Humanities desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 24 >

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.

August 23

date of Jewish New Year 2008

I tried to read the enormus amount of info but nowhere could I find an answer to my question: What date does Jewish New Year fall In 2008? like month and day Is it called something else? my calendar has some of the holidays but none of them are Jewish New Year Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.213.179 (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a table at Rosh Hashanah#Date which says 29 September. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That table specifies that Rosh Hashanah, as all Jewish holidays, starts at sundown (on the date indicated on that particular table). However! please note that conventional printed calendars, particularly those using only the month/day according to the Gregorian calendar without indicating the Hebrew, usually (if not always) print the holiday on the (first) full day. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah is of duration 2 days. Unlike other Jewish festivals which are all of duration 2 days (except Yom Kippur - the Day of Atonement) outside Israel, Rosh Hashanah is of duration 2 days even in Israel. The dates for 2008 are 30 September and 1 October (or more precisely from just before sunset on 29 September until it gets dark (one can see the stars) on 1 October). Simonschaim (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Rome capital punishment

Information on the punishment for murder that involved chaining the corpse of the victim to the back of the murderer until he, too, died. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiuff5827 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilism

Can anyone please explain me what is the goal of Nihilism. I read the article repeatedly, but I repeatedly failed to understand what Nihilism says us to do. For example capitalism says us to make private property, Marxism-Leninism says us centrally panned economy, fascism says us do whatever the state is telling you, anarchism says us abolish the state, but what Nihilism says? What Nihilists tell us to do? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. What would be the point? It doesn't matter anyway. - Eron^Talk 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the meaning of Nihilism? And what is the purpose of this ideology? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the "joke". Eron is referencing nihilist ideology in his answer to you—nihilism is about there not being a point. It doesn't give you instructions. It says, "what's the point of instructions? there's no point." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism doesn't come with a set of commandments because the whole idea is that morality doesn't come from outside, it comes from inside (your social conscience). I don't know much about nihilism really—I don't even know if there are real people who identify as nihilists or if it's just a derogatory term applied to others—but I gather that, like atheism, it's an ism that rejects the idea that isms should tell you what to do. I suppose my version of "positive nihilism" would be that life consists entirely of the things that actually happen, not the things you think you're striving towards. -- BenRG (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilism has no goal. It's the belief or attitude that everything is pointless and nothing really matters. It's not trying to accomplish anything, except perhaps a certain degree of enlightenment, and even that would be just as useless anything else. It's a little like saying that everything we do is worthless and nothing has any meaning, but some of us are aware of this fact. Depressing? Well, yeah. Of course, while nihilistic thoughts aren't very rare in some degree or another, very few people really subscribe to it on an all-encompassing level and apply it to everything in their lives. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A twofold approach might help.

Nihilism had best not be confused with negativism or cynicism.
To understand nihilism, distinguish between various spheres.

Moral nihilism might hold that morality does not derive from fact, but is usually self-seeking. So we are not moral.
Epistemological nihilism states that we cannot know anything, because we have no universal truths and our knowledge depends on the age/culture we live in. So we do not really know.
Cosmic nihilism holds that we may understand the world scientifically, but that this provides no support for our own purposes in life. So we cannot understand our surroundings.
Existential nihilism states that life has no point, and just has to be lived. So we have no purpose in life.

Such a view of life might be depressing to some and liberating to others. Bessel Dekker (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dia de los Muertos

Among the customs noted for Dia de los Muertos, gifts are prepared for and offered to the dead at their graves or on altars set up by the families. Other than noting:

"Some people believe the spirits of the dead eat the 'spiritual essence' of the ofrenda food, so even though the celebrators eat the food after the festivities, they believe it lacks nutritional value."

But what happens to the gifts? Are they collected by the cemetery attendants and distributed to the needy? Kept as mementos by the loved ones? Or what? -- Thanks, 16:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nastia Liukin

Hello everyone,

I had a few questions about Olympic gymnast Nastia Liukin. First off, I've heard her last name pronounced two ways: Lukin and Leeukin. Which is the proper pronunciation? Maybe someone should add the IPA pronunciation to her Wikipedia entry. Secondly, I know she was a student at Southern Methodist University for some time. Did she ever say whether she will be finishing her education there (or elsewhere)? Thanks!

Mike MAP91 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The surname Люкин in Russian is pronounced /ˈlʲukʲɪn/, which is something in between Lukin and Leeukin. English often ignores the /ʲ/ (palatalization) of Russian names, particularly where it occurs before <е> or <и> (Менделеев comes into English as Mendeleev and not Miendielieev), but the fact that her name is transliterated as Liukin and not Lukin is probably what gives some commentators reason to pronounce it Leeukin. So I guess the answer is that neither is "proper" since they're both approximations and both in frequent use. Strad (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not transliterated (transcribed) Lyukin? This may not be authentic, but it might give a clue to the many Anglophones who don't know the formal standards of Cyrillic romanization or proper Russian phonology. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to find out if the pronunciation of someone's name is correct is to find out how that person pronounces it. Has anyone here heard Liukin pronounce her own name? --Anonymous, 18:45, August 23, 2008.

