Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 28

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< August 27 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 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.


August 28

edit

Crime in Denver

edit

Is crime in Denver and its mafia really that bad? Now I know that Chiristophep Walken and Andy Garcia charachters are fictional,but are they modeled after real criminals. Is Denver the worst town in the USA as far as crime is concerned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.192.93 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Geography of crime in the USA] should be of interest to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royor (talk • contribs) 03:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Denver's fine. Are you getting your info from Christopher Walken characters? Shadowjams (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See United States cities by crime rate. Denver has lower than average rates of crime in all the categories listed, so pretty safe as far as U.S. cities go. —D. Monack talk 17:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler as a Surname

edit

In most (all?) Western cultures, it is rather uncommon that a surname is used only by a single person or family. What about "Hitler", as in the Nazi dictator? I wouldn't expect to see a person with that last name today; yet, to me, it appears to follow German spelling rules and as such one would believe it to be a not that uncommon German surname. Did every "Hitler" change their last name after the end of World War II? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this BBC article "German parents are not permitted to name their children Hitler". However, I assume that is limited to first names, and not for people who already have the surname "Hitler". Gabbe (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it originated as a semi-idiosyncratic or dialectal alteration of "Hiedler" in the generation preceding Adolf, which would explain why it's not a common German surname. However, there are reportedly a number of Himmlers in Bavaria who see no reason to change their name... AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to one of those people search engines, there are several people named 'Hitler' living in the US. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 
Not just individual names, either — I've seen one part of the USA where there are two Hitler Roads. The Indian mound in the picture lies near the intersection of Hitler Road No. 1 and Hitler Road No. 2 in Circleville Township, Pickaway County, Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing an old news item originally published in the 1940s, in which an American named Hitler was quoted as saying "It's not me who's causing all that trouble -- let the other guy change his name!" --Anonymous, 04:38 UTC, August 29, 2010.
Heh. If that's true, the joke was re-used 50 or more years later in Office Space, this time by a character called Michael Bolton. "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks!" 81.131.68.208 (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See William Patrick Stuart-Houston. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article, Paula Hitler lived as Paula Wolff after the war. Hut 8.5 11:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps of interest: Belgian child killer Marc Dutroux was so infamous that 1/3 of Belgians who shared his surname changed it when the case came to light. --Sean 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades

edit

Were crusaders considered wise men?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, but not in general. Individual crusaders might be considered wise, like Godfrey of Bouillon, Richard I of England or Louis IX of France. But nobody really became wise just because they joined a crusade. The First Crusade was the most celebrated crusade, and many of the crusaders who returned to France were celebrated as heroes (Robert II of Normandy, for example), but anyone who came back before reaching Jerusalem was usually despised so much that they were forced to go back and do it properly (Stephen II of Blois, for example, who ended up getting killed the second time). Even for the First Crusade though, there were episodes that were not considered wise - the whole Peasants' Crusade, the huge amounts of adultery and prostitution that occurred during it, the possible cannibalism, the massacre in Jerusalem at the end...basically anything the crusaders did right was attributed to God's favour, and anything they did wrong was because they were sinners, a standard medieval explanation for everything. The Second Crusade was considered very unwise, and most people thought the Fourth was pretty unwise as well. There was also a lot of criticism of crusading in general in the Middle Ages, and some authors noted that the kinds of people who went on crusade (other than the kings and other nobles who led them) were often criminals looking to escape punishment at home, who then continued their criminal lifestyle in the east. James of Vitry and Burchard of Mount Sion wrote about that. Vitry actually made a list: "criminal and pestilent men, wicked and impious, sacrilegious, thieves and robbers, homicides, parricides, perjurers, adulterers, and traitors, corsairs - that is, pirates - whoremongers, drunkards, minstrels, dice-players, mimes and actors, apostate monks, nuns that are common harlots..." (from Historia Orientalis, ch. 83). The presence of these kinds of people in the east led to the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, according to critics like Vitry. I would suggest reading "Criticism of Crusading, 1095-1274" by Elizabeth Sibbery for more information on this. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Took the liberty of closing AnonMoos's wlink to Stephen II of Blois. Deor (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The early crusades had several aspects, some of which (such as bigoted religious fanaticism directed at both Jews and Muslims, and the avaricious land-hunger of younger sons of the aristocracy) would not be considered too edifying by modern standards. However, another aspect of the crusades was that the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 A.D. opened up the possibility of a two-pronged Muslim military assault on Europe -- so that if an advance on the Balkans through Anatolia could be combined with a revival of Muslim power in Spain, then Europe could be vulnerable on both eastern and western fronts simultaneously. From that point of view, the first Crusade was partly a sober strategic maneuver to strike a military blow behind enemy lines, and so distract Muslim states from expanding into Europe, and perhaps ideally form an alliance with the remaining Christians in the middle east that could form a solid Christian beachhead in the heart of enemy territory. The first Crusade was actually rather successful in accomplishing some of these goals, at least for a time; however, subsequent Crusades after the second quickly deteriorated as far as having any real strategic military importance...
Of course, yet another aspect of the Crusades was seeking simple revenge for the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 A.D. AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of Pashtunistan and consequences for NATO

