Humanities desk
< November 23	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 25 >

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.

November 24

Hadith numerations

Why do hadith numerations differ and how to correlate two numerations? I'm reading an English translation of Bukhari (e.g.), but I want to know how some hadith sounds in Russian, but there is a very different numeration here. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly how these different systems are related, but the website sunnah.com has a translation of Bukhari with multiple citation systems (see e.g. [1]), so you might be able to use that to find the corresponding hadith (I don't read Russian, so I can't check this). - Lindert (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! At least it is helpful, I can now see that some hadithes are absent (intentionally?) from this Russian translation.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli airstrikes and its allies

According to our article Operation Pillar of Defense, only the U.S., UK and Canada completely supported Israel. Is that true? Keeeith (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say unambiguous support. Other countries are supporting Israel as well, like Germany, although Germany also supports the enemies of Israel, so its support is not unambiguous, but quite broad in the terms of weapons delivered. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How the aftermath plays out would be critical to determine where support would go. For example, if Iran retaliates by trying to close the Persian Gulf to oil tankers, you'd also find Europe and most of the world opposed to Iran on that. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the US currently supports Israeli air strikes. The US still wants to wait to see if sanctions work, doesn't believe Israeli air strikes would push back Iran's nuclear program by much, and expects severe consequences from it, such as the US possibly being dragged into a war with Iran. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, you seem not to know what the Operation Pillar of Defense is all about. Iran has only an ancillary role here and the operation is already over. This is not about striking the nuclear program of Iran. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't read it carefully. There being a current military operation involving Israeli air strikes against Gaza and a threatened one against Iran confused me. (Of course, you could have made it easier on me by mentioning Gaza, rather than make me read the article to understand the Q.) StuRat (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading is good for the brain. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Also, as mentioned earlier on the reference desk, the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau also supported Pillar of Defense. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what would be an example of a short, bog-standard typical patent document for a device that is now commonplace? (it can be expired, by now.)

I would like to read an example of a short, bog-standard typical patent for a specific physical device, that is now commonplace after a period of patent protection during which it was purely proprietary. I'd like to read this as kind of a basis for how the patent was formated and so forth. I guess a good example might be some kind of as-seen-on-TV product, since those are typically ones where the invention was clearly new and not really obvious beforehand. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bog-standard" ? The patent office must be swamped with such applications. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This article mentions several bog patents. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about short, but would the patent that led to Post-it notes (which has now expired) do? Deor (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom of what?

If the Scottish independence vote passes, would the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland change? United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, perhaps? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Did it change names when Canada or the United States went independent? RudolfRed (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different case, the colonies were not part of the name. I don't believe they will separate, and if they do, I won't speculate about a possible new name. Intrakiu (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Britain ;-) Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it won't change the name, as it would still encompass 2 of the 3 countries of GB. If Wales were to secede as well, however, it would be a different question. On the other hand, it did change name when the Republic of Ireland seceded, so UK of E, W, NI is perhaps not entirely unrealistic. --Soman (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not-so-great Britain ? StuRat (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

And then there is Little Britain. Bielle (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer to the original question is that no one knows the answer to that question, as it hasn't even been officially discussed yet, much less decided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is not very difficult to see. Yes, indeed, the name clearly would need to change, just as "Great Britain and Ireland" became "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in 1927. The expression "Great Britain" was first used by King James I soon after the Union of the Crowns of 1603 to signify the personal union between England (which already included Wales) and Scotland. It was specifically adopted by Act of parliament as the name of the new sovereign state created in 1707, uniting the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland into "Great Britain". As a geographical term, Great Britain means the whole British mainland. Without Scotland, we plainly could not go on using "Great Britain" as part of the name of the rump state. Frankly, I am not sure that it would be appropriate to use "United Kingdom", either. Moonraker (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm missing something (or someone is). You tell us the answer is not very difficult to see, but you don't give us your answer. You just confirm that something would have to change, but you don't say what to. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can't use "Great Britain", the obvious solution is to list all 3: "The United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland". Unless you want to make up something entirely new, like "EngNireWalesland". :-) StuRat (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the geographical logic might be, many Scots do not like to call themselves "British" - seeing the term as an English imposition - so might not object if the present name were maintained. The "Great" in Great Britain has nothing to do with assertions of power but was a mediaeval term to differentiate the island from "Little Britain" or Brittany - so, following that logic, the name "Great Britain" could be retained in the same way that Sudan has not felt the need to rename itself "North Sudan" since part of its former territory became independent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