On the Mendeleev thing: that is one way of transliterating it, but Mendeleyev (or even Mendeleyef) is also found, and is imo a much more useful approach. cf. Fadeyev (vs. Fadeev), Matveyev (vs. (Matveev), Alexeyev or Alekseyev (vs. Alexeev), etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that in most of the US, UK /lju:/ is pronounced /lu:/, just as there is a diff in the pronunciation of news. kwami (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare with the current Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev, the pronunciation of whose name (see IPA for Russian pronunciation in his article) provoked considerable angst in the British media and English-speaking world in general. Again, it was about the "ʲ" palatalization issue. There's quite a good article here about it. Ka renjc 14:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian woman cannot have surname Lukin. Her surname is Lukina.--Dojarca (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but she's not a Russian woman. She's an American woman of Russian ancestry, and it's rare for feminine name endings to be used in anglophone countries. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help everyone. I guess it's sort of like a silent "j". As an Anglophone, I doubt if the pronunciation will ever be spot-on, but I can at least know that I am mispronouncing it :). That article and the references to Medvedev and Mendeleev were also helpful.

Mike MAP91 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politician attributes

Is there an existing source or reference for the attributes of politicians such as what political party they belong to, what schools they have attended, what memberships in other organizations they have, how much money they have and how many pets, kids, marriages they have had and how many houses they own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What country are you interested in? There may be an appropriate Who's who guide which would contain some of the information you want, at least. --Tango (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA

nndb.com has pretty thorough information along those lines. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this reminds me of the Burke people in history thing and Six degrees of separation. Great stuff!

There is www.theyworkforyou.com in the UK. Things such as how much money they have, pets, houses owned etc. are hardly 'important' information about a politician so unless they willingly passed on that information it's not likely to exist anywhere. Far more important is accessing records of their voting history, speeches made in the appropriate place (House of commons in the UK) and etc. In the UK most of this information can be found for current MPs. ny156uk (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not many people do not look at the "important" things but go for the trite like the Jeri Ryan scandal, etc. because they do not want to end up doing such stuff themselves.

Mystery airplane

I spotted this airplane circling over Yellowstone National Park on August 8. It appears to be a WWII-vintage fighter or ground-attack airplane. It appears to be painted in a Army Air Forces camoflage pattern, with a white star on red roundel. The number on the tail appears to be 683, but that's not the registration N-number. Any idea what the airplane is? --Carnildo (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Tempest, de Havilland Mosquito, or North American P-51D, or a Hawker Hurricane unless radically modified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it could be a modified Grumman F4F Wildcat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is the Douglas AD-1 Skyraider.

Thanks. It does appear to be an A1-E Skyraider, very similar to the one in this image. --Carnildo (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's it for sure. Much bigger plane than the F4F Wildcat with a proportionately smaller cowl and lower wing attachment. From a private collection no doubt. Lots of 25 million dollar ranches not far from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little more looking around indicates that it's almost certainly this airplane. --Carnildo (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political system without new laws (ie. unchanging consitution)?

What political theory proposes that the government (or anarchist equivalent) should only enforce a basic, unchanging constitution, but not make new laws? Steohawk (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I can come up with is expressed by the motto of Outback Steakhouse - "No rules, just right." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. All kidding aside, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about a system of lawlessness (ie. no rules), but a system in which there are a few, unchanging laws. For example, human rights and civil liberties would be protected, but the government wouldn't be allowed to make new laws. Advocates of such a system would likely argue that the US has become increasingly oppressive since its inception, except for the extension of rights to women, minority races, etc. Steohawk (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A great many religions - which, of course, are social systems - are based on a static constitution (i.e. a credo). Unless I missed something, nobody in the Vatican has come up with any additional commandments for quite a while. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although their intepretation is in constant flux and development, as newer circumstances arise that could not have even been wildly fantasised about in Moses' time. If a government (in the general sense of the word) can't make any new laws, doesn't that mean that there'd be no need for any kind of legislature? There might be a bunch of guys who were the "government", but they'd be reduced to a policing role. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There'd still be an executive, presumably. On the Pope front, he often promulgates doctrinal documents which look suspiciously like new laws. I suppose you could view the doctrine of papal supremacy as an all-purpose enabling act. Algebraist 23:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually new laws have to be consistent with old laws or risk being invalidated by a judge. In many cases old laws are simply updated by including new variables rather than making a new law unless there is not an old law from which to start. Its laws which are inconsistent with existing law that you have to disallow. In effect constitutions are therefore not changed but merely modified to distinguish some exception or to specifically include something which is not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some traditional interpretations of Islam according to which Islamic religious-based law (shari`a) is the only valid form of law, and it can be applied to all important questions of interpersonal social conduct (by no means narrowly limited to strictly religious matters only). According to this view, a ruler can issue low-level administrative regulations -- but if the ruler were to decree an actual new law (not found in traditional Islamic law), then he would be impiously arrogating to himself a privilege which belongs to God alone. For example, Islamic law specifies in precise detail which taxes are Islamically allowable, and several times in Islamic history, there have been revolts when rulers imposed other types of taxes... However, in practical terms, this theoretical Islamic prohibition against new laws has been pretty much a dead letter for a number of centuries. And traditional Christian societies never really adopted this idea of a "closed legal canon" in the same way... AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Baha'i Faith there are the Writings of Baha'u'llah, which are similarly very comprehensive. Although most of it is pretty clear-cut, where there could be differences of interpretation `Abdu'l-Baha, who was the first head of the faith after the passing of his father Baha'u'llah (and whom Baha'is believe to have been given the authority to do so) cleared up which way they should be interpreted. Shoghi Effendi, the next and last head of the faith before the Universal House of Justice, which is the current executive body for an indefinite period of time, elucidated a bit as well. The current executive body can only make decisions on things that aren't covered by the others or on how and when to implement the directives set by the others. So, I think this is a good example. Although it is a religion, the laws cover taxes, inheritance, criminal punishment, marriage, divorce and a whole lot of other things that states are concerned with. The only reason why you don't hear about it like other religious law codes is because Baha'is aren't in the business of having or trying to obtain sovereignty over some country and Baha'is are required to follow the existing laws of their country. -LambaJan (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark and its shape

