Humanities desk
< April 12	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 14 >

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.

April 13[edit]

US Arson Statistics?[edit]

I am working on the article for Grundy County, Tennessee which has a reputation for arson, but I would like to know if the reputation is deserved, or if it's just typical rural stuff. So I found [1] which lists arson as an offense, but once I try to dig into the database, arson is not among the searchable offenses. Perhaps arsons per capita within jurisdictions would be a meaningful and obtainable measure. How can I find this sort of arson data? -- ke4roh (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be what you're after. It shows arson numbers down to county/city agency level. Dalliance (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Wikipedia from a philosophical, sociological, politico-economic... viewpoint[edit]

I would like to read everything related to Wikipedia from a... let's say philosophico-sociological viewpoint. Articles, essays, papers, books... Like the article Community of Wikipedia. Thanks. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Democratization of knowledge. See [2][3]. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a more specific and academic article, see Academic studies about Wikipedia. 186.206.247.208 (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article is about technical studies on Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with philosophy. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not just about technical studies. There are many social science studies there. 186.206.247.208 (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks, guys. Let's see if anyone comes up with something else. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TP question[edit]

I am sorry to ask a crude question, but I know of no way of finding out other than here. What percentages of people wipe after defecating while sitting, and what percentage wipe after having stood up? Let's restrict the question to America and Europe, I suppose, if it matters. Robot Mandate (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are aware, but some people do not wipe at all. 186.206.247.208 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on this topic Anal cleansing. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a site dedicated to toilet habits, including your question, and much more: [[4]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.206.247.208 (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymity[edit]

This will only be a short question. In news reports, sometimes they use anonymous sources. That's fine, but the problem is, why about 3/4 of anonymous sources do not mention exactly why they want to be anonymous? It would be fine if the reason is plain obvious (if they are talking about a sensitive topic like North Korea or Syria), but sometimes, for example, in a news story promoting a certain beauty-care product. In that, a spokesperson talks about all the good effects of the brand, but requests anonymity for reasons that are neither mentioned nor implied. Why would this happen? Wouldn't it be logical for the person to at least acknowledge the reason for his/her anonymity if the reason for anonymity has nothing to do with the overall topic? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would suspect that the reporter/news organization was paid to promote that brand. StuRat (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are laws against that in most countries, as far as I know. While it wouldn't surprise me if a few reporters break those laws, I doubt it is commonplace. --Tango (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One common practice is that some industry group provides news orgs with free segments which promote their industry, while disguised as valid news stories. Then the news orgs, wanting to save money, plop such segments in on slow news days, when somebody is out sick, etc. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another common practice is that they will buy up advertisement time in the middle of the newscast, then disguise it to look like news, perhaps even hiring some recognizable reporters as presenters. In any case, deception is clearly the goal. StuRat (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most common reasons is that the source hasn't been authorised by their employer to speak to the press. If someone is speaking as an offical spokesperson, then they aren't anonymous. You may not know the individual's name (probably more because the reporter didn't think it relevant than because the individual requested it), but they aren't speaking as an individual. They are speaking on behalf of the company and you know the company's name. --Tango (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, it's widely acknowledged that "an close friend" or "an insider", used anonymously, inevitably means someone invented for the sake of a story. Smurrayinchester 11:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never personally seen an anonymous source cited in a story for beauty-care products. It seems like a stretch to me, for something passing as real journalism. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a link online, but it was a story on The Philippine Star for the Belo Medical Group. All I can remember was that it ended with the words "said a spokesperson who spoke on condition of anonymity". The spokesperson in question was talking about the products they had IIRC. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this was a whistleblower? Often aggrieved persons will go to the press with a story, which they give permission for the press to use on condition that their identity is kept secret. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he/she wasn't a whistleblower. The spokesperson in question was actually talking about their latest products, almost as if he/she was promoting them. I tried searching The Philippine Star's website but I could not find the story. It wasn't a press release either since there was something that said "by [Author]". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infomercial. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that wasn't one of those fake newscasts we get in the US. They pretend to be a legit news organization, and do "interviews", which, not surprisingly, end up endorsing the product. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It often seems like anonymous sources are a method for a company or any other organization to get information out there that the organization doesn't want to "officially" acknowledge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And one reason for that is that the information is false, and they could get in trouble for making false claims directly. StuRat (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if the info is true (or not, for that matter), it has created a false sense of empowerment among those who think they "have something" on the organization; even though the organization was actually the source of the info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness and pain[edit]

