Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 August 30

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 30

Psychological/rhetorical device

I'll try my best to explain this. On TV I heard a very egotistical/self-centred presenter say, "I would never use a child as a weapon. I don't care what anyone says." It is a rational and common sense position to hold to never use a child as a weapon in, say, a divorce. The second sentence he uses frames that logical and "correct" opinion as less than commonly held in order to portray himself in an even greater positive light. Is there a technical name for that particular "technique"? If I haven't explained myself well, I apologise. 213.106.130.210 (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what it's called, but it's terribly irritating and very common. I see it on Facebook all the time in various iterations. "I know it's out of favour these days, but I was taught to value honesty and integrity - share if you agree!" Ugh. Some of grandiosity plays into it; there's a definite egotism involved. I would love to have a specific word for this phenomenon. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Blade hurlers [1]? --Askedonty (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Holier than thou? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think "I don't care what anyone says" is a non sequitur. Bus stop (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The assumptive Assumption. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It comes across as defensive assertion, which is an implicitly self-contradictory position to take. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a subtle common pundit notion in InedibleHulk's proposition with what I was thinking about. That's why in agreement with Jack's analysis I'd simply name them selfists. Paradoxically because they're not entirely sincere, pretending to be the main offender they're in fact exposing themselves as the (potentially you) (see my previous link) knive thrower's assistant. This because what they are expecting is the answer to: "how the hell I am going to get rid of this pervasive morally correctness, without anybody's notice". If they do not get that they have a nice picture of themselves. Then what they're doing is selfing, or better, pure holier-than selfing. --Askedonty (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone. When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

If you want a nice picture of yourself, you may be selfie sticking. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

They say one of the safest partner for this kind of trade may be the rattlesnake. --Askedonty (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods. Sucks to be the everyman sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

At least be grateful you're not nobody.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• ""I would never use a child as a weapon. I don't care what anyone says." is attacking a straw man since the second sentence is implying that the majority disagree with the speaker, which is implausible to say the least. Abecedare (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • • • It's not exactly disagreeing with the speaker, i.e. not disagreeing with not using a child as a weapon; it's actually a claim that many people believe that particular speaker WOULD use a child as a weapon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much everyone! It was all very helpful. :) 213.106.130.210 (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Axiom Void burn (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Subdivisions of BiH

• What are regions of Republika Srpska? For instance, File:BH_cantons_&_regions.png and File:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_division_2005.png both tacitly reference them, and Category:Regions of Republika Srpska exists, but Municipalities of Republika Srpska (the ostensible main article of the former category) makes no reference to them, and Political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina#Overview says "The Federation is further divided into cantons, which are then subdivided into municipalities. Republika Srpska is divided directly into municipalities.".

• What is the status of Sarajevo and Istočno Sarajevo exactly? Both seem to exist above the municipality and below the Canton and RS respectively. Are they both sui generis on a level of government with no equivalent elsewhere?

• Is the entirety of Brčko District one municipality?

--Quentin Smith 12:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Geschiedenis van ???scafanders???

"hoe komt het dat ik geen informatie kan vinden over het geschiedenis van scafanders?" wrote Cosyn,david (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in an article I've just deleted. I suppose most of us here can get the gist of the Dutch. But what the Bachman–Turner Overdrive does "scafanders" mean? A place in the Netherlands? "Other sheep"? Something completely different? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The English word is scaphander, "scafander" is a Dutch spelling (though I had to google it). It is derived from French scaphandre, and denotes a type of diving suit. - Lindert (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Most often the iconic standard diving dress. I can understand Cosyn,david (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s frustration. At least at the present time (see present time), "Geschiedenis van scafanders" is still the third in position in the "scafanders" related Google search. --Askedonty (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The Dutch Wikipedia has an article on it however, but not with the same name: Duikpak. --Askedonty (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"most of us here can get the gist of the Dutch" I couldn't, and I speak German Asmrulz (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The article de:Skaphander has everything on the history that could be found online. Accordingly, the first record of the Dutch word Scaphander is the book De Scaphander: Of de Konst om in de diepste Wateren dryvende te gaan en allerhande werk te verrigten. Amsterdam 1777. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Are the JMSDF ship naming conventions codified somewhere?

