Humanities desk
< September 5	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 7 >

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.

September 6[edit]

Renaissance police?[edit]

What was the equivalent of city guards or police in Da Vinci era Italy or similar high-tech renaissance metropolises?--Sonjaaa (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Police#History might help. It looks like there wasn't really anything resembling a modern police force until a couple of centuries after Da Vinci. --Tango (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may have had Watchmen, but there is no mention of Italy (or the rest of continental Europe) in that article. --Tango (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a gender-neutral term for a watchman? Is the force called the "city watch" or other?--Sonjaaa (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, they almost certainly would have been men. "City watch" would be an accurate description, I don't know if it was ever used as a name. --Tango (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Italy had the PC police... --mboverload @ 03:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Italy has the PC police. :-) Fribbler (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britian and soldiers[edit]

Why do I keep reading stories about soldiers in Britain being disrespected/turned away for services? This is a compilation of various news articles [1]. More info [2]. Basically, a solider was turned away from a hotel in Britain because he was a solider. I believe that most people in America would gladly give their rooms to any solider in need, but airlines and hotels turn them away in Britain. If this ever happened in America (other than the Airlines charging soldiers for extra bags) there would be hell to pay. Why is this? Is this because Britain never had a Vietnam, where the public blamed the soldiers instead of the war, something the US has since learned from? I realize this doesn't represent Britain as a whole, but I keep hearing these stories...--mboverload @ 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in recent months the hotel had “experienced some rather serious incidents” resulting from personnel from a local barracks staying at the hotel, and said staff had been requested to act with caution when taking future bookings from members of the armed forces.. Corvus cornix_talk 04:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Corvus! Can I ask what you did exactly to find it? Did I just skim over that little factoid? --mboverload @ 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up tomos on google news and found this. Corvus cornix_talk 04:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting how they put that mitigating factor at the END of the long article. Thank you much Corvus. --mboverload @ 04:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!", But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot..., not a new phenomenon. [3] DuncanHill (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the BBC's People's War project, the Rev. Paul Wilkinson recalled VJ Day: "We went to Brecon, a big barracks town. I remember with some amusement seeing lines of soldiers all lying on the pavement all paralytically drunk!" Strawless (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is deserved or not, "squaddies" generally do not have a good reputation in the UK (a google search of "squaddie reputation" will yield you a fine selection of opinion). It is quite conceivable that a hotel in a town like Woking (within pub-crawl distance of Aldershot) has a blanket ban on soldiers: a case of a rowdy minority make life difficult for the rest, perhaps. Gwinva (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonstop US war[edit]

