Humanities desk
< February 4	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 6 >

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.

February 5

Waitangi

how many pepople who singed in waitangi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.9.193 (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Waitangi says about 500. StuRat (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe" and prepositions

Some time ago I have noticed that title "Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe" has no prepositions (that is, it is not "Supreme Headquarters of Allied Powers in Europe" or something similar). Neither article "Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe", nor articles "English grammar", "Abbreviation" and "Preposition" seem to explain the reason for it, and in some cases (for example, [1]) prepositions are used. Situation seems to be similar with "Supreme Allied Commander Europe", "Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force" and the like. On the other hand, "Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers" does have a preposition. So, is (was?) there some political reason for lack of prepositions, or is it just some abbreviation? And, of course, is there an article describing something like that?

I guess it might be that this question is more suitable for Language reference desk, but, given the possibility of some political reason, I decided to try here first... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that most of them have a sort of implied comma, fitting into a template [function or rank] + [scope of authority]. There were a lot of abbreviations with that implicit structure ("CINCPAC" etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me to be Jargon, Military, For the Use Of. Possibly modelled (conciously or otherwise) on SNAFU. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that (as AnonMoos) it's punctuation that's being dropped, perhaps "Supreme Headquarters (Allied Expeditionary Force)" or "Supreme Headquarters (Allied Powers, Europe)". That doesn't tell us why, but I imagine punctuation gets abbreviated more easily than words. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answers, now that does make sense. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Poem

I am making a gift for a friend, and I am looking for Chinese poems about storms or butterflies, but I'm having no look searching on my own. I'd prefer a short poem, only about 4 lines, but I could always take an except of a larger poem. Can anyone show me where to look?70.171.16.134 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should have mentioned that I can neither speak nor read Chinese, so I'd need the text in English, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.16.134 (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some (these came up with the search terms "storm poems Chinese" and "butterfly poems Chinese"):

{ jimsheng . hubpages.com / hub / Snow-Storm } (sorry for format - apparently Wikipedia doesn't allow links to that site) "Snow Storm" by Du Fu
"Jade Flower Palace" by Tu Fu (same poet, I think). The same page also has "Amongst the Cliffs" by Han Yu, which is about the aftermath of a storm)
"Chuang Tzu and the Butterfly" by Li Po
"Die - the Butterfly" by Wu Meng Shan --184.147.128.151 (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous Chinese literary butterfly reference (though not a poem) is Zhuangzi#The_butterfly_dream... AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks for finding those. I'm considering using the text from Zhuangzi. I guess I also should have mentioned that I would like the Chinese text and English translation, if possible. If anyone else would like to contribute (I'm awful at searching for things), I'd greatly appreciate it.70.171.16.134 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to give a Chinese poem to a friend as a gift? Note that Zhuangzi wrote his poem more than 2000 years ago, and even though ancient Chinese uses mostly the same characters as modern Chinese, a modern Chinese native would have lots of trouble understanding the poem. It's not as bad as reading the original Beowulf is for an English speaker, but it's much harder than reading Canterbury Tales, for example. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm studying Chinese calligraphy, and I'd like to copy some phrases from a poem. My friend isn't Chinese and isn't capable of reading it. I want to pair the poem with a drawing that I think he would like.70.171.16.134 (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A word of cuation 70.171.1.134: the exerpt from Zhuang Zi about the butterfly is not a "poem", it is classical prose in a philosophy book. The passage quoted in the section AnonMoos linked to is a rather prosaic exposition of philosophy. If poetry is what you are going for, you will need something else. If you want a poem on the same theme, use the poem by Li Bai that 184.147.128.151 referred to.

To 140.180.15.97: actually, most educated Chinese people would have no trouble reading that exerpt from Zhuang Zi. It is, afterall, a story that is known to most Chinese people. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two-way Caesar cipher

