Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 December 2

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.

December 2

Illustration identification

Can anyone identify the artist, date and medium of each of the four illustrations of Ely in Collins, W W (1908) The Cathedral Cities of England? This catalogue may hold the key but it is marked no review from the UK and thus I am unable to see inside it. Of particular interest to me is the illustration, probably a watercolour, of Ely Market --Senra (Talk) 00:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't help you on the dates, but the signatures that appear on many of the artworks depicted in the book make it clear that they all were painted by Collins himself. Since the subtitle of the book is "60 reproductions from original watercolors", the medium is also clear. Deor (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. I must be tired :( Thank you for putting me right. What threw me is the catalogue I linked above. Still, if anyone can dig up a date, especially for the Ely marketplace, It would be good. In the meantime, thank you Deor --Senra (Talk) 01:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the publication of the exhibition catalogue in 1905 gives you a firm terminus ante quem (assuming that the Ely market painting was included in the exhibition, which seems likely). That very painting, or one very much like it, was sold at Christie's for £715 in 1992, though their lot description doesn't date it. Deor (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Any connection to William Wilkie Collins, better known as Wilkie Collins? He was the son of Royal Academician landscape artist William Collins, and dabbled in art before turning to literature (The Moonstone, The Woman in White, etc.). BrainyBabe (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My dude is William Wiehe Collins. Indeed he may be related but if he is, I am not aware of the relationship --Senra (Talk) 00:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There is now an article on William Wiehe Collins --Senra (Talk) 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Stations of the Cross at Pájara

I was impressed by the Stations of the Cross paintings inside the church of Nuestra Señora de Regla at Pájara, Fuerteventura. Is there any information available about who painted them and when? --Frumpo (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not. I've searched, but can find nothing about the paintings inside the church, only about the carvings on the outside and the church itself (rebuilt in 1687). However, this page has an address and email for the Museo de Arte Sacro de Fuerteventura in Betancuria, who may be able to help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll report back if I get a response from them. --Frumpo (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing

Above, in the post concerning proving God, I had a question which may be quite philosophical in nature. "Nothing", the concept, is the absence of anything. Has science ever verified that the concept of "nothing" really exists (is it possible for there to actually be nothing), or is it just accepted on the basis of not "something"? I'm not sure if I worded that well, as it's not an easy question to express. Thanks! Falconus^{p t c} 10:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not sure if this is more suited for the Humanities desk or the Science desk. Falconus^{p t c} 10:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Nothing" is a human concept. The logical construct called the empty set would be its equivalent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But of course, the empty set is not nothing, but something. Indeed, it is the basis for the standard construction of the Natural numbers, which, of course, are made by God (at least according to Leopold Kronecker). This brings us nicely back to the beginning ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the book Nothing: A very short introduction by Frank Close (ISBN 9780199225866)? Gabbe (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A close physical concept is vacuum- a space with absolutely no matter or energy. That article explains why a pure vacuum can't really exist. "Empty" outer space is close, but not perfect. Staecker (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

