Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 10

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.

February 10

Muslim contributions to geography and science and mathematics

Who are the famous or not so famous Muslims of Golden Age of Islam who have made contributions to geography and science and mathematics?--Donmust90 (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Science in the medieval Islamic world should be a good start - there are links to several sub-articles, and lists of scientists. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It'd be a huge list, probably too big to retype it all here. You could start with Islamic Golden Age and Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and Science in the medieval Islamic world and List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world and List of Muslim scientists. Each of those articles contains links to more detailed articles on specific sciences. It wasn't a "Golden Age" for nothing; the Caliphate was the most powerful and stable empire in the west for hundreds of years, and the prosperity and stability it brought was known to allow for a flourishing in the sciences. --Jayron32 04:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's important to note that although Islamic scientific discoveries were very impressive for the time, almost none of it had an influence on modern science, meaning science since Kepler and Newton. For example, Islamic astronomy mostly refined the Ptolemaic model, developed spherical trigonometry for finding the qiblah, and improved a few devices like the sundial and astrolabe. Of course the entire Ptolemaic model being thrown out the window is the definitive event of the Scientific Revolution. Today, the Islamic legacy in astronomy is limited to nomenclature--most star names are Arabic in origin.

In general, it's important to remember that Western science after the Scientific Revolution is drastically different from any earlier form of science. Science, as we know it today, is an exclusively European development, and far surpasses in accuracy and objectivity any other "science" invented by any other civilization. --140.180.247.198 (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean the "Western science" whose practitioners wrote it down using a modified semitic alphabet, using Arabic numerals based on the Hindu–Arabic numeral system and manipulated formulas using Algebra? All while drinking distilled alcohol and later coffee to get the brain going? Science has a lot more continuity that you seem to think, and it's pretty hopeless to try to cut it off from its many different roots. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

How are the alphabet, Arabic numerals, algebra, alcohol, and coffee in any way science? I was expecting you to give actual examples of science, not mathematics or popular beverages. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

1) The OP asked about mathematics 2) The methods of distillation and extraction developed by early Islamic chemists are still vital to science today, and these Islamic sources are among the earliest descriptions of them; some of their earliest uses were in the distillation of alcohol and in the brewing of coffee. The basic techniques to do each are not functionally different from what a chemist in a modern laboratory may do, and some of their earliest descriptions come from Islamic sources. --Jayron32 18:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

How can someone not consider algebra the basis of science? And even compare mathematics with popular beverages (like if it were as useless as Coke).OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about physics there. There was more continuity in chemistry, and don't forget the technologies in everyday use, like paper-making and sugar refining. Also, the philosophical approaches that we call Western, and that allowed the scientific outlook to develop, had thei roots in Islamic theology. The books and TV programmes of Jim Al-Khalili are a good introduction to the topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

See also Medicine in the medieval Islamic world. Alansplodge (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree there was slightly more continuity in chemistry, as revealed by Chemistry#History. Paper making and sugar refining are technologies, not sciences. I haven't read anything by Jim Al-Khalili, but a priori I highly doubt that the scientific outlook had their roots in Islamic theology. I see no reason why Christian Europeans during the Scientific Revolution would have cared about Islamic theology, and no evidence that Bacon, Newton, Kepler et al. were influenced by it. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Technological development and scientific development are linked, cf the steam engine. The scientific revolution could hardly have got off the ground without paper. Distillation, as mentioned by Stephan, led the Arabs to understand more about the properties of medicinal plants, and we wouldn't have the key pharmaceutical concept of "active ingredient" without it. Pharmaceutical and chemical research went together in Europe at least till the time of Luke Howard. As for the theology, the trajectory usually described is this: Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics including William of Ockham (Occam's Razor) developed their ideas by engaging with the works of Islamic philosophers like Avicenna and Averroes. Critique of the Scholastics gave us Renaissance Humanism, and critique of Renaissance Humanism gave us the Enlightenment. These connections can be sourced, although I expect they are also debated. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, one of the later prevailing elaborations of Islamic theology (Occasionalism) was highly inimical to science, if taken seriously... AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

On geography we have Geography and cartography in medieval Islam, although there seems to be more info at History_of_geodesy#Islamic_world. There were a few new techniques, like spherical trigonometry, useful for measuring the circumference of the Earth, apparently quite accurately. I think I've read about some connection between these Persian and Arabic circumference calculations and Columbus's mistake about the size of the Earth, but I can't recall quite what it was. Something about Columbus assuming the "Arabic mile" used by Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Kathīr al-Farghānī was the same as a Roman mile... Pfly (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Son of Francis II, Duke of Brittany

