Humanities desk
< October 27	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 28

Sodomy in Ancient Bologna

I was told by a tour guide who described the waring of two factions outside the city of Bologna, Italy in which the commander of the victorious troops publicly sodomized the vanquished leader of his opposition, perhaps the commander was a representative or a warrior Pope, circa 12-13 century. I have search in vain to find a cite for this event. It was also briefly listed in a magazine article back in the 1970's. Can anyone tell me who and where and when with historical reference?

I'm not saying it's not true, but you should know that tour guides are very prone to exageration and fabrication. -THB 03:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the ancient world it was a way of degrading enemies. In Christian Europe, though, it was a cardinal sin, not openly practiced. Clio the Muse 22:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japan's Foreign Policy Toward Vietnam

Hi. I have posted my Master's Thesis under my userspace, but I am more than happy to put it out in the general circulation. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Davejenk1ns/thesis Where is the best place for this? Wikipedia? Wikisource? Davejenk1ns 01:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it would make a good wikipedia article. -THB 03:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, because of WP:OR, which excludes any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. There is a wealth of material in the Thesis that can be used to improve existing articles, but inasmuch as the Thesis aims to gain insights about Japan's foreign policy and provide explanations for Tokyo's actions, that's excluded by Wikipedia's policies. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about it, but Wikibooks might be another option. DirkvdM 09:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RENE DES CASTES

SIR,WHO IS RENE DES CASTES FROM HIS CHILDHOOD TO ADULTHOOD AND HIS ACHIEVEMENTS?

HOLY SHIT YOU JUST EXPLODED MY HEAD IT'S RENÉ DESCARTES ALL HIS ACHIEVEMENTS ARE LISTED THERE. HYENASTE TALK 02:29, 28 OCTOBER 2006 (UTC)

I don't know? Or do you mean Rene Descartes (in which case you should read the article)? --Bowlhover 02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas do not use all caps. It is considered as shouting! THanks--Light current 02:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would shout, too, if your head had been exploded! -THB 03:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What with? Clio the Muse 03:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair. Hyenaste's head exploded after the anonymous question... 惑乱分からん 13:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=D Now that I look at it again, if the OP ever returned, he probably didn't think twice about my use of caps... Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My head exploded a long time ago! I starred in Scanners 8-)

Chinese propaganda

I remember reading a propaganda article in my grade-3 Chinese textbook. It went something like this: one day in the 1940's, the CCP was having a battle with the KMT. (This story-starter is about as cliched in Chinese propaganda as "once upon a time" is in English stories.) The KMT soldiers were firing out through the embrasures in a fort, and the Communist forces could not advance under fire. To solve the problem, one soldier decided to block the embrasures with his body, providing some time for his comrades to rush past the fort. I also remember a reference to the "morning star" (Venus?).

I have three questions. First, what is the (fictional?) soldier's name? Second, is this story plausible? Third, if it is plausible, did it really happen?

I'm skeptical about whether a human body can block bullets coming out of a fort. Won't the soldier just fall down after getting shot? If not, can't I just poke at the body using my rifle, causing it to fall down? If that doesn't work, how about shooting through the body at whoever might be in my bullet's path? --Bowlhover 02:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda is the operative word here. Just how many 'embrasures' can one body block? It must have been a very small fort and a very narrow range of fire with (very) low-caliber guns. It's a political fairy story for small children; no more than that. Clio the Muse 03:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the geometry, if a body could fall over the gun portal, and thus block it's view, that would make aiming at attacking soldiers impossible. This could possibly afford an opportunity for soldiers to approach to a range where grenades could be used effectively. StuRat 06:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty likely to me that the force of the bullets would quickly push the body back off of the wall, though. Any embrasure that would be at an angle where a body could easily "fall" on it and be stuck would be pretty useless for shooting anything other than people who could fly. --Fastfission 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets exert high pressure on the target, over a very short time period (impact force), but have minimal force associated with them (less than the kickback on the gun), despite Hollywood movies showing people being blown 10 feet backwards when shot. The low force exerted is especially true if the bullet goes entirely through the target. StuRat 16:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, a 9 mm fired out of a pistol has as much energy as a baseball thrown at 60 mph, or roughly around there. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can buy that. If a baseball weighs a third of a pound, that would mean it would cause a 200 pound soldier to move backwards at one tenth of a mile per hour, if we assume 100% of the force is transferred to the person and they are on a frictionless surface. [60 x (1/3) = (1/10) x 200]. Of course, neither of these assumptions are correct, so they aren't likely to move at all. StuRat 21:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe with a small embrasure, the soldier could fold his arms against his body and dive halfway in, so his arms were inside and his feet outside, then extend his arms. Then when he was killed, if he had a lot of stuff in his low-hanging backpack, they would not be able to pull him the rest of the way in, and with his arms sticking out, they could not push him back out. Thsy would have to get out their bayonets and carve him up, by which time the other side could have stormed the fort. Maybe his "comrades" could hold on to the legs to help with the blocking. It would be a great maneuver to teach in basic training, right after "throwing yourself on a grenade" and "throwing yourself down on barbed wire to make a human bridge." Not so different from American football. Edison 15:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. (Seriously, it is.) Of course, embrasures are usually just large enough to poke a gun's barrel through.