I didn't know where else to put this. Sorry if it's misplaced... I was wondering if anyone had ever tried to encode a Caesar cipher that could make sense both encrypted and decrypted. In other words, you would use the shift to encode a message, but the encrypted string of characters would be a logical and grammatically correct, innocuous message that would not raise the suspicions of whoever you would want to avoid decrypting the message. I hopes this makes sense. Thanks... Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 07:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you could do that with a straight Caesar cipher except for very small phrases or words, maybe. A true Caesar is just a group substitution, which is going to put you into tricky territory because you can't match the letter frequencies up correctly. If you set it so that vowels equal other vowels, you can make short words, e.g. RAT <=> VEX, BIN <=> HOT. But there is no shift that can turn HOTDOG into a recognizable word, for example. Even a pretty simple and common word like DOGS is limited (you can turn it into pase, which apparently means "a maneuver with the cape in bullfighting"). (You can play around with this here by putting in a word and clicking each of the letters to see the available ciphers.) Now a very clever person could probably do this with very carefully constructed pair of sentences with ROT13, but even that would be tough. It wouldn't be a very practicable form of encrypted conversation — you'd be better off with just agreed upon code phrases ("The dog is having lunch today" = "The Prime Minister will be at West Minster tomorrow"). But I could see it featuring in a mystery novel, perhaps. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be describing a form of constrained writing not covered in our article. -- ToE 14:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something like rot13("Cher Robyn ones clerk ova. Vend tang try or terra!") is the best I could do, though ignoring spaces would open more possibilities. -- ToE 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC) "vex" is a rot13 cognate![reply]

Evanh2008 -- Encoding a message among "innocuous text", so that people might not suspect that there's any ulterior message at all, is known as steganography, but it doesn't have any particular connection with Caesar ciphers... AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One example of this, although possibly accidental, is that IBM shifts 1 character to become "HAL", the evil computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey. StuRat (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the replies. Interesting IBM anecdote; hadn't heard of that one. Mr.98 is closest to what I was thinking, in that the vowels are really the problem for piecing together coherent words in the encrypted. I had a thought, though, that it would probably be easier using atbash, since the Hebrew language lacks vowels. Well, thanks again. Cheers! Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's quite a long list of word-pairs. It had its origin in a question I asked in 2005 – here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is ridiculously cool, Jack! Thanks for sharing. :) Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Pet bugs on strings

What are the species of bugs that Chinese people in Shantou (and I'm guessing near-by areas) tie strings to and buy from street vendors as pets? They were green and flew hence the string.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mantis, perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller and more beetle looking. I'm guessing it's only known in that region.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional Chinese pet insect is the cricket (see crickets as pets) but from your description it sounds more like some kind of cicada, which are very common in China. 78.151.145.161 (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wild guess: Emerald ash borer? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 14:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gap-Theory

What is the meaning of the term of Gap-Theory in conection of the bible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastorsamdarf (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Gap creationism --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another perspective is given in God of the gaps, which is described as "a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence." HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite the same thing as The Gap Theory, which is a specific reference to Genesis. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

notable special schools

what are some of the most notable special schools in the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.224.218 (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"special school" can mean many different things. Can you be more specific?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume special school means special school. It's well defined there. See Category:Special schools for a list of some special schools.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steam boat disaster, Scotland

I found this on a tombstone "In front of this Stone, is interred the body of CHARLES BAILLIE SUTHERLAND of Rossshire, youngest Son of the late Capt. George Sackville Sutherland of ______ who was drowned with many other passengers by the ____ Steam boat _________________ In the dreadful CATASTROPHE by which that vessel was sunk off Rempock ________________". I know George died 1812; presumably Charles died in the catastrophe. Can you please point me to the name of the ship? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little Googling[2] suggests that would be The Comet, aye.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a photo of the actual gravestone. The full legend reads "In front of this Stone, is interred the Body of CHARLES BAILLIE SUTHERLAND of Ross-shire, youngest Son of the late Capt. George Sackville Sutherland of Rhives, aged 17: who was drowned, with many other passengers by the Comet steam boat from Inverness: In the dreadful CATASTROPHE by which that vessel was sunk off Kempock on the morning of the 21st October 1825".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect answer. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Compromise of Wikipedia's neutrality