Was the son of Francis II, Duke of Brittany and his first wife Margaret of Brittany named John or Francis. The French wiki says Jean (John). http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BRITTANY.htm#_Toc284059595 says Francois (Francis). Also is he buried in the same part of Nantes Cathedral his parents were buried in?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the only bones in there are Francis, his two wives, and some other bones which may or may not be his uncle Arthur III. I'm not sure about the name of his son...Medieval Lands is often wrong or wildly out of date. For example it says Francis II is buried in the Carmelite convent. Well, originally, yeah, but the tomb is now in the Cathedral. I would trust the French Wikipedia, but neither site has a source for the name. I could ask about it over there, if you'd like (and you can always e-mail the guy in charge of Medieval Lands, Charles Cawley). If Francis' son was buried in the cathedral, this would have been the old Romanesque cathedral, which was just beginning to be replaced by the current Gothic one. The Romanesque building is completely gone now, so it's conceivable that anyone who was buried there is gone too (the only surviving part is the crypt, but no one is buried there now). If he is still buried in the cathedral, he's not in his parents' tomb, and there is nothing marking his grave. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

AFP anonymity question

Just now, I read a news by AFP (the news doesn't appear to be on their website yet, so here's a link). The news was disclosed by an unnamed US official, who wished to remain anonymous for reasons that are neither mentioned nor implied in the news report. Usually, when anyone asks to be anonymous in news reports, it's usually because: 1. He/she is not authorized to speak to the media, and/or 2. The news in question had something to do with particularly sensitive topics, such as North Korea, Syria, or any military-related news. However, the nature of the news report (It's about the top diplomat of the US in Asia, Kurt Campbell, who doesn't appear to have an article here, stepping down) implies that the nature of anonymity is neither of the two aforementioned cases. What is likely to be the reason why the official wants to be anonymous? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why you're ruling out "not authorized to provide this particular bit of information to the media". Note that there's a related reason, "doesn't want to be known as the guy who provides information to the media". — Lomn 13:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Usually, if it's because their not authorized to speak, it would be explicitly mentioned (e.g. "wishes to remain anonymous because he is not authorized to speak to the media"). In this case, no reason is given, so it's possible that that's not the case. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A person with a sensitive position or a prominent public profile may simply not wish to be identified in public with a quote because it could generate unwanted attention on that person. I have not read the article you quote, but if for example you are a highly placed official who sometimes appears publicly, you may not want to have to field questions about this issue the next time you speak because it could distract from what you are supposed to be talking about. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It could also be a method for getting the news out there before making an official statement. This gives the public a false sense of empowerment. Businesses use this tactic all the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Leaks are a standard way for an administration to get something out there into the papers with minimal blowback to themselves. For an extreme instance, Dick Cheney leaking to Judith Miller at the NYTimes re WMD in Iraq, then quoting the resulting articles as independent support for his contention that there were WMD in Iraq. Gzuckier (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Meat traceability etc.

Political economy question. Should these rules have applied to the French companies in Findus' supply chain? Or are they just best practice? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Me again. No, they didn't apply. They relate to minced beef that has the label "100% muscle". [1]. If anyone can help me quickly get to the EU rules for minced beef in general, that would be good. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What does this have to do with political economy? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this answers your question PalaceGuard, but the question relates to the "Findus beef lasagne ready meal was up to 100 per cent horse meat" story. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I understood that part Alansplodge, it was the "political economy" part that confused me. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Political economy approaches in food studies include looking at supply chains. As opposed to sociology of consumption, which has a different focus.Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a bit, I can see how this can make your interest in the scandal political-economic (if indeed that's the case), but the question you asked here is definitely legal/regulatory. Understanding or applying political economy is not relevant to answering whether certain regulations are mandatory. Anyway, I've gone far off-topic.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to make it clear that I wanted Humanities Desk type responses rather than Science Desk type responses or any other. Didn't work. :-( Itsmejudith (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware all meat in Europe should be traceable and that includes in places like Poland. Some horse meat was already held up in Northern Ireland because of documentary irregularities even before the DNA testing was done but they seem to have been slow in checking back where the problems arose. Regulation needs to be properly backed up with checking and stiff penalties. Dmcq (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that except for beef traceability is not mandatory in Europe even though it is increasingly being implemented. Or rather there is legislation for traceability for all food from 2002] but it is taking a long time being fully implemented. Perhaps wider traceability would have made the problem easier to spot - and then maybe not considering the gangs at work and the convoluted supply chains. Dmcq (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems pretty certain that very few of the traceability regulations were followed. For example Spanghero say in their press release how the product was labelled - as beef. They don't say that the names of the breeder and the abbatoir were on the labels - they should have been. The provenance should have been checked at every point in the chain. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

All that should be available for beef - they would have documents but there are errors or more likely deliberate falsifications of the records. Beef already has the regulations implemented because of BSE. What I meant by wider traceability would be the same for horse and other meat as well. Dmcq (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it why Japan didn't deploy major troops in Iraq?

