Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 29

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.

July 29

Anger allegedly gives an extra will to live, so...?

You see, Anakin/Vader had so much anger while being immolated, that it helped him survive. I have read that his seething emotions gave him an incredible will to live.

Therefore, I wonder: How about a during a heart attack? Would thinking livid, seething thoughts just as a heart attack is coming on, increase the chances of survival? Are there statistics / reports / (non-fiction) stories / etc. backing this up?

Also, what other (improbable to survive) conditions were overridden by such emotions, and what stories and stats can you cite to back this up? Thanks. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking us about Star Wars characters? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Anakin/Vader is a fictional character living in a fictional world created by a writer who has absolutely zero background in medicine and who has created medical whoppers before. In the real world real seething anger leads to a spike in blood pressure and has been reported (by Nuland, a.o.) to have triggered fatal heart attacks.

In fact, one of the first things EMTs do with a heart attack patient is to try to calm him or her down, because being relaxed (and not anxious, angry, etc.) slightly increases the chance of survival by lowering blood pressure. Given that an MI often leads to a spike in adrenaline that's not always possible, but your idea that you can somehow magically and miraculously will yourself to live by feeling strong emotions because Darth Vader did it is just not realistic and has no factual support behind it. Fiction is not realistic: that's why it's called "fiction". --NellieBly (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, emotions can kill us, or keep us alive when we would otherwise die. This is very well known and understood across most of the world, people can die simply from believing that they will. Elderly who understand this can completely confound western medicine whilst they make final plans and say final farewells and then pass away much to the astonishment of the attending doctors. This is more common than you think, however where you live you will probably find easier to study examples where people 'go into shock' after a serious fright. Googling for 'died of shock' with earthquakes or car accidents, it is especially common with the elderly. The live expectancy of otherwise health people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness is about 25 years less than the remainder of the population, even though their bodies are the same. Generally though, I think in America it's accepted that Mother-in-laws never seem to die and that is mainly out of spite. :) You can also find examples where a parent must fight to save their children, even when burnt or half drowned, other people would give up the will to live and pass, but many fight on and with good reason. Penyulap ☏ 15:38, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• The reason that Darth Vader's anger helped him to survive is because anger is one of the features of the dark side of the force, which helps the user generate strength. --82.37.233.93 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Shock" in this context doesn't mean surprise. It's a medical condition with physical causes, such as extreme blood loss. See shock (circulatory). The elderly tend to less resilient, so shock can kill them more easily than it kills younger people. --Tango (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

no it's not at all, there are many causes of shock, and yes some are physical but certainly not all. Adrenalin gets pumping for reasons that are not always physical, and shock is another symptom caused by certain mental states. Heart attack itself is caused by mental states as well as physical causes. study people ! Shock is the body conserving it's precious blood supply for the vital organs at the expense of the soon to be bitten off/blow off/chopped off/burnt off limbs. Penyulap ☏ 17:03, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, if you are going to speak so "authoritatively" about medical matters, a cite or five would help you become credible. Bielle (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In particular, I would refer you to this sectionin the WP article on circulatoryshock also cited by Tango (emphasis mine):

Circulatory shock should not be confused with the emotional state of shock, as the two are not related.

Circulatory shock is a life-threatening medical emergency and one of the most common causes of death for critically ill people. Shock can have a variety of effects, all with similar outcomes, but all relate to a problem with the body's circulatory system. For example, shock may lead to hypoxemia (a lack of oxygen in arterial blood) or cardiac arrest.

One of the key dangers of shock is that it progresses by a positive feedback mechanism. Once shock begins, it tends to make itself worse. This is why immediate treatment of shock is critical.

Bielle (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Penyulap is misunderstanding the reports they are quoting. When someone is reported to have "died of shock" following a earthquake, it means they died of circulatory shock, not emotional shock. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well actually it's called "fiction" because it's from the same Latin root as "effigy", fingere". So an appearance of realism is an important part of it.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Justo Pérez de Urbel

This one falls about equally under Humanities & Language.

I'm currently translating es:Justo Pérez de Urbel. Referring to the period immediately after the Spanish Civil War there is a sentence, "Al mismo tiempo, resolvía las solicitudes de nuevas autorizaciones de tebeos." On a literal level, I understand it, but I have no idea what it actually means. "At the same time, he resolved (possibly satisfied?) the demands for new authorization of comics." I have no idea whether this means that the Falangist children's magazine he was running (Flechas y Pelayos) met that demand, or that he was somehow (how?) in a position to authorize others to produce comics, or something else entirely. Does someone know enough about the cultural history of the early Franco era to explain this better? - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

He produced enough comics to meet the new increased quota, I'm guessing. A more idiomatic guess: He solved meeting the demands for newly authorised comics. Get a second opinion from a native speaker! 207.224.43.139 (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

207, that concurs with my first guess, but I'm looking for someone who knows the cultural history well enough to do more than guess. - Jmabel | Talk 16:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, he took care of requests for authorizing new comic books in a religious sense. See imprimatur and nihil obstat. In any case, this has been asked here and on the language desk, and been answered at the Spanish wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Barbara Willard bibliography

