Humanities desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

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 27

Fat women with horns

Where did the stereotype of opera containing fat women with viking helmets, complete with horns, come from? Is there a particular opera that this is based on? And if so, why that one? Dismas|^(talk) 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on Ride of the Valkyries in popular culture and Valkyries in popular culture have some information on this operatic stereotype (Die Walküre is the opera). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The figure is of a valkyrie. The association with operas comes, in particular, from Richard Wagner's The Valkyrie. I'm thinking the fatness comes from some practice of gaining weight to achieve a lower voice tone. (edit conflict: Sluzzelin beat me to it) — Kieff | Talk 01:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While singers do sometimes describe their breathing technique as "fatness in the low stomach" or "filling an innertube around their waist" when they make use of the entire torso (lungs, ribs, diaphragm and viscera, see this pdf file e.g.), I don't think being fat is an advantage in singing. See also OperaNews's report on Deborah Voigt being sacked for being too fat to play the principal part in Ariadne auf Naxos. And, of course, "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings". ---Sluzzelin talk 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the archetypal fat female opera singer is a soprano, the highest of the three traditional female operatic voices, I wouldn't think they wanted a lower voice tone. More likely more power in their voices (and probably just an excuse to eat a lot anyway!). The same goes for male singers - the fattest ones tended to be tenors, the highest of the three. -- Necrothesp 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks for the correction. — Kieff | Talk 18:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a reliable source for this, but one point my old music teacher once made was that when the stereotype arose most women wore tight corsets and therefore had very small waists. You can't wear a tight corset when singing opera, so singers would be the only women most people saw in public without corsets. This would likely make them look "fatter" than other women at the time, even if they were the same weight. --Charlene 03:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. --Proficient 05:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our valkyrie article shows a winged helmet, not a horned one. Presumably one developed from the other, but it would be interesting to know how and when.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly caused by a false memory mixup occasioned by the memorable co-appearance of a Viking-helmeted Siegfried with a winged-helmeted Brünnhilde, as three-dimensionalized here. The archetypal horned valkyrie seems to have cartoons as her natural habitat. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it now (argh!), but I did find once a thing about how there had never, ever been found a horned helmet (of the stereotypical "viking" sort). Think about sitting in a narrow long ship, 2 men to an oar, and your neighbor has horns sticking out of his head. It would be rather uncomfortable. Geogre 12:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! indeed. This claim can be found in our article Viking Age arms and armour, in the section Helmet, and is also found on this page, from which our article appears to derive its information. If you find a citable "reliable source", please add it to the article. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original a-historical "horned-helmet" images were disseminated by members of the Swedish Geatish Society, an outgrowth of 19th-century Romantic nationalism. --Wetman 14:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that was where I had heard it. Someone was doing research on the Geatish Society, and one source pointed out who first came up with the longhorn steer-meets-Sven Forkbeard imagery. Sigmund as John Wayne -- real Geatish Society stuff, there. The Minnesota NFL team's helmets have depictions of horns on them, just so the fans can be sure that they are, indeed, the Minnesota Vikings (and that, too, is a 19th c. ex patriot Swede/Norwegian thing). Geogre 14:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the fat part of the question, there was a debate here that is a bit relevant. JackofOz 00:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas and the Armenians

What was the impact of Shah Abbas I's wars against the Ottomans on the people of Armenia? Decline and fall 11:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question relates, I believe, to the scortched-earth campaign Abbas the Great pursued against the Turks in the southern Caucasus in 1604. The old Armenian town of Julfa in the province of Nakhichevan was taken early in the invasion. From there Abbas' army fanned out across the Araratian plain. The Shah pursued a careful strategy, advancing and retreating as the occasion demanded, determined not to risk his enterprise in a direct confrontation with stronger enemy forces. While laying siege to Kars, he learned of the approach of a large Ottoman army, commanded by Djghazadé Sinan Pasha. The order to withdraw was given; but to deny the enemy the potential to resupply themselves from the land, he ordered the wholesale destruction of the Armenian towns and farms on the plain. As part of this the whole population was ordered to accompany the Persian army in its withdrawal. Some 300,000 people were duly hearded to the banks of the Araxes River. Those who attempted to resist the mass deportation were killed outright. The Shah had previously ordered the destruction of the only bridge, so people were forced into the waters, where a great many drowned, carried away by the currents, before reaching the opposite bank. This was only the beginning of their ordeal. One eye-witness, Father de Guyan, describes the predicament of the refugees thus;

It was not only the winter cold that was causing torture and death to the deportees. The greatest suffering came from hunger. The provisions which the deportees had brought with them were soon consumed...The children were crying for food or milk, none of which existed, because the women's breasts had dried up from hunger...Many women, hungry and exhausted, would leave their famished children on the roadside, and continue their tortuous journey. Some would go to nearby forests in search of something to eat. Usually they would not come back. Often those who died, served as food for the living.

