Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 May 22
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 21 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 23 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
May 22
[edit]Beyond combining all individual bibles into all - in - one now
[edit]| OP spamming his blog. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Is it beyond even possible to combining all individual bibles into all - in -one now? As opposed to how its always been. I for one would truly love for sure instead getting more one.--Jessica A Bruno (waybeyondfedup) 00:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabrunowaybeyondfedup (talk • contribs)
The OP may be interested in The Word: The Bible from 26 Translations[1][2][3]. It contains: Old Testament:
--Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, again all of your answers to my latest question. In which I was only wondering more anything else. At the same time don't me wrong I already knew about everything you said here and beyond. In addition the link to one my most recent blog entries/notes concerning all about and beyond this. Beyond both concerns and questions on/regarding What Is the Bible?:…, Rob Bell | Female Forum Re: Beyond both concerns and questions on/regarding What Is the Bible?:..., Rob Bell | Female Forum--Jessica A Bruno (waybeyondfedup) 01:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabrunowaybeyondfedup (talk • contribs)
|
Manbulge
[edit]The article Packing (phallus) describes the artificial bulge used by transmen as a "packer". Is there a non-slang standard word for the natural/non-artificial bulge in cis men that is not ambiguous? The terms manbulge, mooseknuckle, trouser tent, lunchbox, cockbulge etc. all seem like slang or colloquially nonstandard. Please provide references since I'm considering adding them to the "packing" article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.95.137 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Codpiece was quite unrevealing in this respect. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- I dont think "codpiece" can be added to the packing article. I'm thinking of adding something along the lines of "... for transmen who want to resemble having a (insert term here)". 79.67.95.137 (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Does "genital bulge" not work? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nope. I'm looking for a single noun without adjectives. I guess manbulge is the most standard term even though its slang. 79.67.95.137 (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Mooseknuckles? --Jayron32 01:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @User:Jayron32, no mooseknuckle is nonstandard too. Its not encyclopedic to say for instance "transmen use a packer in order to accentuate their mooseknuckle". 79.67.91.88 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Women ignored me, and you suggested I put a potato in my pants, but now they flee in terror, for some reason."
- Dr. Ruth: "I don't understand why putting a potato in the front of your pants didn't work."
- "Oh ! The FRONT of my pants ! Now I get it." StuRat (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- A packer packs his "package". Package. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- In the UK, lunchbox has some nonstandard currency, see definition 3 on Wiktionary. Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Lunchbox is too ambiguous. For example, "you could clearly see his lunchbox" - the meaning is not immediately apparent. 79.67.91.88 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- About transmen but men do not say "you could clearly see his," whatever. They say "what do you think of her" beautiful eyes. And that she bites. --Askedonty (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Is there a problem with using the word "penis"? "Some trans men use a packer to resemble having a penis." Seems pretty straightforward. And if you want to get completely pedantic about it; I don't have a trouser tent - my pants do; I have the underlying penis and scrotum that cause it. It seems unlikely that you're going to find a non-slang single word that refers only to the offset of fabric. Even within the clothing industry the terms used would have multiple words: "He hangs left" can't really be re-cast the way you need it to. Matt Deres (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- 3 problems with "penis". Firstly, a penis does not necessarily cause a bulge with some trousers. Secondly, "penis" could cause a misconception of an artificial penis whereas some transmen merely use a sock. Thirdly, directly using "penis" could cause a misunderstanding of nude transmen rather than clothed transmen. In a nutshell, its ambiguous. A standard version of "manbulge" would give a clear delineation between nudism and clothedness - a major difference in my opinion. It is especially important to make this distinction due to the possible legal ramifications of the former. 79.67.91.88 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Heh...nutshell. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- 3 problems with "penis". Firstly, a penis does not necessarily cause a bulge with some trousers. Secondly, "penis" could cause a misconception of an artificial penis whereas some transmen merely use a sock. Thirdly, directly using "penis" could cause a misunderstanding of nude transmen rather than clothed transmen. In a nutshell, its ambiguous. A standard version of "manbulge" would give a clear delineation between nudism and clothedness - a major difference in my opinion. It is especially important to make this distinction due to the possible legal ramifications of the former. 79.67.91.88 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Simply put, there seems to be a gap in the English language. This is not helped by the mild intolerence towards neologisms in the Anglosphere. 79.67.91.88 (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Agricultural revolution and cats
