Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 April 24

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 24

Federal Reserve

Dear Sirs, Excuse me but their seems to be a small but important discrepancy in your references to which entity is the central bank of the U.S. In the third paragraph it seems to suggest that the US Treasury is the central bank whereas in the guiding principle of the FED it suggests that it was enacted to be the central bank. Thank you, Steven Rosenfeld — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.14.156 (talk • contribs)

The Reference Desk isn't really the place for this kind of note, but I'm inclined to correct the error anyway. However, I'm stymied, because I can't tell which article's third paragraph seems to suggest that the US Treasury is the central bank. John M Baker (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The only article that seems to contain "US treasury" and "central bank" is Federal Reserve System. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather. I don't see anything in that article suggesting that Treasury is the central bank, though. John M Baker (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hard drugs

Are there any studies on what attracts people to hard drugs such as cocaine, crack, heroin, meth etc. ? Pass a Method talk 16:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Start at the Wikipedia article titled Substance abuse and follow links from there. --Jayron32 16:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It does not mention what causes the initial attraction in the first place. Pass a Method talk 16:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually substance dependence is more relevant here. There has been an enormous amount of research on this topic. Generally speaking drugs that are addictive either upregulate the brain systems that implement pleasure and reward (cocaine, meth, nicotine), or downregulate the brain systems that implement pain and suffering (heroin, alcohol, tranquilizers), or both. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That's describing the effect of having taken the drugs. But I think PtM is asking about why someone would cross the bridge from "Never used that drug" to "Have used that drug". Both deliberate and unconscious peer pressure would play a major role (that's what's at play when young people get smashed on alcohol, and continues when they immediately hop in their cars full of their equally smashed mates and go and drive into trees at 120 kph). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Jack ofoz understood me correctly Pass a Method talk 19:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet Jack has failed to illustrate why a peer-preussure would exist for something so unappealing. Pass a Method talk 19:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

They are unappealing to you, but obviously not to others. See this study, for example, in response to your question. Marco polo (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That's just it, they're not unappealing to a number of people. Some will use it just for recreation, others to escape the unpleasantness of their life for a while. Plus, people have a strong capacity for assuming the bad side "would never happen to me." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What's this "failed" business, Pass a Method? Failure occurs only when one identifies a goal, attempts to reach it, but falls short. I never said I would illustrate why peer-pressure would exist for something so unappealing. Mainly because I don't know. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've heard drug and alcohol abuse described as "self-medicating". That is, those substances provide some benefit similar to medication. One example is pain relievers. I wonder if people who feel pain more intensely are thus more likely to abuse pain killers. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything unappealing in taking drugs if you don't think about the future. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

HELP IDENTIFYING PIECE OF ANTIQUE GOLD JEWELRY (POSSIBLY GEORGIAN ERA)

jewelry in question

Hi, so this is the first time I have used this forum. But it seems like it might be the right place to ask:

I came across this antique jewelry set, and would like to know some more information on it if possible.

All I know for certain is that it is at least 18 karat gold (I only have 18k test acid and lower).

And I am fairly certain the stones are garnets. A jeweler friend of mine thinks it might be Georgian era, but even he concedes that it is older than the time frame his field of knowledge is limited to.

Pics attached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thennekmay (talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

We can't view pictures that are located on your computer. If you want us to see them, you'll have to upload them either to a Wikimedia site (which is a bit of an ordeal), or to some other photo-sharing site and then give us links to them. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

For a wizard to guide you through uploading to Wikipedia, see here. However, like Looie says, it's a fairly involved process, so you might find using something like http://tinypic.com/ (other image sharing sites are available) to be more convenient. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Link to picture: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frontal_picture_of_jewelry_piece_in_question.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thennekmay (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I can never tell much from a photo, but just as a matter of vocabulary what you have seems to be a parure consisting of earrings, necklace and brooch. Since it comes in a case, with no missing items, you can be reasonably sure it's complete. You should look for jewelry markings or stamps that indicate the materials used in their construction. If you're very lucky there may also be a maker's mark. Look on the case as well as on the jewelry. - Nunh-huh 22:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like garnets (or maybe a dark spinel?) to my untrained eye. As NH says, I'd go over it very closely looking for any kind of hallmark or a maker's mark, as this may be able to date it as well as giving information about what it is; the back of the brooch may be a good place to look. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A "new" type of discrimination?

I know this will anger more than a few people here, but I think it needs to be said: is there a "new" type of discrimination going on in today's society? When most people think of discrimination, they think of racism and sexism: "all black people are stupid", "women should stay in the kitchen", etc. However, I am noticing a new type of stereotyping occurring across many different aspects of popular culture, stereotyping based on subculture and interests. A perfect example of this is the widespread hatred of hipsters and nerds. "Nerds" are important to the development of many of today's technology (smartphones, Facebook and the like,) and yet they are treated by the majority of people as being worthy of contempt. And hipsters...well, people use that word in so many contradictory and confusing ways I have no idea what the hell it's supposed to mean, but people still spit on them, whatever they are, anyway.