How long has the US been in constant war with different countries all together? I have heard 30 years and ive heard 50 years, not sure whats right. Any link would be appreciated. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're in an official state of war with anyone at the moment. Do you mean just being involved in some kind of conflict? --Tango (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, arent we in a kind of war in Iraq? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Iraqi government is friendly to the US, the US troops there are dealing with insurgents. --Tango (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the Iraqi government was put in place by the US. When the US first invaded, the Iraqi government of course resisted. It really doesn't make sense to say they are friendly to the US, when the US established them in the first place. ScienceApe (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called the Iraq War for a reason. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What it's called and what it officially is are two different things. If you're looking for the official, war-has-been-declared sort of war, we are not currently in any wars, but we were from like 2002 to 2007. Before that, we weren't in any official wars since... what, the Persian Gulf War? If you're talking unofficially we-have-soldiers-in-other-countries-fighting-a-lot, sure, we've probably had that sort of thing since around 2002. Not constantly for 30 or 50 years, though. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 13:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at War in Afghanistan (2001–present) if you think you're not currently involved in any official wars. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "Iraq War" only refers to when the coalition was fighting Saddam's forces, we won that war, now it's just combating insurgency. --Tango (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're against common usage on that one, I think. Algebraist 20:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the war has been declared is irrelevant. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US was involved in military conflicts pretty much throughout the entire length of Bill Clinton's term, AFAIK (Kosovo, Somalia, etc.). So if we weren't in any military conflicts between 2000-2002 (which I also find doubtful), it would have been a small respite. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US last declared war in WWII. Everything since then has been an exercise of presidential power, usually with the consent of Congress. See Declaration of war by the United States and List of United States military history events. Whether we've been in a state of war for 30 years depends on how you choose to define the word "war". Consider the 1990s in Iraq and our relationship with North Korea for the last 50 years for examples of grey areas. --Sean 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is asking the total duration of all of America's wars. If so, United States casualties of war lists the wars and the years in which they were fought. By my count (rounding up to the nearest year), I get 9 for the Revolutionary War, 4 for the War of 1812, 3 for the Mexican-American War, 5 for the not-so-Civil War, 1 for the Spanish-American, 2 for WWI, 5 for WWII, 4 for the Korean War (although you might consider this just a "police action" or alternately much more, since there was never a formal treaty ending it), who knows how many for the Vietnam War, 2 for the Gulf War, and ? for the Iraq War. Even without counting the hard-to-determine Vietnam and Iraq Wars and various minor conflicts, that's 31 years already. So 30-50 is a reasonable guess. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Civil War was 4 years - April of 61 to April of 65. Corvus cornix_talk 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did say rounding up. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you add in the Indian Wars, the numbers go way up -- add about a century to your calculation. --Carnildo (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted astutely above, what really constitutes "war" is a matter interpretation and of much debate. Gore Vidal (who, it must be said, isn't the Avatar of NPOV) writes "since VJ Day we have been engaged in what historian Charles A. Beard called 'perpetual war for perpetual peace'" in his book of that name, and gives a table (sourced from Federation of American Scientists) listing all the US "wars" since that time; this list seems to cover that entire era. FAS takes a particularly broad definition of "war" in this list, even including stuff like Operation Garden Plot and Operation Steel Box. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the Cold War. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Population in Hong Kong[edit]

I am wondering exactly how many Czechs live in Hong Kong. Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 07:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this site on the Hong Kong census of 2001. Strawless (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The census and statistics only mention the very vague term whites; there is no detailed breakdown. According to a document of the Czech Foreign Ministry, there are 240 Czechs in China, including Hong Kong, but I only want the number in Hong Kong. Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 20:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hong Kong Government doesn't keep statistics such as you seek. Hence, the only reliable source would be the Czech Consulate or Embassy. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Which I just called to get the information from (around 110-120 Czechs). Incidentally, does the HK American consulate have a website? Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 09:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hongkong.usconsulate.gov/webmaster.html DOR (HK) (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Woodard painting[edit]

Hi! Due to problems with German copyright laws I am looking for the painter of this picture. Who can help?

--Operarius (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(the date of publication might help as well!) --Operarius (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could that be the portrait of him by C. G. Anderson at Lancing College? If it is, I expect they could tell you the date. Strawless (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone read the book 'Tales from Ovid' by Ted Hughes?[edit]

Please describe what you thought about it. Did you like it? Any specific reactions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.147.129 (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, *cough*, if you're looking for things like a reaction to the book for an English class, sorry, we don't do homework here. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 13:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had read it, I'd never tell tales. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're want book reviews, this isn't the place. There are plenty of book reviews on the internet, try google. --Tango (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Metamorphoses, but I don't suppose that qualifies. 83.250.202.36 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

china[edit]

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

Politician’s position on the issues[edit]

I stumbled across a very informative site, which I have been looking for, for a very long time. It lists the political positions of every candidate on every issue. The site is at On The Issues.

The coverage is so detailed in fact that I needed to create a decision table to reveal conditions, combinations and positions which have not been addressed.

My question is whether or not any political position decision tables exist elsewhere on the Internet or not?