Al Qaeda promised to strike the heart of Tokyo if troops sent to Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotjap (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Are there treaties prohibiting Japan from involving their military in actions that aren't strictly defensive? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a treaty, but the current Japanese Constitution contains very strict rules about what Japan can and (mostly) can't do in situations which are not strictly defensive. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Japan did send warships to the gulf. Granted, this may not count as a "major troop deployment", but they were there... and protecting the oil supply was in their national interest. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What Al Qaeda "promises" to do and what it's actually capable of doing are very different things. Towards the end of WWII, Hitler fantasized about New York going up in flames, but it was nothing more than a delusion. Today, "Germany" is a tiny ragtag group of uneducated fanatics who can barely manage to kill several people every few years, while "the Allies" are many orders of magnitude more sophisticated and powerful than they were in WWII. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Are countries taking part in the Mali conflict at risk of terror attack?

My country Japan has taken a side now and is sending money to Mali troops. Kotjap (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Any country that participates in world politics in any way is at risk from somebody. The more nations take sides against al-qaeda, the better chance there is of exterminating them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Any country that opposes terrorists are at risk of terror attacks, even countries that support terrorism (if there are any) are at risk of terror attacks from terrorists who don't agree with them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that countries which don't confront terrorists may be at even more of a long-term risk from terrorists. Once they figure out that your nation won't fight back, they may well start taking your people hostage, etc. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Kissing up to terrorists in hopes they won't attack you could be called the "Chamberlain Theory". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Appeasement is the relevant article, I think. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How many bus driving hours between Michigan and LA?

I may visit the U.S. and would like to know that. Kotjap (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Greyhound Bus website says that their quickest trip from Detroit to Los Angeles takes 2 days, 3 hours and 25 minutes. There are transfers in Dayton, Ohio, St. Louis, Missouri, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Phoenix, Arizona. All of the schedules take over 2 days. RNealK (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

From an eating-and-drinking perspective, how practical are these long-haul itineraries that the Greyhound website generates? With very brief layovers, at odd hours of the night, in dingy bus depots often in scary parts of town, it doesn't seem practical to find anything to eat (except maybe chips and candy from a kiosk). So if someone wanted to do a trip like this, and wanted to eat anything resembling sane food (even sandwiches) wouldn't they have to essentially pack a mega brown-bag for the whole trip? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Depending on your route, there are often 30 minute meal breaks that take you to nicer truck stops, bus depots with hot food, or places of that sort. In my bus traveling days, I lived on beef jerky and bottled lemonade - Both of which can be picked up at just about any stop, and tend to not taste awful if you don't eat/drink right away. 24.229.178.39 (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