So, all of this really begs the question: does this constitute a new "form" of discrimination?

(For the record, I do not consider myself a nerd or hipster.) --72.28.136.205 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What's new about that? See Revenge of the Nerds, for example. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say no. First, people have been made fun of for personal, rather than physical, characteristics since Ancient Rome, so it's not new. Second, I've never seen any instances of legitimate discrimination directed towards these groups. Ryan Vesey 18:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well. I just know that at my workplace, being called a hipster is the equivalent of being sent to the electric chair. --72.28.136.205 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, in the UK, such discrimination has been recognised, and this link is about people being arrested for beating up a member of a subculture. So yes, you're right. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's important to note that that arrest was for, well, beating someone up - which is a criminal offence anyway. It's just that the local police force have started recording subculture-based hatred as a factor in their crime statistics. The Equality Act and other UK legislation is extremely clear on what features are protected categories for sentencing purposes, and subculture is not included. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean it's a cruel and unusual means of execution that any sensible nation would abolish?

Grumpiness about hyperbole aside, this is neither a new nor an interesting phenomenon. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither is the term "hipster". Haven't heard that one used for decades. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's back. Very popular now on web boards, referring to the "I knew about them before they went commercial and sold out" person, or the "I can only refer to popular things with condescending sarcasm" person. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

When I hear "hipster", I think Maynard G. Krebs, or possibly the "hippies", many of whom evolved into "yuppies". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the most widespread discrimination patterns, based on behavior rather than appearance, is against homosexuals. In many places government regulations have been put in place to prevent that. Religion could also qualify. So, it's not completely impossible that other forms of discrimination against people based on their clothing, beliefs, behavior, etc., could be banned. For example, night clubs that only allow "the in crowd" to enter might be forced to let everybody in.

Personally, I think the idea of having numerous protected classes is untenable. Instead, the law should state "you may only discriminate based on factors which you can prove will damage the profitability of your business". Thus, if they wanted to keep nerds out, they would need to prove that night clubs with nerds in them are less profitable. (I suppose it's possible.) StuRat (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That would backfire spectacularly in heavily discriminatory regions. It wouldn't take much effort for, say, a popular racist hangout to prove that if they let "colored" in, the regulars would stop coming. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but then they would have new income from their new clients. So, to keep them out, they would need to prove that their old clients pay more than the new would. As a practical matter, if the burden of proof was on them, most wouldn't bother. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• But what about the hikkomori? μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Are smartphones and facebook so important or useful? ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nerds are not discriminated in their niche: IT. And that's a huge industry. The best definition of hipster that I know is: a kind of hippie with an iPhone. I suppose they are not discriminated in some field like design or art. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you've all hit the pandora's box that discrimination is a necessary, and usually good part of life. We discriminate against threatening looking people, against dumb people, against people we're not attracted to, against dumb reference desk posters, etc. I hate to return to such elementary logic but this notion of "discrimination" as some end-all of evil without thinking it through has become absurd. If you want to call "discrimination", which really just means making judgments based on incomplete information, an awful thing, then I invite you to live your life without any discrimination. Here's a life tip: not everyone will like you, and you won't like everyone else. That's "discrimination". It's not justification for you to go crying off to some authority figure, although that seems to be the direction we're headed. It'd be nice if we'd all quit acting like children. Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The EO page on that term is interesting, especially the Hitchens quote.[1] The term is not inherently bad, and the specification of racial discrimination (which is a legalistic kind of euphemism for "systemic racism") seems to have evolved into just "discrimination". Some discrimination (such as racial) is illegal, and some is not. Like if you would interview a prospective employee and ask if they smoke. They could say, "That's discrimination!" and you could answer, "Yes, it is. So?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The word discrimination is ambiguous, but that shouldn't be a problem is you discriminate between both meanings. People normally discern between unlawful discrimination (race, religion and some other categories) and lawful discrimination (intelligence, education). I normally don't see any problem and having some protected categories, unless you believe a hospital, university, or shop could have any valid reason to bar women, blacks or Jews from accessing it. BTW, if you have any valid reason, then it's not unlawful discrimination anymore and it's OK. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but only if it's "valid" as defined in the law. Being "valid" merely because you believe it to be valid is not necessarily sufficient. But enough of pseudo-legal advice. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

World War II and Hitler

It is my understanding that Hitler was racist against the Japanese and only allied with them for practical reasons. If this is true, why did he declare war on the US after pearl harbor? He clearly had no intention of invading them, and he could have easily negotiated a truce if the US wanted war with Germany. I doubt he would have declared war on a super power just to maintain solidarity with Japan. Did he have some other motive for declaring war? I am not Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