The JMSDF avoids using Imperial Japanese Navy ship names due to their historical associations[2]. Is this just an unspoken rule or is it actually codified somewhere? Is it a law passed by the Japanese Diet or an internal self-defense force regulation? My other car is a cadr (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

They've recently overturned that convention by naming their new "helicopter carrier" the Kaga after a carrier that participated in the Pearl Harbor attack and was eventually sunk in the Battle of Midway. See Japan launches second Izumo-class helicopter carrier. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Frontline management

Why are frontline management staff in customer service, retail, leisure, tourism, security etc often not very well paid, compared to office staff, despite the fact they work longer hours and have a lot of responsibility. 82.132.225.221 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Depends how strong the union is. The non - office staff on London Underground earn a huge amount, possibly because they can hold the public to ransom by bringing London to a grinding halt. They're not very popular at the moment because they're holding a series of strikes to derail the night tube due on 12 September. 89.240.30.79 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the racial composition of each major political party in the USA?

What is the racial composition of each major political party in the USA? Can someone fill in the following blanks, with any reliable sources?

1. In the Democratic Party, _____% are White and _____% are Black and _____% are Hispanic.
2. In the Republican Party, _____% are White and _____% are Black and _____% are Hispanic.
3. Of all White voters, _____% are Democrats and _____% are Republican.
4. Of all Black voters, _____% are Democrats and _____% are Republican.
5. Of all Hispanic voters, _____% are Democrats and _____% are Republican.

Again, this refers to the United States. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your question is that many U.S. states do not have formal registration of voters by party affiliation. Texas is the most populous such state. Another problem is that a very large bloc of voters self-identify as independent, though many sympathize with a major party. And in California, the most populous state, while voters can declare a party affiliation, primary elections (except for the presidency) are "top two open primaries" with voters free to select from candidates from any party. There is no comprehensive national list of official "Democrats" and "Republicans", so public opinion polling is the only way to approximate an answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, all of those are limitations of interpreting whatever statistics or data we have. But, nonetheless, there are still some statistics and data out there. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Quibble here: California has a partisan primary vote for prez/veep and one other thing. A shiny no-prize to the first person who remembers it! No cheating by looking it up, please. --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are 2012 Gallup Poll results that are on point. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are 2014 poll results from the Pew Research Center, also looking at factors like gender, education and religion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Excellent articles, both of them! Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a side note, "Hispanic" is treated somewhat differently by the US census - Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States. So e.g. Desi Arnaz was a famous "white" Hispanic American [3] [4]. This is why on many official forms you'll see boxes named "White (non-Hispanic)" SemanticMantis (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Reptilians come in both colors and all three demographics (Asian reptilians are typically more God than state, so rarely bother with camouflage). Of course, it's hard to count "them", and estimates are all over the board. "Some say" they're imaginary. Worth a small amount of consideration, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hard to count reptilians, I mean, not Asian Americans in government and politics. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Five-headed horse figure

Recently I saw a five-headed horse figure at an antique shop. It was maybe 18" from head to tail, maybe 12" tall, mostly black, made of metal. The owner didn't know anything about it other than that it came from Tibet, is "fairly old", and may have been "used to ward off evil spirits". As he was clearly unsure, take the background information with a grain of salt. What I do know is I can't find anything else like it, which is surprising. The only prominent, culturally significant five-headed horse I've found is a carving found at the Terrace of the Elephants in Cambodia. Other than that, nothing. I also haven't found any such figure (it's not cartoonish, not fantastical -- just looks like a black horse...except with five heads, fanned across a maybe 100 degree arc). I'm trying to find something similar or at least more information about what its story could be. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Uchchaihshravas is a seven-headed horse from Hindu mythology. My impression is that once you get above three heads on a mythological beast, their exact number can vary a bit :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

And, as linked in the article, you can see a nice image on Dark Horse Records where the heads form an arc. Nanonic (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

According to this site, Surya's horse is sometimes depicted with multiple heads, and I recall that Surya does appear in Tibetan Buddhism.

According to this source, Hayagriva is often represented as or by horses, particularly the Wind Horse. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@SemanticMantis, Nanonic, and Ian.thomson: These are some great leads. Thanks very much. Other suggestions are still welcome, of course, but this provides some good ideas to go on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)