Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 2

Humanities desk
< July 1	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 2

Ur's coastline

How did Ur became an inland city? Has the sea-level lowered and glacial ice increased since Sumerian time? Or has the coastline silted up that much?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The coastline has silted up that much. In Sumerian times the Tigris and Euphrates reached the sea separately. Looie496 (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there an article which treats of this? μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I learned it in an ancient history class, sometime back in ancient history. But googling, the definitive source is: Gary A. Cooke (1987). "Reconstruction of the holocene coastline of Mesopotamia". Geoarchaeology. 2: 15–28. That's not easily accessible online, but you can find a map drawn from it in this paper, as Figure 2. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This topic came up a few months ago, [1]. That the Tigris and Euphrates once entered the Persian Gulf separately is mentioned in passing on the Tigris page, but not the Euphrates page as far as I can see. It seems like a bit more could be said about it on both pages, as well as on Persian Gulf and perhaps Shatt al-Arab. Wonder if I can find access to that Geoarchaeology article, hmm.. Pfly (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hrm, well that article may be quite hard to find, for me anyway. I did find a bit of information in this book, pp 290-291: The Babylonians. It points out that two opposed processes have been effecting the area--delta forming silt deposition and tectonic subsidence, which together have resulted in a complex patchwork of landforms. Pfly (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

a specific paradox

Dear Wikipedians- I am trying to recall a factoid I found on Wikipedia within the last year- the formal name of the paradox describing "you don't know what you don't know." I have searched the Wikipedia "List of Paradoxes" entry (and many others) trying to find this formal name.

Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.119.22 (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like Liar paradox? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The article There are known knowns was called Unknown unknown until 2 February 2011 [2] but it doesn't give a formal name. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be looking too closely into this, as you may discover things you really wish you didn't know, such as that soup is made from old people's bath water. It must be true; I read it somewhere on the internet. On the other hand, something like this treatise promises to be jam-packed with fascinating stuff, but whether it answers your question, I'll leave for you to discover. Chapter 7 may be of particular relevance. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge about knowledge is called metaknowledge. One case where this is important is betting on game shows like Jeopardy, where you should alter your wager to reflect your probability of correctly answering a question in that category. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Upon further research, I am almost certain the OP is referring to what is commonly known as Meno's paradox, also known as the "paradox of inquiry", which originates in Plato's Socratic dialogues. Wikipedia doesn't have much info on it, but you can read a paper about it here. Also quoted in that paper is the related Confucian quote "You know what you know and you don't know what you don't know. That is knowledge.", similar to the saying sometimes (spuriously) attributed to Plato, "A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There's also the thing that sounds a bit Rumsfeldian but predated him somewhat. All knowledge can be divided into 4 categories: (a) the things you know you know, (b) the things you know you don't know, (c) the things you don't know you know, and (d) the things you don't know you don't know. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I would add the Will Rogers category: "The things you know for sure which ain't so." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Or, as the title of a little book I once had presented it: Things you thought you thought you knew. --ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

See Socratic paradox which corresponds with Meno's paradox. Ankh.Morpork 14:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

See also Dunning–Kruger effect. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that for all of the flack Rumsfeld got for his weird digression, unknown unknowns was a very common and very useful term long before he used it. It's too bad it is now irreversibly associated with him in particular (who I, like many, dislike for his role in the Iraq War, among other things), and seen as an example of obfuscation, when it's really a quite eloquent expression of real-world epistemological problems. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Francis Weston, Governor of Guernsey

