Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 July 4

= July 4 =

Provinces of Iran
Which provinces of Iran are Azeri, Arab, Turkmen and Baloch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.53 (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are looking for Azeri, Iranian Arabs, Turkmen, and Baloch. --omnipotence407 (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Random spot in the world
If I wanted to pick a random spot in the world, could I just pick a random number between -90 and 90 for latitude and -180 to 180 for longitude? Or would that be biased in favor of polar latitudes? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the result of your procedure would be biased. The right way to generate a uniform distribution in polar coordiantes (that is, on the surface of a sphere in 3 dimensions) is to generate a uniform distibution between -1 and 1 of the cosine of $$\phi + \pi/2$$, where $$\phi$$ is latitude; and to generate an independent uniform distribution between 0 and $$2 \pi $$ of the longitude. In other words, you take a random number between -1 and 1; take arc-cosine of it (the result should be between 0 and $$\pi$$); subtract $$\pi/2$$; and convert to degrees. That's your latitude. Next you take another random number between 0 and $$2 \pi $$, and convert to degrees. That's your longitude. Enjoy ;) --Dr Dima (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, there is Math Reference Desk where this question would have been appropriate. --Anonymous, 05:07 UTC, July 4, 2008.


 * I don't think so. It was formulated as a general interest / geography question, so it's probably more at home here. --Dr Dima (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Doctor Dolittle's method was to open an atlas with his eyes shut and stick a pin into a random page. But perhaps that's biassed towards regions which have larger scale maps? Xn4  21:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a globe levitate in the air in front of you. While blindfolded, spin it several different ways until you don't know which way "north" is facing. Then jab your finger somewhere on its surface. Wrad (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can do that with a floor fan that can blow upwards and an inflatable globe. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist studies
I am currently writing a large amount of coursework on the subject "Do Anarchists Demand The Impossible?". I have already invested in 3 very useful books on the subject, but am now in want of a book by Errico Malatesta called At The Café. As a sixth form student, I am becoming more irritated by the amount of money I would have to spend to obtain all these books. So my question is this: Are there resources online that can provide me with similar information, or maybe something that can tell me whether the book I want can be found in a library? Any answers would be greatly appreciated. Alienpmk (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Look up the ISBN (in this case ISBN 978-1904491064), go to Special:BookSources and you can check what libraries (or other free resources) have the book you're looking for. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WorldCat is what I use to find out where books are kept in what libraries. Not sure of its international coverage, though. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Most libraries in the UK have online catalogues you can search for books, and your library system will usually allow for books in the system to be sent to your local library cheaply or for free. It can even be worth asking if your library can get a book in for you; sometimes you'd be surprised. A quick google will generally turn up your local library catalogue. I'd do it for you, but I don't know which county you're in. Failing that, if there's a university library near you, you might want to look into accessing that. You usually can't search their library catalogue without being granted access, but a university with a few decent relevant departments will usually have the books you need. 86.141.89.124 (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Very quickly, there's Anarchy Archives, Spunk Library, Infoshop.org, anarchist virtual library and the Daily Bleed. Google Scholar and Books are also good. As for libraries, Worldcat as recommended above, Library Thing and Access My Library. Hope this helps, feel free to ask if you have any more specific questions! I've notified the other members of the Anarchism Task Force who might be able to assist you also. Regards, Skomorokh  03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you also be able to utilize excerpts from magazines and zines? Anti-politics.net has a collection of links to various anarchist magazines, some of which publish selected articles online.  Some examples of anarchist magazines which do so inlcude Anarchy Magazine, and A Murder of Crows.  It would also be helpful if we knew what you are looking for.  Exactly what is the focus of your research?  Is there a specific branch of history or theory which you wish to examine? --Cast (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Plato's The Republic: Which Version?
I have recently developed an interest in Platonism and would like to read some of his works. Which translated version of The Republic, (which is where my interest mainly lies for the moment), is considered to be the best according to both readers and scholars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSFRuairi (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that Allan Bloom's translation is considered quite good. GreatManTheory (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Bloom is excellent. However, any modern translation is sufficient, really.-- Neo  Nerd  11:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian culture painting
I'm trying to find an article on 'russian painting' specifically pre-communist stuff, possibly stuff that fits into the category 'Romanticism'.

I'm thinking of the type of painting that has an almost 'school book' style in comparison to western artists, eg


 * also the stylised works that fall into the 'golden age of illustration' category by Ivan Bilibin seem similar.