According to modern physics, at quantum scales, so called "empty space" or "vacuum" in fact is in constant fluctuation with spontaneous creation of particles in matter-antimatter pairs (almost always quickly followed by their mutual annihilation) etc. etc. According to some ways of conceptually measuring things, there's actually quite a bit of energy locked up in a "vacuum"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In both these questions you display an unfashionable philosophy of verificationism. Most scientists prefer falsifiability, and will tell you that science doesn't prove things, it tests things, sometimes ruling theories out but never ruling them in. So, science can't tell you whether nothing exists ... it can only tell you whether nothing doesn't exist, provided you can formulate a test which nothing would fail if it didn't exist. I hope that's clear.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Then the questions should be has there been 1. significant evidence that suggests against the existence of "nothing", and 2. significant evidence against the existence of "anything" in any circumstance. I know well that science doesn't prove things, but it can certainly indicate things. Falconus^{p t c} 15:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the testable hypothesis? If nothing is defined as having no effect on anything, then it is by definition impossible to test for - it's the ultimate Russel's teapot. Perhaps nothing has some indirect effect on things, which I can't imagine? If it's context-dependent, as in the absence of an expected something, a gap, then you have vacuum, which has already been mentioned. Presumably then you mean a point in time at which nothing exists, anywhere. In a multiverse any physically possible state can occur - even if we can't reach it (or didn't begin from it) - and the state where nothing exists seems trivial - but the question remains: how can we identify the condition where nothing exists, and tell it apart from the opposite, where nothing doesn't exist (and nothing else does either)?  Card Zero  (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a issue of semantics instead of science. Once you define what "nothing" or "anything" means, it should be easy to get an answer. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In order to understand a concept, you have to be able to distinguish the concept (for instance, "x") from not-the-concept (or "not-x"). So there is a sense in which you are correct that it is accepted as "not-something," and we can be certain that something exists. So in this sense, the understanding is a philosophical one. The scientific understanding traditionally is that the vacuum of space is empty, and therefore "nothing" exists there. However, with quantum physics we are now understanding that particles come into and out of existence in a flash all the time. So therefore any given "empty" volume of space is really only empty on average. Greg Bard (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is where it gets into the philosophical debate. My immediate response to what "nothing" is is where you have no matter, energy, space, or time, but I have to say that I honestly don't know what "nothing" really is. And "anything" would be matter, energy, space, or time, or any combination thereof. But I guess that unless there is a scientific definition of nothing and anything, it's really very philosophical, which means there is no right answer (and besides that, in these subjects, I only have a vague idea what I am talking about) Falconus^{p t c} 21:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC) (this was somehow posted out of order, so I moved it)

If it's philosophical question, I'm reminded of Nietzsche's And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee. What did he mean by "abyss"? According to this book, In its unconscious abyss, the human being is nothing. Absence and lack if fundamentally inscribed in the human constitution... "Nothingness" is key to a lot of philosophies, like the Buddhist concept of Śūnyatā, "form is emptiness, emptiness form". Taoism also has a lot to say about emptiness and nothing. Pfly (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Story about a child who enjoys pain

I am looking for something which I've read before, though I can't remember the title, author or collection it was published in. Hoping it might ring a bell with someone on here.

The story (I am fairly sure it is a short story) centers around a child who enjoys pain. There might be some sort of reason for this - it silences some noise in his head, or he gets pleasure out of it, I can't remember which. The child does such things, I recall, as rolling their eyes back into their skull until they throb dully. That's the nearest to a quote I've got. I remember this goes on - the parents' frustration increasing - and the child protagonist is narrating it all from the future, first-person, in a quite impassively observational style. A lot of it bears semblance to autism - I don't think the child can speak at the beginning of this story, but learns over time. The story ends with the child seeming to 'grow out' of this phase, gets a job, is a normal person etc.

I had guessed this was by Will Self or Augusten Burroughs, but looking into their works has not given me any joy. Be thrilled if anyone can help. Thanks. 83.244.180.83 (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the publication date? Where did you read it? 164.107.189.171 (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it the story where the child plucks out their pubic hairs (I think) one by one? Where they have a feverish childhood disease which affects their brain, such that before it they were in the stream for grammar school, preparing for a good 11 plus score, but afterwards they just can't do it? If it's that one, I think it was an autobiography. 86.164.60.202 (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How can you enjoy pain? Pain means uncomfortable sensation, isn't it? Anyway, strange. --Sp33dyphil © • © 10:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"How can you enjoy pain?" is a dismissive and inappropriate question. See Self-harm. Cutters (often young teenage girls who suffer from anxiety, depression or anger control issues) cut their arms with a razor, or harm themselves in other ways not because it is "enjoyable," and not in a suicide attempt. It can be a coping mechanism when there is psychic pain. The physical pain can be a substitute for the mental anguish. Hair-pulling (Trichotillomania) is a related behavior. Edison (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Women allowed to study in Portugal

