer illusion, because in that the two images are different). Thanks for responses so far, any more for any more? Batmanand | Talk 18:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Muller-Lyer illusion was not what I was referring to above. In the experiment I recall reading about, a group of people had to decide which of two lines were longer. All but the subject were stooges of the experimenter, and were often able to get the subject to agree with them that the longer line was the shorter one or vice versa. Second point - I'm skeptical that someone has superior taste to anyone else - people have learnt different tastes, but to claim that my asthetic preferences are superior to yours may be an Emporer's new clothes effect or snobbery or self-agrandisement. Third point - I wonder if you shuffled the two identical paintings above, so that nobody knew which one was which - how this would affect the sum of their values? My guess would be that it would be lower than previously. 78.145.21.210 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately a forgery is a new visual entity. It is never an exact copy of that which it's based on. As a new work of art, if it be art, it has criteria of quality that apply to it. Those criteria of quality may or may not be the same criteria of quality that applied to the work that it attempts to copy. Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New and/or growing Markets

Ignoring, or as much as possible, this current recession, what are the fastest growing markets these days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.16.41 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Emerging markets. --Tango (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do animals have nationality?

Legally... do animals have nationality?... when Socks (cat) (Chelsea Clinton's cat) died, on the news they said "this American cat.. etc". And not now, but when the cat died, on Wikipedia, it said Nationality: American. is it right? --190.49.123.26 (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the advent of Pet passports, presumably at least some animals have a nationality? Batmanand | Talk 18:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would just be Americans that do that, as they are intensely patriotic and like to call everything in America 'American', as in the 'all American pizza' and the 'American Dream'. ~~On a side note, we don't have a 'British Dream', because we're AWAKE.~~ Sorry, political statement there, (and taken from a British comedy act, I forget the name of) not necessary for Wikipedia RefDesk. Struck out accordingly.>--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We Italians only have an 'Italian dream'. A nightmare indeed, we are living into it. Endless sorrow --pma (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The pet passport was originally suggested by the UK's Official Monster Raving Loony Party." -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality refers to what country you are a citizen of. Animals aren't citizens of anywhere - they don't pay taxes, they don't have the right to vote, etc., so I guess they don't really have a nationality. They have a country of origin and a country of residence, though, simply from the dictionary definitions of the terms. Whether those have any legal significance or not, I don't know. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's some legal significance if you're a dead British, American, or Canadian cow hoping to be consumed in Tokyo. Tempshill (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At law, animals are chattel. Like other assets, they have a location. When they get legally imported/exported, their location changes. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overthinking. Obviously the issue here is that the Socks (cat) article uses an infobox originally designed for humans, so some of the fields are not exactly what they should be. APL (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's silly to think of animals having a nationality, ethnicity, citizenship etc. They no more have these attributes than apples, condoms or books do. Sure, they have certain legal protections that apples, condoms and books don't (they have a right to be treated humanely, for example), but that doesn't mean they suddenly have attributes that are reserved for humans. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Airports

Since Trenton Airport no longer has commercial flights, how would one travel by air to Trenton or Princeton? Nick4404 yada yada yada What have I done? 17:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just fly into Newark and take the Northeast Corridor Line? Flying into minor airports as a passenger is often expensive... AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends where you are flying in from. Newark is probably your best bet, given the number of flights that it accommodates, although you may want to check out Atlantic City International Airport. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A third option might be Philadelphia (PHL). It has a rail link to downtown Philly. Astronaut (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music genre port city

I know that Reggae was invented in Kingston, Jamaica and Rai music was invented in Oran, Algeria. Which music genre was invented in Liverpool, Havana, Dakar, Bristol and Salvador, Bahia, Brazil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merseybeat was invented in Liverpool. Come to The Cavern and you'll see what I mean. The Beatles, Gerry and the Pacemakers, Cilla Black and such-like.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean that each of the cities you name gave birth to a genre, not all of them giving birth to the same one. In respect of Bristol, the answer is trip hop. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 20:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Dakar, I suggest mbalax, particularly the music by Youssou N'Dour, and, more recently, Senegalese hip hop.

Salvador (Bahia), sometimes nicknamed the "music capital of Brazil", had a strong influence on the evolution of samba. Samba de roda comes from Bahian capoeira, for example, and many samba musicians in Rio de Janeiro had immigrated from Bahia. More recently evolved music styles from Salvador include samba reggae and axé. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Havana, there are dozens of music genres which were born or nurtured in Cuba's capital city, from the aptly named 19th century habanera to the 20th century explosion of Cuban styles such as rumba, mambo, cha-cha-cha, son, ... to name only the most famous ones. Have a look at the article on music of Cuba for more. Some of the styles originated in the Oriente, but Havana's nightclub industry was crucial for spreading the popularity of Cuban music in the 1930s - 1950s. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]