Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 August 2

Roof on this building.
Please look at the roof of the building featured in this article. Yakushi-ji

Does anyone know what kind of roof this is called? Thanks.


 * Also, while on the topic, what are those sliding doors commonly found in dojos and other Japanese houses called?
 * Nevermind, I found it: Shoji. Excuse my ineptitude.

--69.138.61.168 02:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the roof is called, but in case it helps, the building is a pagoda. --Allen 02:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Check out our article on Japanese architecture - looks like there's some good info in there on roofs! Tony Fox (arf!) 02:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny that you mention that, because I had already scoured that article and found nothing. Judging from the edit history, I think the sentences regarding the roofs has been added since I looked at it!  --69.138.61.168 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Famous Painter
I need to know what famous painter was exhibited in the met only twice and once between 1950-1985     Larry
 * To clarify for those who, like myself, thought he meant exhibited in the Met he probably meant the Metropolitan Museum of Art. AllanHainey 09:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds like an Abstract Expressionist like Jackson Pollock or a painter whose works are so entirely owned by another museum or private collector that the Met couldn't get an exhibit. There are a ton of folks who qualify under both sets of criteria.  There are a lot of "famous" painters, including Da Vinci and Brueghel and Rembrandt.  Geogre 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

POLITICTS
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BY: --196.21.218.17 07:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)PIMANI


 * PoliSci concerns learning not to shout within a nation to get your way, while IntRel concerns learning not to shout on an international level. :-) StuRat 09:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Poly-ticts is a proliferation of unconscious motions. Poly-tincts is a proliferation of colors.  Poly-tits is a proliferation of misspellings for "tots," or small children.  (Politics is the study of the operation of a state, of a polis, while international relations is an umbrella term for the dealings nations have with one another at a given time.)  Geogre 14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Poly-tits could also refer to Anne Boleyn, who is supposed to have had a supernumerary breast. JackofOz 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Or maybe it refers to many small birds? --Fastfission 05:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course! I should have thought of that.  Here, I only see tufted tits.  The great tits are in the UK, apparently.  Geogre 11:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As are the blue tits. It's the cold weather.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition to extra fingers? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Politics comes from the greek "poly" for many, and "tic" for blood-sucking parasite. Sorry for the insult folks, had to let that one out  --198.125.178.207 19:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You beat me to it ! StuRat 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is Peterborough Lift Lock
Greetings:

Does anyone know what the address of Peterborough Lift Lock Peterborough Lift Lock? I need it in order to get directions from my home to Lift Lock on Google Maps.

Regards,

Shuo Xiang 17:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Army
I was wondering what is the Lebanesse army's stance on the conflict in the middle east? From what I gather it is Hezbollah against israel. However, Lebanesse civilians are getting killed. Does the government of Lebannon consider these casualties collateral damage? or is there some contingency plan they have to counterstrike? Or somewhere in between?

Thanks!!!


