Humanities desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

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 17[edit]

Why do Rastafarians smoke marijuana?[edit]

1. Why do Rastafarians smoke marijuana? 2. What does the word Babylon mean? Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Why don't you read the article you linked to on the Rastafari movement (Rastafarians) which answers both 1 and 2? Nil Einne (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone name any mermaid fiction books for adults?[edit]

Can anyone name any mermaid fiction books for adults? Neptunekh2 (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please only ask the same question on one desk. You already asked this on another desk, and it was answered there. --Jayron32 04:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Person synonymous with brevity?[edit]

I need to illustrate the concepts of both long-winded and exceedingly brief speakers. For long-winded, the famous picture of Strom Thurmond holding up rolls and rolls of paper during his 24 hour filibuster of the Civil Rights Act is quite suitable. I'm having a hard time coming up with an equally obvious (edit) VISUAL representation of brevity, however. Suggestions? The Masked Booby (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln's Gettysberg Address ? (Sorry, I don't know the ZIP code). StuRat (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or the spelling, apparently. It's Gettysburg, Stu. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, I didn't have time to proofread my post, as I was eating a hamberger at the time. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something even shorter, how about Rene Descartes' "I think, therefore I am". This was actually written, not spoken, but would be suitable for a speech, IMHO. StuRat (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's some good examples of laconism at Laconic phrase. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry lads, omitted a key requirement by mistake, looking for visual representations here... The Masked Booby (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about the poster from The Simpsons, that said Brevity is ... wit? It's a visual representation, in that you can see it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply use a visual of the laconic Spartans? Fifelfoo (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember who, but one author sent a letter to his publisher querying how his new book was going. The letter consisted of one character, "?". -- Q Chris (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was Victor Hugo, who was equiring with his editor about his book sales ("?"). His editor was supposed to understand what the question was, as there was only one question that they were both interested at the moment when this was sent. But he was a joker, and replied "!". --Lgriot (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity is the Soul of Wit. :-) Anton Webern was a composer and conductor whose music was known for (among other things) it's brevity. Among poets, Kay Ryan, Timothy Murphy and H. L. Hix are well known for their short poems. ^Avic _ennasis @ 09:06, 13 Iyar 5771 / 17 May 2011 (UTC)

QChris, it was Victor Hugo, and his publisher's response was "!". --TammyMoet (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a piece of paper with the hand-written word "NUTS!"? From the allusions in your question, you seem to be American, so that'll go down well with your audience. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am told that in Yorkshire dialect the phrase "What is the matter with that gentleman?" is pronounced "Warap wim?". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. President Calvin Coolidge was famous for his brevity (known as "Silent Cal"). The (quite possibly apocryphal) story featuring Dorothy Parker mentioned here is quite famous. --Jayron32 13:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try a one-pane cartoon. 92.15.1.9 (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Iverson. – b_jonas 17:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.K. Elections[edit]

In the 2010 U.K. General elections, the result was a hung parliament. My question is, why was it taken for granted that the liberal democrats would get to play kingmaker? Instead of being held to ransom by the lib dems, why couldn't Labour and the Conservaties at least explore the option of a coalition between them, leaving the lib dems as the opposition? (This possibility would hopefully at least spook the lib dems out of their hubris). The same phenomemom seems to exist in Germany and elsewhere too. In hung parliaments, rarely do the big parties seem to consider forming a coalition with each other. The smaller parties' kingmaker position seems to be taken for granted. What am I missing here? Eliyohub (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The parties ideology and policies are supposed to be too far removed from each other for this to happen. What could have happened is that either main party could have tried to form a minority government, and see if they could have got their bills passed with rogue MPs from the other side and the Lib Dems. That is how hung parliaments have always worked in the UK in the past (with the wartime exceptions), and I think it would have been better for the UK now (but this is not a forum for debate!). --TammyMoet (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also doing a deal with a small party means you have more control within the coalition. The small party sees itself as "lucky" to be able to get some policies passed and have some influence. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at some length here (note this article was written before the election took place). --Viennese Waltz 11:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a longstanding belief that the Lib Dems, on many policy issues, take an intermediate position between the two larger parties. That is an over-simplified assumption, but is still broadly true. So, finding agreement on a legislative programme would be much easier Lab-LibDem, or Con-LibDem, than Con-Lab. It is possible to imagine a hypothetical scenario in which, say, a party like the BNP became the third largest party but would be so despised by both the major parties that both Con and Lab would form an alliance against them - but it is extremely unlikely that that situation would ever occur. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely at a national level but it could happen in a local council. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and has done - http://www.heraldscotland.com/all-change-labour-goes-into-coalition-with-the-tories-1.842222 (Not that I'm equating the SNP with the BNP, I must stress.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this is covered in our grand coalition article, which comes complete with examples (including some from Germany). Warofdreams talk 13:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to think about it is that they not only want to gain power for themselves, but also want to deny it to their rivals, who might be able to use it to expand their influence and win the next election. With a small party, seen as less of a threat, this is not as much of an issue. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lab-LibDem did try to talk initially, but it was quickly wiothdrawn frot he current Con-Dem coalition.