Hi everyone, I have seen one of the most prominent objection against placing ad in Wikipedia was that advertisers may compromise Wikipedia's neutrality. According to Wikipedia:Advertisements#Arguments_against_adverts, "Companies which pay directly to advertise on Wikipedia may then feel entitled to favorable coverage about themselves in Wikipedia articles, or to content that is compatible with their message." Now Wikipedia is taking grants from large corporate foundations. Is not it possible that these large foundations will try to do the same the advertising companies might have done? I know it is impossible for Wikipedia to run without grants, and it is far better to take grants from foundation than placing the annoying ads, just curious about the possibility. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with you but this isn't the proper place, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is that this is a valid concern, but all large foundations will be aware that the only benefit they expect is to be able to say that they contributed to Wikipedia. That said, we do need to remain vigilant to ensure that nobody is tempted to put these foundations in a better light than they deserve, or to exclude some well cited report that could put them in negative light, fo example if one foundation was particularly inefficient and used more money than expected on internal costs. Also, why isn't this the proper place, surely undue corporate influence on neutral information sources is a concern of humanities? -- Q Chris (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a place for a debate. I don't really see a reference desk question in the above, except for the question of whether it was possible in the abstract that grants could influence activity. The answer of that is "of course," of course, but the details matter. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well! --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing a key difference, which is that advertisements would be obvious to all users, calling into question Wikipedia's integrity, whereas most users don't know the source of grants, so that the integrity would be maintained in their eyes. This is like the difference between Facebook when it sells your information to third parties, and Facebook when it displays an ad. Both are something users don't necessarily enjoy, but the former is not up in their face. 188.156.10.59 (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Pol Pot have so many high-quality friends (allies)?

Why? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean in international diplomacy after the 1979 war, few really supported the Khmer Rouge, but a number of countries weren't too enthusiastic about rewarding Vietnamese territorial aggrandisement with diplomatic recognition (including the United States, which had recent bitter memories of the Vietnam war). AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need a clearer explanation of the claim that Pol Pot had "so many high-quality friends (allies)" Is there a good source to back up that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An overwhelming majority of the world's richest (capitalist, including the United States) and non-Soviet aligned Communist countries (including China) supported Pol Pot's regime rather than Vietnam's ousting of that lunatic according to Cambodian-Vietnamese war. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the North Vietnamese wanted to be widely perceived as a suitable international humanitarian rescue force, then they should have done more to prepare the way for this, since almost nothing in the events of the 25 years preceding 1979 would have given any real credence to such an idea. However, Cambodia in the first half of the 1980s was certainly something of a low point for international diplomacy... AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hold no brief for Vietnamese Communists, but I think we have to recognize that they were the ones who stopped the killing. I won't speculate on whether they did it for humanitarian reasons or not, but it is also worth noting that, the Khmer Rouge gone, the Vietnamese went home.

At the time (or a little after the time, maybe) I interpreted the United States' choice to oppose the Vietnamese action as part of the "China strategy" for containing the Soviet Union (roughly speaking Cambodia was a Chinese ally, Vietnam a Soviet one). I thought that was appalling, especially since I didn't see the PRC as really any better than the Soviet Union. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By late 1978 the Vietnamese didn't really expect to be taken seriously by the West as "a suitable international rescue force". Their policy throught the American war had been to retain good links with both China and the USSR despite the Sino-Soviet split, but the Nixon-China rapprochement put a stop to that. By 1978 they were pressed by the Chinese in the north and China's Cambodia allies in the south. They took on the Cambodians but that triggered the 1979 China-Vietnam war. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy was the reason behind this support, not friendship. US or China were strategic supporters, not friends. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea was to punish the Vietnamese, to make their 'victory' over the USA even more pyrrhic. The Cambodian regime had acted in an irrationally aggressive way toward Vietnam, which had a case of self-defense. Noam Chomsky has pointed out that this is one of the only military actions that could credibly be called humanitarian intervention - far more than anything the USA has done since WWII, which have been nothing but neocolonialism.John Z (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Including Kosovo? AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the U.S. point of view, the answer to the inevitable failures of communism should be less communism, not more communism -- and Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia seemed to be at least partially a validation of the old "Domino theory". In the aftermath of the bitter Vietnam war, it was an intervention by the wrong party at the wrong time to gain international support outside the Soviet bloc. AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Vietcong were arguably "less communist" than the Khmer Rouge, so even from that angle one could see the Vietnamese intervention as an improvement. --Trovatore (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pol Pot's maoism explains some of the utter viciousness.--Radh (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

book about a british girl in India babysitted by an Indian

There was a book about a British girl who was babysitted by an Indian woman and this took place during British Raj? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.65.119 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She would have been more likely referred to as a "nanny" or amah than a "babysitter"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Garden begins like that, anyway. And "amah" would most likely have been the term.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Garden (1911).
Sleigh (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]