 * As you can imagine we here in Wikipedia are not a member of the Lebanese goverment, nor do we participate in the meetings of the Lebanese military staff. Therefore we cannot answer such questions, but only speculate. If you are really keen to know about the stance of the Lebanese army, you must ask them directly. Either that, or ask Mossad, who usually knows alot about such matters :). Flamarande 19:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Lebanese government is being very very careful not to do anything threatening towards Israel. I don't think they want to give Israel an excuse to escalate operations; a definitive act of war by Lebanon would enable an eager Israel to strike Lebanese army targets that are undoubtably supplying, supporting, and sheltering (the three S's!) Hezbollah fighters.  --198.125.178.207 19:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "undoubtably" has to be backed with clear evidence, and not speculation or propaganda. If Israel had such evidence they would have shown it (perhaps not?). And Israel has attacked several Lebanese army bases allready, they don't need any excuses to attack supply depots of the Hezzbollah anywhere. As a matter of fact, any mistake (also known as collateral damage) in the bombardments gets the "It was a Hezzbollah base" excuse allready. Flamarande 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, but if Lebanon were to commit an act of war, they would need no excuses. And of course you are correct, there is no clear evidence - no one seems have any.  But as a matter of common sense - why wouldn't the lebanese army be supplying Hezbollah, at least in some capacity, if not in major ways?  Hezbollah is represented in the Lebanese government!  --Bmk 03:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the reason is that war with Israel could be brought on by such actions, which would almost surely cause the fragile Lebanese government to fall. I would guess that there are factions of the military, likely in Shia areas, which support the terrorists, but that the Lebanese military as a whole does not.  The Christians, Druze, and Sunni Muslims in Lebanon aren't likely to support a Shiite terrorist organization like Hezbollah. StuRat 05:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree with you StuRat,I think the reason why the Lebanese government not supporting Hizbollah is they are afraid of the great power behind Israel no doubt US (use common sense who doesnt want to save his family, friends and country), they are not capable of standing against US. One more thing please define the word Terrorism for me, Hizbollah is fighting for the whole country ie. Lebanon,have lost many souls saving innocent people's lives(who have no clue why have they put in that deadly situation) from Israel bomb attacks, and you are calling them terrorists!!!!! I think the time has come when people should relize who the real TERRORIST is. [common sense user]
 * this unsigned statement was done by User:82.194.62.22 Flamarande 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)This entry was also deleted by the same user only to be restored. Is he afraid to sign his own "name"? Flamarande 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My def of terrorism is those trying to maximize civilian deaths. Hezbollah would like to kill every last Jew, if they could, and say so publicly.  They also want to maximize Lebanese deaths by hiding among women and children, and thus hope to get world opinion on their side.  They have been far more successful at this than at killing Jews.  They could have used their funding from Iran and Syria to build bomb shelters, if they really wanted to protect the Lebanese people, but this is not what they want at all.  Instead, they use their funding to provoke war and thus endanger the Lebanese.  Israel, on the other hand, could kill every last Lebanese (with nukes, if necessary), but this is not their goal.  My def does allow for state terrorism (genocide), such as a government setting up death camps or killing fields, but this is not what Israel is doing, is it ? StuRat 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Once more into the breach dear friends... We go again into the realms of propaganda. :) Reading the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict it seems that Hezzbollah began this whole mess by making a raid into Israeli territory, killing three soldiers and kidnapping two others. Hezzbolah is a NGO (a non govermental organization) and therefore doesn't have any right to wage war. A NGO who wages war (by killing and kidnapping) is by definition a terrorist organization. And NO, the fact they are opposing the advance of the IDF into Lebanese teritory does NOT turn them into a legal Lebanese army. If the Hezbollah wasn't hiding amongst the Lebanese civilian population, the IDF wouldn't attack Lebanon at all in the first place. And this is ignoring all the past raids made by Hezzbollah from Lebanon. And they are not trying to save innocent civilians (that's what the medical staff, firemen, and ppl digging victims out of the rubble are doing) they are fighting against the IDF.
 * A couple of Polish postal employes resisted the German invasion in WWII. Eventually they surrendered and they were shoot (it was a legal execution - they were not members of the Polish army). Now a organization with the past of the Hezzbollah is not even closely as innocent as a couple of postal workers.
 * A state like Israel on the other hand is legally entitled to wage war, a state has a monopoly upon violence (or should have). Therefore the IDF (which is a part of the state - i.e. a official and legal army) which bombards several Lebanese villages, towns, and cities with extreme predjuice, killing hundereds of civilians (including women and children, let's not hide that fact) is nevertheless waging a legal war (since when is war legal or illegal?). In the worst case (in which they target locations being 100% sure no terrorists are present, only civilians - good luck in proving that) some IDF officers are guilty of commiting war crimes, and not terrorism.
 * Everybody knows that the USA is backing Israel, and Hezzbollah knew that before they made their raids. What is your point? The US military is spread way too thin and unless the whole situation really hits the fan they won't interfere.
 * So to sum it up: NGO waging war = terrorist organization. Goverments waging an official war (through an Army, or Intelligence agents) = legal war, or war crime at worst. Covert agents of a goverment commiting assassinations, bombings, etc = criminal actions in the country these actions happened, or State terrorism (the last term is quite controversial). Flamarande 13:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Flamarande, you've now responded on at least several occasions: "ask Mossad, not Wikipedia". Does Mossad have a website that I don't know of where such questions can be asked? If so, perhaps this website even has an FAQ section! :-) Loomis 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of, would be nice tough :). Sincerly, sometimes some users ask questions that are impossible for us here in Wikipedia or even the common media to know. I could answer with: "Only God knows." but I dont like that phrase. The rumor goes that Mossad knows alot about terrorist organizations in particular and the Midddle East in general. Add to that the old joke: "Only God knows everything and He works for Mossad." I decided to answer unanswerable questions with "ask Mossad, not Wikipedia" Flamarande 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Flamarande. I was just curious. Take care! Loomis 22:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig
I was looking at The Iron Horse's page on Wiki and under awards there is the following entry:

League MVP: 1927 (award discontinued, and usually not considered a true MVP award)

I am wondering why it is "not considered a true MVP award"? I heard a small reference to that season on a sports radio show and it had really peaked my interest. By all accounts it is one of the greatest seasons ever; 47/175/.373!!! I cant seem to find anything hinting towards any controversy or anything.

Thanks!!!


 * According to Baseball-reference.com, the current MVP award, given by the Baseball Writers Association of America, began in 1931. In the 20s, the AL itself had an MVP but disallowed people from winning it twice. Babe Ruth had won the award in 1923 and thus was ineligible in 1927, when he hit .356 with 60 home runs. If you think that can be explained better in the Lou Gehrig article, consider editing it. -- Mwalcoff 23:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Growth in Body Art?
Are there any studies indicating an increase in the prevalence and social acceptance of body art, esp. tattoos and piercings, in the U.S. in the last 10-20 years. If so, have their been any theoretical attempts to explain this growth sociologically or anthropologically? The Body Art article had no information on this.

Thanks!

Jed Blue
 * Using 'body art popularity' in Google scholar comes up with 35,000 articles. You can probably find several articles in databases at your local library. Nowimnthing 15:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

who invented the hokey-pokey?

 * According to Hokey Pokey(who would have thought!) it is Larry LaPrise though that claim is disputed. Nowimnthing 15:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)