When was the universities open to women in Portugal? I assume somewhere in the late 19th century? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This book: The Modern Woman's Rights Movement By Kaethe Schirmacher written in 1912 says "As yet there are no public high schools for girls, but there are a number of private schools that prepare women for university entrance examinations. The universities admit women." Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This book Storia della storiografia, Volumes 45-46 says (footnote on page 16) "(Women could attend university courses in) Portugal in the 1880s". Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

1880s sounds realistic, but I would like a proper year, not just a decade. There is a difference between 1880 and 1889. --Aciram (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Might it be worth asking the question, even in English, on the Portuguese WP RefDesk? That is, assuming the lusophones are active: Brazil, after all, is a populous BRIC. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Do I dare to do that? They would certainly know. --Aciram (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between "Christian Fundamentalist" vs. "Conservative Christian" vs. "Christian Right"?

What is the difference between "Christian Fundamentalist" vs. "Conservative Christian" vs. "Christian Right"? Is the antonym for "Christian Fundamentalist" "anti-Christian Fundamentalist"? Is there such a thing called the "Christian Left" or "Liberal Christians" or "Progressive Christians" or "Communistic Christians" or "Socialistic Christians" or something like those aforementioned to describe beliefs contrary to the three in the title? Finally, how is it possible for Christianity to support two seemingly contradicting ideologies -- liberal and conservative? Which interpretation is "more accurate" to the teachings of Christ, or are they both subjective and prone to misinterpretation? 164.107.190.86 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Answers to some of your questions might be found in our articles on Christian right, Christian left, Christianity and politics, Christian socialism, Christian communism, progressive Christianity and liberal Christianity. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ was the original hippie, he would be liberal in modern times. Moses, Abraham, and the Old Testament folks, however, were conservative.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What a great bumper sticker: "Jesus was a liberal". To the main question in the title, though, Christian fundamentalists are Christians who believe that the words of the Bible are authored by God and to be understood literally, unless they are clearly parables or other figurative language. Christian fundamentalists may differ in their politics, though in the United States at least, most though not all are conservative. Conservative Christians are merely Christians with conservative political beliefs. Not all of these are fundamentalists. The Christian Right are Conservative Christians whose political beliefs have a religious basis, based on their interpretation of the Bible or other religious teachings. Not all conservative Christians are members of the Christian Right, but all members of the Christian Right are conservative Christians. Marco polo (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Jesus was a bearded hippie in sandals who whipped the money-lenders out of the temple, preached for peace and against using force even in self-defense, claimed that material wealth inherently made salvation impossible, was unmarried at 30, but wandered the land with a group of "special" male friends. I can see the attraction for the left ;-). Surprisingly, the religious right seems to be much more into choosing picking things from the Old Testament. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he did not claim that material wealth made salvation impossible. He just said it was harder than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. He explained that this was possible for God. (The listeners asked him who then can be saved?; a reading of it I remember seeing went on to say that this was because they knew that everyone was rich in one way or another.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If Conservative Christians are merely Christians with conservative political beliefs, then what is the terminology used to describe Christians with conservative personal beliefs but do not allow their personal beliefs influence their political decisions, or am I suggesting an impossibility? 164.107.190.86 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the term conservative Christian generally means a Christian whose theological and soteriological, rather than political, views are conservative. The two things are in practice somewhat correlated but logically not the same at all. Also, typically, it means a Protestant Christian with conservative religious views; Catholics with traditional Catholic views are more likely to be described as conservative Catholics rather than conservative Christians.