For any point-to-point question in the US, there are various websites that do that for you. One is Google Maps. I entered [detroit to los angeles] and they list 3 options, the shortest of which is basically I-80 all the way: 2,282 miles, 33 hours. That supposes an average speed of 70, if no stops, so take that with a grain of salt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I-94 to I-80 to I-15 to I-10. I-80 doesn't go to Detroit, and you'd have to get off I-80 about 2/3rds of the way there since I-80 goes to San Francisco and not L.A. The PCH is pretty, but it's a bit of a roundabout way to go all the way on I-80 and then head south. I-15 from Salt Lake City goes more-or-less directly towards L.A. --Jayron32 00:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On what basis is anyone here assuming LA means other than Louisiana? And are we to assume Kotjap has a commercial driving license? Should amphetamine use figure in? μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC) You're not really serious about the Louisiana thing, right? LA is the postal code for Louisiana, but it's pretty rare to use it that way outside that context. The abbreviation "La.", with the lowercase a and the period afterwards, I would probably take to mean Louisiana. --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) The saddest thing is, she absolutely is serious. --Jayron32 03:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note that it is actually cheaper to fly from Detroit to LA than to travel by Greyhound, if you can book well ahead of time. People from Europe or Japan often have a hard time grasping how far apart things are in the US. Looie496 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Greyhound website says tickets from Detroit to Los Angeles can cost anywhere from $193 to $270, I don't think you can get a flight for that. RNealK (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In a few minutes searching, I found a Delta flight for $285. With more work you might find something cheaper. And even if not, it's probably worth the extra money to not be on a bus for 2 days. RudolfRed (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Southwest shows one-way flights for less than $130, if you pick the right day. Looie496 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@ Trovatore, Yes, I am totally serious. Los Angeles is known as L.A., not LA. If I am entitled to read Kotjap's mind then I am entitled to tell you he's a troll, as per Wikipedia:Competence is required and the fact that 34 of his last less than 100 edits have been the creation of threads that are almost universally nonsensical, hysterical, or just lazy. Googling "travel time from detroit to los angeles" is beyond easy and below kotjap's obvious skill level, not above it--he knows how to give a link when he wants to. But I am not entitled to assume kotjap is a troll who's wasting space here and taking willing victims for a ride, so I will take him utterly seriously. Does he mean from the state of Michigan to the state of Louisiana like he implies, or not? μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Plenty of people (including me, a sometime Angeleno) frequently drop the periods and refer to the City of Angels as LA. It's not an error. If he were using postal codes (who does that?) to refer to the states, then why didn't he call Michigan MI? --Trovatore (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I don't know. I have suggested to him at least half a dozen times (in this incarnation--I don't know about his previous user names) that he use google first, provide links, and be clear in what he says and asks. And he's promised to do so, see my talk page and his unsolicited responses. I don't think that's so unreasonable for someone with such a mastery of how to edit, ask questions at the ref desk, and provide good links and create and upload material as he is, who has supposedly only been around for about a month and less than 100 edits. I think you also know I am not one to shirk spending hours on good faith questions by occasional actual questioners when they are posed, Trovatore. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC) The OP's post here was the last post he made. Maybe he'll come back here and clarify. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not all that interested in the question, frankly. But LA is a perfectly normal abbreviation for Los Angeles, and an unlikely one for Louisiana, unless in a postal address or at the very least preceded by a city name. --Trovatore (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) My immediate assumption was that LA meant Los Angeles, although it could be Louisiana; also, it's a bit odd to talk about driving from a state to a city. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I normally don't like to leave comments in permanently closed discussions but I felt it worth pointing out I had no idea La was even the 2 letter abbreviation for Louisiana. If someone typed LA and they were obviously referring to the US, my assumption would be Los Angeles with or without the period. I'd probably assume the same thing even if I had no idea what country they were referring to unless it was implied to be another country. In fact, I wouldn't think anything of the absence of the period although myself I normally prefer specificity so I'm more likely to just write Los Angeles. Also when did Kotjap ever suggest they lived in Vancouver or British Columbia or anywhere in Canada? I did a search and can't find any time Kotjap suggested that, although they do seem to have quite an interest in Canada in general. They are continuously calling Japan their country and talking about stuff in Japan as if they have personal experience and while I don't know if they ever said they live there at the moment, they have expressed a high level of concern about attacks on Japan. Is μηδείς getting confused with Iowafromiowa and the numerous other identities that person has gone under? I know μηδείς has accused Kotjap of being Iowafromiowa but that clearly hasn't be established otherwise they'd be blocked. If there was one time when Kotjap implied they lived in Canada, let me know in my talk page as this may be relevant in the event of a SPI. In fact to avoid continuing discussion on this in a closed section, I'd prefer any discussion relating to Kotjap in relation to this comment to be on my talk page or somewhere else like the RD talk page but obviously can't dictate that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Note that Michigan is a large state. As such, which city within Michigan you choose will make quite a difference. It's something like a 4 hour drive from Detroit to the South-Western corner of Michigan. It's something like a 12 hour drive from either of those to the westernmost tip of the Upper Peninsula (although at some point you would change your route to go to Los Angeles via Wisconsin). StuRat (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Agreed, which is why I arbitrarily picked Detroit, and another reason why I am sure Kotjap's "question" (he is supposedly from British Columbia) is utter bullshit. But maybe I am wrong. My calling his suggestion that someone would fly from Vancouver to to Michigan to LA (whether that means Louisiana like it says, or Los Angeles) bullshit should certainly not prejudice anyone here against assuming he didn't mean what he typed. All answers should be in good faith. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Does good faith account for the amphetamine reference? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 04:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Presumably he's referring to drastic methods drivers have been known to use to stay awake on very long drives. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I know what she's referring to. "All answers should be in good faith", and yet there's an assumption the law is being broken. Those two statements don't seem to belong in the same conversation, at least from the same author. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Yes. I don't think KJ was planning to drive the bus himself, but maybe I overlooked something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC) play nice! the other kids won't want to play with you if you are mean to them ;) ---- nonsense ferret 13:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the bus-travel issue in general; I did a Pittsburgh-Denver round trip a few years ago (as well as numerous Pittsburgh-Columbus and Indianapolis-Columbus trips), and I can confirm that you get reasonable breaks at mealtimes as well as stops at stations. What's more, drivers are prohibited from driving more than a certain number of hours, so awakeness isn't generally a problem. Accordingly, they don't go as fast as you would in a car, but since they go overnight, you're probably going to get there sooner than if you're driving, and without hotel bills too. However, it's still quite hard to argue with the Southwest Airlines ticket price. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Royals who visited Hawaii in the 19th century

Besides Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Prince Henry of Prussia (1862–1929), Prince Henry, Count of Bardi and Prince Henry, Count of Bardi, did any other foreign royals visit Hawaii before 1898? And what exactly was the Count and Countess of Bardi doing in Hawaii in 1889?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What, Royals can't go Surfing? Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)