edit

It seems to me (and I'm by no means an expert on the matter) that the Taliban, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, are at least to a certain extent driven by a sense of Pashtun nationalism that has co-opted a certain interpretation of Islam. That is, just as the Viet Cong were at once a Communist and a nationalist movement, so the Taliban are at once fundamentalist and nationalist. In that case, what would be the effect of the creation of Pashtunistan in southern Afghanistan on the Taliban? It seems to me (please reference above caveat) that the likely outcome, supposing that the borders were drawn such that there were no major Pashtun populations excluded and that the ISAF withdrew completely from the new country, would be that the Taliban would quickly take it over, and then redirect most of their efforts into the Pashtun areas of Pakistan. Pakistan, in turn, would immediately try to either gain control of or destroy the new state, because it would be viewed as a threat to the stability of Pakistan. In which case, the ISAF would have transitioned from fighting an insurgency that is partially based in and sometimes even aided by a neighboring country to sitting on the sidelines of an conflict between two states -- i.e. the attentions of the Taliban would be directed to regional actors, and would cease to pose a significant threat to the US or Europe.

Obviously, this would never happen, not least because of the glaring immorality of essentially throwing the civilian population in the area to the wolves, so to speak, and also because it is probably a Very Bad Idea to do anything to encourage the rise of a fundamentalist state in a country with nuclear weapons. But considered as a hypothetical, without reference to whether it SHOULD be done (answer: no), do you think I am generally accurate in my analysis? What factors have I not considered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.0.81 (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk does not engage in speculation. Rojomoke (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, RD contributors quite frequently enters into speculative arguments. However, there cannot be an definitive answers to hypotetichal scenarios. There are streams of Pashtun nationalism, in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, but it seems very, very unlike that those forces would be able to acheive full separation from the two existing states. Pashtun nationlism in Pakistan carries secular values, and is sometimes somewhat leftist. If that movement would acheive major success (as the separation of Pashtun areas from Pakistan), it would probably affect the balance of power inside Afghanistan (as Pashtun nationalism could emerge as a political alternative to the Taliban). That scenario is, however, again one of the least likely outcomes of the present conflict. --Soman (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

killing

edit

Why do we kill people too show that killing people is wrong. --86.41.133.57 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Reference Desk. How may we help you?--Wetman (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume from the phrasing that the questioner has an essay on the paradox of capital punishment... have you tried our article on Capital punishment debate? --Saalstin (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good deductive thinking, Saalstin.--Wetman (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soapboxing
In fact, what this guy's saying is quite right. Capital punishment should be abolished. We have no right to take someone's life even if he is a killer (locking him away for life is enough ). Gandhi is perfectly right when he says that taking an eye for an eye will make whole world blind. But some religions have killing (those who commit adultery, homo or not follow your religion) as principle. Even punishments like cutting someone's hand (for thievery) is not OK, and should be banished.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need Peace, no ?

edit
Excuse for soapboxing masquerading as a valid question.

