Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 29

= April 29 =

Why is my ethnicity (Thai, Thai American) classified as Other Asian and not a separate category like Chinese, Filipino, Cambodian, Laotian, etc?
Why is my ethnicity (Thai, Thai American) classified as "Other Asian" and not a separate category like Chinese, Filipino, Cambodian, Laotian, etc? I was taking a state examination and there an ethnicity boy of the test scantron. I has those ethnicities mention except Thai. The State of California Department of Education do this? I don't mean to defame the department. I know the Thai, Cambodian, and Laotian ethnicities are similar. I know that Thai American is a minority group. I think classifying Thai as "Other Asian" is similar to racism. Why they do it and what should I do? Jet (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC


 * I believe that they list those questions according to the most common answers given. Apparently there were too few Thais last time they asked to give it its own category. I wouldn't call it racism at all, just simple numbers. Wrad (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. There are literally hundreds of separate Asian ethnicities living in California. They may not all be as numerous as the Thais, but they all can't practically be named. For that matter, "Chinese" is a catchall term. A Cantonese or Uighur person might ask why he is being lumped in with all those other Chinese. A better question might be, "What right does the California Dept. of Education have to ask such a question?" I never answer bureaucrats' questions about my ethnicity or religion as a matter of principle. --D. Monack | talk 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Be happy you didn't have to check a box "Indian" and then have to explain "No, no not from India." Used to happen all the time and not to immigrants either! --71.236.23.111 (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, D Monack, I'd say that there's almost an unlimited right to ask questions. But not an unlimited right to always expect answers.  --  JackofOz (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

art terminology
I was reading a book on ancient Rome, and there was a picture of a sculpture, and the caption described "Augustus on the left." It was clear that Augustus was on my right, but his left. When describing paintings and sculptures using left/right terminology, I thought it was conventional to refer to the viewer's left and right, not the people as depicted in the artwork. What of this?? I searched "art terminology" on wikipedia, but found nothing. thanks in advance. 203.221.126.206 (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When you are looking at a painting, it is essentially a two-dimensional representation, and you are generally supposed to view it from head on (not to enter into any discussion of anamorphosis. Left and right can refer unambiguously to your left and your right. However a sculpture, other than a relief, is essentially a three-dimensional object that can be seen from any direction, and right and left can become ambiguous. In general you see a picture of a sculpture in a book, which then returns the case to two dimensions, but the writer may not have been thinking of the pictorial representation when composing the caption. My suspicion, though, is that the original wording was "on his left" but was edited incorrectly at some point. Or just possibly that the photo was printed reversed, which happens. SaundersW (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

church loyalty
Hi, I was reading After the Black Death by George Huppert, and it described the position of the Christian Churches in Medieval/ early modern society, saying they effectively had a marginal role in the lives of ordinary people. I want to be careful that no one misinterprets me here, because it does not claim Christianity was irrelevant politically. It's a work of social history, and the section on religion focuses on the laity, and goes to some lengths to illustrate their degree of skepticism, disinterest and occasionally heresy. I'll quote a couple of sentences:
 * In spite of pressure from the authorities - and in spite of the efforts made by presumably zealous clergymen - the mass of the population kept resisting indoctrination. This was true of Lutheran Saxony as well as of Catholic Bavaria - and it was true in the cities as well as in the countryside.