In the List of Governors of Guernsey article, Francis Weston is listed as Governor from 1533 to 1541. But the link goes to an article which says that that Francis Weston was executed in 1536. The article about Francis Weston says that he was the son of Richard Weston (treasurer), who was a Governor of Guernsey. There has to be an error somewhere in this pair, but I don't know if the List of Governors is incorrect, or the death of Francis Weston is incorrect. And why was Richard Weston only Governor until 1522, when he didn't die until 1541? Should Francis just be removed from the list, and Richard's term of office be changed to end in 1541? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This site is a wiki, so not a reliable source, but maybe offers a clue to what happened. It says that on 3 November 1539 Sir Richard Long was "granted reversion of Governorship of Guernsey, whereupon he appears to have taken up office from the aged Weston" (ie Richard Weston, Francis being dead by then. Richard had been appointed Governor on 22 May 1509, according to the same site). So Long was lined up to be Governor after Weston, but started doing the job anyway. Could you have two people doing the job at the same time, both with the title? Well, this site claims to be based on the History of Parliament, "a biographical dictionary of Members of the House of Commons", so may lead to a reliable source. It also confirms Richard's 1509 succession to the governorship, but goes on to say that in 1533 the newly knighted Francis, son of Richard, was invested as Governor along with his father by a new grant. So it appears father and son may have held the post simultaneously, at least until Francis gets executed in May 1336; Richard may have continued as governor alone (or possibly with his dead son still officially listed in the job); he perhaps gets another "co-governor" in 1539 in the person of Long, who actually does the work; and then the Weston connection ends with Richard's death in 1541. Complicated. Karenjc 08:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There is more information here, which appears to be a reliable source, and the tudorplace site is based on this source. It confirms that father and son were together invested with the governorship in 1533.

This source confirms that the governorship reverted from Richard Weston to Long on 7 August 1541.-- Ehrenkater (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of this. I'm going to list Richard and Francis as co-governors until Francis's death, then Richard as sole governor till his death, unless somebody objects. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

House of Trastámara

Nearly every article on members of the House of Trastámara has an appearance section highlighting the fact that "blue eyes, and had a hair color that was between reddish-blonde and auburn", ie. John II of Castile, Alfonso, Prince of Asturias (1453–1468), Henry IV of Castile, Isabella I of Castile, Catherine of Aragon and etc. They seem to disagree as to where their hair-color and eye-color originate from, either Peter of Castile, Alfonso XI of Castile or even Eleanor of England, Queen of Castile. None of those articles say anything about their appearance; don't pay attention to the portraits because most are probably not realistic. What is even so out of the ordinary for the earlier Castilian monarchs to have blue eyes and reddish-blond hair that people have to pinpoint where the Trastámara family got those genes? Were they stereotypically dark-haired and olive skins as how Catherine of Aragon have been portrayed in modern media? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Recorded texts are just as likely to be highly stylised as portraiture. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

An IP turned up on 28th May 2010 and added these statements, along with edits to Nordic race and some others. User:124.104.179.196. May have been a returning user because they knew how to tweak an internal link to point to a section rather than a whole article. Uncited. No reason not to remove. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It was not out of the ordinary for the Spanish Trastamaras to have been blonde or auburn-haired and blue-eyed. Most European royal families were descended from the Germanic Franks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Patterns cut into paper for authentication purposes

The top of the Mediterranean_pass is cut in a special pattern to authenticate the document. This made me recall a story where the characters tear a dollar bill in half and each party keeps a half in order to authenticate themselves during the next meeting. This technique is basically a primitive MAC. Is there a name for this technique? When was the first recorded usage of this technique?A8875 (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a form of indenture - the description of the process has since passed into general use to mean a specific kind of legal document. The earliest surviving indentured documents, per that article, are c. 1400, but it was probably in use for a couple of centuries before that. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Indenture says the earliest surviving examples are 13th century, i.e. 1200's. --ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the prompt and precise answer, Andrew. A8875 (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Just a comment that the technique is a development of the split Tally stick, in use for a thousand years in England (and probably much longer world-wide), but this is a less precise answer! Dbfirs 14:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In contrast, a deed poll is a document with straight edges. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Has Florida become a Southern enclave of “the North” since it hasn’t been part of “the South” for a long time?

