Humanities desk
< January 14	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 16 >

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.

January 15

What East, West and North africans race belong to?

They said that the Negriod race is Indegenous to South and Central Africa, so what East, West and North africans race belongs to?!--arab 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who "they" are, but "indigenous" means "Negroids" come from southern and central Africa originally. So the "Black Africans" of the rest of Africa must have migrated from southern or central Africa. Many residents of North Africa would be considered "Caucasoids" in the traditional three- or four-part division of the world's peoples into "races," but anthropologists today recognize that division as pretty meaningless. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Negroid. This is an old and discredited term. For more, see Race (classification of human beings). For an example of how migrations within Africa have overwhelmed earlier indigenous peoples, see Bantu expansion. In short, your question cannot be answered because the terms are not meaningful. Pfly (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Senate and democracy

In Hong Kong, people complain often and loudly that functional constituencies and appointments by the Chief Executive are undemocratic. Something about it will appear in the news at least once a week. Do they make similar complaints in Ireland about the Vocational Panels, university constituencies and nominations by the Taoiseach?

Do Irish people consider themselves to be living in a democracy? thanks F (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Seanad Éireann#Calls for reform? Algebraist 02:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American talk radio

Can you suggest an American talk radio over the internet that is not conservative?217.168.4.20 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air America Radio. Rockpocket 07:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Public Radio (broadcast on many public radio stations also available on the internet, see article) is quite balanced and has a lot of excellent programs, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek history accounts

The early olympics in Greece had an event called Pankration (a fighting sport combining wrestling with boxing); I read that one of the most famous of pankration fighters was a guy named Dioxippus - my questions are: which historical accounts tell of him?, who were the historians who wrote of him?, where can I find these historical accounts of him (are they online somewhere or published in certain books)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.223.87 (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Dioxippus, which indicates that the most famous story about him is to be found in Arrian, whose texts are available online. 131.111.8.97 (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formalitate

What is it in Scotism? --Omidinist (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Removed. --Omidinist (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where in what country is cocaine legal like [in the same way as] cigarettes and alohol [are] in america?

~~where is cocaine legal like cigarettes in america?~~

In what country, if any, is cocaine legal in much the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are in America?

The cocaine article says

“

Its possession, cultivation, and distribution are illegal [...] in virtually all parts of the world.

”

Is the "virtually" word unnecessary? I mean, there are, what, 194-196 countries in the world? Is cocaine legal in any of them?

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.6 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Cocaine#Current Prohibition where the different levels of prohibition are discussed. Astronaut (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that subsection links to the article on legal status of cocaine which, unfortunately, does not include any references. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and only covers 16 nations. Astronaut (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

list of objects that on or in the vicinity of your person make you sexy

I read that certain objects will make sexy just by virtue of your being in their presence (or maybe vice versa), or maybe having them on your person. Can someone find or furnish me with a list of such items, please? I'm male and 20-something in North America (though not at the moment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.6 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is an object like that. It's called a Lamborgini. Beekone (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try getting some very unsexy friends. Next to them, you'll look better by comparison. Friday (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe personal grooming is the answer you are looking for? A shower, a shave, clean teeth, clean fingernails, clean clothes etc. usually work. Astronaut (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cynics might also point to Veblen goods and bling-bling. Personally, I think the contents and efficacy of any such list are extremely variable and individual and it depends on whom you wish to impress. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to them - only heavy, gilded neck-chains with car logos do the charm, but the government is trying to keep it a secret ;) But seriously, I am not really certain it is a topic for the reference desk, unless you want to discuss the relativity of social norms of beauty (studied extensively in cultural anthropology). Perhaps we can sell this topic to science reference desk, as vaguely related to discussion on androstenone influence? ;) Just kidding. Pundit|utter 16:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe everything you read.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, there is one object that, no matter who you are, no matter how unclean or ungroomed, will make you irresistable to women. That object, my friend, is a Lamborgini. I'm not kidding around here. Test the theory. What are you like 100 lbs overweight? Unibrow? Yellow, nicotine stained teeth? Perfect. Go get a Lamborgini and then tell me you don't get a woman within fifteen minutes. Beekone (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why do you insist on dropping the "m" in your wikilink text? --LarryMac | Talk 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about, Larry? Beekone (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't spelled it right. Don't make me post diffs. And since I'm here yet again, does anybody know the difference between a porcupine and an expensive Italian sportscar? --LarryMac | Talk 18:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn... anyways, the point is, chicks dig Lamboghinis. Beekone (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as much as they dig station wagons. Friday (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-minded girls get with guys in Lamborghinis. Its the closest thing to a Jedi Mind Trick guys can have. Croat Canuck Talk 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize the questioner had specified what type of girl he wanted. Beekone (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but he did say something that would make him sexy in general, not just to a particular kind, whereas I am of the opinion only the shallow girls would find him instantly sexy because of a lamborghini. I don't think there is any one object that can do the trick, except perhaps Axe body spray. ;) Croat Canuck Talk 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm such a moron. How could I forget Axe? It's like the layman's Lamborghini. Beekone (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hahahaha, yes, wheareas a Lambourghini could only get you 1, maybe 2 girls max, with Axe Body spray you can walk into any public building and every single good-looking girl in the place will come charging at you. Croat Canuck Talk 19:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then you'll be lamenting that they won't all fit in the silly exotic car.. which brings us back to station wagons. Friday (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you all think he's about girls? He didn't write so, thus the only logical consequence is that he wants to find out about being sexy to all gender. Pundit|utter 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it is a he? --Lambiam 00:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm male and 20-something..." 70.162.25.53 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just like 70.162.25.53 used my formidable powers of deduction. Male -> he. Indubitably. Pundit|utter 01:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be fair, the complete quote is "I'm male and 20-something in North America (though not at the moment)." Too much ambiguity there to make a definitive call. Gay male, 23, travelling in Europe? Pre-op FTM transexual, 27, somewhere in Asia? Who can say? --LarryMac | Talk 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "not at the moment" could also refer to being male. Pundit|utter 03:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A well sweated in sports uniform?hotclaws 12:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since sexiness depends on the other person's tastes, there is no object that universally works. On the other hand, confidence, sincerity, passion, and honest interest in the other person have always proven very effective for me.jbblack 20:43, 19 January 2008 (CST)