I have found the titles of 3 books for children not listed by Wikipedia. How do I get them added? They are all published by Bethlehem books, one in 1969 and two with impossible (i.e. after her death) dates, obviously reprints. 31.52.41.62 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You can add them to our Barbara Willard article yourself, using the edit button on the section where you want to put them. Note that sometimes books are published (the first time) posthumously, but, in your case, they likely are reprints. StuRat (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympics

Why is the United Kingdom referred to as Great Britain at the Olympics, when officially we're the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain is just the name of the largest island, the title "Team GB" seems to completely ignore Northern Ireland and the other islands that comprise the UK. Just wondered if there was a reasoning behind it. --Thanks, Hadseys (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As Great Britain#Use of the term Great Britain notes, the use of GB and UK as effective synonyms, while wrong, was formerly quite commonplace, but has been waning over the last few decades. As Team GB#Calls for renaming notes, there have been calls for the Olympic team to rename, for the reasons you describe. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The official ISO 3166-1 country code for the United Kingdom is "GB" (although "UK" is reserved so no other country can use it). I'm not really sure why, but it means GB is technically the correct abbreviation. --Tango (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

except the olympic team predates the ISO code. Hot Stop 16:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The explanation I was given is that athletes from Northern Ireland have the choice as to whether they represent Ireland or Great Britain. For that reason it's inaccurate to use "UK" as in the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The other parts of Great Britain don't have a choice to offer their athletes as to who they represent. It's the only explanation I have heard that makes sense. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Dual eligibility is discussed at Great Britain at the Olympics#Eligibility, but isn't sourced. That also notes the non-UK entities whose people are eligible. Of these the Isle of Man has had (in the distant past) two medallists. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested, a full list of this Olympics' Team GB is here. That lists where members were born, which might be instructive as to which territory one might say they "belong". I see two, including Cavendish, from the Isle of Man, and two from Guernsey. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that those places are not formally part of the United Kingdom but their residents are eligible for the national team would explain why the team is not called "United Kingdom". But it does not help to justify calling it "Great Britain". The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are no more part of Great Britain than they're part of the UK. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If "Team GB" changed their name to "Team UK" the IRA would specially come out of retirement to bomb a stadium. "Blame the Irish" is the standard answer to all questions related to the name(s) of various British and related entities. Roger (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

At the time the Olympics started "Great Britain" was the common name for the United Kingdom, it is only now particularly after Irish independence that we have a move to change the word back to its original geographical meaning. It would have been common in in the 1900s to use "Great Britain" for all of the United Kingdom, it is still in common use and most of the population would still relate GB to UK rather than the largest island of the British Isles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That may have been true from an English viewpoint. On the other hand, the Queen is commonly referred to as the "Queen of England" but you won't see that expression used in any official context, anywhere, because it's been inaccurate and misleading since 1707. Did the people of Ireland consider they were part of "Great Britain" in 1896? After partition, did the people of Northern Ireland consider they were part of "Great Britain"? Wouldn't either of those make a mockery of the union of "Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland", which is what their United Kingdom was supposed to be all about? If the Games were just being inaugurated today, is there any way the UK team would be referred to as "Great Britain"? I seriously doubt it. Using something that might have had relevance in 1896 but has long since lost it smacks of tradition for its own sake ... wait, we are talking of the UK here, so .... -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not they're embraced by the geographical "Great", the majority of people in Northern Ireland post-partition did and do (though the majority is now slimmer) rather vehemently assert their being "British", wherein lies much of certain problems. As for "Queen of England", that term may commonly be used outside the UK, but isn't, I think, commonly used by a significant proportion of we British ourselves (though I'm willing to be contradicted by firm evidence).

Given the sound arguments advanced above for not using "UK" in this context, what then would you suggest, Jack? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.109 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tangential to the original question, but I have just received an Electoral Register renewal form, and I notice that my nationality cannot be "English" or "British" but must be coded as "GB" which, in this context, includes Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, Cyprus and Malta. As Jack says, it's sometimes difficult to see the logic in British tradition! Dbfirs 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a big difference between being "British" and saying you come from "Great Britain" when you don't (Northern Ireland people). It's not up to me to solve this problem, but I maintain that if the Games were just being inaugurated today, there is no way the UK team would be referred to as "Great Britain". They would have found some other, better, more suitable term. If the diplomatic fraternity can dream up "Chinese Taipei" and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", there's no limit to their inventiveness. Fwiw, imo "United Kingdom" would be a lot better. The fact that eligibility is extended to some of the adjacent islands that are not formally part of the UK is not a problem. They are intimately connected historically to the UK; they are not intimately connected with Uzbekistan or Vietnam or Madagascar. If it's OK to have a team called Great Britain that includes part of another island, then it's just as ok to have a team called United Kingdom that includes other islands. The advantage is that it would also implicitly include Northern Ireland, which the current formulation "Great Britain" appears to implicitly exclude.-- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While the government of the Republic of China has never used the name "Chinese Taipei" to refer to the state that it administers, FYROM is a translation of what was the official name of the southernmost portion of Yugoslavia for a while after independence. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's actually given the correct answer and the real reason. The reason goes back to 1908 and the first London Olympic Games. The process of requiring competitors to be formally part of national teams was relatively new (before the 1906 games, they had all competed as individuals). The British Olympic Association had been formed under that name in 1905, but covered the whole of the United Kingdom which at the time included the whole of Ireland. The large majority of Irish were firmly committed to having home rule and did not wish to be considered part of Britain, and many Irish potential Olympic competitors would have refused to participate as part of a British team. Wanting the games to be a success, the BOA got permission to enter the team under the name 'Great Britain and Ireland', opting for what sounded like a geographical rather than a political description. The International Olympic Committee also allowed a separate Irish team to enter in some events.