Unable to maintain his army on the desolate plain, Sinan Pasha was forced to winter in Van. Armies sent in pursuit of the Shah in 1605 were defeated, and by 1606 Abbas had regained all of the territory lost to the Turks earlier in his reign. The scortched-earth tactic had worked, though at a terrible cost to the Armenian people. Of the 300,000 deported it is calculated that under half survived the march to Isfahan. It was the first great tragedy in Armenian history: it was not to be the last. Clio the Muse 23:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text of Clio's reply moved to Persian Armenia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"God doesn't believe in atheists... so therefore they don't exist"

Driving home I passed a church - and in this city the churches often have fairly large signs always displaying something about belief in God.
Today the sign reads:

God doesn't believe in

ATHEISTS
Therefore they

don't exist!

I realise that atheism isn't an organised religion, but is this at all considered hate speech or religious persicution?
Rfwoolf 13:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any actual hate speech directed at atheists could be considered an attack on them because of their beliefs, and thus a form of religious hate speech. This mildly humorous comment does not seem to qualify as hate speech though. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I learned from a usually reliable source that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not believe in atheists either! While perhaps not conclusive, we should not lightly discard this corroborative evidence. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a philosophical comment buried in a joke. "Atheists don't believe in God, and so they say that there is no God" is illogical. Your belief or lack of belief in a thing does nothing to confirm or deny its existence, much less to constitute it. I can choose to believe that there is a Baffin Island or not, but that wouldn't affect the 12,000 proud Baffinese one way or another. This joke is an attempted satire -- suggesting that God's disbelief in atheists does not make them wink out of existence any more than their lack of belief in God changes metaphysical reality. It is also a cute allusion to Bishop Berkeley and his "to be is to be perceived." In Berkeleian empiricism, the world persists solely because it is continually perceived by God. If God were to stop believing in atheists, they would, in fact, cease to exist. It's certainly not hate speech -- any more than my favorite religious bumper sticker ("Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to the garage makes you a car") is. Geogre 15:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the second question you adjusted your comment to ask ([1]), it is not an example of religious persecution either. See the WP articles on the Inquisition, Holocaust and Wars of Religion for examples of real religious persecution. (Hint: in the future, rather than altering your post, you may want to simply ask a follow-up question.) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I adjusted my question and I fully realise I was violating some or another protocol or convention, but exercised my discretion in this case considering 1) It was fairly soon after my initial post, and 2) The existing two responses to the question were addressing a part of my question that I have left intact, and 3) I would generally not do such a thing in a more formal atmosphere, such as a debate. I wanted to rephrase because my question appears as though I'm claiming the sign to be hatespeech etc, when in fact what I'm asking is to what extent does the sign cross the line, if at all. Originally I considered posting similar signs to demonstrate the issue at hand, such as "God doesn't believe in Muhammed, therefore Muslims are wrong" or "Jews killed Christ, therefore Christians should kill..." and so forth. Quashing other people's religious beliefs (even athiests) by a church seemed rather odd to me. I mean plenty of people have no respect for scientology as a religion, but consider a church or synagogue advertising against scientology - that could be problematic. Therefore the question was posed. So far nobody has really addressed these issues. Rfwoolf 16:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see why you are confused. The sign you quote isn't actually proposing that atheists be eliminated. That would be hate speech. It is apparently trying to refute (using lame humor) a variant of the Russell's teapot argument. Merely expressing disagreement with a belief or the tenets of a religion or is not, in and of itself, hate speech or persecution. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the sign was meant in a silly, absurdist way. Vranak