I was told on a previous question that “Florida is not the ‘New South’ because it's not ‘the South’ and that it hasn't been for a long time.” I live in Florida and I know from experience that a lot Floridians don’t consider their state to be part of “the South” even though it geographically is, and a lot of Floridians don’t like to be called Southerners even though they geographically live in the southern region of the U.S. So, would that mean that Florida has become a Southern enclave of the North, in other words, a part of “the North” that is geographically in “the South?” Also, since when exactly did Florida stop being part of "the South" and since when did many Floridians stop identifying themselves as “Southerners?” Willminator (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could find scientific polls to respond to the question of whether Floridians consider themselves "southerners," with whatever that entails. Another area of research is population demographics: if , say, an increasing percentage of the population there came from Cuba or other Hispanic countries, or from the Atlantic states such as New York and New Jersey, rather than being descendants of Floridians, an argument could be made that they were "transplants" and not "native southerners." Edison (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

From a cultural point of view I think your right. The Dixi was something of a political line anyhow.--Aspro (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• It may be more accurate to say that parts of Florida are Northern or "coastal" in their social and political attitudes. Rural & small town Florida is a lot more like small-town Dixie than like a New England town. Orlando, Daytona, and the Redneck Riviera have much more in common with other Southern tourist towns like Hilton Head and New Orleans than they do with the immigrant/emigrant-heavy Miami area. It's Miami (and to a lesser extent, Tampa) that are out of place for the South. The rest of Florida fits the broad Dixie standard. --M@rēino 19:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a better way to put it M@rēino. My views are coloured by the number of retired folk who have moved down there and the industry that’s grown up to soak-up their pensions. Get out of those places and I'll agree, you're either meet the real southerners or become a 'gators next meal or both. Also, real southerners don't seem to need climate control. Hey, some of them don't even seem to know how to sweat. I'm exaggerating of course but... the new influx do appear to be taking over. --Aspro (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Our Deep South page claims (without citing a source) that northern Florida—Florida Panhandle, First Coast, and North Central Florida—"retain cultural characteristics of the Deep South". Settlement of this part of Florida goes back to early colonial times. The cotton belt extends into northern Florida and the region boomed along with the rest of the Deep South in the early 19th century. The rest of Florida was not settled in a significant way until much later, and through a different process (of course central and southern Florida were not vacant—there's a long and complicated Native American history there). Our History of Florida page says (also unsourced) that in 1900 "most Floridians lived within 50 miles of the Georgia border", and that the state's population was only about 500,000. There's been a massive demographic change since then, obviously. So, on the question of when exactly did Florida stop being part of "the South" and since when did many Floridians stop identifying themselves as “Southerners?”, I'd say sometime in the early 20th century, when central and south Florida boomed, while also pointing out that parts of Florida are still "part of the South". I always assumed the settlement of central and south Florida had to do with air conditioning and large swamp draining projects, but reading about it now it appears more complicated.

A quote from The Shaping of America, volume 3, by Donald W. Meinig: "Aside from the spread of the Cotton Belt onto the prairies around Tallahassee, Florida was more a subtropical colony of the North than an extension of the traditional South, but the need for labor in the citrus groves and vegetable fields, warehouses, docks, and fancy resorts attracted large numbers of Blacks, and Northern managers readily adapted to Southern social mores. Cuban refugees and businessmen, long a major presence in Key West, were moving north to Tampa. By 1900 the state had just over half a million people and the boom was still rather deflated from the national depression and a severe citrus freeze, but more and more Northern sojourners swelled the winter population." Meinig also points out that religious denominations that had antagonistically split during the pre-Civil War era, like the Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, did not reunite after the war. Instead "southern religion became entwined with the Lost Cause" and an important part of the New South. Florida's religious demographics are not like those of the rest of the Deep South. This book, [3], points out that Florida has only seven counties that fit the religious character of the Deep South, and all are in northern Florida. Pfly (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The transition of Florida from "mostly Southern" to "mostly Northern" likely started with the Florida land boom of the 1920s and completed soon after the Cuban Revolution, possibly extended to the construction of the Kennedy Space Center. So, we're in the 1920's - 1960's range. StuRat (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It is metaphysically impossible to get any more Dixie than Apalachicola, Florida. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As described in History of Florida, the state was actually a "haven for escaped slaves" in the early 1800s; the Seminoles kept back the forces of "civilization" until pretty close to the Civil War. So the state didn't have the chance to become quite as Confederate as the rest of the South. I think. Wnt (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Florida became a state much later than Georgia (and US territory later than the Louisiana Territory), remaining Spanish territory until the early 19th century. That, more than the Seminoles, restricted to the lower part of the peninsula, was the deeper cause of its unique identity. But northern parts of the state are quite Southern in character. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that last sentence is why I'm inclined to credit the Seminoles, who despite their tiny numbers managed quite a military effort. It's interesting to compare the cost of the Seminole Wars to the cost of Seward's Folly... Wnt (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Finding a dead person