As for evidence, the book gives mainly anecdotes, primarily from rural communities, and apparently mostly from historical "ethnographies" of village life by the likes of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie. I'm willing to assume the picture is reasonably accurate (feel free to dispute this), so it would appear that sometime in the modern era, after say the French Revolution, it seems the Churches made great headway against this apathy. Perhaps they never achieved the levels of indoctrination they wished for, since the main problem presented by Huppert was simply ignorance of Church doctrine (for example about the Trinity), which may have remained all throughout Christian history. Yet it would appear that there was a rise in respect for Christianity the last couple of centuries, and a big increase in its social profile. If indeed this is true, when did it start, and how did it happen? Thanks in ad. 203.221.126.206 (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect that this varies by country. England and the United States, for example, gained an emphasis on personal piety, and thus 'indoctrination' as you call it, from the 18th century Great Awakening.  Serious religion, up to then, may have been largely for the middle classes.  However, as far as I know the Great Awakening did not spread outside English-speaking countries, so I am at a loss as to what happened in Bavaria and Saxony, or elsewhere in Catholic Christendom.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I find the quote quite intriguing, particularly the reference to "indoctrination" and "resisting", which implies the priests were trying to force an unquestioning belief upon an unwilling populace. If I might answer in an equally general manner, that is nonsense. The church had great influence, but it also inspired intelligent and willing response. Socially, the church was important even – especially – amongst the lowest members.  People were baptised, married, and buried by the church; the village church (and precincts) was the site of markets, law courts, council meetings and so forth.  Throughout much of Europe, parishes  formed administrative entities, which regulated much of everyday life (much as local councils do now).  Miracle plays, feast days and other religious activites formed much of the social life.  Sermons and teaching  were given in the vernacular, offering a form of education for all; churches and religious establishments also provided formal education.  Undoubtedly, much of this probably occurred on a secular level; much of it was probably received as that.  But faith was not exclusive to the priestly classes, and not all priests were faithful.  For every tale of a ambitious money-grubbing priest, there's one of a devout and generous priest.  People from all classes paid lip-service to the church's teachings, and carried on their merry way; people from all classes lived out a deep faith.  Much as people do today.  Huppert can present many cases of individuals who were left unmoved by the teaching of the church.  But that is selective; there are a wealth of sources showing the devout and intelligent belief of other individuals.  I would be surprised indeed to discover that there has been a rise in Christianity's respect and social profile in the past couple of centuries.  Let's not confuse modes of expression, and doctrinal differences, with depth of belief and faith in the central tenets.  Gwinva (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Pastoral care might be a useful place to start. Especially in the later middle ages, the local parish priest was supposed to be well-trained to minister to his flock, including answering their questions about theology and correcting them when they seemed to be slipping into heresy or apostasy. There was probably a school in the local church, too. In a big parish the priest had subordinates to help him out, and the bishop would check up on him occasionally (and punish him if he wasn't doing a good job). You mentioned Ladurie, so presumably you are familiar with the Fournier Register - if things got too out of hand the Inquisition might need to be called in, as in, apparently, formerly Cathar districts. Gwinva is right that belief was devout and intelligent; there are many examples to give, but one early example that comes to mind is Amalric I of Jerusalem, who doubted the Resurrection, and had a reasonable and philosophical discussion about it with William of Tyre. I suppose you could say that all this focus on keeping everyone well-informed of official doctrine may have influenced the reform movements of the Middle Ages and the Reformation itself later; if they are being preached to in the vernacular, and can read all kinds of religious literature in the vernacular, why can't they read the Bible in the vernacular too? And if everyone learns about official doctrine, wouldn't that lead to more people questioning it? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)


 * On second thought, that article sucks. But, judging by the number of my colleagues who are working on the subject, there must be lots of books about medieval pastoral care, or there will be in a few years! Adam Bishop (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

roman citizenship
Yet another question from me - I always ask them in batches of about three. In the Roman empire (including the republic) Roman citizens were afforded protection throughout the realm. When this came up, and someone claimed in a legal case that he was a citizen, how was this proven? Did they have records (say from their censuses) that were sufficiently accurate to determine the matter, or did they have to take witnesses and investigate the claim in detail before the case could proceed? I know they took censuses, but it sounds like they relied on people simply reporting who was in their household, so it seems like they would have been easy enough to dodge, eg. if a Roman patriarch wanted to "donate" the gift of citizenship to friends he had made in a province (or sell it for that matter). thanx 203.221.126.206 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting question; the most famous example of claiming civis Romanus sum was, of course, Saint Paul. I suspect (only) that the answer to your question is that the issue simply didn't arise; in the Roman Empire, as in the British, all were considered 'Roman' to the extent that they had equality before the law. --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course there was always the iron ring of citizenship, ehich was given to all children at birth or manumition of slaves. Maybe they just asked the accused to show them how he put his toga on. That would have been hard. All Citizens were registered at birth in Rome. Most citizens woul dhave travelled the empire in groups or just lived with the ex-pat community. This would probably have been enough.Or maybe just the proper roman accent and behavior were good enough checks. Quidom (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As Major Bonkers writes, this is an interesting question because the experts themselves don't fully know -- although there are numerous clues & theories. Keep in mind that the number & importance of Roman citizenship varied greatly over the existence of the Empire: under the Principate it was an important matter with a number of important privileges, but as time passed it became less important until the moment during the Severan dynasty when almost all non-slave inhabitants of the Empire became citizens (which is mentioned in a by-the-way fashion, just one more step Caracalla took to increase tax revenue). Further, keep in mind how facts were established in legal cases: because most communities were small & intimate, everyone knew who were Roman citizens & who were not.