England.
Sleigh (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The logical thing would be The United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland, however I'm sure that would send the Welsh into an apoplexy. Wales was never a kingdom, which is why it doesn't have its own piece of the Union Flag or the Royal Standard. Perhaps something like The United Kingdom of England with Wales and Northern Ireland. But I don't intend to worry about something that might never happen. Alansplodge (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, along the same lines of the Irish secession, "the United Kingdom of Southern Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Proteus (Talk) 18:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They've long pretended they're separate nations when it comes to the Commonwealth Games. (Imagine the uproar if the 6 former colonies that are now the unified nation of Australia all had separate teams at such events.) Why not go the whole hog and make England, Wales and Northern Ireland three separate Commonwealth realms? I understand an independent Scotland would have that status anyway. That way, the Queen would be gaining more than she's losing, and the whole question of what to call this odd assortment of polities could be avoided. She'd be separately Queen of England, Queen of Scotland, Queen of Wales and Queen of Northern Ireland. Simple. It works for the rest of us. History would no doubt refer to these nations as the British Balkans. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland and Wales are both rather dependant on the financial support of the rest of the UK (perhaps that should read England). Scotland argues that they would be financially viable without us, once oil and gas revenues and the hoped-for increased aid from the EU are factored-in. I wonder if the Scottish electorate are brave enough to put that to the test. Alansplodge (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

England, Scotland and Wales are all nations. We wouldn't need to use the term "Southern Great Britain", as we already have South Britain, but I'm sure "England and Wales" would have more support than "South Britain". The words "United Kingdom" were first used because two separate kingdoms were united, and the Kingdom of Ireland no longer exists, so with Scotland gone the present United Kingdom would become two separate countries, one called Scotland, the other containing only one kingdom. That is why from a logical point of view I don't think we would need the word "united", although through inertia it might perhaps survive. Moonraker (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely someone has suggested: "Formerly United Kingdom"... if only for the seeming "naughtiness" of the abbreviation. Blueboar (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it remains "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", that might be comparable to "the United States of America". My impression from United States#Etymology is that the "of America" means (or originally meant) "of the Western hemisphere continents". Just as the United States of America doesn't include all of America in that sense of the word, so also "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" would not include all of Great Britain. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"United British Kingdom" might do the trick. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Supreme Court

Does Maryland have a body known as the Maryland Supreme Court or a variant thereof? I note that 48 US states have some sort of "Supreme Court" at the top of their judiciaries, and New York has Supreme Courts on a lower level, but I can't find any evidence that there's any court named "Supreme" in Maryland. Google produces lots of results, but all of them (like our Maryland Supreme Court) discuss the Maryland Court of Appeals, which is the state's supreme court, despite not having "Supreme" in its name. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you answered your own Q, they just call it something else there. StuRat (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so: the supreme court of Maryland is the Maryland Court of Appeals. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals is the intermediate court that would be called the Court of Appeals in most other states. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why, though. Is it because they are geographically near the US Supreme Court, so calling them both the same thing would be confusing ? To me, however, what they did is likely to cause more confusion. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just more appealing. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. To StuRat, the Maryland Court of Appeals was established in 1776 and the U.S. Supreme Court not until 1787/1789, so your conjecture can't explain the original name (though it might have contributed to why it was never changed). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like my original question is being misunderstood. I'm not asking anything about Maryland's court of last resort — I'm simply asking if there are any Maryland courts called "Supreme Court". Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, no. There is no court called "Maryland Supreme Court", though the equivalent state-level court to the U.S. Supreme Court is the Maryland Court of Appeals. State supreme court is an article which discusses the situation in all 50 states. Most, but not all, states have a highest-level court named "Supreme Court". Maryland is one that does not. --Jayron32 03:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York is the only other state that doesn't have "supreme" in its highest court's name. West Virginia splits the difference with Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Aside from their naming proclivities, Maryland judges wear red robes, which I find odd. For a list of all the highest courts and their names, see Comparison of U.S. state governments#Judicial. Shadowjams (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing particularly odd about their fashion sense. When Maryland's courts were established, British court dress often included red formal robes and U.S. courts often followed suit. (Early U.S. Supreme Court robes were predominantly red; see the portrait of William Cushing at right. Drab, boring, black robes were for the lower courts.) Over the last couple of centuries, many – but by no means all – courts have adjusted their fashions. Maryland has just stuck to tradition. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gold State Coach