To Clio: this story is not just a fairy tale for small children, because nearly all Chinese adults know about it. It's simply propaganda. We all know how good China's government is at lying. --Bowlhover 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bowlhover. Clearly a fairy story for boys and girls of all ages! To the other contributers I have one simple observation: imagine, if you can, a fort that could be blocked by the body of a single man, imagine its height and imagine its width. The KMT must have occupied Lilliput. Clio the Muse 23:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all sounds suspiciously like the story of Arnold von Winkelried, the Swiss national hero.

PLEASE!! HELP ME, Polar-experts!!

I have asked it again and again...What was the name of the expedition - I think it was American - which used a snowcat too heavy for the eniroment they was going to explore. Eventually the snowcat drove itself stuck in the ice and snow.. I think we're talking about the 1940's or 50' here...Thanks!--Petteroes 02:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe those who knew the answer ignored you because you were shouting. DirkvdM 09:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous time you asked you did not supply the information that this was supposed to be a relatively recent event, as far as Polar expeditions go, which would have helped to reduce the search space considerably, nor did you provide any feedback on the answers supplied, thereby possibly reducing the enthusiasm of the reference desk volunteers for answering your question. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you gave more information on another desk before. The fact that no-one responded strongly suggests that no-one found an answer then. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that there was such an expedition, but I haven't so far been able to trace it. Try working your way through our list of Antarctica expeditions and polar exploration. I'm not sure that snowcats as such even existed in the 40s and 50s. According to history of Antarctica, Hillary successfully used specially adapted farm tractors to get to the South Pole in 1957.--Shantavira 11:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shantavira! You're the only one who have actually answered my question without being sarcastic or arrogant. You see, most answers on this forum are from people who just want to correct the question, rather than trying to help. The reason I repeated my question, is simply because no one ever bother to read archived questions.

I seem to remember seeing a picture of the equipment (heavy tracked snowcats) abandoned in the polar region in National Geographic printed perhaps in the early 1960's or late 1950's. It might have been an Admiral Byrd expedition in the 1930's or soon after WW2. He had the backing of the Navy, so he could take lots of heavy stuff there. Edison 16:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exemptions for Warriors About to Wage Holy Jihad

I have a few questions about Islam. It’s my understanding that warriors who are about to wage holy jihad against infidels are granted certain “exemptions” from their normal religious restrictions – for example, they are permitted to drink and have sexual relations with women other than their wives. With this in mind, I have the following questions:

1. Is my understanding correct?

2. Were such exemptions granted to the 9/11 hijackers before they carried out their mission? And if so, did they take advantage of these exemptions as I have been told they did?