Wikipedia believes in atheists. "That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." Clarityfiend 17:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That's just a sort of "right back at ya" response from the Church to the concept of atheism, meant to expose how ridiculous it really is. Just because you don't believe in something does not mean that it doesn't exist; therefore, it is a fair statement to say that God exists, even though some people do not believe in him. Also, atheism is a truly ridiculous concept because people need to believe in some sort of higher power; the need for religion is hardwired into the human brain. (This is not only the source of religion, but it also leads to nationalism, humanism, hero worship, science worship, etc. if religious faith wanes.) The way I see it, the need to believe in a higher power is God's way of trying to keep us close to Him, or, failing in that, to prevent us from becoming oppressive big shots. --Luigifan 18:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary you have said "It's just the Church's way of exposing atheism for the ridiculous load of bull-**** that it is" - you are welcome to give your personal opinion - much like you have in the paragraph above, but please refrain from inciteful comments about religious beliefs, "bull-****" or otherwise Rfwoolf 18:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sound as unfriendly as I am, but actually users (questioners and respondents alike) are not welcome to use the Reference desk (or any other pages on Wikipedia) as a soapbox for their personal opinions (such as that "atheism is a truly ridiculous concept"). Please do not bite this bait. I thank you all for your understanding. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, "insightful" comments are always welcome on any topic. Bielle 18:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, atheism is a truly ridiculous concept because people need to believe in some sort of higher power; the need for religion is hardwired into the human brain". Sure, if you replace 'religion' with 'mysticism', or anything else without deep historical roots. Vranak

Luigifan, a "hardwired need for religion" only illustrates one of my favorite aphorisms: "Remember, your mind only simulates logic." You might as well argue that optical illusions contain some profound truth. Also, the need for religion is satisfied for many people by religions without gods. —Tamfang 09:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the billboard's assertion is accurate, then is it a sin to believe that atheists exist? —Tamfang 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it hate speech? It is certainly anti-atheist. I'm not sure it qualifies as hate speech though — it does not threaten violence, does not claim bad things should or will happen to them, does not even say disparaging things about them. So I'd say there's no "hate" involved. Is it a logical philosophical statement? No, but it isn't likely meant to be. It is literally preaching to the converted; it is not meant to be a rigorous argument nor convince anyone who is not already convinced. I don't see any actual or advocated persecution either. I say this, mind you, as an atheist. It's silly and ineffectual (a step down from "Nietzsche: God is dead. God: Neitzsche is dead.", which is at least clever) but not much else — not nearly on the level of "hate speech" as some things politicians say about atheists ("I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." — George H. W. Bush). --24.147.86.187 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly in bad taste, and I wouldn't be exactly running to befriend someone who believed it, but hate speech? More making-themselves-seem-faintly-ridiculous speech. --Charlene 07:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be a Christian and have an understanding of the religion. In all aspects of the Christian, God loves us all "Apparently". The only reason im not a Christian now is because I have studied the bible for a couple of years now and the book contradicts itself and you 'the reader' 407 times. I’ve been thinking for some time of how the religion started and where it originated. Some help someone?

don't ask a chatty internet board if you want a reasonable reply to that. WP:RD may be alright for unearthing factoids, but a coherent reply to a complex question is not what you'll get here. Read development of religion, myth and ritual, mythology and religion, Homo Necans, Life-death-rebirth deity, monotheism#Origin_and_development, history of religion, religious studies, prehistoric religion and see where the references cited there take you. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as for that sign, it isn't hate speech. it's an infantile wisecrack ineptly disguised as a joke to make it seem smart. What's really behind it is "cargo cult criticism", the parroting of criticism without having understood its essence, the way five year olds say "you are stupid too". Or, possibly even worse, advocating nihilism, stating that both belief and thought are intrinsically worthless because they could always be different. I don't think the jester who put up the sign thought it through sufficiently to appreciate the diabolical nature of the statement, but that's what it really amounts to. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as a variant of the There are no atheists in foxholes fallacy that some religious types like to use to explain away the "problem" of people not following religious teachings, the "ah, they're not really atheists, they're just pretending!" argument. -88.109.226.73 10:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this is a joke, can't you see it? Only Geogre is wise to the philosophical implications of the statement, which are actually surprisingly clever. It's always a bad idea to try to explain something like this, but, what the hell, here goes nothing. It is not, in essence, a statement about atheists at all; it is a statement about the nature of belief, and about certainty in belief. People reading this are meant to question the intellectual premises of the contention, because atheists so obviously do exists, in spite of God's scepticism. This is meant to lead to a natural corollary. If atheists exist in spite of God, then God exists in spite of atheism. It makes atheism, insofar as this is set of beliefs about the absolute non-existence of God, look arrogant and dogmatic, which I take to be the whole point. Nietzsche IS dead. Clio the Muse 10:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, silly and absurdist. Vranak