The difference between a (religiously) conservative Christian and a fundamentalist is complicated. One issue is that some of them hear the term fundamentalist as pejorative or at least reductive; they describe themselves as "conservative" not because they disagree with the positions of fundamentalists, but because they just don't like the word. In the strictest possible sense, a fundamentalist is one who agrees with the teachings of The Fundamentals, a surprisingly intellectual series of tracts published in I think the early 1900s. --Trovatore (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fun though this game is, Jesus of course would not fit into whatever box the person doing the pigeonholing personally belongs to. Jesus represents an orthogonal belief system, and actually took a third option when people tried to trick him into siding with one group or another (Render unto Caesar). Consider how Christian groups like the Catholic Church oppose both abortion and the death penalty, strongly support marriage and also push for a stronger emphasis on rehabilitation in the justice system. In most political systems, this makes it a mishmash of difrerent sides, but that's because it's basing its position on something other than the political divisions. 86.164.60.202 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But the Catholic Church isn't Jesus. In fact he had nothing to do with its establishment, much less any other Christian groups.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL, of course, and Jehovah's Witnesses are the true and faithful servant, the only real Christians! Or is it Mormons who have the only uncorrupted ('retranslated') texts? Or perhaps the Muslims have the real truth about the crucifixion? You are entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to present it as fact. If you're going to whip out Constantine the Great and conspiracy theories about the First Council of Nicea (that's where "Catholics are not Christians" usually goes, especially if it claims Jesus had nothing to do with it), you might want to do a little research into the actual history of early Christianity, and perhaps look up some of the many copies of early Christian documents that survive. Most are available as digital copies online, for free. 86.164.60.202 (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Er... conspiracy theories? Here's the fact: Jesus (in contrast to Mohammed, perhaps) never told anyone to build a new religion around him. He was a Jew.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

See also liberation theology, a Marxist formulation of Christianity. It's possible for Christians to support two opposing ideologies because, first of all, many Christians believe in separation of church and state, and that religious beliefs shouldn't be the basis of public policy. Second, many (most?) Christians consider the Bible a historical document, colored by the biases and culture of its authors, and so not meant to be taken literally. That's why Christians don't necessarily believe the universe was created in 7 days, that giants used to walk the earth and live 900+ years, that women should be subordinate to men, or that homosexuality is a sin, even though the Bible explicitly says all of these things. Third, it's possible to "interpret" (twist) the Bible in any way to suit your preferences. It certainly doesn't help that the Old Testament is self-contradictory, being written by 4 different authors and numerous redactors (see documentary hypothesis) who often found each other's writings offensive and changed them at will. It also doesn't help that Jesus himself rejected aspects of the Hebrew Bible (especially ritualistic aspects) while affirming the supremacy of Scripture, or that Jesus held moral values that contradict those of the Hebrew Bible. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a strange way of putting things -- even most thoughtful fundamentalists would admit that the Bible had many more than four authors... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It did, of course. I actually meant that the 5 main books of the Old Testament were written by 4 main authors and many editors. Even that is only partially true, since things like the Holiness Code were pretty clearly later/earlier insertions. The number of authors and possible authors who wrote the historical books, wisdom books, etc. of the Old Testament, and the New Testament, are too many to count. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent question! First of all despite its popular use, the whole left-right analogy is meaningless in itself. There is a family resemblance relationship between all "lefty" issues and people, and a similar resemblance among all "righty" issues. The correlation is very strong so it appears very meaningful. Fundamentalism has these features: 1) the fundamentals of a political or religious movement should be adhered to strictly, 2) one should actively try to gain converts to one's own position 3) there is only one right way to be. That is, for instance, that Bible believers should believe the Bible literally, so too for those who believe...the Quran, the Constitution, any manifestos, etcetera. Conservatism is just believing that any social or political change should be slow or nonexistent. There isn't anything about Christianity that makes these unique to it. There are fundamentalists of every religion. Greg Bard (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Specific Walmart Profit Margin Question