3. What is the official Islamic term for these exemptions?

4. Who has the authority to grant such exemptions?

I don't know about the name under Islam, but under Christianity, when such exemptions were offered by the Catholic church in exchange for money, they were called indulgences, and were one of the key complaints of Martin Luther which led to the Protestant Reformation. As for the 9-11 terrorists, I believe some of them did drink alcohol, I didn't hear anything about sex, though. StuRat 06:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Islamic scholar might be able to assure one that under certain circumstances actions that are normally forbidden are exceptionally allowed. For example, diabetics do not need to fast during Ramadan. The fact that the exception is allowed is not created by this assurance; it already existed even if perhaps unknown to the not equally schooled believer. If one wants to avoid committing forbidden actions, one should only follow the advise of trustworthy scholars who can speak with authority on such matters. No mortal being has authority to grant any exemptions to what God has ordained. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be the official Islamic line, but, in reality, the scholars do make up all the rules themselves. If not, they wouldn't all come up with different rules, like women required to wear burqas in some countries, a simple head scarf in others, and no requirement elsewhere. StuRat 13:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases it is not a clear-cut issue that that is considered a religious injunction (as opposed to a matter of "decency"), and even less so that the people prescribing this are considered scholars or authorities of Islam. To the extent it is, there are of course all kinds of interpretations and traditions. Take the fact that an observant Jew will not put butter on a meat sandwich. The Torah proscribes cooking the calf in its mother's milk, and it's not an obvious step from there to this interpretation of what is kashrut. But can you say: "The rabbis make up all the rules themselves"? They mostly just hand down the tradition, which they believe to be the best available interpretation. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would say that. I would also say the same of Christians, as in the mantra "abortion is murder", which they apparently made up, despite the lack of any such statement in the Bible. One possible exception may be the Quakers, who allow each member to come to their own interpretation, as opposed to imposing the questionable interpretations of some religious leader upon the flock. StuRat 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the self-serving nature of many of the interpretations. If a Muslim scholar decides it would be in his political interest to have his opponents killed by suicide bombers, then suddenly suicide bombers become the "will of Allah", even though directly in conflict with the prohibition on suicide recorded by Mohammed. StuRat 16:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must correct the above assertion concerning Jewish Law. There does not exist any definitive interpretation. Rabbis do not "hand down" tradition at all. Even within the same stream of Judaism. Rather, Rabbis are scholars in Jewish Law, not "leaders of their flock". As such, Rabbis constantly engage each other in a continuing, ongoing debate as to a truer an truer interpretation of the Torah. This debate is meant to be ongoing, and though this may appear odd to outside observers, ultimitately without definitive resolution. Loomis 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy it. There is no reason to continuously reinterpret a holy book unless they are trying to force an interpretation which matches their own beliefs or is in their own personal interest. The oldest interpretations, from a time when the culture was most like the culture of the writers, would tend to be the most accurate. StuRat 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to "buy" it. Just to "accept" it as how Judaism works. Open your mind a bit and perhaps you may understand. Loomis 04:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I'm not talking of any grand issues of any great import to non-Jews. I'm not talking of interpretations that can in any way lend themselves to any sinister motives or drive any even slightly malevalent agendas. I'm merely talking about issues as mundane as: "The Sturgeon: Kosher or Not"? Or, "The Sabbath as a day of rest and prayer: Though "kindling a fire" was, before the invention of the automobile, considered a violation of the Sabbath, is it more within the spirit of the Sabbath to not drive and to walk several miles to synagogue, or is it more in keeping with the spirit of the Sabbath to take it easy and drive there?" These are examples of the "constant debate" going on. No serious "agendas", this way or that, are being discussed. Yes, serious issues are discussed, but a good Talmudic debate is considered to be one without conclusion, one that leaves the participant with food for thought for the next discussion. Loomis 23:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is especially true if the opponent happens to be the Great Satan United States of America. Ohanian 03:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not true. There's no consensus on what Jihad is, so there could hardly be any agreement on specific details like that either, which would probably be highly debated even if there had been a consensus on the basics. --BluePlatypus 18:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is There Such a Thing as a Tribal Godfather?

The structure of the Mafia families was originally modeled after the old Roman legions, which were based on Regimes, Capos and Soldiers. Each family was ultimately controlled by a DON, who was insulated from actual operations by several layers of authority. According to popular belief, the Don's closest and most trusted advisor was referred to as the CONSIGLIERE ("counselor" in Italian). In reality, the consigliere was meant to be something of a "hearing officer" who was charged with mediating intra-family disputes. He also takes care of the economic side of the "business". An UNDERBOSS was possible as well, and beneath the underboss were a varying number of CAPOREGIMES, or captains, who ruled over a unit of soldiers, or "made" men, who conducted actual operations. This structure was depicted in the classic film THE GODFATHER, directed by Francis Ford Coppola.

My question is this: Do tribes in the Middle East or elsewhere have the functional equivalent of a Don, an Underboss, a consigliere, caporegimes and soldiers? And if so, what are they called and what are their responsibilities?