Further, there are examples such as in Scandinavia (ant the recent Finnish parliamentary election, 2011 that can form strange coaluitions.Lihaas (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ "frot he". And "strange coaluitions" could be "strange coagulations", which sort of works. I suggest you get a new keyboard (or new fingers). :-) StuRat (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length of time of feelings of jealousy[edit]

This is the second time that "Looie496" has deleted my postings. Please stop doing it! You are either a vandal or you have mistaken me for someone else. 92.15.1.9 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only remember feeling jealous once in my life, for about two days. During that time I felt that the person who was the object of my jealousy was a thoroughly bad person, even though they were not.

Can people feel jealous of someone for weeks, months, or years? For those who experience jealousy, are such lengthy times common? I imagine that people who feel the emotion for any length of time would be people who do not habitually consider their own biases etc, but just act on unthinking emotion. Thanks 15:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.1.9 (talk)

It's the same as any other emotion. Some can feel it forever. Some don't. ^Avic _ennasis @ 15:25, 13 Iyar 5771 / 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Emotions vary in duration. Sadness seems to last a long time, happiness or euphoria is fleeting, anger seems to vary from person to person. 92.24.186.11 (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put a "resolved" tick at the top of this posting. I don't think one line by one person does resolve it, so I've removed it. 92.15.1.9 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our jealousy article is pretty lengthy and has a number of relevant links. Have you read it? It doesn't have any statistics or study findings about the duration of jealousy, but our understanding of emotion in general seems to be pretty poor, IMO, so this isn't very surprising. Your last statement is really about a person's being able to control their emotions, which is an age-old subject that our emotion article touches on. A final personal opinion is that the jealousy of a sibling's new toy is of a different sort than the jealousy of a sibling's status as "favorite" with a parent; the latter could be lifelong resentment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why recommend something which you admit does not provide the answer?? 92.24.186.11 (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there is no "time limit" (either minimum or maximum). It will be different for each individual, and each situation. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think many people are not aware of being jealous, but simply attribute bad things to their victim, which may be part of the cause of prejudice and bigotry, the class war, etc. 92.15.21.174 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should Empress Jingū be included in Template:Monarchs of Japan?[edit]

I found that template on Japanese and Chinse Wikipedia did not include Empress Jingū.--Inspector (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respect Party candidates[edit]

Is there a website where it shows the list of candidates of Respect Party for the 2008 and 2010 UK general elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.217 (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a full list of 2010 candidates (and results) in the Weekly Worker. There wasn't a general election in 2008. If you mean 2005, there's a list in Socialist Worker. Warofdreams talk 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whole history of humankind in one narrative.[edit]

I am looking for single narrative (be it a book or series of books) that concisely covers entire history of humankind. I know that such scope is huge but I wish to read entire history of humankind from start to finish. I have an interest in history and while I know some parts in great, university level details, I am missing on some others and I wish to have basic rudimentary understanding of all of world's history. Book I'm looking for has to start at least 7-8 thousand years BC all the way up to at least 20th century and it has to cover non-English speaking history as well. Ideally along with popular topics in history it would cover South and North American pre-Colonional history, African precolonial and Eastern Asian history as well as non-British European history (eg. Finish history, not just well known Roman history) because I feel those are my weakest areas.

Does such narrative exist?

