Humanities desk
< April 27	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 28[edit]

The Serbs in the Yugoslav wars[edit]

Did the Serbs during the Yugoslav wars show any signs of supremacism or triumphalism? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many claimed supremacy, yes, especially over Muslim ethnic Albanians. StuRat (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Serbia's Political Intellectuals which says; "(Serbian) academics and other intellectuals have promoted a picture of the Serbs as a nation inherently superior to, and destined for greater things than, other nations...".

Thanks to all. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are women beautiful?[edit]

Philosophers don't seem to know. Any ideas?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because God started with the best looking rib? HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So that men will want to impregnate them. See sexual selection. Individuals of a species develop characteristics which makes the opposite gender want to have sex with them. It also isn't random or unknown, researchers have identified certain traits that the preponderance of people will find beautiful. The Wikipedia article on Physical attractiveness is rather detailed in this regard. --Jayron32 03:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Tom's question was intended to be read that way, i.e. "beautiful" in the eyes of men, or more broadly, as if beauty is some absolute concept, and equally valid from the perspective of men and other women? I'm a man, interested in women in general (don't tell my wife that), but I've certainly met some women I don't regard as beautiful. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most profound message I ever got in a fortune cookie was this: "It is God who makes women beautiful, and the Devil who makes them pretty." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @HiLo48: No, of course it isn't an absolute, as in every woman would be automatically the paragon of beauty. However, the article physical attractiveness has a lot to say on the subject, and it also notes that physical attractiveness is distinct from sexual interest: it is possible to find someone physically attractive without wanting to have sex with them. However, the concept of physical attractiveness as a component of sexual selection is farily sound. Ultimately, human concepts of beauty are arbitrary, in the same way that other species concepts of what makes a good mate are arbitrary. What makes a mandrill get hot and bothered over the sight of a swollen blue ass? What makes a peahen swoon over the sight of a peacock's giant plumage? Why does a ewe want to mate with the ram with the biggest rack? It's all in the drive to pass on your genes. --Jayron32 04:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many men look for the mate with the biggest rack, too. StuRat (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This reminds of a theory that may exist. Women are usually attracted to a man's brawn and looks. If they were more attracted to their intelligence would we be breeding smarter as a species. I could be wrong about the majority of attractions as well as intelligence being hereditary.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The theory certainly exists as a subset of general Evolutionary Theory and Sexual Selection, and is addressed within the sphere of Evolutionary psychology. Intelligence is indeed partially hereditary (though it is also be influenced by environmental factors from conception onwards), and women's attraction to men usually does include an intelligence factor, since better intelligence enhances survival and therefore successful reproduction just as appropriate physical traits do, though there is always a trade-off between its benefits and the considerabler metabolic expense of maintaining the larger brain necessary.

Characteristics which signal the collection of mental abilities we group under the term "intelligence" enable women to assess a potential mate's desireability: they include inventiveness (enabling one to deal with novel threats), humour (a form of linguistic inventiveness), and artistic ability. If we view human's large brains as men's equivalents to the peacock's tail, we can explain the development of sciences and fine arts as examples of Fisherian runaway.