Nietzsche is NOT dead, merely pine'in for the fjords Perry-mankster 15:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly "wise" to the "philosophical implications" here, I just don't think they are clever at all. Nihilism by any other name. They are saying that atheism is just as arbitrary as their own theism, which essentially leads to the Spaghetti Monster religion. It's just as stupid to believe in the Bible, than to disbelieve it, or to believe that God is made of pasta. No atheist ever argued 'My disbelief exists, therefore there is no God'. I know it pretends to be a joke, and presumably some people find it funny (although I think they are more laughing at their own cleverness than at the joke itself). The "philosophical implication", however, is just pathetic. Now "Nietzsche is dead. - God." is much cleverer. It's actually deep, laconic humour, because it exposes philosophy as sophistry besides the power of mere reality. The present witticism comes nowhere close to that. dab (𒁳) 12:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian hill towns

What are the origins of Italian hill towns? He who must be obeyed 14:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existing evidence points in the direction of a human origin. A high town is more defensible in case of an attack. They may go back a long time; for example, Cortona, Orvieto, and several others, were founded by the Etruscans, while most others are at least medieval, if not older. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The orthodox thinking here was outlined some thirty years ago by the French historian, Pierre Toubert, in Studies in Medieval Italy from the Ninth to the Fourteenth Centuries. His thesis, based on a variety of monastic sources, was that the hilltop villages evolved, with the rest of Italian Medieval life, from the introduction of a money-based economy by the Carolingians in the ninth century. The economic transformations this entailed led, in the Toubert thesis, to the process of incastellamento-fortified hilltop villages- from the ninth and the tenth centuries onwards. The problem with this whole argument is that a gap of three centuries or more is left between the patterns of settlement in the late Roman Empire and those of the Carolingian recovery. Why, in other words, did the Romans live in the valleys and Medieval Italians on hilltops, like San Gimignano? More recent archaeological investigations have discovered that the 'retreat to the hills' can be dated to a far earlier period than Toubert supposed. What is now believed to have happend, on the basis of a number of excavations, is that the collpase of the Roman Empire, and the rural economy upon which its was based, caused peasant communities to 'redefine the landscape' in their own terms. In the ninth century pre-existing castelli simply acquired a legal identity for the first time, formalised by written charters. The castelli, so typical of much of rural Italy, were thus a sign of the political and economic fragmentation caused by the great crisis that overtook the whole Roman world from the fifth century onwards. Clio the Muse 00:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names

Hi there, I like to know that what are the common names for Canadian girls and boys or should I say male and female? Thanks.

I presume you mean given names? See here for the list and breakdown among French and English speaking Canadians. If you are interested in surnames, here is that list. Rockpocket 19:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black people names

HI there, I like to know what are common names for girls and boys among the African-American and -Canadian community?

See above for the Canadian data. African American names are more difficult to find data from. Websites like this list them and have a "rating". presumably giving an indicator of popularity. However, I couldn't find any official ranking based on census data. The US census office has a remarkable website recording name popularity from 1879-2006, but doesn't break the data down by ethnic group. As an aside however, browsing it I was amazed, and somewhat horrified, to note that there was 31 sets of twins born in the US given the names Faith and Hope, then 13th most popular combination. Sadly they don't have data for triplets, so can't know how many parents went for the Holy triumvirate. Rockpocket 19:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article shows most common names for African-American babies in Pennsylvania in 2002. Corvus cornix 23:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book Freakonomics devotes a whole chapter to studying the socioeconomic patterns of naming children, contrasting "black" and "white" names. On Amazon.com you can "Search Inside!^TM" the book.[2] (The chapter starts on p. 179, search for "Roshanda".) One conclusion is that, although there is a correlation between having a distinctively black name and "life outcome", the name by itself is not at fault, but the circumstances of the family into which a child is born. The tables of the most common names (split in varying combinations according to black|white, girl|boy, low-income|high-income, low-education parents|high-education parents, 1960|1980 or 1990|2000) show that "high-end" names quickly become "low-end" names and cycle out of use. --Lambiam ^Talk 11:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the names for twins on that site are horrifying. Here's the top ten:

Jacob, Joshua
Matthew, Michael
Daniel, David
Ella, Emma
Isaac, Isaiah
Madison, Morgan
Landon, Logan
Taylor, Tyler
Brandon, Bryan
Christian, Christopher

I think it's fair to assume these poor kids will spend their childhoods in matching outfits. --TotoBaggins 13:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How sad - elephant deaths

I recently came across the following sad articles:

Anyone know of any other historical animal deaths/abuses? Not just elephants, but any sort. I can think of the space dogs and the space monkeys for starters, but can't think of anything else for the moment. Though that detour did bring up the little gem of spider webs in space! Carcharoth 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a few:

Unnecessary_Fuss

Britches

Primate experiments at Cambridge University

Covance

Huntingdon Life Sciences

Pit of despair

Silver Spring monkeys

Rfwoolf 16:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sick. Still, I did ask. Thanks. Carcharoth 18:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the members of the species of bipedal primates Homo sapiens count as animals? Then there are a few more cases. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of offending anyone, I should note many of those examples are not "abuse" in an objective form (~~since~~ many of the experiments were legally sanctioned) and neither were many of them particularly notable other than that animal rights activists chose to use them for publicity purposes (Harlow's Pit of Despair, the possible exception to this). For some other notable experimental animals - in that their use, and subsequent deaths, shaped human history, see Laika, Dolly the Sheep, Cumulina, Ivan Pavlov's and Frederick Banting's dogs, the original BALB/c founding stock. These are among the truly notable through the rich history of model organisms, rather then examples of adroit media manipulation by PETA et al. Rockpocket 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is state-sanctioned, doesn't mean it can't constitute abuse. See human rights. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 20:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence objective - see Animal rights#Animal rights in law and Cruelty to animals. Rockpocket 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the non sequitur doesn't clarify it, unless you're taking the nominalist line that an act isn't wrong unless the almighty legislature says so. —Tamfang 23:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, then. With regards to the treatment of animals for human purposes (rather than human treatment of other humans), what is considered "right" and what is "wrong", what is "abuse" and what is not, is largely subjective, since there is no consensus among humans for awarding animals rights. Therefore the use of the term "abuse" outside a legal framework reflects but one point-of-view. This view is perfectly acceptable, of course, and may be held by a significant, though unknown, proportion of people. I felt that to be worth pointing out in the interests of WP:NPOV. Rockpocket 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of objective I think you mean legally. There is a big difference. Something can objectively be "murder" but legally dismissed on a technicality or plea bargained down to "manslaughter", etc. In any case some animal deaths by science are more easily justified in the long term than others; Dolly sure, Banting's dogs yes, Laika probably not, anything Harlow did probably not. --24.147.86.187 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant objective. When we are talking about interpretations of "abuse" based on our moral beliefs, then the issue of objectivity and subjectivity is important. My error above was the use of the word since, suggesting that it is lacking objectivity because it is legally sanctioned. I appreciate this is not the case and have struck it to indicate as such. Rockpocket 23:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying, but the offending sentence still seems to say that the cases in question were objectively not abuse; and implies that other cases were abuse by the (nonexistent?) objective standard. Hence the uproar. —Tamfang 09:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only objective standard we (as in Wikipedia) use to describe animal abuse is legal criteria. An animal is described as being "abused" (as opposed to being "used") when the law or rule governing the terms of its use are broken. If that is not the case, the use of the term "abuse" is subjective and we must attribute it to the holder of that opinion. The cases I referred to did not meet those objective standards, therefore I suggested the term was being used subjectively. There are indeed cases of "animal abuse" by those standards. I don't see what is so controversial about this rather obvious application of WP:NPOV. Rockpocket 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite buy that legal definitions of animal abuse are any more objective than any other definition, as laws are based on the same subjective criteria as any other standard. Also, the same activity (say setting a cat on fire) may be illegal and carry serious jail time in some countries and not be a crime at all in other countries. StuRat 03:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed true that the creation of the laws are based on subjective criteria. However, for our purposes as an encyclopaedia, we can cite those laws as an basis for using "abuse" as a descriptor in an objective, neutral manner, because it is independent of personal opinion. That does leave situations where something that happens in one jurisdiction is "abuse" but isn't in another. But that is no different, for example, than having sex with a 16yr old. In the US you would be described as a sex offender, in the UK a player. Rockpocket 07:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing the question back to elephant deaths, the links from the List of historical elephants might be useful. --Anonymous, May 28, 00:28 (UTC).

Some animal rights groups say that the list of abused animals includes all in a zoo, all pets, all working animals,all performing animals all research animals, all farm animals including all milk cows, beef cattle, sheep and goats, animals raised for wool or fur. That includes a lot of animals. Apparently only those who live in some state of nature are not abused. Not clear if their being eaten by other animals or dying of starvation or disease would constitute abuse or be a reason for sadness. Edison 16:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Socialism and German Universities.