By that time the US was giving England so much support that there was almost an undeclared war anyway. According to Winston Churchill's history, a major factor was that declaring war would allow the German U-boats to attack America-to-England shipping much more freely. In the months after the declaration they sank enormous amounts of shipping in the American coastal zone, which they hadn't been able to enter before. Another factor was that Hitler believed America would declare war on him in any case, and he thought that for propaganda purposes it would be better for him to do it first. There were other factors, but Churchill believed that those were the most important. (By the way, I wish you would use a different signature. I find this one kind of annoying.) Looie496 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears things up.GurkhaGherkin (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Looie's answer misses the point entirely. Japanese were treated as Honorary Aryans based on a lot of pseudoscientific race research. There are various other articles such as those on Turanian race to look into. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you've got it backwards, μηδείς. Those convoluted excuses for treating the Japanese as equals was only implemented because the Nazis wanted to encourage the Japanese expansion in the Pacific. It took resources away from potential enemies, and kept those powers from focusing entirely on Germany. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I have studied this tangentially in detail and the "research" existed long before the alliance was declared. The Japanese were considered the height of the Turanian race and this was posited long before WWII. If the OP cares he can look into it. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You might also ask, if the US was offering so much support for Hitler's enemies, why Hitler didn't declare war on the US earlier. Well, the calculation was that, as harmful as the support for Germany's enemies was, having to fight the US, in addition to all their current enemies, would be even worse. However, after Pearl Harbor, Germany figured the US would go after Japan, and not have the resources to fight a two-front war, and thus would need to withdraw from it's support of England. However, this turned out to be an incorrect assessment. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In particular, the US wartime production of apostrophes was so great, they could squander them on bare, unadorned "its", much to the envy of all, particularly the grammar police. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Like

I've heard the theory that Hitler's declaring war on the U.S. when he did was one of his [many] strategic blunders. While after Pearl Harbor it was certain the U.S. would go to war against Japan, it was less clear the U.S. wanted to get involved in Europe, but Hitler made that much easier for Roosevelt. Shadowjams (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

One important fact that often is often understated is that Germany, as well as the UK, and a number of other European countries, were operating in supplying arms and uniforms to both sides of the Chinese in their revolution, which was interrupted by the Japanese invasion. All European sides were interested in who was going to win in this three-side war, and so supplied them all with weapons and let them fight it out. Then war broke out in Europe. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The most dramatic of which you fail to mention... Russia and Germany had a pact that Hitler broke, and Stalin was apparently personally offended by... maybe part of his paranoia. And it was quite distinct which side of the Chinese each side was supplying. The tiny island of Taiwan has done quite well for itself... Shadowjams (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Germany was also supplying weapons and equipment to Finland before that pact, which enabled the Finns to annihilate the Soviet attack (and also caused a lot of Brits and Americans who had been fighting in the war against Russia to try to escape, because by then we were at war with Germany, and Russia was an ally, but so was Finland). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Foreskin Restoration

Help! I've lived my whole life as a circumcised man, and never known the difference between having a foreskin or not. Now I've done research, and it would appear that restoration can increase sensitivity and moisture. This would help me greatly, as I have an insensitive penis and it is very hard for me to have pleasure. Are there any communities, websites or groups devoted to the cause of helping people to get their foreskin back? I want to be whole again! Help! --174.79.50.132 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What did you find in the course of your research? Dismas|^(talk) 20:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Mostly what I found in Wikipedia's own page on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.79.50.132 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Before getting too carried away, check out smegma. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, very funny. I've done my research, and you just need to wash it. This does not deter me from wanting a whole, natural penis.

What's wrong with the one you've got? Doesn't it work? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There's an answer to that in the fourth sentence of the OP's question. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Compared to what, though? And he should discuss this with a doctor before doing something radical. The problem could lie elsewhere than what he suspects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the comparison point is an interesting one. I don't how easily one could accurately compare one's own feelings during sexual activity to those of others. And yes, seeing a mainstream health professional would be essential. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Anecdatally, I know some people and read about others who've been circumcised post-puberty, and they usually report a significant loss of pleasure/sensation after the snip compared to before.