As a species we certainly have "bred smarter" over the 5+ million years since our ancestor's divergence from that of the chimpanzee/bonobo line, but evolution, which by definition proceeds and manifests over many successive generations, proceeds in macroscopic fauna much more slowly that is observable by an individual member of that fauna. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.194 (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me think of another possibilty about the success of immigrants in their new countries. Is it possible that those that emigrate to a new country have a slight advanage over the indigenous population because of genetics and intelligence? Only those that pass health, education and financial (assuming smarter = more money and education) standards by the new country?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of things I think are beautiful that I don't want to impregnate. Humans are attractive to other humans for both primary and secondary selection effects; in many cases the secondary effect of forming cohesive social relationships is more important for long term survival of offspring than mere reproductive urges. 70.58.10.111 (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What 70.58 said... --Jayron32 04:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that only women are beautiful, you need to find some prettier men. Or at least ask the opinion of someone with different aesthetic (and perhaps sexual) tastes to you. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting sharp observations, thank you. I agree that the relation between perception of beauty and procreation is reasonable; males find females beautiful, sex happens, DNA continues to future generations. If we did not find women beautiful, then no sex, and then that DNA disappeared. You know the notion that our human bodies are merely vehicles to propagate our all-important DNA. Human bodies are cars; in the driver's seat, is DNA. You know that one, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's this 'we', Kemosabe? You know the notion that 'females' make up roughly half of the human population. Women and gay men exist, in significant numbers, and play at least as significant a role in evolution as people like you. You know that one, right? 86.140.54.3 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone reproduces, they play NO role in evolution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People who assist their kin with having kids, but that do not have kids themselves ("reproduces"), still play an evolutionary role when helping to pass on their ancestral genes, see Inclusive fitness and Kin selection. --Modocc (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede that someone who does not reproduce does impact evolution, in a "subtractive" way, by taking his own specific genetics out of the collective gene pool. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Bugs. Perhaps one might argue that gays play a role in human genetic evolution since they can assist non-gay kin in helping their offspring survive and thrive and pass forward their genes, but my sense is this role is tangential and not "significant" as claimed, so I am leaning in the direction of Baseball Bugs overall. My sense is that it is predominantly heterosexual males who initiate sex with females, since it is relatively more difficult for a woman who wants sex with an uninterested man to cause this to happen (but this would make a great Reality TV show provided, of course, that contestants used lassos and belts.) But regardless of who is perceiving the beauty which persons are perceived as beautiful, men or women, gay or straight, how does this happen? The shape of the eyes, the smile, hair -- it happens so fast, this determination of beauty -- in a split second -- wow -- and what I am saying is that I think that nobody knows how this happens, even scientists, even philosophers, but that there is an explanation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For that split second, one must factor in various preexisting conditions, such as previous exposures to imprinting, perceptual acuity, likes and dislikes such as prejudices and various associations, and, of course, and not least, the instinctive and complex built-in pattern recognitions that influence our cognition. That split second may not last long, but there is a lot going on with it in any case, that is sometimes worth exploring, and sometimes at all levels too. :-) --Modocc (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Most of their genetics are not unique to the individual though, which is why there are many worker ants and only one queen ant per colony. --Modocc (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I was perhaps ten, I was crawling on the beach at Lake Michigan making my usual fictional train setup using knee indentations to create "rails" in the sand (one of my usual childish projects) and I came upon the ankles a twelve year old girl in her bikini. She was lying on her back, asleep, knees up, and I found myself staring at her legs and abdomen with intense fascination, not knowing why I was doing this, and feeling even a bit guilty that maybe I was doing something wrong. Why was her body so exciting to me? My brain was somewhat fixated on wanting to keep exploring her bodily shape. Why?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody told me to look at women's bodies. I did not learn this from school. I do not think I picked up such a behavior pattern from TV or newspapers or the general culture. I doubt that I had noticed role-model men looking and enjoying the female shape -- I was not copying a socially acceptable behavior pattern. My current best guess is something in my brain wiring or neurological chemistry was pre-programmed to cause me to find the female shape fascinating. Yes, it was beautiful. And yes, it was attractive. But how does this happen in the brain? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read much of philosophy and science and I have yet to come across a good solid explanation which resonates with me. My hunch is that neuroscience may come up with a better theory in the next hundred years if the rapid pace of discovery is maintained. I have a tentative theory about why facial symmetry is related to beauty here which came about after I worked on articles such as physical attractiveness and dating but the symmetry-beauty hypothesis is only a sliver of the puzzle; the main puzzle is quite elusive.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, if what you are interested in is a scientific explanation for attraction, may I suggest you post on the Science ref desk? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fellows, let's be reasonable, huh? This is not the time or the place to perform some kind of a half-assed autopsy on a fish... And I'm not going to stand here and see that thing cut open and see that little Kintner boy spill out all over the dock. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who says women have a monopoly on physical beauty? Please view accompanying image.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there reminds me of a beautiful dark hair classmate from junior high school (back when Jaws came out). I've a nice picture of her holding my pinata, a Great White shark, that I made for my Spanish language class to beat up on. It created somewhat of a ruckus too because it was difficult to bust as it withstood a number of hard whacks, but it did spill its hard candy. :-) --Modocc (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Borges quote[edit]