 * Of course, some people moved or changed in status, so one could not depend on community memory to keep the facts straight. So one needed proof that one had undergone one of the steps needed to become s Roman citizen: these included military service, being a decurion of specific towns, being the freedman of a citizen, & inheriting this rank from one's father. In the case of veterans, there are surviving examples of documents, known as diplomas, which attest to the fact the person named is a Roman citizen. Being manumitted -- that is, released from slavery -- was a significant act, which required a formal ceremony before witnesses & entitled the freedman (who was, however, not completely free, but still owed a degree of dependence to his formal master) to wear specific garments (IIRC, these garments included a cap). In other cases, the proof would be less formal, & one would likely to have needed to supply various proofs of citizenship. I would expect that a Roman citizen travelling to a new town would, at the least, carry with him a letter of introduction to one or more notables at his destination who would help him prove his rightful rank -- as well as possess an articulate knowledge of the rights of Roman citizenship.


 * Now the case of Paul is interesting, not only because it is one of the few attested cases of how the Empire handled the issue of citizenship, but because when presented with this problem many of the Imperial officials preferred to do nothing about it. While citizenship meant that a person could not be executed, it did not keep the official from imprisoning this individual while he "reviewed the case" -- i.e., did nothing. So Paul was imprisoned by one governor, while the next one parolled him, actually had someone study the facts of his case, only to decide that it might be too politically risky to decide on his fate, & sent him to Rome with a request for instructions. (Apparently, although Paul had acquired a reputation for being a troublemaker, his citizenship was known by enough people that the usual solution for such people -- summary execution -- would have been a career-limiting action.)


 * To answer the last part of the OP's questions, doubtlessly the grant of citizenship was abused, & doubtlessly there were individuals who passed themselves off as Roman citizens who were not. Corruption, favoritism & deception are not modern crimes. ;) -- llywrch (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Social consensus
From a sociological perspective, how is it possible to be remain an active part of society while actively challenging social consensus ? Can being a heretic have occasional benefits ?

For example, the vast majority of the West clearly favors a woman's right to an abortion. How can one dare call himself Western if he/she is pro-life ? Is such a position taboo ?

Can there be any moral equivalence between Western and non-Western societies ? It is as Montesquieu said in his Lettres persanes : Comment peut-on être persan ?

Does society have any obligations towards itself ? For example, can a society survive on the long term if it does not have babies and/or accepts things like active euthanasia ? In East Germany and Russia, demographers predict a vast population decline because of a legacy of agressive statism.

69.157.234.29 (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The key is to not succumb to rudeness. Either responding to rudeness with rudeness, or initiating rudeness out of your own frustration. As long as you are polite, you can say or do anything you please. Vranak (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) "Heresy" (in a loose sense of the word) can have positive benefits. See Martin Luther King, Jr. for the most obvious example. A majority of people in the US disagreed with integration, and his willingness to stand up against injustice is a major factor in the civil rights movement.
 * 2) It's quite possible to be against societal norms while still being a contributing member of that society. Again, see the civil rights movement as well as the anti-war protests of the 60's.
 * 3) Being pro-abortion is no more "Western" than being anti-abortion, and the reverse is also true. Such positions may be taboo within certain communities, but are not on the whole anymore.
 * 4) How do you define "moral equivalence" in the first place?
 * 5) Society can survive while allowing abortion and euthanasia, so long as the use of those methods does not exceed necessary population growth. -- Kesh (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

why the sudden change of topic captain?
hallo people, why the sudden change of topic? or should i say context? the poor fellow ended up not knowing the name of the song!! captain i guess you were out of line when you shifted the discussion from music to synagogues.41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)davis i am referring to the April 23rd question about the classical music. captain!!!!! help the dude!!!! he dint ask about temples!!!! its not that i am pissed, i am just putting myself in his shoes.He must have felt down don't you think captain!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.120.202 (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To comment on a thread, click the little "edit" button next to the thread. Then, your comment will be connected to it.  Putting a little rant here is of interest to nobody.  It does nothing more than demonstrate a lack of understanding about using the reference desk. --  k a i n a w &trade; 12:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, your rant is without merit on all counts. Temples were asked about, and the song title was provided. &mdash; Lomn 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fashion in Greece and Rome
Did the ancients have a sense of fashion?Julia Agrippina (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Green t-shirt (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at Culture of Ancient Rome and toga.WikiJedits (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They were late-comers, check out this http://www.egyptologyonline.com/dress.htm And if you're talking jewlry, beads and bangles are among the oldest things found in archeological digs. --Lisa4edit (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Understanding fashion in the widest sense, Julia, yes, they did. There is a lovely passage from Plutarch about Alcibiades, the Athenian politician, worth quoting at length;

''All his statecraft and eloquence and lofty purpose and cleverness was attended with great luxuriousness of life, with wanton drunkenness and lewdness, and with effeminacy in dress-he would trail long purple robes through the agora...He also had a golden shield made for himself and decorated not with ancestral insignia but with the likeness of Eros wielding a thunderbolt. The reputable men of the city looked on all these things with loathing and indignation, and they feared his contemptuous and lawless spirit.''

