Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 December 15

= December 15 =

Animal representations of countries
Various countries have animals that are culturally or politically associated with them. For instance, China has the dragon, Russia has the bear, and the U.S. has the eagle. Is there an animal that is associated with Israel (or Judaism in general)? I initially guessed a lamb, but that is Christianity. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The scapegoat? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * National symbols of Israel has both a bird and a breed of dog listed. No idea how well known or common those are as symbols.  -- Jayron  32  03:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To outsiders? Probably about as well-known as the |rose being the official flower of the USA (ie not well-known) --Dweller (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The coat of arms of Jerusalem depicts the Lion of Judah. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Israel, I don't believe so, but the Jewish answer is alluded to with Adam's response above. Each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel had its own symbol, many of which were animals. Today's Jews are mostly the descendants of the Kingdom of Judah - ie members of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi. Of those, Judah was numerically and politically by far the most significant, hence the name of the kingdom and hence the name of the Jews, according to many etymologists. So, the symbol of Judah, the lion, is not inappropriate as the animal associated with Judaism, but it's a stretch to bracket it with the examples you give, as it's not a generally used association. And, finally, whilst no-one knows if they're really members of Benjamin (symbol:wolf) or Judah, there are plenty who know themselves to be members of the tribe of Levi (symbol:High Priest's breastplate). --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * At least in my personal experience as an American, the Lion of Judah is much more associated with Ethiopia (and The Ras Tafari) than with Israel. --M @ r ē ino 16:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The suggestion is that the lion is a symbol of the religion, not the country. But in any case, even so, it's not an obvious association. Btw, I'm surprised no-one's said this yet, as well as the Star of David, the religion's prime symbol is of course the menorah. --Dweller (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One comment on why Israel might not have a national animal: In their early history, ancient Israel fought against those who worshiped other gods, or other conceptions of their God, many of which were represented by animals, such as the golden calf. This may have left a bad taste in their mouths for animals as symbols.  Of course, you might well argue that that was 3000 years ago, but Jews tend to have very long memories.  StuRat (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Lion of Judah appears on the Emblem of Jerusalem, but it's not particularly a symbol of Judaism as such. Distinctively Jewish symbols that were used on ancient Jewish coins were the menorah, the Four Species, the Ark of the covenant, etc. -- but not animals. The Star of David didn't become a distinctively Jewish symbol until the middle ages in Prague (even later elsewhere), and was apparently chosen for use as a Jewish community symbol partly exactly because it was not a traditional Jewish religious symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Military monuments in 18th century British India
The sculptor Charles Peart was responsible for at least two funerary sculptures or monuments in India, to British military figures, in the late 18th century. Peart had some family connections with the East India Company. Would it have been more likely, at that time, for him to have travelled to India to undertake the work, or would the work have been done in England and then shipped out to India? Informed responses, rather than guesses, would be especially welcome! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The semi-notorious Kamehameha Statues were shipped all the way from Italy to Hawaii (though in the 19th century)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally, established artists of the time didn't travel long distances, especially not for single commissions. Travel was a slow, risky proposition, and (IIRC) a round trip to India would take a minimum of one year because of the distance (no Suez Canal) and prevailing winds.  It's far more likely that he would have done the carving in his workshop in England and shipped the components to India for final assembly. --Carnildo (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that was my working assumption. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In general, I'd agree with Carnildo. In the specific case, Peart has an entry in the ODNB, which doesn't explicitly mention a trip to India, and seems to strongly imply he remained in England throughout. Shimgray | talk | 22:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't have access to the ODNB, so if you'd like to add anything to the article on him, please do.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

IQ test for research purposes
I am looking for an IQ test for use in research. How would I acquire one? Are there any public domain ones? The only ones I can seem to find cost $500 from Pearson Education. 174.124.82.77 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends what you need the tests for. The original Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales were created in 1916, so they would be public domain, if you can find a copy somewhere (university library?  I don't really know where to look).  Obviously, no one is going to treat those results with any sort of validity though.  To get a hold of a test that is considered valid pretty widely (like the most recent Stanford-Binet Intellegence Scales ), you're going to have to have some pretty good qualifications for administering such tests  (often a graduate degree in a related field), and yes, a pretty good chunk of change.  Is this research through a University?  The education department might be able to talk with you about how such an study should be run, and if it's possible to get tests for you to use, along with properly trained test administrators. Buddy431 (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Being created in 1916 does not equate with being public domain, so take care when using it. 88.8.78.13 (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Being published in 1916 would place it in the public domain. There is no copyright holder for this test. Gx872op (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the version the user will have at hand was published in 1916, then yes, it's public domain at the first sight. However, if the published test the user has at hand is newer, then no, he should take care, since comments, adapting, correcting a text can also be protected by a copyright. 88.8.78.13 (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Buddy431 was pretty clear about specifying the original 1916 test only, and pointed out its unreliability because of being so old. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, whether this is in the public domain depends on the jurisdiction - as public domain points out, some works never go out of copyright in some countries, while some countries have very long copyright lengths. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Buddy431's recommendation shouldn't be followed without further care. As 130.88 points out, being in the public domain is much more complicated that what Buddy431 says and Mr.98 repeats. That's also why the Ref. Desk does not provide legal advice. 88.8.78.13 (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The OP's IP geolocates to the United States. The test was definitely published for the first time in 1916, in the United States. There is zero ambiguity about it. You're barking up the wrong tree. Copyright is complicated, but not as complicated as you are making it. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Geolocation isn't completely reliable - the OP might be using a proxy, or might only be in the US temporarily. Even if they are based in the US, it is possible that they might try to acquire a copy of the test from another country, or they might need to distribute it to people in other countries for the purposes of their research. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * IQ tests from the early 20th century are invalid for today's population and culture. It would be pretty much a waste of time to use a 1916 IQ test in research, other than in showing how the results differ from those of a more modern test. They assume things like an informed member of the public knowing that the iceman carries the block of ice up to put in your icebox using icetongs, rather than carrying it with his gloved hands. They might be useful for hiring antique dealers. Edison (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Normally you would get these from the academic department you work with (either directly, or through a grant for research). If you're not associated with an academic department currently, then you'll probably have to shell out the money and you're going to have some real publication issues (with highly culturally-sensitive topics like IQ, journals really want the protection offered an academic affiliation). Just sayin'… -- Ludwigs 2  16:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)