I previously asked a question on Martin Heidegger and got a most useful answer here. I would now be interested in the consequences the rise of National Socialism had for German university life more generally. Some specific examples would be useful. My thanks E. G. A.. Husserl 18:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the students finding the party, in Nazi Germany the Party finds the students?

There is a very good essay by Tim Grady in the July 2002 issue of History Today which examines the single example of the Friedrich-Alexander-University, Erlangen-Nuremberg in Bavaria. More widely, you may care to consult Students and National Socialism in Germany by Geoffery Giles, and The German Universities and National Socialism by Edward Hartshorne. The latter was published in London in 1937, and is thus, I would imagine, only available in a decent research library.

It is a sad fact that German Universities were among the earliest of the national institutions to embrace Nazi ideology. This is explained, in part, by the emergence in the period after the First World War of a 'lumpen proletariat' mentality among a large part of the undergraduate population. There were simply too many students, living often in quite squalid conditions, and competing for too few jobs on graduation. It was argued by those on the right that Jewish people, who formed only one per cent of the general population, were taking up as much as four or five percent of the university places. To this antisemitic mood one has to add the general right-wing political ethos of German university life of the day, which carried over many traditions from the Kaiserreich, including that of the dueling fraternities, which all outlawed Jewish membership as early as 1921. At Erlangen the General Student Committee was dominated by right-wing groups, including the National Socialist German Students' League, known as the NSDStB-the largest of them all. In 1929 the NSDStB at Erlangen delivered a considerable propaganda coup to Hitler by winning the elections to the Student Council on a platform which, amongst other things, announced that 'the struggle against the Jews is nothing other than self-defence.' The mood amongst the student body was also to be found, in some measure, among the academic staff. Although demands from the students for a numerus clausus, limiting Jewish intake, was rejected, a wave of provocative right-wing behaviour was accepted without action or reprimand. One Jewish student who wrote a letter of complaint to the Vice-Chancellor was merely told to avoid 'doing anything that could excite or annoy his völkisch leaning colleagues.'

After the Nazis came to power the students at Erlangen and elsewhere took an active part in the burning of 'subversive' books of May 1933. Although instigated by Goebbels, it was the NSDStB which arranged the whole spectacle, and selected the candidates for incineration. It was at this time that antisemitism in the university sector shifted from a student-led activity to standard policy. In April 1933 two significant measures were introduced in this regard: The National Law for the Restoration of the Career Civil Service, which removed Jews from the civil service, and the National Law for Overcrowding in German Schools and Universities. Since academic were classified as civil servants, Jewish teachers now faced possible expulsion. The second introduced the numerus clausus, previously demanded by some among the Erlangen student body. In the winter of 1932-33 there were 3,336 Jewish students in German universities. A year later this had declined to 812. Jewish academics were dismissed across the whole sector. Some teacheres were dismissed merely for having Jewish partners. The whole atmosphere was one of fear and intimidation. At Erlangen one professor of archaeology received a severe reprimand for praising a Jewish academic's research in a scientific journal. By 1938 the whole university sector was declared 'Jew free', and courses on eugenics, nominally part of the medical faculty, were open to all students. Clio the Muse 02:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my dear Clio. I also take this opportunity to thank you for your previous recommendation of Ott's book on Martin Heidegger. It provided all of the information that I was looking for and more. You are a credit to your sex. E. G. A.. Husserl 05:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???! She is a credit to Wikipedia! Corvus cornix 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me: I meant no offence. I'm just a little old-fashioned. E. G. A.. Husserl 08:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm touched! Clio the Muse 23:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petrarch's library materials

Petrarch during his lifetime collected much material for his personal research. When he died, how was this material dispersed? Who received most of Petrarch's library (ancient books) and personal manuscripts (i.e. Africa, De Viris Illustribus, letters, poems, etc).--Doug ^talk 22:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Petrarch, he bequeathed his notable library of manuscripts to the city of Venice, where they form part of the nucleus of the Biblioteca Marciana. I don't know if this included personal manuscripts such as letters and notes. The answer to that may possibly found in Petrarch's testament, which should make clear what he bequeathed to whom. It has been translated to English by Theodor E. Mommsen (not the Theodor Mommsen but a grandson) and was published under the title Petrarch's Testament by Cornell University Press in 1957. It is not in print, but available second hand.[3] I don't have access to a library, otherwise I would have looked it up. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Lambiam for this excellent answer. I have located a source of this translation and can get it through ILL.--Doug ^talk 13:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

invocational address

request information on how to deliver an invocational speech/prayer that does not offend people of all religions for a large union group of various ethnic/cultural backgrounds.