Btw, Bugs, mentioning smegma as a justification for circumcision would be like suggesting someone sew up their anus because their farts are smelly. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The point being that in trying to fix a perceived problem, he might create a new problem and not even get the original problem resolved. That's why a doctor's advice is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. Couldn't agree with you more. Which is why a smegmatic reference was inappropriate. The doctor is the best person to run through the issues with the patient. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And now, of course, we're going to have to make the first addition to the Four Temperaments since Hippocrates in Ancient Greece. The Five Temperaments are now: Sanguine, Melancholic, Choleric, Phlegmatic and Smegmatic (mycobacteria tend to be your smegmatics). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are such groups. A quick Google search would give you quite a few hits. That said, there's no proven method to fully restore it. Plastic surgery (transplanting skin from another part of the body) is the most effective way that I've come across. You will come across a ton of "self-remedies" that are of dubious worth, and some that could easily be damaging! Your best bet is to just go ask an actual physician what your options are. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Matron of honor - Catholic marriage

In a Catholic wedding ceremony, can the mother of the bride or groom be selected as "matron of honor", provided that the matron must be married and must be a practicing Catholic? Can the father of the bride or groom be selected as "best man"? Also, what happens if two or more unrelated couples just happen to schedule a wedding ceremony at the same time? Does that mean one of them have to re-schedule the wedding ceremony? Sneazy (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Either that, or have a double wedding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Titles like that have no religious significance. All that matters is the priest, a second witness, and the bride and groom. Feel free to appoint a giraffe of honor if you like, and the venue can accommodate it. Now, the real question is, what about Episcopalians? μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Re the scheduling question: It can't happen unless the church's administrative procedures are wacko. Couples do not decide in isolation that they will be married in Church A on Day B at Time C. They have to involve the church in the matter to see if this is suitable. If another wedding has already been scheduled for that day and time, the later couple will have to choose a different time. That is a matter of simple common sense, not something you really need to seek the advice of a Reference Desk about. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to take the hint that Baseball_Bugs was being sarcastic. Apparently, Baseball_Bugs seemed to suggest that there is a choice between rescheduling a wedding and holding a double wedding, while JackofOz suggested that it would be commonsensical to just reschedule weddings.

No, I said it would not be scheduled in the first place unless there was a space in the church's calendar/diary. A couple who think they'd like to be married on a certain date at a certain time - that does not amount to a "scheduling" until the church agrees it's OK to hold it on that date and at that time. A "rescheduling" would only occur if the date and time are agreed by all parties, and then something like an illness happens that causes plans to be changed. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I also did a quick search on Google, and it appears that some people on random websites asked this question about inviting the mother or father of the bride/groom to be the matron of honor or best man. I wonder what does Medeis mean by a "second witness". I understand the purpose of the priest in the wedding, which is supposed to act as a wedding officiant. I suppose a wedding officiant is someone who performs weddings. So, where does the "second witness" play a role in the wedding? Sneazy (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In the UK at least, the wedding has to be attended by "Two witnesses, who must be over 16, (who) must also sign at the time of the marriage. Witnesses must understand the language of the ceremony and have the mental capacity to understand the nature of the ceremony."[2] A quick Google suggests that one or two witnesses are required by some American States. Alansplodge (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to argue or anything, but I'm just curious: what is the purpose of having witnesses or a wedding officiant in the first place? Sneazy (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not if they're required by law - most developed nations have quite strict rules about marriage. Alansplodge (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sneazy, the purpose of the witnesses is just that, to witness. They can then verify that the two are married. Dismas|^(talk) 23:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the couple allowed to pick their witnesses? Are the parents allowed to be their children's witnesses? What if the parents want to see their children married because the marriage was arranged? Sneazy (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter of 'allowed'. As far as I know, in most jurisdictions the couple is expected to provide the witnesses. The only general requirement is the witness is of sufficient age although in NZ there is no fixed age requirement [3] rather 'Children may act as witnesses if they understand the importance of the part they take in the recording of the marriage and can demonstrate that understanding in court if later required to do so'. For a ceremony taking place in the registry office or similar, it's possible employees could stand in for them [4] but I'm not sure if this would be possible in every jurisdiction or location e.g. the UK apparently doesn't allow registry office staff to be witnesses [5]. In most cases you could probably just find someone from the street or perhaps another couple waiting to get married as I don't believe there is generally a requirement the witnesses actually know the couple. In NZ and it seems in the UK, there is no problem with the witnesses being related, but it's possible in some jurisdictions this isn't allowed or at least they can't both be closely related to the same family since as I understand it, in some jurisdictions technically the witnesses are also supposed to be witnessing that the wedding is taking place on the free will of both participants (and I believe a key reason why there are usually at least two witnesses is because each member of the couple is expected to name one witness). Note that I'm primarily thinking of this from a general wedding POV, it's possible the Catholic church may impose additional requirements on witnesses but these sources [6] [7] for example doesn't mention any (but does clarify that witnesses are required by church law as well). Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Jack's got it right, but there is such a thing as a double wedding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I was married in a double wedding. It was planned and not due to a scheduling error. I think I would have known if anyone else was planning on getting married on my front lawn. Dismas|^(talk) 23:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oddly enough, we do have an article Catholic marriage. μηδείς (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)