Now, there's a guy who really wanted to stand out!

Obviously Alcibiades is making an extravagant personal statement, the mirror, perhaps, of his extravagant political style. But there were also group trends that excited comment among the more conservative Athenians. Here the most prominent were the young men who copied the styles of Sparta, with long beards and short cloaks, taken as a sign of their estrangement from the city's democratic culture. It was Aristophanes who coined the term 'Laconomania' for this phenomenon, describing its adherents in The Birds as 'long-haired, hungry, dirty and acting like Socrates by carrying the Spartan cane.'

Changing trends in fashion, political or otherwise, were really nothing new in Athens. Before the outbreak of the Persian Wars men who started to adopt more elaborate hairstyles. Thucydides describes one of these, in which the hair was tied behind the head in a knot called a chignon, and then fastened with a clasp of golden grasshoppers. This and other stylistic changes were influenced by the fashions of the Persian east. Not surprisingly all such affectations were abandoned as 'effeminate' in the wake of the ensuing wars.

The Greeks were no different from other cultures in following the trends set by political icons. Just as the toothbrush moustache became commonplace in the Third Reich, so the fashion-conscious Greek male followed the clean-shaven look of Alexander the Great. Indeed, Alexander was so significant here that he set the trend in the whole of the Greek world for at least half a millennium after his death. I think this was probably due to the fact that he was the first ruler to recognise the link between personal image and propaganda, restricting and controlling artistic representations of himself with great care, in sculpture, in paintings and on coins.

Te Roman sense of fashion was even more refined than that of the Greeks. While the Greek made distinctions in dress primarily on the basis of gender, the Romans introduced a dress code which allowed determination's to be made of an individuals status and function. Concepts of 'correct dress', and proper grooming, lay at the very centre of Roman culture. Both dress and manner of speech were thought to reflect a person's moral character. Seneca, tutor to the Emperor Nero, writes:

''The truly great man speaks informally and easily; whatever he says, he speaks with more assurance than pains. You are familiar with the carefully coiffed young men, with their gleaming beards and hair-everything from a box; you can never hope for anything strong or solid from them. ''

When Cicero wanted to be particularly cutting about public figures he held in distaste he focused on perceived idiosyncrasies of style. He was at his most acidy in his descriptions of Gabinus and Piso, the Consuls for the year 58BC. He describes Gabinus 'dripping with unguents', with his hair artificially waved. And as for Piso;

''Great Gods! How repulsively he walked, how fierce, how terrible to look at! You would say that you saw one of those bearded men of old, a very exemplum of the ancient regime, an image of antiquity, a pillar of the state. He was clothed harshly in our common purple, which was nearly black, with his hair so shaggy that at Capua, where he held the office of a duumvir in order to add another title to the wax portrait image he would leave for posterity, he looked as if he were ready to carry off the street of perfumers and hairdressers on his locks''.

It was always dangerous for a Roman in public life to depart from the strict standards of 'Republican virtue', for this was invariably taken as a sign of frivolity or effeminacy. But the fact that such criticism appears regularly over prolonged periods of time shows that there were many prepared to challenge convention by making small personal fashion statements. Designs themselves were fairly consistent, so innovations in material and colouring were the most obvious ways of individualising dress or capturing a popular trend. Pliny noted this, criticising such innovations as 'sheer vanity.'

Women, too, were as fashion conscious as the men, with hairstyle being the main way of expressing personal preferences. Ovid noted "It is impossible to enumerate all the different styles: each day adds more adornments." This was another trend that unsettled the censorious Seneca, as he makes clear in his tribute to his mother, Helvia;

''You-unlike so many others-never succumbed to immorality, the worst evil of the century; jewels and pearls did not bend you...The bad example of lesser women-dangerous even for the virtuous-did not lead you to stray from the old-fashioned, strict upbringing you received at home...You never polluted yourself with makeup, and never wore a dress that covered about as much on as it did off. Your only ornament, the kind of beauty that time does not tarnish, is the great honour of modesty. ''