[edit]Ok, so dogs get a lot of credit over cats for being useful and for being able to be put to work whereas cats are depicted as lazy, aloof unwilling to be trained, etc. - I think it's time to redress that balance. Sure, dogs are very useful for all sorts of purposes at the moment, but I think it's cats who got the ball rolling. Without them, the agricultural revolution would never have been possible because unprotected granary stores would have been plundered and infected by vermin, right? So, is it fair to say that without cats, we'd never have made from the transition from hunter-gatherers to organised, settled communities. Maybe the reason ancient cultures worshipped them was because they knew how fundamentally important they were to their society, especially in terms of ensuring a grain surplus. Just checking that my theory makes sense, or if I'm missing something entirely --Andrew 17:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- In Ancient Egypt, they were venerated for their ability to hunt and kill rats, mice and most especially cobras. You can read about their status in our article on Cats in ancient Egypt. Cats were certainly a factor in civilization's move from hunter-gathering to agriculture but there were other agricultural civilizations thriving at the same time as the Egyptians potentially without the use of domesticated felines.. uhhlive (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- See Shillourokambos, which is evidence that humans domesticated cats as early as 9,500 years ago, which would indicate that domestication of cats is correlated with the neolithic revolution, with all of the caveats of correlation does not imply causation. --Jayron32 18:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- I like to think that whilst man domesticated the dog. Cats domesticated man. As said above, cats are not easily trained as they are their own masters. Their ancestors realized that the early agriacultralists proved them with a sources of vermin all year round – so they moved in. At the same time, making sure, that on cold winter nights they always had the warmest place next to the fire and trained humans to sit in the second best place around that fire. Aspro (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Currently the favored hypothesis among all the biologists I know is that dogs and cats both domesticated themselves, i.e. it's not that we bred them selectively for certain traits, but that the situation was such that those who didn't mind living around humans higher lifetime fecundity. Self-domestication#In_animals. Note also that domestic cats are far less changed in terms of genetics than dogs are, compared to their wild counterparts. This is mentioned at cat. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- "So, is it fair to say...", no, not really. It is fair to say cats seemed to have performed a very important service in many societies around the time that grain storage became important to human settlements. See rat catcher, rat terrier and even mouse trap for non-cat ways that some human societies have dealt with rodents in their grain stores. Pest_control#History also has some general info, but not much on rodents. While indeed lack of cats may have hypothetically made grain storage harder in the neolithic era, WP:OR I don't think it's fair to say the agricultural revolution wouldn't have happened. But none of us can say for sure, we don't have a working crystal ball. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Without a time-machine we can never know but can take intelligent guesses. Not only do rodents eat grain they also spread horrid's like Leptospirosis. Most of that happens at night whilst humans sleep and cats eat. So there is obviously a strong symbiotic relationship which continues to this very day. One can keep vermin out by building granaries with thick adobe or stone walls which a rodent can not penetrate in a single night... For instance, a way of preserving grain was to bury it in a deep pit. Bacterial decay quickly replaced spoiling oxygen with carbon dioxide. Yet both of these techniques (although simple to realize today) would probably not have been obvious to our forbears when they first started to cultivate grain. So our symbiotic relationship with Felix is probable very important.Aspro (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Is there a correlation between Medieval Europe's attempt to eradicate cats, with the growth of the rat population and the spread of the Bubonic Plague? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Without a time-machine we can never know but can take intelligent guesses. Not only do rodents eat grain they also spread horrid's like Leptospirosis. Most of that happens at night whilst humans sleep and cats eat. So there is obviously a strong symbiotic relationship which continues to this very day. One can keep vermin out by building granaries with thick adobe or stone walls which a rodent can not penetrate in a single night... For instance, a way of preserving grain was to bury it in a deep pit. Bacterial decay quickly replaced spoiling oxygen with carbon dioxide. Yet both of these techniques (although simple to realize today) would probably not have been obvious to our forbears when they first started to cultivate grain. So our symbiotic relationship with Felix is probable very important.Aspro (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this hypothesis has been bouncing around for some decades. At some times the plague advanced at six mile a day. Way too fast for the rat to spread it. It is possible that the bacterium transmuted and became air borne and the animal vector was human. In the last plague to hit London, some people spend a fortune on having coal braziers burning around the clock. Might just be, that the coal-tars in the smoke acted as a disinfectant in the same way that Joseph Lister later used carbolic acid. Aspro (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Also, isn't the feline trait of burying feces important to domestication ? That is, any number of animals could hunt rodents, but they would also leave feces around the camp. Not a desirable trait, as this tends to spread disease (primitive man may not have known this, just that stepping in poo is "gross", not knowing that this disgust is an adaptation to avoid disease). Of course, dogs do leave little "presents" everywhere, but the benefits must justify this increased disease risk. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Stu, where is your evidence for the above? How do we know that primitive humans disliked stepping in faeces? What are the benefits you speak of? By the way, I cannot think of a domesticated agricultural animal that does not transmit zoonosis. DrChrissy (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ancient man may not have had soap and thus had horribly BO. Yet do they differ from modern man or woman, which on getting home finds something from a dog is clinging on the soles of their shoes? Sure, a pig farm may not be everyone's idea of pleasant olfactory experience but some doggy pooh is really offensive. Cats do not do this- they bury it. It may have been OK for Capt'n Kirk to tell someone else to clean off the Klingons on his right-wing but it is an odious chore (and before anyone brings it up. I know it should have been starboard wing). Aspro (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Non sequitur, as that doesn't mean they all transmit disease equally. Burying feces is an effective way to reduce the spread of disease. This is why humans do it now, although disgust/miasma would have been the sole reason, before the true link to disease was known. See latrine, sewage treatment, etc. Note that sanitation of the Indus Valley Civilisation, for example, far predates the germ theory of disease, so if you don't find disgust to be the explanation for such sanitation, you need to propose another. (There is the outdated miasma theory, stating that foul air caused disease, which in practice was just a formalized version of disgust.) StuRat (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The very word malaria (= bad air) comes from the belief that the foulness of the air in certain swampy places was what caused the disease. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
What decade is this wallpaper from, roughly?
[edit]
I have recently come across this old wallpaper in a house I was refurbishing. Are there any art experts on Wikipedia that can tell me what era this style of art comes from, even if it is a guess? Thanks! --Abledtaken (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't have much idea about the lion and zebra, but the flowers suggest the 1960s or early 1970s -- or an imitation of the 1960s or early 1970s... AnonMoos (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- The rather cartoonish face on the lion makes me think it's for a kid's room. StuRat (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't like the way it's eyeing the door instead of the lioness or zebra. Probably for an unhappy kid's room. 1978, I'll guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- How do you know it's eyeing the door? There could be another animal just out of shot. --Viennese Waltz 07:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Aye, maybe a couple of drunk gorillas arguing over which one thought it was a good idea to adopt a lion. Or maybe just an elephant in the room. He's definitely hiding from something, though. Not the best look for a lion, anywhere outside of Oz. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- How do you know it's eyeing the door? There could be another animal just out of shot. --Viennese Waltz 07:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't like the way it's eyeing the door instead of the lioness or zebra. Probably for an unhappy kid's room. 1978, I'll guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The style could be British, as far back as the 1950s. But that would be exceptional - the sort of parents who were London-based design aficionados, or maybe even wallpaper designers themselves. As paper that had reached a mass market, it's later 1960s - early to mid 1970s. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, if you're interested in British post-war graphic design, don't miss http://vintageposterblog.com/ Andy Dingley (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The colorway - avocado, rust, gold - was characteristic of interior design for the early or mid-1960s USA (or at least Southern California where I encountered it).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborahjay (talk • contribs)
- Indeed, the avocado-rust-gold color scheme is indicative of the 1960s in the U.S.; " Green, gold, orange and yellow were very popular and could be found on everything from clothes to home décor, and even cars." --Jayron32 11:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The OP doesn’t say which county he is in. If it is the UK then the Victoria and Albert Museum has a huge archive.21:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)