I'm not going to post links in here, but just now out of curiosity I went to Walmart's website and saw a Toshiba 40" LCD TV for $398. What's a likely ballpark figure that Walmart paid Toshiba per unit for that TV, factoring in Walmart's size and making educated guesses as to what volume of this item they order from Toshiba? $50? $100? $300? Sources for profit margins on electronics, and TVs specifically, and even more preferably, sources applying to mega-retailers like Walmart would be even better than your thoughts alone. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

More than a decade ago I worked in consumer electronics in the US, and at the time we were told that the wholesale ex-factory price was about half the final retail price. By that measure the maker would get about $200. Of that, about half was the bill-of-materials (the cost of components, the manual, the box, the plug, everything) leaving about $100 for the manufacturer's assembly and shipping costs, advertising, and R&D. I don't know what the margins are now - surely the ease of internet price comparisons will have squeezed the retailer's margin down a fair amount. 2.122.75.79 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Walmart's known for squeezing suppliers on pricing (huge, huge power there) as well as keeping prices low even on popular items. I think their markup is lower than that of other retailers. 209.2.60.88 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Walmart utilizes the loss leader strategy. That is, they offer a product at a price that undercuts the competition, even if they have to take a loss on it. However, those products have such minimal features and are of such low quality that most of the people who they bring into the store will upgrade to a more expensive model, where Walmart does make a profit. The upscale models are often more expensive than the comparable models at their competitors. Here is one of the reviews of that model:

"I bought this TV about 3 weeks ago. It has great pictures on the HD channels, they are so so on the regular channels. Sound is terrible. It takes forever to turn on. The remote doesn't reach that far. And it takes a while to change channels. I am returning today."

StuRat (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A little incident in the library

I just observed a librarian turn down a request from two small children about something. She turned down the request. Then the kids found their older friend, a teenage girl, who went to the the librarian again and asked for books on abortion.

Was it really necessary to keep this info from the children? 209.2.60.88 (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really a question for the Wikipedia reference desk. We all have opinions, but this is designed to give facts, citations, sources, and things to research. You can check out abortion debate, but in this case, I have no sources that it was necessary, and none that it wasn't. Falconus^{p t c} 21:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you trolling? A librarian getting two such requests on a particular subject in a short space of time would twig a conspiracy. --Aspro (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not trolling. If you read my question carefully, you'll see that it was one group of girls. As for the first, I thought this place could answer questions of fact, e.g., whether the librarian should've answered the girls' request the first time. 209.2.60.88 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But that's not a request for a fact - it's completely subjective. It's a request for an opinion. A request for a fact would be "What are some societal reasons that may have influenced the librarian's decision to refuse the request?" not, as I interpret your request, "What's your opinion? Did the librarian do the right thing?" Falconus^{p t c} 21:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We already are remarkably able to turn innocuous questions into debates that the ancients wish they could compete with. Do you really want to see 5,000 words of people spouting their opinions in wiki text on this topic? Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And if it is facts that you want, we need to know where the library is as the rules and procedures will be different all over the world - and even within individual countries. Gurumaister (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the answer is simple.

Q: "Was it really necessary to keep this info from the children?" A: "Yes. They'll understand why when they're older."

And if that doesn't answer the question for you now, you'll understand why when you're older.

--Shirt58 (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Which would be your subjective opinion on the matter, not a citable fact. The OP has just been advised we don't do subjective opinions here ... so what do you give us - a subjective opinion. Very helpful, not. This is a reference desk, not a free-for-all for interchange of opinions on social issues. The silly season must already have arrived. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that the children were asking in a way that would make the librarian think they were not actually looking to be enlightened on a controversial topic but rather that they were just looking for a laugh and spark a controversy (as they apparently have been successful doing)? 24.92.85.35 (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll bet this is it. They were pestering the librarian for laughs. I suspect that children's librarians get this sort of thing a lot.

Especially when you consider that the main stacks in most libraries are open, even to children. They could have found the information without too much trouble if they were seriously interested.APL (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)