So, yes, there was fashion, even if Seneca disapproved! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember also Suetonius on Caesar: "It is said that he was particular in his dress, for he wore the toga with fringes about the wrists, and always had it girded about him, but rather loosely." Fringes, of course, meant that he was dissociating himself from the traditionalists, the party of Sulla. Somewhere or the other I seem to recall that he was mocked by his troops for his finickiness in dress, but I'm dashed if I can remember where.
 * Oh, and ickle Augustus used walnut shells to burn off the hair on his legs.
 * If the ancients hadn't had a eye on fashion, Tyre would never have grown rich. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Teenage Crime in Greece and Rome
Did they have a 'hoodie' problem? Julia Agrippina (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Hoodie' is used as a pejorative term in the UK for a young person who engages in antisocial behavior (or who is perceived to be the kind of person who would behave antisocially). — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 12:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I seem to recall reading that a hooded top was so frequently seen on the Britons Romans encountered that they termed it a 'brittani' or some such. So, assuming that is true, there were hoodies. And given that Britain was quite troublesome at times, no doubt they had a hoodie problem :) Certainly hooded tops are not a completely new idea. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "The ploughman wears a hooded cloak, a rainproof woollen garment typical of Britain and Gaul." Looking at various things, looks like it was called a birrus. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Julia. Our article on Ancient Rome gives you some information on family structure. Fathers were considered to have absolute power over their children, so I wouldn't be surprised if teenage rebellion was a feature of social life. Googling gets you several links on the coming of age ceremony for boys, which would have been in the teenage years. Crime was very common in Rome, a large city, but I don't know if there was any parcticular focus on youth crime. As for children, boys were sent to school, though girls were not, so at least children were considered to need educating. We also have an article on the Roman school. If you can search the archives of this desk, I think I remember a discussion here within the last couple of months about the attitudes of past civilizations towards children. I think the consensus was that the idea that children were treated or thought of any differently in the past than today was a fallacy. Hope all this helps you, WikiJedits (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Found the previous discussion; read it here WikiJedits (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a good mosaic of a Briton wearing a Birrus Brittanicus at Chedworth Roman Villa. It came to be known as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quidom (talk • contribs) 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Juvenal delinquency is an old problem. Socrates was accused of encouraging it, & condemned to death. And in later centuries there was the upper-crust Mohocks of London. Considering that an effective urban police force only came into existence with the Bow Street Runners -- order in ancient Rome was kept by a combination of slave watchmen, the Urban Cohort, & when necessary the Pretorian Guard: effective for coping with riots & other emergencies, but of minimal use with identifying thieves and murderers -- I would be surprised if there weren't street gangs in ancient Rome. -- llywrch (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We now have a birrus stub article, thanks to 79.66.99.37 and Quidom. Quidom, if you have a reference for the mosaic, could you drop by the stub and put it in? Thanks WikiJedits (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Julia, the Classical world never, of course, identified juvenile crime as a distinct issue, which makes the whole thing quite difficult to investigate, but it is possible to build up a limited and partial picture by sifting through the evidence. In Athens, for example, Demosthenes describes the case of a young man called Ariston, a victim of an unprovoked assault while walking home at night through the agora.  He subsequently accused one Konon and his son Ktnesis, with whom he had served in the military.  Ktnesis and his brother were seemingly in the habit of getting drunk at lunchtime, and then amusing themselves by pouring the contents of chamber pots over the heads of the personal slaves of their fellow soldiers!


 * The Athenians, and other Greek communities, had laws against 'the mistreatment of parents', which suggests that the practice was widespread. In Aristophanes Clouds Pheidippides even argues that if fathers beat their sons then why should sons not be allowed to beat their fathers?


 * There is very little in the way of evidence to suggest that the casual public vandalism, a feature of contemporary youth crime, was a general problem, apart, that is, from one tantalising little detail concerning the actions of the Hermokopidal or 'Herm-mutilators' in 415BC. A Herm, from the God Hermes, was a stone pillar surmounted by a head.  The only other feature was a prominent phallus.  The Hermokopidal were those who went around removing these cocks!  This crime, though, had a clear political purpose, intending to frustrate a planned Athenian expedition to Sicily.  Hermes was the God of travelers, so the destruction of his statues would be taken as a bad omen.  Sadly for Athens the message was not heeded.


 * In Sparta the 'hoodies' might be said to have been used in the service of the state. Youths between seventeen and nineteen were obliged to serve in an organisation known as the krupteia, which, among other things, was expected to terrorise the helots, thus ensuring that they were kept in place.


 * The Romans placed a particularly strict interpretation on notions of filial obedience, though again theatrical depictions suggest, perhaps, that all was not quite what it seems. Plautus makes use of the stereotype of the spendthrift young man in his plays.  In Pseudolus there is the figure of Calidorus, who is prepared to cheat his father and mother in order to purchase the freedom of a prostitute called Phoenicium.  When encouraged by the pimp Ballo to steal from his father he says that filial duty forbids this, to which Ballo responds "OK, then, just snuggle up to filial duty at night, instead of Phoenicium."


 * The nearest evidence we have to gang culture in the Roman world is with the circus factions, those who followed the four main chariot colours. These faction, most often made up of young men, were responsible on occasions for fairly serious public order incidents, including one notorious incident in Constantinople.