In the US tribe, the Don is called the President, the Underboss is called the Vice President, the main consiglieri have various titles such as National Security Adviser, Attorney General, and Secretary of Commerce. For the rest see our article on the United States Department of Defense. Their responsibilities are quite similar to those seen in The Godfather. Every tribe will have its own private terminology, but usually a quite similar structure. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a big stretch to call the President of the U.S. the Don. The Don is at the top of the chain of authority. The President is nowhere near the top. He has to get permission from Congress for just about everything he wants to do: Pay for troops to stay in Iraq - Congress votes on it. Appoint someone to the Supreme Court - Congress votes on it. Pay to help hurricane victims - Congress votes on it. Make an official statement that the U.S. does not hate all Muslims - Congress votes on it. Then, even if Congress gives the President permission to do something, the Supreme Court can overrule Congress. So, since the President answers to Congress and Congress answers to the Supreme Court, it would be the Supreme Court that is Don. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! Did I just misread that whole thing? Is Lambiam saying that the President is a Don or the Don is a President? --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's saying that the President is a Don, so your counter-argument makes sense. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 19:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of 'fringe' (in UK politics)

Hey, I'd like to know what a (or the?) fringe is, when the term is used to refer to the fringe at a party conference. Google/Wikipedia searches didn't really help : /

Thanks in advance, Iachimo 10:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fringe event, such as a fringe meeting, is an event organized at the conference but not part of the official program and not held under the responsibility of the conference organizers. Usually the purpose is to facilitate an exchange of thought between people sharing a concern that is not part of the current party line. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Iachimo 11:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It has a slightly different meaning in the US, where it's those with extreme views not embraced by the party. It can even be called the "lunatic fringe", to make their views seem even less acceptable. 13:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That meaning also exists in the UK. Fringe means on the edge and in the context given by Lambiam it can be used for non-political activities. For example - The offical Edinburgh International Festival co-exists with the Fringe Festival. But it can equally mean on the extreme wing of an entity e.g. the Celtic fringe Jooler 14:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article explains the term from the geographic location of the remaining Celtic nations at the "fringe" of inhabited regions. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People with views not embraced by the party line will be considered extremists and lunatic fringe by party bosses anywhere. Maybe the difference is that Britishers like to identify themselves as fringe. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have a more negative meaning to the general public in the US. StuRat 16:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a certain southern English county elected an M.P. from the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, would that make it The Surrey With the Fringe On Top? Clarityfiend 22:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands, with its many 'fringe parties' (to coin a phrase?), there is now a movement of young (wannabe) politicians (LuxVoor; http://nl.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lux_Voor) who want to pull progressive movements within the various parties together into a unified front. Sort of a fringe movement by the above definition, it seems, but not quite the same. DirkvdM 07:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

difference of wizards and magicians in society

i need to do a project on the difference wizards and magicians id different societys around the world...cindy

Go right ahead. Did you have a question? You might be interested to read our articles on magicians and wizards.--Shantavira 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting you to the Hogwarts administration. Do your own homework. --Nelson Ricardo 04:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an un-identifiable memorial coin

This LeJour pocket watch (French) has on the face, stars surrounding it, such as the modern Greek coin. The back, (I was told) depicts the coin given to a specific colony during the French revolution. I cannot find any info on it. Who could help me identify this?

Can you describe what you see on the back? --Lambiam ^Talk 22:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The colony might be Haiti (Saint-Domingue), which began its own revolution in 1791. Clio the Muse 22:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "obdurate" mean?

U.S. News & World Report, Oct.23,2006 page 58 - "Not only has advanced neuroscience research revealed an obdurate mystery at the core of consciousness, but...."

See obdurate. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence given 'obdurate' may not be the best usage. The word 'enduring' would probably have served the purpose better. Clio the Muse 00:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps obstinate. StuRat 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "enduring" would change the whole meaning of the sentence. It would seem that the authors of the sentence are not simply trying to say that the "mystery at the core of consciousness" rather passively "endures". Rather, it would seem that what they mean to say is that the mystery far more actively and "stubbornly" refuses to yield even to "advanced neuroscience research". Dictionaries, even pocket sized ones, can be excellent little tools you know. And failing that, so can be the "Languages" RefDesk. :) Loomis 18:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very true. But my usage is more poetic; and science should never lose sight of poetry! Clio the Muse 08:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree that "obdurate" is definitely not one of the most euphonious words in the English language. Still, the meaning of the sentence seems to have great poetic potential. For some reason I'm reminded of Dylan Thomas' "Do not go gentle into that good night",

"Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's that terrific stubborness that the two have in common:

"Not only have the sharpest minds;

In advanced neuroscience research been thwarted;

Thwarted, and thwarted and thwarted once more;

By that stubborn, unyielding mystery that is the core of Man's consciousness;

but...."

Of course I'm no poet, and the above is likely crap. My particular training has forced me to focus on the exactidude of my writing, at the expense of any aesthetic quality. Oh well, at least I tried! :) Loomis 23:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]