If I was to say that Denmark looked like Elvis Presley's head, would that be paredolia? Everyone knows that Italy looks like a boot, but it's not so common knowledge that Denmark looks like Elvis, with his quiff and a microphone (the microphone is the island that Copenhagen is on).--Smocksmeagel (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your posting has two parts:

(1) Yes

(2) Not a question but a rant.

--hydnjo talk 22:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't class that as a rant. It is not as if the OP is actually annoyed that Denmark looks like Elvis. He is supporting his question with an explanation of his opinion.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I had thought that the ~~King~~ Prince has already left the building, well, shuffled off this mortal coil, providing us with a long awaited rest of silence? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the average size of a woman's breasts?

Because I tend to only like girls with large breasts. I once had sex with a girl who had 36DDD and she was amazing, but I find that that isn't so common, which means that in the future it might be difficult for me to get a girl with breasts that big. I also like girls with large buttocks, and sometimes kinda chubby, but not obese. I understand that this is not a place to ask for tips for picking up women etc., but I need to know what the average size of a woman's breasts is, just as an objective fact, if that's OK, wikipedia is not censored right?--Smocksmeagel (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Wikipedia is not censored. --hydnjo talk 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but it's an encyclopedia, and the purpose of this Humanities Reference Desk is to help people find, as Smocksmeagel says, objective information. Addressing the OP: Your comment heading is off-base; what you apparently want to know is the distribution of extra-large breasts (a condition called "mammary hypertrophy")in the juvenile female population, which is unlikely; did you perhaps mean "women" and not "girls"? Since you insist on going into (IMO inappropriate and crude) details of your personal sexual preferences, have you read about breast fetishism? Use that term for further web searches that may be more informative. Then try searching on "women + [mammary hypertrophy or an equivalent term in the vernacular]+ sex partners + [your geographic area]". For future reference, this sort of question probably belongs on the Science ref desk. -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution of breast sizes in a given population sounds pretty objective to me... While you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, I find it best to keep personal opinions to oneself when answering questions since, as you say, the purpose is to be objective. Your suggested search terms are more likely to find dating agencies than useful statistics, so are not particularly helpful. --Tango (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification noted, Tango. In trying to be helpful and also respect what I consider to be the spirit of the Ref Desks, I failed to stick strictly to the objective question. Strike-through is accordingly added. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] has some useful information. I've no idea how reliable it is, though. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it depends where you are, which ethnic group you're speaking about, and natural breasts/breast implants. All of these could affect results. Also, I hope Deborahjay isn't offended when I say that I don't think you implied juveniles. The word "girl" frequently means a woman of 18 or more years of age, at least in England. Out of decency we will assume you are speaking about adults.78.144.142.121 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find true happiness in certain parts of the world where evolution and diet have combined to produce a larger number of women with larger than average breasts. Russia, for example, as opposed to say, Japan. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non Residents Pakistanis, Indian and Sri Lankans

Is there a map where they show which nations do Non-residents Pakistanis, Indians and Sri Lankans migrate the most? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.242 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britain is probably one of the most common countries that they go to. South Asians are everywhere in the UK... there are even curry houses in Portree and Kirkwall.--Smocksmeagel (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, here's the Portree Indian restaurant website and there was a notable murder case about an Orcadian guy who murdered an Indian man who worked at a curry place in Kirkwall in 1994, not sure if Wikipedia has an article about it.--Smocksmeagel (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Smocksmeagel means well however he/she has not provided the map that you requested. Stay tuned, perhaps another RDer will provide a more responsive response. --hydnjo talk 23:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a map using 1961 data. Fribbler (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a lengthy article with quite a few useful tables, B3 .. B6 being most relevant. It also contains interesting data on temporary labour migration of Indians into the OPEC regions of the Middle East. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]