"Doing the ultra-violent"

Hello wikipeople, I'm currently working on the ultraviolence article, after someone put a proposed deletion template there and a bunch of "citations needed". The article says that the term originates from Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, and indeed the terms "ultra-violence" and "ultra-violent" are used several times throughout the novel. The problem is that I'm not sure if the term refers to extreme acts of violence as defined on the article, or acts of sexual violence exclusively. I simply don't understand what the narrator is saying most of the time! I'm asking for the aid of anyone who gets the novel's language a little bit better than me, so they can explain to me what exactly Mr. Burgess is referring to with the term 'ultra-violence'. (And if you could point me to serious papers or studies regarding the term, that'd be awesome too!) Thanks in advance! Kreachure (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the novel, so this may not be a whole lot of help, but certainly in the film many of the droogs' acts of violence are non-sexual. This suggests that the term is not intended to refer exclusively to sexual violence. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been awhile since I read the book but I'm pretty sure it does not have an exclusively sexual-violence implication in the book. In some of the editions of the book there is a glossary in the back of the neologistic terms Burgess made up. I doubt this one will be in there, since it isn't one of the Polish/Russian slang words, but who knows. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think this topic is best served by a separate article. Virtually anything you say about ultraviolence could go in the A Clockwork Orange article, where it's much more likely to be read and improved. I'd recommend a merge. --M @r ē ino 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word is a piece of Burgess word-play, being a play on "ultra-violet". As I also recall it is not restricted to sexual violence. SaundersW (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not suited to be mentioned only within the Clockwork orange article, precisely because Burgess may have meant something different from the popular use of the word nowadays. Kreachure (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's the case, then you'll need to find some articles discussing "the popular use of the word nowadays". Right now, the article doesn't even claim that anyone uses it except for Burgess and critics. --M @r ē ino 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just because the word might be used differently doesn't mean it deserves an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can yo tell the difference between criticism and abuse?

Or is it a matter of taste?217.168.0.21 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They overlap. There is a such thing as abusive criticism. I'd say criticism not intended to help might be called abusive, but that's just me. Wrad (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I invite a guest to a $$$$ restaurant and we get lousy service and food and shitty treatment, I may be inclined to venture criticism that is not "intended to help". But does that make it abusive? I might say something like that I have been severely disappointed by the lack of quality of the food and the utterly non-professional response to our complaints, not to help, but just to get that off my chest. But why should it be considered abusive as long as I make my opinion clear in a civilized way? --Lambiam 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of "intended to help", we could say "intended to be productive" or "constructive". I would guess that in the restaurant case, your goal would be to get a discount, or to demonstrate to your guest that you're displeased. Those are at least nominally positive aims. The personal abuse described by 212.51.122.6 below has no such constructive intention. jeﬀjon (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number one way to tell the difference is to see if it mixes in even a single ad-hominem, such as "only an idiot could have made this." The minute you go from the thing being abused (since you're referring I take it to pretty harsh criticism) to abuse of the person who's doing it, it's not criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.6 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction can be a fine one at times, but the main point is how it can be taken. Generally, it is helpful to consider what is being focused on. These can fall into two categories: Things within and things outside of a person's control. Things within a person's control may include appearance, skill level, habits, attitude, and ideas. Granted, the criticism itself may not be valid, and if needed should be challenged by polite debate. Things outside of a person's control may include race, gender, sexual orientation, physical disabilities, ancestry, and country of origin. Bringing these into question are "argumentum ad hominem" attacks (from Latin, meaning argument to the man)--and as they are things that a person cannot control, they would rightly be considered abusive automatically.

If the item being criticized is within the person's control, it can be considered abusive if the aim of such criticism is to be impolite or demeaning; polite criticism should always respect the rights and humanity of the other person and should have as its goal changes that enhance the interaction between both parties. signed comment added by jbblack (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Oreboat Workers

Does anyone know where I might find records/names of people who worked on the oreboats early in the 20th century? I'm interested in people who lived in Illinois and Michigan, and I live in Minnesota. Would I be able to find those records somewhere in-state, or would I have to go to another Great Lakes state? Are there any online?

Thank you, 138.192.86.254 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being too skeptical, but I doubt there's necessarily going to be records, at least complete and comprehensive records. Oreboating is blue-collar labor, and the companies that hired them might not have seen any reason to preserve their employee files for posterity. --M @r ē ino 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest trying to find a local historical society, also ask your local librarian (they will be able to advise you on finding and searching archives). An approach to a relevant trades union could also be fruitful. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 15

Contents