Was there an official reason given as to why the Gold State Coach was absent in Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee procession down the mall for her service of thanksgiving? She's used it in the procession in her previous jubilees, I suppose because it offers some continuity with the Coronation procession. I have my suspicions it may have been absent for several reasons; its weight of 4 tons and its age combining to make it fragile; and that, as the coach is a notoriously rocky and uncomfortable ride, maybe the Queen wouldn't have wanted to use it? Just wondered if there was an official reason? Mrandrewnohome (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Majesty magazine were apparently told that it was for unspecified "practical reasons". Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember in the BBC commentary the remark was made that the Gold State Coach was deemed inappropriate for use in this time of austerity. Can't give a source for it though. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More likely out of consideration for the Queen's advancing years; "Head coachman Colin Henderson, who in recent years had the duty of walking alongside the coach, was interviewed by the BBC and explained: 'The carriage is on leather braces and not only rocks backwards and forwards but also oscillates, so I don't think it can be a particularly comfortable or enjoyable ride.' Queen Victoria once even refused to get inside the ornate Gold State Coach. She complained about the uncomfortable ride, saying that it gave her 'distressing oscillations'".[2] Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Europe

So, in Medieval Europe, all people were christians? Did atheists exist? And church's counts had any power on atheists?--Lê _{talk-contributions} 23:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle Ages were a long period. When they began, much of Europe was still pagan. By their end, much of Europe was Muslim. The picture is very complex. Moonraker (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about periods that church ruled, like Galileo Galilei's (I know he was not in Middle Ages, but whatever)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicknight94 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo's situation is complex. Galileo's troubles were as much political as religious, he had his own defenders even within the church heirarchy itself, i.e. Cardinal Caesar Baronius. Also, I know of no evidence that Galileo was an athiest. Our own article calls him a "pious Roman Catholic", and I know of no reason to suspect he wasn't. --Jayron32 03:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have surely always been atheists. Even some of the people who were nominally Christian or whatever, were unacknowledged atheists. There was more pressure to conform back then, but what people believed in their hearts was beyond the reach of authority, as it is now. I don't know what you mean by "church's counts had any power on atheists". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see Christian Atheism for some information. 97.93.199.163 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were plenty of other non-Christian religious beliefs - see European witchcraft, and, for the church's response, Witch trials in the Early Modern period. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another article containg some imformation is History of atheism, section "The Middle Ages". It brushes a couple of examples in medieval Islam too, such as Ibn al-Rawandi. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Medieval Inquisition - which covered anyone who did not abide by church teachings, for whatever reason. The article says that "Among the possible punishments were prayer, pilgrimage, wearing a yellow cross for life, banishment, public recantation, or, occasionally, long-term imprisonment." Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if they yelled "I don't believie in God", would they get burned at the stake?--Lê _{talk-contributions} 23:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what would happen to such a person would depend a lot on the specific time and place, but such a person would at least have been shunned. Marco polo (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magicknight94 -- I think there's been a phenomenon of "tavern skepticism" for a long time (even in the middle ages) -- hard-bitten characters in low drinking dives uttering often rather crudely skeptical and/or blasphemous sentiments. The tavern skeptics/blasphemers could certainly get in trouble in some cases, but they weren't generally what the Church considered to be the most serious threat. Usually the authorities took much more seriously those earnest thinkers or organization founders who were trying to develop alternative theological systems and religious movements. AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to determine a person's true beliefs aside from their behavior, and many people may go to church for reasons other than being Christian (social reasons, "go along to get along", forced to, etc.) There have undoubtedly been athiests at all times in history. --Jayron32 03:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people were accused of atheism, like Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II or Peter Abelard, although I don't think they were atheists in a modern sense (well...maybe Frederick). Sometimes people are recorded as questioning certain basic tenets; for example King Amalric I of Jerusalem, who apparently once doubted the Resurrection. By the way, not Christian Europe of course, but there was somewhat an atheistic streak in Islam, Ibn al-Rawandi for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC) (Oops, sorry, I see Sluzzelin already mentioned that...) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Developmental Psychology Video

I'm looking for a nice video series about developmental psychology. It is animated and rather creepy at times. It is also old in my eyes. Finally, I think it may have been produced by the psychology department at Stanford or involved Phillip Zimbardo in one way or another. On the other hand, I may be mixing up different video series. This was from my high school psychology class. Thanks Wikipedians! 97.93.199.163 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think it was biased towards Erik Erikson's and Freud's ideas. 97.93.199.163 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the Stanford marshmallow experiment dealt with developmental psychology. It was done in 1972, and strangers promising to give sweets to small children, as a reward for certain behaviors, might seem a bit creepy. Were the videos related to that ? StuRat (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That experiment is funny. Alas, it is not what I am seeking. More information: It was a set of maybe 8 videos (again, animated) that each went through (I think) Erikson's stages of life. E.g., 1 video for infants, 1 video toddlers... 1 video for adolescents... 1 video for near-death elderly couples (which was the funniest). 97.93.199.163 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Albert experiment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]