The team has been called 'Great Britain' since 1912. Almost all sport in the United Kingdom is organised in separate nations of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland rather than the UK as a whole. In 1912 there was a protest from France when the BOA entered three teams for the cycling (from England, Ireland and Scotland; the French also protested at the appearance of separate Austria and Hungary teams). Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet, where are the howls of protest when China has 2.5 bites at the cherry: (a) under China, (b) under Hong Kong (China) and (c) under Chinese Taipei, which China has always maintained is an integral part of China. In line with this, I imagine that in China they trumpet any medal wins by Chinese Taipei as wins by China proper. They would certainly claim Hong Kong's wins as their own, even though the teams are separate. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There's never been a requirement that Olympic entities be fully sovereign and independent. Bohemia participated before WW1, Puerto Rico participates today, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A little late to the party, but this explanation of the differences between the United Kingdom, Great Britain, and England is well worth watching. 121.44.75.220 (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I just came across a BBC blog post on this very question. It even has a rather glowing recommendation of our article, too! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Torrents site

Why no government is taking any action against those torrents sites like piratebay.org or mnova.eu while they are sharing all those copyrighted materials as pirated? I heard that Swedish government took action against piratebay.org, but why not us government and why not against other sites? ? GiantBluePanda (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that no action is being taken? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The UK and Irish governments have both mandated blocking of the Pirate Bay, as have other, mainly European countries - see The Pirate Bay#Blocking for details. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

@Bugs, I know that no action is being taken, because I have been using such sites since 6 years and it isn't closed yet.;) GiantBluePanda (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Only the government of the country where the servers are hosted can actually take any direct action to bring the site down, so your observations are only evidence that one government hasn't taking action, not that no government has. And actually, the relevant governments have tried to take action, but it is easier said than done - the people running the sites can just move to new servers in a new country very quickly. --Tango (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because it has not being closed down doesn't mean the US government is taking no action (see e.g. here and the failed SOPA bill) - for comparison the US government takes quite a lot of action against illegal drugs but people can still buy them easily. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The argument used by torrents sites, such as Pirate Bay, is that they do not host any infringing material themselves. Instead, they only index torrents that are available, and when you download, you download it directly from another person (P2P). Therefore, the torrent site isn't breaking the law by making anything illegal available, merely providing you with information on how you might get it. (If I tell you where you can buy weed, I'm not a pusher, and it's your choice whether you want to go and purchase it, or not. Or something like that.) I guess that might make it hard to create a legal framework to deal with such websites, and that's why SOPA ended up being as dravonian as it was: It included blocking websites with links to pages with infringing material. (I.e. content alone was not the sole factor, but also telling people where they could access it was illegal.) And, of course, once you start talking of blocking websites, there is the matter of who gets to decide what is being blocked, and does that potentially damadge freedom of speech? V85 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The "we don't host it, we just signpost to it" argument does not appear to interest the US government, in one notable case at least. - Karenjc 14:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Vision: Defining Your Destiny in Life (Portable 7 Habits)

Hello there, I am thinkng to purchase this book. But before proceeding, I want to know further about vision:defining your destiny in life. Amazon.com only have one customer review on this book. But what this book is actually for? I am an avid reader of self-help book. Can anyone help me to clarify about this book a bit? Thanks--180.234.49.65 (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

* You could try and find it in a bookshop or library, so you can flick through it and see what it is about before you buy it. --Tango (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the subtitle ("The Portable 7 Habits"), it looks like a shrunken version of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, his best-known book. I wouldn't expect to find anything that isn't in the other book. Looie496 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't flick through it,because it's wrapped with polythene. What valuable thing may this book cover? Thanks--180.234.217.193 (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Opara island tahiti

What is the modern name for the island of Opara near Tahiti? Is there a wikipedia article on it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Rapa Iti, formerly called Oparo?184.147.121.51 (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? Another clue seems that the island was proposed for a "coaling station in the Panama run".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. In The Story of Merchant Steam Navigation in the Australasian Coastal and Intercolonial Trades, and on the Ocean Lines of the Southern Pacific by WILL LAWSON, it is written: "the establishment of a coaling station between Wellington and Panama [was] a necessity" ... "At last [Captain John Vine Hall] decided on Rapa or Opara, an island first discovered by the English navigator, about 700 miles east of the Society Group." The Rapa Iti page confirms that the Oparo island was discovered by George_Vancouver. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I just wanted to be sure.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This (around pages 433-434) ties all the threads together. Zoonoses (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)