 * I should also mention that high-born Roman youths were more or less a law unto themselves, wandering the streets at night without restraint, beating up passers-by, assaulting women and smashing shops, Even the Emperor Nero was a member of one such gang in his youth.  Perhaps even Saint Augustine himself was a hoodie, for in the Confessions he describes as a sixteen-year old how he stole some pears from a neighbours garden while he was part of a company of 'lewd young fellows';


 * And this we did, because we would go whither we should not...It was foul, yet I loved it, I loved to undo myself, I loved mine own fault, not that for which I committed the fault, but even the very fault itself...Alone, I would never have committed the theft...but even because when one cries: 'Let us go, let us do this or that', then 'tis a shame not to be shameless.


 * Give that Saint an ASBO! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a criminal per se, but definitely a stroppy teenager, a rebel with a cause, was Pancras of Rome who died at 14 as a Christian martyr. He could be considered anti-social; he certainly objected to the requirements of his society. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember also that young ruffians had a major role to play in the fall of the Republic - particularly those that supported Publius Clodius Pulcher, burnt down the Senate house. I can't remember whether they also chased Cicero through the Forum, but perhaps that's just wishful thinking. Some of them were aristocrats, of course: Catullus' poetry incorporates the street slang he learnt running with this lot. -- Relata refero (disp.) 13:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Childhood in ancient Rome
How did they view children?Julia Agrippina (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As pests. Green t-shirt (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought they viewed children as a continuous wave of electromagnetic radiation reflected and/or re-emitted by the children and then collected in specialized cone and rod cells embedded inside the retina which caused electronic signals to be interpreted by the brain as children. -- k a i n a w &trade; 12:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Kainaw, you've done something few others have. You made me laugh. Green t-shirt (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/education/projects/webunits/greecerome/Romeroles1.html This might give you some clues. --Lisa4edit (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that Green t-shirt has now been blocked. --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's an old block notice, it seems. It expired after one week, so he's back to his old tricks. Time for another block, perhaps. -- Kesh (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see he responds well, though, to strict references! Ha-ha-ha!  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Past perceptions of children was something I touched on at length in a discussion on Medieval parents. I will repeat the point that I made on that occasion: there is absolutely no reason to suppose that Roman parents were any less caring and attentive towards their children than their modern equivalent. We have the evidence of funery monuments recording in detail the accidental deaths if children aged seven and under, some with heart-breaking precision. The very mention of these accidents serves to emphasise the sense of bereavement. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Remote
What is the furthest land point from inhabited places? How far away is it from the nearest inhabited place? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 12:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The South Pole?69.156.127.241 (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) : Have a look at Extreme_points_of_the_World. it depends what you mean by inhabited. The poles are a quick pick but the South is constantly occupied now. May be the North pole as its all ice sheet not continent ( no oil!). Otherwise an island in one of the southern oceans, Indian, Southern or South Pacific. Or a point in a desert, probably in North Africa. We have infested the planet to a degree that anytime, anywhere one of us is passing through and "inhabiting" it. If you find a desert island that doesnt have a reality tv show on it let us know! Mhicaoidh (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * umm I said South Atlantic too didn't I ?: Tristan da Cunha is the remotest point but thats still inhabited... and sadly maybe least inhabited might be the best we can do. Even high points like Everest are pretty much occupied a lot of the time. Now this is what I like about Wikipedia: try Hayy ibn Yaqdhan Mhicaoidh (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * just thinking... remoteness may not necessarily be a matter of distance but, as I feel, dislocation from the tyranny of time. One may well ask oneself, as a test of distance, what time is it here? The South Pole runs , amazingly for our American hegemonists, on New Zealand time, although when you look at the globe you will realise  that since all time zones coincide there, then time can't be nailed down. So I would define uninhabitation and remoteness in terms of a number of factors: not just people, distance but also unimportance of time zone Mhicaoidh (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Antarctica says the continent has no permanent residents, so you could consider it to be uninhabited, and calculate the furthest point from settlements on the southern islands. However, some of the research stations are permanently staffed, so take your pick as to whether they are uninhabited or not. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to find a certain Rev. Jesse Jackson speech
I've been told that Cirrus's Time's Running Out uses samples from a certain Jesse Jackson's speech, and I do seem to vaguely remember it. But I can't find the speech in question. Does anyone know? (follow the link to listen) 189.15.70.185 (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't listen to the link (not practical on dialup), but Jackson has delivered just one truly famous speech, apparently entitled "You Do Not Stand Alone". (text) That's the speech with the famous catch phrase "Keep Hope Alive", which has been sampled before, as the wikilink shows. Perhaps that's it. —Kevin Myers 02:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Presidental election