It's from Labyrinths, I think, to the effect that each innovation creates its own precedents - by which he meant, we don't know they're precedents until the innovation comes about... Does anyone know where to find it?

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. In his essay "Kafka and His Precursors", translated by James E. Irby in the Penguin edition of Labyrinths, he says, "The fact is that every writer creates his own precursors. His work modifies our conception of the past, as it will modify the future." --Antiquary (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! So prompt, and spot on! Question answered, thank you - someone put the SOLVED icon up please! Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Printing The Gideons Bible[edit]

I came across a question here which got me wondering. How do Gideons International print their bibles? Do they do it in house or do they engage a publisher? Where does the unusual leatherette cover come from? I did try Googling this, but nothing immediately jumped out at me. So I'm curious, particularly as I still have my copy that was presented to me at school. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try their email? tgi@gideons.org --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is rather old but says they had printers in Philadelphia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the four on Ebay (shame on them for selling bibles that say 'property of The Gideons' right in the picture) have two Chicago addresses. If anyone is in another country, they may be able to phone a local hotel and ask them to look inside one. I am curiuos if all languages are printed in the same country or print house.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kantor question[edit]

Resolved

Milan (son of Dr Arthur) Kantor and Anne Murdoch (married 1957) had five children, four of whom are named Michael, Julie, Tom and Eve. What is the name of their other son please? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these people, Kitty, where did they live, and why are they notable enough for any of the details you seek to be recorded anywhere? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]}

Annes's brother is Rupert Murdoch. Mikenorton (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess he's notable, but is his sister notable? Neither she nor her husband appear to have Wikipedia articles. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule that questions on the Reference Desk must have something to do with Wikipedia articles? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there's not much point in asking such a question if no-one here is likely to have heard of them. A question about me, my parents, and my siblings would be pretty pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom died at the age of 35 sometime in the early 2000s. As the Kantors are well-known in Australian environmentalist circles, I thought there would have been an obituary for him in one of the papers that might also list his surviving siblings. Sorry, Kittybrewster, but I can't find one. Perhaps someone else can. Bielle (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@69.62: Originally I understand that the Ref Desks were set up to help find information for articles, but they have not been that restricted in the 4 years or so I have been a regular here. Bielle (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reference to the obituary, printed as follows:

KANTOR. - Tom. Our adorable Tom, died suddenly on Thursday, 25th of January. He will be with us in our hearts and memories forever. Loved by his parents Anne and Milan, wife Dominique, brothers and sisters Julie, Martin, Eve, Kate and Michael, Published in Herald Sun on January 30, 2001

It appears the missing sibling is Martin. Bielle (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps, Kate. There are 5 surviving siblings apparently. Bielle (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Italy population[edit]

Which cities of Italy has significant Muslim population and which nations do these Muslim come from the most? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.23 (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Islam in Italy should help here. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spain Muslim population[edit]

Which cities of Spain have significant Muslim population and which nations do these Muslim mostly come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.23 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Spain was a Muslim nation until 1492. Our article Islam in Spain should help here. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean is that at least a region of modern Spain was mostly Muslim until 1492, I'm sure. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All cities of Spain (and Italy, to answer two questions at once) have significant Muslim populations. Many small towns as well (If you think about it, even one Muslim can be "significant" if the total population of the town is small enough). Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both answers above are off-topic. The second is even an off-topic answer to a non-asked question.