The standard lawyerly term for God, when trying not to offend, is "a higher power". I believe Alcoholics Anonymous uses this dodge to avoid lawsuits that court mandated AA counseling is a violation of the separation of Church and State in the US. This "higher power" can be taken as God, gods, or some other creative force in the universe. Avoid mentioning sex or alcohol consumption, but common sense should tell you that. Toss in an inoffensive joke (there are a few) and you've got it written. StuRat 03:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC) StuRat 03:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us more about what kind of event occasions such an invocational speech? I assume the intended sense of "invocational" here is not the dictionary meaning of "the act of conjuring up a spirit by incantation", but, rather, "an appeal to a higher power for assistance". If all these people are followers of monotheistic religions, then surely a formula like "may God's blessing be with/upon ..." is inoffensive to everyone present. Hindus should not be offended either, since they see their various Gods as diverse manifestations of one Supreme Being. The situation with Buddhism is less clear (see God in Buddhism), and Taoism seems to be genuinely polytheistic. Invoking God in the name of everyone present may be most offensive to any atheists. A possible acceptable formulation to those could be to omit a reference to any possible bestower of the blessing wished for: "may blessing be with/upon ...". Then again, believers might get offended... there is no sure way to please all people. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophiles in Nazi Germany?

What did the Nazi's do with pedophiles?--81.76.16.52 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some info: Sexual deviance laws passed by the Nazi government. Anchoress 23:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this sounds bad, but from reading that, I think the Nazis had the right idea in that area. I see pedophilia apologists spouting off on the internet and it makes me feel sick to the stomach.--81.76.16.52 23:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a large part of the german people at that time were convinced of the nazi ideology and supported it. The nazi party gained 37.4% of votes in the first elections of 1932 (German election, July 1932). Although the support receded after that, and no free elections were held after 1932, it is reasonable to assume that the support for the nazi party was even higher during the war in 1940-1941. It would be very stupid to believe, that a single evil man with a strange moustache decieved the world. The nazi ideology had and has a lot of honest supporters, like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.28.243 (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we now stick to the original question and perhaps not debate the merits of Nazi ideology and policy? Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how we should interpret this: "paragraph 176 outlawed pedophilia". Did it outlaw sexual desire for children itself, or did it outlaw abusing children, or did it outlaw having sex with children? What about children that had sex with other children, was that "legal"? A.Z. 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likely it outlawed adults having sex with children. Likely they had age of consent laws like everywhere else. The Nazis took extreme care with their laws in order to make them look rational and orderly. It is one of the fetishes of authoritarian states to appear "legal" and thus "legitimate." Actual enforcement and practice was rarely as orderly as the language of the laws, or relied upon extreme ambiguity in laws ("enemies of the state", "endangering national security", etc.). --24.147.86.187 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. We do have an article on Paragraph 175, but not one on Paragraph 176, although German language Wikipedia does: § 176 StGB. A.Z. 01:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, that article is on today's penal code and doesn't discuss § 176 as it existed during the Third Reich. § 175 has been repealed and removed without substitution from modern day Germany's penal code [4], while § 176 is still there, addressing "Sexual abuse of children" [5]. I can't reference the changes to § 176 since 1945 though. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is VERY hard indeed to work this out exactly.

The Wikipedia article on German ages of consent explains that the lowest age for sex was set at 14 during 1870s and it does not mention any rise in the Nazi era.

There is frequent reference to a paragraph 176 which outlawed paedophillia.