Why is it that we get used to feeling good very quickly but never get used to pain? Money is tight (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You premise is wrong. How do you say we get used to feeling good very quickly? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you say we never get used to pain? Dismas|^(talk) 02:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I read that almost all celebrity/very rich people find life is like plastic (e.g. marriage to divorce in a few weeks), and everytime I feel happy it gets boring very quickly. About pain, ok maybe I should say "I" instead of "we" as I have no evidence on other people about pain. I have a particular personal issue that cannot be resolved and I can never get used to living with it, and recent financial stress just makes me want to collapse. Money is tight (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't believe anyone ever gets bored of being happy. You might get bored of the things that temporarily made you happy. --Trovatore (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We get used both to good and to bad things: habituation is the psychological term to this. Just try a cold shower (literally) and you'll see that it's not that dramatic. MangoNr1 (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hedonic treadmill, more specifically. 166.190.165.92 (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, happiness depends on worldview, it will depend what makes you happy. If you are fond of money, money will make you happy, and lack of money will make you sad. If you are religious conservative, sex will make you feel disgusted, if you are liberal, lack of sexual activity will depress you. If you are Marxist by personal conviction, money or lack of it will not matter to you. In fact to a Marxist, lack of money is sign of purity and good, while abundance of money is evil. If you strongly believe in a philosophy, only advancing that belief will make you happy. We sometimes accept small personal loses in return for what we believe is greater good. Even a philosopher like Ayn Rand, who advocated rational self-interest, accepted temporary monetary loss when she refused to remove the John Galt quote from Atlas Shrugged. Her publisher demanded she should remove the quote because it was too long and publishing the book with this quote will not make profit, despite this she refused to remove the quote because she believed in a greater goal - spread of her ideas. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: To illustrate the point, I will give examples of soldiers. In a war, soldiers don't feel bad about their death or loss of body parts, instead they become happy in case of personal damage, imagining "I have sacrificed myself for defending my country, I'm great!!!" So to a soldier, being dead or wounded in the battlefield is the catalyst for happiness. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If only the reality came even close to that fairyland view of the feelings of soldiers on the battle field. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the American soldiers who fought in Iraq, but the Japaneses pilots who led Kamikaze attacks viewed the deed as heroic. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they didn't have an awful lot of time to become used to it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.26 (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People often confuse happiness with contentment, which is why so many spouses cheat on the other despite having what is assumed to be a "happy" marriage. In reality they have passed the phase of giddy happiness and reached the plateau of smug contentment which can lead to boredom.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freud, in Civilization and Its Discontents, argues that pleasure is a fleeting sensation caused by the transition between two states of being, and that our appreciation of happiness is conditioned by our temperament and constitution. Unhappiness and pain, however, can be permanent states — neutral unhappiness is the baseline state, and it is easy to be perpetually depressed or perpetually in pain. So for Freud, one of the great tragedies about being human is that it is impossible to sustain perpetual happiness, but it is possible to be perpetually unhappy or in pain. So we are on the whole doomed to being pretty unhappy most of the time, for better or worse. I'm not a Freudian but I always found that to be an interesting argument, one which I found true to my own life (one which has had much happiness, to be sure), in any case. (Sorry for a lack of direct quotes — it has been a very long time since I've read that book and searching around briefly on the web didn't turn up the exact phrasing I was looking for, but I did feel correct in my interpretation of the book). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my personal experience, the state of a Feelin Groovy-type of blissful happiness is impossible to sustain due to the realities of everyday life which must needs interfere and alter that state.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. I never agreed much with his politics when he was in power (although he's massively mellowed out these days), but Malcolm Fraser never said a truer word than "Life wasn't meant to be easy". And M. Scott Peck was spot on with his opening sentence of The Road Less Traveled - "Life is hard". We can attain temporary happiness and feelings of satisfaction by achieving things that were hard to do, not easy to do. We can overcome the odds through struggle and persistence. But having got to the top of the mountain, it's downhill from there, for a while, until we reach the next goal. The idea of being eternally "happy" is so much bunkum. Happiness should never be a goal in its own right, but a by-product of achieving other goals. Nobody ever had an obituary written about them, in which their most notable achievement was "he spent his life being happy". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but what a lovely obituary that would be. If only..... Happiness alas, is like a rainbow: Brilliant at first and marvelous to behold; only to gradually lose its intensity over time, then dissipate forever into nothingness, leaving but a beautiful memory behind.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But like the rainbow, it reappears from time to time. You get it, then you lose it; you get it again, then you lose it again; and so on forever. We enjoy it hugely while it lasts, but it doesn't last. Maybe it's best that way. Would anyone like to be in a permanent state of orgasm? I think that would very quickly drive people crazy, not in a good way, and there'd be mass suicides. Also, how about being in that permanent orgasmic state without doing whatever it is that's normally required to produce that state? Well, the "pursuit of happiness" is like that in the minds of many people. They amass untold wealth or power, or consume massive quantities of drugs, but they all still have just as many fears and anxieties and woes as everybody else. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 09:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These two songs on the subject are worth listening to Senses Working Overtime by XTC and The Beatles' Happiness is a Warm Gun with John Lennon thankfully on lead (McCartney couldn't have handled this one, IMO).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the original question, the state of feeling pain is the natural way of telling us that something is wrong, and so getting used to pain would represent a potential threat to our physical wellbeing. We don't get used to pain because pain tells us that we need to do something about whatever is causing the pain. We get used to feeling good because it's the default state, and any deviation from feeling good tells us that the equilibrium needs to be restored. See also Homeostasis. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Tammy said. Pain, and all other homeostatic emotions such as hunger and fatigue, motivate us to do something, and will keep nagging at attention until we've done whatever it takes to restore stasis (the ideal internal milieu). It'll always be demanding attention while it's there. The "all systems within tolerance" signal does not demand attention or prescribe behaviour, so that state won't be perpetually capturing attention. Don't know about happiness. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription in Canada[edit]