Example of political position decision table:

Position of Sarah Palin as of Sept. 6, 2008
Condition	Combination
pregnancy threat to mother's life	Yes	No	Yes	No
baby will have Down's Syndrome	Yes	Yes	No	No
Action	Position
Abort pregnancy	Yes	No	Yes	No

This question was removed for being spam and then reinstated when the question was discovered. -- kainaw ™ 21:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt positions of that level of (unnecessary) detail exist. (You could sum up Palin's view in a sentence, why use 12 cells to convey the same information? "She believes in abortion only when continuing the pregnancy would be a threat to the mother's life" is a lot clearer than your table). Such a table would obscure nuance more than it would enlighten it, IMO. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about Palin... its about seeing which cells are not yet complete. If you visit the site On The Issues you will see that in the case of any politician there are a mired of issues on which they hold positions - far too many to get into your own head for analysis at one time, unless you are the politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then maybe we can include a link to the politician's page at that website in the "External links" section. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a simple chart can be accurate. First, there are important nuances and conditions to almost all these issues. The simplicity of a chart is nice but the chart cannot reveal someone's full position. Second, even if a politician asserts a particular position the pull and tug of political compromise may alter their views. Sen. Ted Kennedy believes strongly that success is measured in degrees over time. He will accept legislatiion he believes is flawed if it advances his agenda. He figures he can fight for improvement later but that something in the hand is better than nothing if political purity means no action is taken. Politics is just too fluid. Another example is Obama's support of faith-based organizations and federal funding. A pure civil libertarian view would object to this mixture of government and religion. He probably would want very strict monitoring of the extent of religious content or diversion of funds to religious activities to safeguard the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, mistakenly referred to as separation of church and state. McCain and Palin would support very minimal monitoring. Palin may not want any monitoring. Such differences are important. Of course, I wonder how many American voters care about the basic issues, let alone nuances, policy disputes and implementation concerns.75Janice (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 75Janice.[reply]

The most important authentic relic?[edit]

You hear all of the time about these relics that are said to belong to Jesus or some other Christian muckety-muck, but when you examine them, it turns out that it really is just a black linen duvet or something. But some of them surely must be authentic (authentic in the sense that they really are what they're presented as, not authentic as in "can do magic"). I mean, it wouldn't be so hard just to go to the grave-site of St. Oswald-who-ate-to-many-poppies and just pick up his jawbone or whatever. So my question is this: what's the most valuable or most prized relic where scholars are somewhat certain of its authenticity (I'm just talking Christian relics now, if we allowed for any religion, I would suppose the Black Stone in the Kaaba in Mecca would probably win). 83.250.202.36 (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the most popular is probably the Shroud of Turin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The shroud isn't genuine. Algebraist 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(my bad little "turns out to be a black linen duvet"-joke was actually a reference to the Shroud of Turin :) 83.250.202.36 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it is genuine and plenty of evidence to suggest it isn't. Sure, people have picked holes in every test which has shown it to be a fake, but they haven't done any conclusive tests to show otherwise (at least, not that I know of). --Tango (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One test I find interesting by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the correlation between the intensity of reflection or (degree of transparency) and distance from the surface. I know that similar effects can be achieved with vapor disposition on or alteration of a surface either from degree of concentration with same distance or from a difference in distance with the same concentration in absolutely still air. This fact does more to support the possibility of genuineness than to refute it, as do many of the other tests, sufficiently enough to mark anyone rejecting the possibility of genuineness as a sophomoric. — unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk · contribs)

That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is the burial shroud of Jesus. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that the fact that shroud-man looks like a frickin' Viking makes the whole thing kinda preposterous. But that's just me. 83.250.202.36 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find, in fact, quite the opposite in Pontius Pilate's reaction to Jesus Christ as a man, in finding no flaw in him. Surely if Jesus looked like a dark skinned crooked nose Jew Pilate might not have taken so much time to question and examine him or otherwise been so generous, nor the Roman soldiers far less so, seeing him as an actual physical threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Jesus was not a Jew? That would be quite some statement. As for the colour of his skin or the shape of his nose, or any other of his physical characteristics, we simply don't have any way of knowing, and the Shroud of Turin certainly doesn't count as evidence for his appearance. Neither do the traditional depictions of him. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Stephen I's right hand? DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! Thanks! Any other? 83.250.202.36 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although not directly answering your question, 83.250.202.36, you may enjoy reading about the Titulus Crucis (and a link to Thiede's book at Amazon.com).
Regards, Ev (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not authentic, but my favorite is probably Jesus' foreskin. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the Holy Umbilical Cord. Corvus cornix_talk 20:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relics as grave robbery[edit]