However I have come across web refs that simply say that this applys to those in a dependancy relationship (this was aimed at those charge of the Hitler Youth). In relation to lesbian relationships one web ref says And, where a so-called relation of dependence existed between a superior and a subordinate or between a teacher and a school girl, the provision of paragraph 176 of the penal code would apply." This would imply that 176 had to have a higher age of consent for those in a dependant relationship because the standard age (i.e. 14) was inadequate to offer protection in such cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.249.5 (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to avoid discussions like this because of some of the 'fruit' they tend to bear; but a feel perhaps one or two observations might be appropriate, purely for the sake of clarification. First a question, one with a rhetorical intent, I fully admit. Do you feel that the existing laws we have today against pedophilia are somehow less stringent than those in the German penal code in use during the Third Reich? This is certainly not the case in my own country (England) nor, I suspect, is it the case in most other countries. In all my reading on the subject of Nazi Germany I have never come across any evidence to suggest that pedophilia was identified as a particular problem in Germany to which the Third Reich offered a unique solution. However, it did offer a solution to other 'problems' connected with children, as you will discover if you care to cast your eye over the page on Action T4. I remember one case I read of in an article on the operation of the euthanasia programme, concerning a little girl 'who liked to sing in the morning'. She was gassed at Hadamar in 1940. Those who participated in T4, men like Christian Wirth and Franz Stangl went on to even greater tasks. You are worried about pedophilia apologists on the internet? This must be bad, I feel sure; but it is in the nature of the medium. There is so much poison out there, as we must all be aware, including pages with apologetics for the likes of Irma Grese (yes, Irma Grese) and Julius Streicher. Now, if you really want to be 'sick to the stomach', as you put it, and if you can read German, have a look for an copy of Der Stürmer, any copy, it does not really matter, for the general thrust is much the same. It might put you in a slightly better position to pass judgement on the moral standards favoured by the Third Reich. Clio the Muse 09:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information that this thread provided so far does not allow us to compare the stringentness of the laws that there are in England today with those in the German penal code. Anchoress's link only says "paragraph 176 outlawed pedophilia". It doesn't explain what they mean by pedophilia (though someone suggested a meaning above), nor what was the punishment for those convicted for this crime. A.Z. 16:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I was wrong (and so was Clio the Muse): "Paragraph 174 of the penal code forbade incest and other sexual offenses with dependents, while paragraph 176 outlawed pedophilia. Persons convicted under these laws also wore the pink triangle. The Nazi's passed other laws that targeted sex offenders. In 1933, they enacted the Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals and Measures for Protection and Recovery. This law gave German judges the power to order compulsory castrations in cases involving rape, defilement, illicit sex acts with children (Paragraph 176)." A.Z. 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Nazi officials would have only enforced anti-pedophilia laws against people they considered "subhuman". The logic would be "Aryans aren't sexual deviants, so, if one is so accused, then they are either innocent or they aren't an Aryan". On the other hand, early on, when being a Jew or some other "undesirable" wasn't yet legal cause for imprisonment, the Nazis may very well have falsified charges of pedophile against them. I believe in the movie Judgement at Nuremberg, an account was given of how charges were falsified against an older Jewish man for supposedly having sexual relations with an Aryan girl (played by Judy Garland). In this case, the charge was a violation of a law forbidding sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews, and the girl may have been above the age of consent, and this particular case may be fictional, but I still feel this illustrates how charges of "sexual perversion" could be brought against those the Nazis wanted eliminated. BTW, I highly recommend that movie (who wouldn't like a movie with both Captain Kirk and Colonel Klink in it ?). :-) StuRat 03:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

noms d'electron

Has anything been written about why most of us adopt fanciful handles for such purposes as this, even when anonymity is not a factor? Is it a tradition with an identifiable root? —Tamfang 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this study (pdf file!), titled The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior, by Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson (Stanford University) offers some insight. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of ink spilled on the subject every year, but rarely is it really strong or satisfying to those of us with "handles." In the US, this mania began with Citizen's band radio, where hairless paunch porters called themselves "Red Baron" and the like. However, if you want to spend your time parsing the papers, I think CMC Journal ("computer mediated communication") is one of the more august organs. Personally, I'd suggest that names fall into the heroic cult (mine), the aspect identifier (foxymama44 and bruinsfan10), the cleverness sign (mine, too), etc. They have functions of identification. Whether they are actually meaningful in that regard anymore or not is another matter. Utgard Loki 13:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that Yee and Bailenson recognize part of the cleverness and included your handle's second half in their paper? (Along with werewolves, vampires, kitsune, and Proteus) ---Sluzzelin talk 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been incidents of persons who have strong beliefs about some issue harrassing those who dare to disagree. This has ranged from angry emails and phone calls to bogus accusations of violations of the law to physical assults. One problem with use of a particular penname is that others may take it as an implication of bias in discussions of issues relating to historical personages with similar names. Many famous persons wrote letters to the editor under pennames, so there is a historical background. Benjamin Franklin wrote as the prudish widow Mrs."Silence Dogood." Alexander Hamilton published as "Publius." I can't find a reference, but I seem to recall that Abraham Lincoln also used a pen name for newspaper writings. Edison 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln used the pen name "Rebecca" to criticize another politician per [6]. This reportedly led to a demand for a duel on the part of the target. Edison 16:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 27

Contents