Does anyone have a source citing when conscription (mandatory military service) officially ended in Canada? I've been scouring the internet and coming up with nothing except that they had conscription at one point and no longer do. It must have been ended in some specific year. Thanks for any information! 128.239.47.179 (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)allnighter[reply]

As far as I can tell, Canada only every had two brief periods of military conscription, during World War I and during World War II. The Conscription Crisis of 1917 caused some political turmoil in Canada, which had an all-volunteer military to that point. The Conscription Crisis of 1944 wasn't much of a crisis, as less than 2500 Canadians were "drafted". Other than those two conscriptions, Canada has not ever had compulsory military service. So, strictly speaking, the last conscription happened in 1944. That was also the second conscription ever, so its not like Canada had a tradition of compulsory military service. --Jayron32 04:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, it would have ended then in 1945. Thanks so much! 128.239.47.179 (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)allnighter[reply]

From my cursory reading, I'd expect that 1945 is not correct. The article discusses "a one-time levy of 17,000 NRMA conscripts for overseas service in November 1944," so the conscription process would have ended in that year. If, on the other hand, you want to talk about when those mandatory terms of service ended, I'd bet that many didn't expire until at least 1946 (that was certainly the case for many US draftees). Note also that the Conscription Crisis was specific to "overseas military service"; the National Resources Mobilization Act made provisions for conscription within Canada as early as 1940 and may have persisted beyond the scope of overseas conscription. — Lomn 14:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Light/Black Rain[edit]

Is this film aimed primarily towards an American audience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also is HBO more aimed at American audiences than Japanese audiences? Does HBO have more American viewers than Japanese viewers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HBO is an American network. As far as I know, it doesn't have anything to do with Japan. (According to that article, it does broadcast in at least 150 other countries, so Japan is probably one of them, but that's it.) --Tango (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...at least until Sony gets around to buying them. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

garden of pure ideas[edit]

i would like to create a garden of pure ideas owned by themselves or whoever thought of them ,as companies. it would be an alternative to tech incubators that are just about moneys instead of the ideas. I already have an an amazon ec2 cluster set up and know all the web technologies such as: https://www.google.com/search?q=full+stack+web+technology

thoughts? 188.157.185.167 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You’re there already. All you need to do now, is broadcast you're unique selling proposition to pull the punters in.--Aspro (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East title[edit]

Dhaka University is known as "Oxford of the East". How is it the "Oxford of the East"? Also, which universities of the East are "Havard of the East", "Yale of the East", "Cornell of the East", "Princeton of the East" and "Cambridge of the East"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.23 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to the above question about "Switzerland of the East". We really ought to have an article on these sorts of namings. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a related discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#Wikipedia, a wiki.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of when Lucy was lazing by Schroeder's piano as he played, and then she said something like "Oh Schroeder, you're so good. You're the Beethoven of music". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to try and answer the question, perhaps because Dhaka University is the oldest university in Bangladesh, and Oxford is the oldest in the UK. (I had just finished typing this when I found Oxford of the East which goes along with my explanation. It's nice to be right sometimes.) Alansplodge (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Category:City nicknames, which includes Venice of the North (which has been applied to no less than 7 European cities), List of places called Venice of the East, Jerusalem of the West, Paris of the East, and Silicon Valley of India.

There are also 50 articles of the form "List of city nicknames in <US state>". The one for Florida tells me Fort Lauderdale is the "Venice of America". The one for New York says that Ogdensburg, New York (where?) is the "New York of the North". Probably lots more there. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in Berkeley, I was always told that the City (including the University of California, Berkeley) was the "Athens of the West", but I've since found so many other claimants to this title, that its use as an evocative alternative name is pretty limited. ¶ On Googling "Athens of the West" since there's (as yet) no Wikipedia entry, I find for the first time in my life that Lexington, Kentucky and Columbus, Indiana have long claimed the title. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much work remains to be done in this area. Btw, does anyone agree with me that List of city nicknames in the United States is completely off the scale in terms of unnecessariness and should be deleted asap? There's a chat going on on the talk page. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Office in the EU repronsible for media freedom[edit]

What office of the EU represents the rights of media to freedom of speech within EU member states if such office exists.--132.239.90.154 (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viviane Reding is the vice-president in charge of justice, fundamental rights and citizenship[5], which includes freedom of speech and expression. (There's also the Information Science and Media Directorate-General, which doesn't deal principally with guaranteeing freedom of speech: its areas of interest include regulation, technological research, and increasing access to information technology; this page summarises EU media policies, with programs for plurality, regulation (including child protection), heritage, media literacy, funding media production, and online distribution.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]