The above question has me thinking about relics. I think most major religions respect the dignity of the dead, and to dig up someone's remains is considered a despicable act. I would expect that to desecrate the grave of a saint/martyr might be considered even worse (to the religious authorities) than to do so to a random person's grave. Yet religious bodies have relics in their possession, so implicitly, they condone grave robbery.

I understand that most relics are (supposedly) hundreds of years old, so religious bodies presently don't have newly acquired relics that need to be "justified". That leaves me with these questions:

In the past, how did religious authorities, such as the Catholic Church, justify the acquisition of relics that are pieces of people's bodies (or other items removed from their grave)?
How do current religious authorities justify the keeping of relics that are pieces of people's bodies (or other items removed from their grave)?
- I assume money (i.e. revenue from tourist/pilgrim donations) has something to do with it.
If I donated a saint/martyr's body part, which the authorities believed to be authentic, to a religious body, what actions would/should the authorities take?
- e.g. accept it / deny it / investigate me for criminal charges / …

I am mainly interested in the views (past and present) of Catholic / Orthodox Christian churches, but would love to hear the views from other religions, too! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relic#Christian_relics makes reference to an account in 2 Kings in which the bones of Elisha bring a dead man to life. In addition, supposedly the early Christians in Rome prayed among tombs in the catacombs, leading to the practice of placing a saint's relics in the altar stone. This was not seen as grave robbery, but as respect for / veneration of the saintly individual.

Here's an article from the Boston Globe. It mentions the problem of dealing with altar stones from churches that have closed.

Without pretending to be an authority, I'd say that the most common Catholic justification for retaining relics, rather than burying them, is to allow the faithful to make a spiritual connection with the saint and through him or her, with God. Certainly tourism plays some part, though I think that was far more common in the middle ages ("the holy blissful martyr for to seek...") than today.

Authorities would question the provenance (so to speak) of any body that you claimed was that of a saint; most likely, the authorities would feel they'd had a good handle on these things.

By the way, the Catholic church has classes of relics. You're speaking of first-class relics, I think: parts of the person's body like hair or bone. (The bodies of some saints have been preserved 'uncorrupted.') See relics for more. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To help answer the first question, in the time before the Reformation, the Catholic church was in the practice of receiving indulgences for the forgiveness of sins and to shorted peoples' supposed time in pergatory. They would aquire relics so that the faithful could visit, pay the indulgence, visit the relic and this was supposed to have an effect on their (or a family member's) time in pergatory. The Catholic church today would probably justify keeping relics because of their historic and traditional nature, tradition being seen as extremely important. The Protestant church generally does not recognize the authority of relics for today, while recognizing biblical examples such as the above mentioned about Elisha. Most Protestants would view the veneration of relics as idolatry as they do the veneration of saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristamaranatha (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grave robbery implies desecration; that's why it's forbidden. Taking a body for veneration is hardly desecration, rather the opposite. 128.194.34.211 (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of the “relics” issue is a cultural concept with different view points expounded upon by various contemporary societies composed of living people. Once dead and buried, the physical item or person may be considered a relic as long as it is remembered by society or a group of people. Once forgotten or lost, to the archaeologist upon discovery of the item it then becomes an artifact. As an artifact, I get to put a label on your relic, call it anything that I conjure up and legally do anything that I want to with it. Cosmetically we have all now gone full circle around this issue. So all points of view on the relic issue are good, it is simply a matter of ones cultural, society and individual perspective.

Technicolor effect[edit]

Is it possible to replicate the technicolor "effect" using say, video recorded via iphone? If so, what programs would I look into? What processes? Etc...

Kenjibeast (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd get better responses asking this at the Computer desk rather than here at Humanities. Dismas|^(talk) 00:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]