We know like anything that islam is a religion of peace, infact it literally means peace. Then what is problem in letting 'em build a mosque at ground zero ? I mean it will bring peace, and that's all we need !  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islam means submission to God, a very pious goal indeed. Peace is not the goal of Muslims, however it is (seems to be, I'm no islam expert) total conversion of the human race see this. The question one must ask themselves is what is important in life and how does one accomplish that which is at the top of the list. If your list includes subjugation of a religion which you think is false, rather than conversion of that believer, then your prerogative is just that. I assume you are an American Christian. I would urge you to crack open your bible and read Matthew 28:19 and Isaiah 2:4.schyler (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem - What Schyler is saying is perfectly right but most people in west will discourage him from being so open or even mark him racist etc. Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Islam does NOT in fact mean "peace" in Arabic. It is, however, derived from the same triconsonantal root from which the Arabic word for "peace" -- salaam -- is also derived (which is quite a different matter). As for the phrase, see article Religion of Peace... AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And of course it's not a mosque and it's not at the WTC site, but you know...details. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not exactly a mosque, but something close enough to islam. That's enough to be seen as a trophy of triumph of the only true faith over the infidels, future generations will be held in awe  Jon Ascton  (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that shows the value of taking you seriously. Foregone conclusions all round. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is something wrong with the way we think (I sound damn impolite to you. Political correctness required.) You should read brave muslims like Ali Sina. They will open your eyes (provided they are in working condition)  Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Swastika

edit

...Said the guy who had a swastika in his userpage [1]--151.51.145.104 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to see how an animated .GIF looks in userpage. I could have drawn any shape, but this shape looks most interesting while rotating. I have no Nazi or even religious affiliations.  Jon Ascton  (talk)
...Said the guy who wrote Yeah, it's not exactly a mosque, but something close enough to islam. That's enough to be seen as a trophy of triumph of the only true faith over the infidels, future generations will be held in awe.--151.51.145.104 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and this does prove that perfectly sane people with no prejudices or racist bias are not very happy with islam  Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


...Quipped the IP user who was quick to jump to conclusions and didn't bother to look further to find out the user was Indian and the swastika could very well be first and foremost ornamental or of religious significance to him. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will add a Swastika to my user page too, we have to stop this silly assumption that anyone using it is a Nazi. You might as well say the same thing about the cross, which appeared on many Nazi medals. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I actually expected this. That swastika is more similar to this [2] than this [3]. Then try to explain the artillery and Stalin picture too...--151.51.145.104 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the names for a Greek cross inside a circle is "Sunwheel" or Sun cross, and it's been claimed to have many meanings in various contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Crusades caused far less damage and disruption to middle-eastern societies than the Mongol invasions, I wonder why Muslims don't claim to be offended by the Soyombo symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Mongols are no longer a threat to the Muslim world? The notion that the Golden Horde would rise as a world superpower again is really, really distant, whilst quite few Muslim countries have experienced Western colonialism or occupation during the past century. (One could of course argue that the modern USA is by no means a direct incarnation of the Crusaders, but such an argument is not helped by the discourse of George W. Bush & Co.) --Soman (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it has far more to do with modern politics than with genuine ancient grievances -- exactly as I was implying... AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Height Over History

edit

Is there a graph showing the average height of humans throughout history? --Cgpgrey (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Biological Standard of Living in Europe During the Last Two Millennia is confined to Europe and has zig zag graphs. Dug up by Rockpocket as an answer to this similar question. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In several parts of the world, height seems to have gone down with the adoption of intensive agriculture supporting dense populations in prehistoric times, since such settled agriculturalists often had less-diverse and lower-quality diets than their hunter-gatherer or slash-and-burn agriculturalist ancestors. In the last century or so, it has tended to go up in the nations with "advanced" economies... AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On seeing a suit of armour in a Castle in, or close to, the Black Forest, Burg Eltz, the impression given is that the people then were small in stature, even allowing for short plating to give a better freedom of movement. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas, in fact, height has varied widely with time and place, as shown in the link. We should be careful not to sort history into 'here and now' and 'all other times and places ("then")'. I remember seeing an interesting (written for laypeople) article on how the heights of (I think) Fins had varied in recent generations, and it was very dramatic: I think it then went on to broader points about height variation across history, but I'm struggling to find the article. I think I may have the country wrong. Does it ring any bells for anyone? It might have come out about the time people were starting to talk about the epigenetics of height. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To go back to my experience at Burg Eltz, it was the historians familiar with this branch of study who made the inference, (the words are theirs). The families there (directly related) did not show any shortness in stature, and were embarrassed. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I add an important point here. The Child Growth Foundation, have just published their figures (BBC News). They say: We are overall 1" taller than we were 100 yrs. ago! I present this to show how professional people often relate to us their findings, often forgetting Logic! MacOfJesus (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article page; Human Height, this may be the article you are looking for. It contains the graph, I think, you are looking for. (Also, there is a long list of "see also" at the end). {The Historians who gave their lectures were using their shades of humour.} MacOfJesus (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_August_28&oldid=1073427465"