P.S. It would be perfect if it's available as audiobook. 110.174.117.185 (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many such books; see History of the world#References. One classic in the genre is The Story of Civilization, an eleven-volume series by Will and Ariel Durant. I find it quite enjoyable to read, although many of the claims are now outdated. I have heard good reviews of The New Penguin History of the World. Lesgles (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concise? The entire history of humankind? The first thing that comes to mind is The Times Atlas of World History. Hard to make an audiobook version of an atlas though. Pfly (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the "Atlas of World History" by John Haywood (not the John Haywood that's the subject of either Wikipedia article) which I find eminently readible and well done, and it coveres just about everything from the earliest humans through the Bosnian war, and hits all different parts of the world quite well. --Jayron32 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The moving picture History of the World, Part I should cover everything you need to know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention H. G. Wells's Outline of History (1920), which is available on audiobook. It is entertaining, though obviously out of date as well (it has some pretty outlandish theories on prehistoric man and race). Lesgles (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if you want a book that synthesizes a huge amount of human history (rather than trying to do a chronology), Guns, Germs, and Steel does a pretty good job of that. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Try The Cartoon History of the Universe. I highly recommend it. Matt Deres (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to comment, saying that is a great series but unfortunately ends somewhere in the medieval era. But checking the page about it I see he recently finished a couple more books, bringing it up to modern times. Great! Now I need to get my hands on those! I thought he had given up on the project. Pfly (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I'm in the process of re-reading TCHotU at the moment myself. Great stuff. Pais (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History begins with the invention of writing. You need prehistory before that.
Sleigh (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be writing just such a series of books now. Give me a few months and I should have volume 1 (of 20) finished and ready for you to read. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps more social science than history (and written by natural scientist), but Guns, Germs, and Steel is refreshingly broad in scope. It tells large parts of the history of the world, covering "the world" broadly in space and time, through the theories of the author. Jørgen (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The beautifully and simply written, one-volume A Little History of the World by Ernst Gombrich. Highly recommended. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nehru's Glimpses of World History is a bit unorthodox - it's a history of the world from c. 6000 BC to 1930, written in prison without the use of a library, and originally organised as a set of letters - but I'm told it's very good as a readable, broad, world history. I've never come across a copy myself, so I'm afraid I can't confirm this! Shimgray | talk | 23:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a specific image depicting the Enlightenment[edit]

Resolved

I'm looking for a specific image that I have seen on Wikipedia before. It looks like a 17th- or 18th-century woodcut depicting a man standing on the Earth and literally pulling the sky aside like a curtain to see what's behind. I believe it is meant to represent the Age of Enlightenment, or perhaps empiricism, or maybe the scientific revolution. Any tips? Thanks, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you are referring to the Flammarion engraving (apparently a composite, but in this form dating only from the late 19th century)? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's exactly it. I was wrong about the whole Enlightenment thing, as it turns out. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women banned from performing[edit]

Is it correct, that women where banned from performing proffesionally on stage by the Catholic curch in Rome and the Papal States? If so, exactly when was this? Which year was it banned, and when was the bann lifted? I am referring to women acting professionally in theatre as well as opera. I assume it was banned in the 16th-century, when women started acting on stage in Italy, if this was indeed the case, and that the ban was lifted in ca 1800, but I really have no idea. I have also heard that women where baned from playing musical instruments professionally in 1686 - is this correct and if so, when was the ban lifted? Can anyone help me with these questions? I would be most gratefull. Thank you in advance!--Aciram (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women were banned from being actresses in England before the 1660s (don't know about the papal states)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From our article on Nell Gwyn: "During the decade of protectorate rule by the Cromwells, pastimes regarded as frivolous, including theatre, had been banned. Charles II had been restored to the English throne in 1660, and quickly reinstated the theatre. One of Charles' early acts as king was to license the formation of two acting companies and to legalize acting as a profession for women." StuRat (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but my question pertains to Rome and the Papal States in particular. There would have been a ban against women acting, singing and playing music professionally there in the 16th-18th-centuries. The ban against women playing music would have been in 1686, but I don't know the years for the banning of actresses and singers. Do you have any knowledge of this?--Aciram (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Catholic Encyclopedia about acting but under dancing [1], men and women participating in "mimic" or "histrionic exhibitions" were regarded by Roman law as infamous.
Sleigh (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but it seems this was about Rome in antiqiuity rather than the 16th-18th century? Is there any information about that?--Aciram (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nell Gwyn was the most famous Restoration actress. Charles II of England and Scotland was the first king of England to license actresses. I don't know when the pope lifted the ban.
Sleigh (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to a terminus ad quem, our article Travesti (theatre) contains the rather vague sentence "The use of castrati for both male and female roles was particularly strong in the Papal states, where women were forbidden from public stage performances until the 19th century." Deor (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was the law I was referring to, yes; I would like to know which year it was introduced, and which year the ban was lifted. When in the 19th-century? What would be a good guess, at least? In 1800 or in 1870?--Aciram (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]