A friend of mine has disappeared off the map and I suspect he has died. Is there anyway I could check this at a local office? He lived in the local area and I very much imagine he died locally too. What's the proceedure for finding out about death registration? Do I just pop down the register office and check their records?146.90.23.194 (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

:The OP's location is England in the United Kingdom --Aspro (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you specified which England, otherwise we might all have assumed you meant England, Arkansas, or that tiny village in Nordstrand, Germany that everyone's always talking about.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! But who exactly are you that call themselves we? As for the group that calls itself 'everyone', I've hear of them too but can't recall ever meeting any. --Aspro (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, so am part of that we, apparently. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It used to be taught (and maybe still to day) that a noun without qualification refers to the original, first, fiat, etc. So, I mentioned 'England' not to place it in the UK but to save people from considering the processes in Scotland – so that the 'we' did not get confused. Note to self – must try harder to be clearer when the we might be marauding around :-)--Aspro (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't that you weren't clear. England by itself would have done just fine, and stating it's in the UK was simply an unnecessary redundant tautologous over-specification that you didn't really need to write and "we" didn't really need to read to know that the England you were talking about was the one in the UK and not any of the other ones.  :) What the processes in Scotland have to do with any of this is a bit of a mystery to me, I must say, but I like a good mystery.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Subject Scotland: Some whoisit's show OP's has a UK identified IP. Therefore, anyone (or we's ) that doesn’t know that, that also includes Scotland (which often has different procedures because it has its own legal system unlike Wales and Northern Ireland) might might go off at a tangent without knowing that the OP is in England. George Bush Junior thought Wales was a county of Britain!!! So I thought I might make it clear. Oh well, I tried.--Aspro (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC) George Bush and geography. [4] --Aspro (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have tried valiantly, but failed, to parse the first 15 words of your post. The rest I can make sense of. Keep trying. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

<?small> at the end of your last post is not a HMTL code I know of. Can you please illuminate Jack?--Aspro (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Subject: Whoisit. This is a reference to sites such as this: [5] colloquially known as whoisits . Does that make sense? The only other thing I can think has tripped you up is the we which is response to the above posts. On ref desk I'm not expecting to read complete and editor checked thesis but short concise answers in which most OP's will be able to find their answer. If I'm using terms, sentence structure (and least I forget -spelling) that spills out of my abomination of keyboard, that the we have yet to comprehend and follow, then Hello folks, welcome to the 21st Century. --Aspro (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I presume the event would have happened relatively recently, within the last year. If this is the case, the General Records Office says "For recent events registered within the last 6 months (for marriages this period is extended to 18 months), applications for certificates should be made to the Register Office in the district where the birth, death or marriage took place." You might like to start with visiting the General Records Office website and applying for a possible death certificate. You'd have to give your friend's full name, age, place of registration of death, and quarter of registration of death. So if your friend died in April 2011, you'd tell them to search in the records for the 2nd quarter of 2011. There is no way to get this information without getting the certificate and paying out the money, I'm afraid. However, if the local Register Office or the GRO tell you they have no such information, then you can possibly infer that your friend is still alive. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