Is there a name for this style of work, links to get me started, books maybe etc.

Thanks.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of it's Russian Symbolism. See also Peredvizhniki and Mir iskusstva. Xn4  20:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Peredvizhniki link is useful, maybe there's no real link between the paintings I'm picking.. A 'super-real' (cartoonish) or 'kitsch' style eg [[Image:Utro v sosnovom lesu.jpg|150px]] .. Am I just picking Chocolate box art?87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't say so. 'Chocolate box art' isn't really a term in art, it lacks a clear meaning. It's often used to mean 'bland and inoffensive' with a suggestion of 'third rate', but very little Russian art is bland, and the pictures you've linked are good. I've always liked Nesterov's Vision of the Young Bartholomew. Xn4  21:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've never seen a saint portrayed like that anywhere else
 * Also the colour does seem very clear in general (and a lot more primary)... good restorations? (or no industrial revolution?) I'm sure post medieval western art is a lot less colourful?87.102.86.73 (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Beauty in the eye of the beholder?
Err, very strange question. . . What do woman (and gay men) see in guys? (I think lesbians have very good taste. haha) So what is so attractive about the average man? --S.dedalus (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering how you would go about answering the mirror question (what is so attractive about the average woman?) might be a useful exercise. Letting us know some of your answers to that might help us answer what it is you want to know. Right now, I'm struggling to work out what you're trying to find out :/ Apart from taste (sociology), preference, sexual drive, instinct, evolution, I don't really know what you're driving towards. Did you want a discussion of secondary sexual characteristics? Of fetishes? 86.141.89.124 (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)




 * (after ec. (We were thinking so much alike, I had to do this one, too.) The same things that men and lesbians see in women, though I am sure that "seeing" is not really what most of it is about. It is hard programming, for a start. After that, it is cultural, or even perhaps familial, in that what we find attractive in others is what we were taught from day 1 to find attractive. I am sure you are not looking for a list of physical attributes, or are you? ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bielle and the anon contributor have already touched on most of what I was thinking. Just to sympathize with the OP for a bit, it seems that Western culture has decided that young women are physically more attractive than any other kind of person, which is why it's a legitimate question to ask how men could be attractive at all. I don't know how we got to this point; maybe it's an off-shoot of the sexism that says women aren't good for anything besides looking good. To examine a time when young boys were the hot item, check out Athenian pederasty. Matt Deres (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit confusing there! Obviously there is a specific evolutionary reason for the sexes to find things attractive about each other. However I get the imprison that men and women choose their romantic interests in very different ways. Not being female myself, I find it hard to judge. I was hoping someone might enlighten me there. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, so rather than wanting to know what's so attractive about the average man, you want to know what is particularly attractive about the male romantic interests women and gay men choose? Or have I missed the point? 86.141.89.124 (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that if you could find an “average” woman (physically and mentally) ~85% of (sexually mature) guys would be at least somewhat attracted to her. If a similar “average man” could be found would this not be so for woman? And if yes/no, why? --S.dedalus (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From When Harry Met Sally:


 * “Harry: No, what I'm saying is they all want to have sex with you.


 * Sally: They do not.


 * Harry: Do too.


 * Sally: How do you know?


 * Harry: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.


 * Sally: So you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive?


 * Harry: No, you pretty much want to nail 'em too.”


 * See what I mean. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you shouldn't be taking your cues from the movies. That said, there's no objective measure, but sociologists have studied the issues for quite some time. What you'll find is that there are a few general characteristics that most people like, but beyond that it's a matter of individual whim. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha, no of course not, I’m just kidding around. Okay, that’s interesting. I was thinking that there might be some common standards at least within a given culture, but maybe not. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Symmetry? as constructed by cultures and trends within that culture at any given time, perhaps. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some things that contribute to male attractiveness these days seem to be (physically) an athletic body shape, good personal hygiene and a little care taken with the appearance, and for some reason, a lack of body hair, and (non-physically) a steady income, a non-possessive attitude and a degree of intelligence. None of this is universal, of course, but going by media portrayals, that is what is being pushed. Steewi (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Evolution is probably a big influence. The things that women looked for in men thousands of years ago for breeding healthy children are likely to be ingrained into us. Physical fitness, straight healthy teeth, a large umm member, muscles, good eyesight, etc. I'm not so sure about gay men though. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 14:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)