Melilla and Ceuta have the largest Muslim population in Spain. Most come from Marocco. 88.9.107.228 (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what is off-topic about referring the OP to a Wikipedia article on the subject in question? Sheesh. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Being a Muslim nation until 1492"? 88.9.107.228 (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy then provided a link to Islam in Spain, which includes details of the current Spanish Muslim population. PLease read what we give you before criticising it as "off-topic". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pls read my links to discover that Tammy's link was off-topic. It says nothing about cities, just that Muslims live in Spain (like everywhere else). 88.9.107.228 (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it didn't give you all the details you wanted. That hardly qualifies it as "off-topic". At least acknowledge when people give you something in the ballpark of the information you ask for, and please do not bite the hand that feeds you. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 88.9 that Islam in Spain is somewhat off-topic. He should have given a link to Islam_in_Spain#Recent_immigration_and_conversion instead, I think. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked "...which nations do these Muslim mostly come from?" Tammy's initial answer suggested to me that many of them come from Spain. This, and the previous question, seem to be written from the perhaps false premise that most Muslims are immigrants. Given world events of the past couple of decades, and a particular trial proceeding in Norway right now, this is sensitive territory. Tammy's response was completely on-topic. Facts can be very useful.

Well, there were Muslims in Spain up to 1492, but by then it was hardly "a Muslim nation". Afterwards the ones that were still there were expelled (as were the Jews), so there aren't really any "native" Spanish Muslims, certainly not going all the way back to the fifteenth century anyway. All Muslims currently in Spain are relatively recent arrivals. So...perhaps the answer was a bit misleading, but it was unnecessary for 88.9 to be such a dick about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Muslims in Ceuta & Melilla are definately 'native'. --Soman (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of Muslims in Spain and Italy are immigrants because they were born outside those countries. The situation is probably different in France where probably the majority of Muslims there were born in French territory, i.e. they are native Muslims. I fail to understand the relevance of those facts in relation to the trial of a bigoted mass-murderer in Norway. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Stuart the pretender[edit]

Is Charles II of England/Scotland typically considered a pretender in the context of the Commonwealth? To my surprise, his article only once mentions his pretender status — and that's because the English kings were pretenders to the French throne at the time. Of course I understand that it could have been omitted from the article, but it seems to be a big enough issue that I wouldn't expect it to have been omitted from a featured article. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official position is that he was the king during the English Commonwealth. As our article says, all the paperwork from the restoration was drafted with his reign pre-dated to the death of his father. During the Commonwealth itself, he was probably considered a pretender, but history was kind of re-written after he was invited back. --Tango (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the royal family's website, here, and it has his reign starting in 1660, so I guess it isn't the official position any more. --Tango (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in which I'm particularly interested (in the sense that I'm researching it, not that I'm asking for help here about it) is his status in Scotland, since they attempted to crown him in 1650 before Cromwell forced him to the Continent. Scottish and Scottish-influenced works that I'm reading tend to speak of him as the king during this period, not as a pretender. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says he was proclaimed King of Scotland a few days after his father's execution in 1649 (albeit with same caveats) and was crowned in Scotland in 1651. Our article's infobox describes him as being king in Scotland throughout the period - I don't see any reason to doubt that description. --Tango (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting it (thus I said, "not that I'm asking for help here about it"); I was essentially wondering if that were a common approach among contemporary scholars, or if they more commonly considered him a pretender. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the political urgency behind early modern Britons being claimed as a rightful king or pretender has evaporated, historians are unlikely to take positions on the righteousness or otherwise or particular monarchs or claimed monarchs. Chris Hill, for example, in Century of Revolution summarises him rapidly as Charles II when referring to him as King (Scottish recognition, return to England), and as Charles Stuart when talking about him as an exile court in France. I have been assured that the historiography of the revolution has moved on since Hill, but I am not currently up on it. I would suggest avoiding Biographies, unless published by University Presses, when sounding the scholarly treatment of Charles in exile. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretender" is probably the wrong word here. Doesn't that term assume that someone else is actually the King? Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our pretender article, he coulda been a pretender (sorry). Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]