One method that is often overlooked and works for people who haven't died as well, is to go through your address book and phone anyone and everyone that also knew him/her. Odds are, that unless you where mutual hermits, someone in your circle of your mutuals friends will also be close to the centre of the Six degrees of separation and will thus be able to bring you up to date. Second: Persist. If a land-line number has a different owner -ask if any neighbours know. Don't be put off by 'donknow.' Use the techniques of investigative journalism and point out that as this missing person has just inherited zillions of pounds, so the person leading you to him/her is in line for a hansom reward – blah -blah-blah. Its quicker to do this from home, than going though the 'formal' processes. By-the-way. Why are you so keen to contact him -does he owe money or something?--Aspro (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That last question is none of our business, Aspro. The OP calls him a "friend", which is all the reason you'd ever need to contact anyone. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Lets deconstruct it to more neutral terms. By considering an individual’s life style, habits etc., one can laterally think of other avenues of enquiry. If someone is sporty or even just very keen on playing Golf (which can be very exhausting without a trolly), then they might well have friends that the OP doesn’t know about. Remember: Birds-of-a-fether-flock together. Therefore, look for something of a common interest. Some people (believe it or not) feel very awkward -if they have fallen on bad times- to remake contact with someone they may already in deep debt to. The reason for contacting someone can also aid the search. If it is to invite an old comrade to a company or military reunion, then pension funds etc., are often willing to pass on letters to the people on their files if you ask them. Therefore an answer to my last question would provide valuable clues as to the possibilities of other lines of enquiry. Prejudgement, is a barrier to clear cognition.--Aspro (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it can be. Although I agree it can sometimes shed light on the pathway to the answer, I have a general dislike of people in our position asking questioners why they're asking their questions. (I particularly despise when someone here says "Who cares?", or "Why does it matter?" - obviously the OP cares enough to ask their question, and it certainly matters to them if nobody else. Now, yours wasn't like that, I'm just having a mini-rant here.) If it's done at all, it must be sensitive, respectful, and not getting anywhere near the area of invading their privacy or putting them in uncomfortable positions. I guess I'd have preferred your question to be more like "Can you tell us more about why you're so keen to contact your friend?", and leave it at that. That leaves the OP with the freedom to provide as much or as little further information as they like, and doesn't push them into a corner where their choices are limited to: (a) divulging information they had not planned to, (b) evading the question, (c) telling you it's none of your business, (d) silence. Now, it may be that the OP would be perfectly happy to tell us it's about money owed to them, but in that case there's every chance they'd have already said that was what's behind their quest (and I now see from below that the reason has nothing to do with money). Even if they weren't originally intending to say why, but had no problem doing so if it helped them track down their friend, I still think it's their call to volunteer that information from a general question like the one I suggested, rather than having to deal with a very specific question like the one you asked. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My foresight in trying to answer the OP's question, obviously doesn’t appear have the benefit of your 20/20 vision of hindsight, at analysing my answers. :¬)--Aspro (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the most obvious things to do would be to google his name and see if anything turns up, like an obituary or something. In the USA, at least, a lot of newspapers and funeral homes are posting archival obits, at least for the last decade or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Recently I found an old friend of mine whom I had lost any trace of during the last 25 years. I googled his name and I found his name and address on a list of donors to a church. Omidinist (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I once found a former co-worker in his high school's alumnal birthday list. —Tamfang (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If free things like Facebook and Google fail, a private investigator may be able to assist. They can do a few checks very quickly and easily, and it might not cost much more than dealing with government bureaucracy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically, he was a friend from way back, that I bumped into in more recent years and found out he lived near me. We met up a few times and he seemed extremely depressed; suicidal. I did my best to talk to him about things but I'm no doctor and my life was going in a very different direction at the time, so we ended up not communicating again. He's no longer resident at the address where I knew him, we have no mutual friends, he wasn't the kind of person to be on Facebook or anything, he drifted in and out of work, I don't know his family, and I honestly suspect that he killed himself, but I was wondering if there was an easy way to find out? This was back in 2008.146.66.46.89 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You may do well to research the local newspaper archives, as a suicide (at least in the UK) has to be referred to a coroner and inquests tend to be reported in the local newspaper. You'll probably be unlucky in looking at the coroner's papers as they're embargoed for 75 years. Free access to the BNA Newspaper Archives should be available through your local library or archive service. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd check [6], which is a cemetery record for the UK. If you are not sure he's dead, also check the telephone book, maybe you are wrong about his death. 79.148.233.179 (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly complete, and it doesn't cover the last few years. It may be a resource for some genealogists, but not for anyone interested in finding someone recently deceased. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Book on Islam