What happens if there are two democratic presidental runners, and neither one of them recieves enough deleget votes to run for president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.85.210.203 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which country are you talking about? Different countries have different constitutional arrangements for such an eventuality. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.85.210.203 (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You do not need any delegates of any kind to run for President. For example, Ross Perot didn't have any delegates (Democrat or Republican).  As for choosing an official Democrat to run for President, the Democrat party will ensure that they back somebody. --  k a i n a w &trade; 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Democratic party rules say: "Balloting will continue until a nominee is selected." They do it in rounds called ballots. The rules (http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/f4225987fd9e438ef7_fqm6bev2k.pdf) state that "All delegates pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." But also says "Delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice." They vote in rounds if no one gets the majority they have another round.  As you can see in Democratic National Convention under History there were conventions that had to do quite a few rounds before they were done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa4edit (talk • contribs) 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is called a brokered convention.--droptone (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr
Hi everybody! I have a question: how do we know for sure (i.e. where do I have to look) that Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr was a son of Tangwystl Goch? The wikipedia articles about him and his father assess this fact without any reference... Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.147.187.61 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At his name. "Ap Llywelyn Fawr" is Welsh for "son of Llywelyn Fawr". If he were the son of Tangwystl Goch, he would be known as "Gruffydd ap Tangwystl Goch". -- llywrch (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. I had a feeling I was going to make a mistake like that. :-( -- llywrch (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tangwystl Goch would be his mother, llywrch. 62.147.187.61, Google Scholar gave up some hits for her, but you'd need to be on a library account to read them. You could also try finding if any of the Welsh Chronicles are online in searchable form and see if there is a reference to her. Best luck, WikiJedits (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The principal early sources for Gruffudd ap Llywelyn are Brut y tywysogyon ('The chronicle of the princes') and Matthew Paris's Chronica majora. Xn4  22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish coat of arms
Do we (here a wikipedia) have a picture of the scottish coat of arms (as used today)!?! I have seen and  already. I would prefer one with out the supporters. Just the 'shield' so to speak! The English equivalent is. Thanks so much for any help! --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * James VI's version of the Shield of Arms isn't quite the one Queen Elizabeth uses, but you could swap the top right corner for an enlarged copy of the three leopards. [[Image:James I & VI Scottish Arms 1603.PNG|thumb|left|James I and VI]]
 * The banner of arms, known as the Royal Standard, is also in the project (right). [[Image:Royal Standard of the United Kingdom (in Scotland).svg|thumb|Royal Standard - Scottish version]]
 * There are a lot more shields at Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, but not exactly the one you want.
 * I don't think anyone has contributed the modern Royal Shield for Scotland, since it is most often seen (as far as I can guess) as a coat of arms with the supporters, and as the Royal Standard.
 * By the way, the image you linked, the one with the supporters: Image:Scottish_royal_coat_of_arms.svg is a vector image, so you could download it and use a program like Inkscape to cut out the shield. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That is probably what I will have to do!--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Iris Murdoch and existentialism
When did Iris Murdoch turn against existentialism?Steerforth (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Peter J. Conradi's Iris Murdoch: The Saint and the Artist, very quickly after becoming interested in it. Murdoch met Sartre and had a 'flirtation' with existentialism, but she found that it "neither swam nor drowned" - it was too priggish, too long-faced, for her. Xn4  22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From the same book I note that she accused both Sartre and Camus of lacking in 'mystery'.  In a 1957 Spectator review she went a step further, saying that the appeal of existentialism was its 'dramatic, solipsistic, romantic and anti-social exaltation of the individual.'  As an intellectual technique or way of thinking, at least in its materialist and atheistic form, it was increasingly far removed from the central theme of her novels; namely what it is to be good.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Antisocial behavior in U.K.
An earlier question about problems with "hoodies" got me thinking about British politicians current obsession with "antisocial behaviour". I'm an American and not sure what they're talking about. Are they referring to teenagers being obnoxious in public or is this some Orwellian euphemism for actual crime? Where does the recent hand wringing about it come from? --D. Monack | talk 18:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is some history etc in our article on Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. Nanonic (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That article and related ones are somewhat informative, but I'm still unclear on some things. The definition of harassment, alarm or distress that can lead to an ASBO seems incredibly vague. What kind of actions typically lead to such an order? If I'm running down the sidewalk quickly and someone is "alarmed" that I might fall and hurt myself, can I be hit by a anti-social behavior order? If I see someone else doing the same thing and shout, "Watch where you're going, jackass!" and the other person is distressed or alarmed, can I likewise fall under an ASBO? How would my behavior typically be restricted by such an order? --D. Monack | talk 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, what was the impetus behind the asbo provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998? Was there the perception that harassment and vandalism were out of control and needed a special remedy? The whole issue has the whiff of moral panic to me. --D. Monack | talk 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Moral panic is reasonably close to the mark, D Monack. ASBOs were introduced by politicians who wished to be seen "doing something" about the perceived problems of bored and obnoxious teenagers and nuisance neighbours, which are a regular theme in some sections of the British media.  