I'm looking for recommendations for a book (or books) on Islam: its history, teachings/beliefs, and its effects on the attitudes and conduct of Muslims. I don't want a Sam Harris or Robert Spencer type book where Islam is evil incarnate, nor something that's pushing a pro-religion agenda. Preferably the book would help give some insight into contemporary politics. Thanks! 65.92.7.168 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Islam: a very short introduction by Malise Ruthven is a good starting point. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is what you're looking for, but I found A History of the Modern Middle East by Cleveland and Bunton to be very thorough. It discusses the origin of Islam and its divisions, and as its name implies, it's mainly focused on 20th century Middle Eastern history. If you want to understand two historically (and to some extent currently) influential ideologies in Islam--pan-Arabic Nasserism and Islamic fundamentalism--this book has quite a lot on that. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the shortest, though the most informative, book on Islam as it has been in the past and as it is today. It gives everything in just 128 pages, with no bias at all. --Omidinist (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I found No God but God by Reza Aslan very good. --ColinFine (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

With reference to the book suggested about the Middle East, bear in mind that the most populous Muslim country is Indonesia, and trailing not far behind are Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India. If you are interested in how Islam plays out in people's lives now, look further than Arabia and northern Africa: Turkey, Iran, Central Asia. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Again auctions, why the chanting in the US and the formal "10, 20, 30, no one? Sold for 30" elsewhere

The question about Tobacco auctions, asking about the chant just got moved to the archives, but it still leaves one question: why do auctioneers in the US have this chant where their, for instance, European counterparts don't? European auctioneers act as notaries: "I see this person bids 40, but I cannot rule out the option that one of you will want to bid higher. Anyone?". US auctioneers act as if they are the owner with a certain psychological disorder: "40 now, gimme 45, gimme 45, only 40 now.." etc. The actual question: do prices get higher when the auctioneer makes such a show of it? And if so, why don't European auctioneers do that? Do all auctioneers in the US this chanting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joepnl (talk • contribs) 23:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I previously linked to Breeding Sheep Sale, Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, South Wales, showing that we have a similar, but marginally less stilted chant on this side of the Atlantic. I suspect that we've been doing this rather longer. I'll look for a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I only found A Very Brief History on the Fast-Talking Style: "The fast-talking auctioneer is a uniquely American tradition." They probably haven't been to Abergavenny. Alansplodge (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I found this video of a British antiques auctioneer who uses a much more restrained style, but still with a certain cadence to it - Gildings Antiques & Collectors Sale. As for Europeans (that funny lot on the other side of the Channel), I have no idea what they do. Alansplodge (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a few vocations where fast speaking is a plus, anyone remember the Micro Machines guy? Competitive debate is another one of those activities. But I suspect the auctioneer cadence has more to do with tradition. As an amateur guess, it is somewhat nerve racking to hear anew and it's hard to fall asleep too... making people nervous and out of their comfort zone might push them into bids or create a sense of urgency that does help push up the price. Continental auctions are the same but more subdued, but the pressure is there too. Shadowjams (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Compare the "Hey batter, batter!" tradition at baseball games (not sure what it's called, not really heckling)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's called chatter. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My family often went to country auctions in the US. The highly practiced chant gets the item sold, and builds a level of excitement in some bidders which likely leads them to pay more than they initially intended, to "win" the auction. The easygoing, laconic manner of sale used at auctions of fine antiques would not build the same level of excitement in the audience. The auctioneer may literally be knocking down many hundreds of lots in a few hours, just like a tobacco auctioneer. Lots of them, such as boxes of random books or little glass knick-nacks, may go for a minimum bid, such as one dollar. Meanwhile, many bidders are waiting for some highly desirable items which are why they came at all. People would leave if the process was not fast-moving. They would be bored if it was quiet, slow paced and soothing as described, "I (yawn) see that someone has bid 40. Perhaps (yawn) some other person here might wish to bid 45?" (yawn, the sound of people leaving). The auctioneer, for all his fast chanting, is watching to see if a lot is going high or if there is little interest, and will knock it down and move on to the next lot. He and the crowd love a bidding war, where two people want something and cost is no object. Edison (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. Not sure why, but I've been looking at auctions for hours now. Mmm. Anyway, here's the song for this question. Joepnl (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)