ASBOs were taken up relatively slowly at first - just 466 between 1998 and 2002, but up to 9853 by 2005, as their true potential became apparent. The beauty of an ASBO, you see, is that you can use it to criminalise behaviour which is not in itself criminal.  Just so long as someone accepts that harrassment, alarm or distress may be caused in some way to someone, almost anything may become ASBO-able.  In addition to the examples in the article, see here  and here  for a couple of interesting cases.  Your running-about-on-the-sidewalk example is no sillier than some, honestly it isn't.  Then, if the person repeats the behaviour again (trampolining, feeding pigeons, swearing because they have Tourette's syndrome, whatever), you can whip out the ASBO and - hey presto! - they have a criminal record for breaching it.  People can be evicted from social housing if convicted of breaching ASBOs, and if you are evicted because of your own actions you can be dubbed "intentionally homeless", which absolves the local authority from the duty to rehouse you, thus handily moving the problem elsewhere.
 * The effectiveness of ASBOs in dealing with genuinely obnoxious, disruptive and anti-social individuals - of any age - can be gauged by the high level of breaches, the view of them by some as a badge of honour and the increasing popularity of Asbo as a dog's name. --  Ka renjc 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[After edit conflict]
 * The ASBO system is, indeed, hopelessly vague. It's important to understand that these Orders can be made against behaviour which is not actually a crime, and that they can order the person concerned not to do things which are likewise not a crime, and yet that breaking such an order, once made, is a crime. Alas, the existence of this approach to 'antisocial behaviour', whether by young villains or by anyone else, means that the primary responsibility for doing something no longer falls unambiguously on the police and leads to many UK forces abandoning the old-fashioned method of detecting actual crimes against the person and prosecuting those responsible. You ask "Was there the perception that harassment and vandalism were out of control and needed a special remedy?" Yes, there was, but there was also the reality that they were out of control in many places. Why? - partly because of a general break-down in youth discipline (many secondary schools in the UK are disaster areas for this) but also partly because in recent years the British police have generally been focussed by their political masters on meeting a range of 'crime-reduction' targets, and (what a surprise!) 'anti-social behaviour' doesn't normally feature in the targets set. No great surprise, then, that the police aim their resources into the areas covered by the targets set for them: it would be remarkable if they did anything else. Xn4  21:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Trampolining? Feeding pigeons?  It really has gone too far, hasn't it? Thanks for the updates. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My take on the whole "anti-social behaviour" thing is, as Karenjc and Xn4 said, it is used to retroactively criminalise legal behaviour. The introduction of the ASBO has probably lead to the prosecution of numerous offenders who were previously unable to be stopped, but it has also resulted in numerous laughably extreme cases. The ASBO system furthers the anti-establishment sentiments that are often prevalent among young people by criminalising behaviour simply becuase it is seen as threatening. The threat no longer has to exist in order to be considered wortthy of acting upon. It's worth remembering that the ASBO system has probably eased the lives of some people in the UK, but has furthered an "us vs them" mentality between inner-city youths and the police. It may be worth noting that many of the so called "newspapers" in the UK that are so mocking of the ASBO played a significant part in creating the mentality that has lead to the inception of the ASBO. I suppose if an ASBO has prevented your neighbour from playing Dolly Parton at all hours the you'd be quite in favour of them, but some of them have been a bit ridiculous. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * police state much? --Nricardo (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh but that can't be because we're a great free country. That only happens elsewhere or in the past. Breakfast at Twilight for all I think. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Closer to a nanny state, I think 13:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk • contribs)

Economic Stimulus
(not asking for advice, asking for fact.

If a couple's income is too high to qualify for their $1,200, and they have children under 17, will they still get $300 per child? Most articles I've read don't really clarify on it. 24.6.46.92 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to mention what country or other jurisdiction you're talking about. --Anon, 01:13 UTC, April 30, 2008.


 * This is obviously H.R. 5140, the Economic Stimulus Act 2008 - commonly called the Bush Tax Refund so we can all blame Bush for it even though it was heavily written, amended, and then voted on by Congress. Couples get $1,200 if they filed a gross income of less than $75,000.  Those eligible for the $1,200 will get an additional $300 per child claimed on their taxes.  See this for a good description of the bill without all the legalspeak. --  k a i n a w &trade; 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.irs.gov/app/espc/ --Nricardo (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Asking this question on the Language Desk is like asking a pig for eggs. It should be on the Miscellaneous Desk!--ChokinBako (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)