Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 11

= November 11 =

what is a dignitary and what does that person do?
I want to find out what a dignitary is and what that person does. But when I type "dignitary" in the search bar and click on the magnifying glass, all I get is "There's no article for dignitary." There so many dignitaries around the world. But somebody should do an article. I wouldn't know where to start. What could possibly be done?142.255.103.121 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Dignitary" in the dictionary -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a rather vague term. I tend to think of it as mainly referring to diplomats.  I think the Wiktionary def is too broad, including people like celebrities, which I would never call dignitaries.  StuRat (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your definition is too narrow. I think of dignitaries as important public officials. A town mayor is a dignitary but not a diplomat (not involved in international relations). Low level diplomats might not be dignitaries, either. 14:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Amusingly odd. As the OP says, if you type in dignitary you get a page entitled "Dignitary" with the message Wikipedia does not have an encyclopedic article for Dignitary (search results). Then when you click on "search results" in that sentence, you get to a search page which begins with There is a page named "Dignitary" on Wikipedia. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I use it as a more formal equivalent of "VIP".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Duoduoduo, there's a bit of history to that page. --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  18:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that in wikipedia parlance, that isn't that odd. We do have a page on dignitary on wikipedia (the page which says we don't have an article and suggests you check out wiktionary). We don't however have an encylopaedic article on it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As for the second part of the question: what does a dignitary do?... well, as a minimum, their job is to be treated with dignity. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's the job of the other people they come into contact with. Mind you, dignitaries don't have a monopoly on the right to be treated with dignity.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  21:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Did the vikings believe in gods other than Odin?
An interesting dispute has arisen between me and some Russian (ethnic not just from Russia) muslims, which claim that the vikings were monotheists and believed only one god that was Odin. So this, in their opinion, resembles Islam and Allah. Their argument is that the vikings were warriors, and as Odin was the god of war, so the vikings did not need any other gods. So did they need other gods or not? Did they believe other gods? Some links to scientific researches may be also useful.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So you can follow their thought: Russian Muslims are descendants (at least spiritually) of the vikings (I suppose they mean the varangians), but it isn't strange that they (Russian Muslims) connect themselves to Pagans, because the ancient vikings were not Pagans but already Islam-like monotheists (e.g. "Muslims") and Odin was just their name for Allah. Simply speaking the issue is whether the viking were monotheists or not.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC) But in any case this group of Muslims is very narrow-minded and dogmatic (it looks like some cult for me) and they won't hear any of my arguments, they will just think that I am another "Islamophobe". When I said a very obvious thing that Odin did not mean "one" in Proto-Indo-European (!) and had no connection to Russian один "one" they were quite outraged. These guys are from Muslim society NORM and call themselves Normanns. :) --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refer to List of Norse gods and goddesses.A8875 (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I could find this perfectly by myself but I'm asking about other thing: did the vikings (not all Scandinavians but only the vikings!) believe all of them or only one - Odin?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * God aren't real. If historians can find records of two dozen Norse Gods then someone back then must've wrote it down. The very act of recording it is proof of their belief, I believe. A8875 (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Muslim viking: "There is no other true God than Odin" Comploose (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny but some Russian muslims really believe that they are muslim vikings! :0 --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are so many Norse gods you could spend Týr's day, Woden's day, Thor's day, and Frey day reading up on them. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think real muslim warriors did not need such trivial things like calendars... :) --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For a warrior, everyday is a warday? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing a Russian saying, the vikings might have seven Odin's days in a week. :) --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean believe in, as in, profess the existence of, or worship? The ancient Norse people (among whom being a viking was a specific subculture) generally acknowledged the existence of many, many deities. Some worshipped several, while others dedicated themselves to only one of them. (Chiefs were often also priests of Odin, as chief god, while many warriors worshipped Thor or Tyr, who were warrior gods.) AlexTiefling (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to disagree on a minor point, here. Vikings were not a specific subculture. They were soldiers, merchants, explorers, and more specifically, normal people. The various kings in Scandinavia could call upon them in times of war, like in all feudal societies of the time. All of the gods were revered, as can be seen in various Norse literature. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If 'vikings' means those who went out raiding, why not call them a specific subculture? —Tamfang (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've noted above it is from the dispute with some Russian Muslims. I can suggest they mean the vikings both worshipped Odin and believed that Odin is the only God. Like in Islam. They make an analogy that vikings were "northern bedouins".
 * I think these Russian Muslims (whoever they are) need to take a more evidence-based approach to history. Pagan Odin-worshippers were not, in any sense, monotheists. They were not even, generally, monolaters. There's an obvious link between the concepts of God in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Ba'ahi, etc, and arguably to certain figures in ancient Canaanite paganism, too. But there is no such link with Nordic paganism. (It might be argued that the form in which the story of Baldur has come down to us owes a little to semi-Christian myth-making, but no more than that.)
 * But it's important to note that not all Varangians were pagans. Many of them converted to Christianity, either through contact with German and Irish missionaries in Scandinavia, or with Orthodox Christians in Constantinople, which was and is the heart of the Orthodox world. From the reign of Vladimir the Great of Kiev onwards, there was also the distinctive strain of Russian Orthodoxy, which was arguably instrumental in uniting Varangians and Slavs in a new proto-Russian cultural identity. Their beliefs, while in no sense Islamic, would have been vastly closer to Islam than either was to the pagans. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think nearly the same but their claim that "the vikings was warriors and did not need any gods but the war god Odin" has instilled some doubts in my mind. But excluding any connections to Abrahamic religions, is there possibility that they could invent some sort of monotheism independently?


 * This has some information on Northern European "heathen lore and literature." Zoonoses (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Lüboslóv Yęzýkin: I presume you've read "Norse religion"? It lists a number of scholarly sources among its references. Gabbe (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One way to infer the past strength of a given god's cult is from the density of place-names incorporating that god's name. (I have a book that may touch on this, but it's in a box and I don't know where to look for it.) Odin, if I remember right, is commemorated in relatively few place-names; Thor in many more. —Tamfang (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are tons of places named after Woden. The article on Thor states that the name is used only sparsely outside Scandinavia, in contrast to Woden whose name (or alternate name, Grim) is found throughout northwestern Europe. --NellieBly (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are more Thor places in England than that article implies, but maybe they are small places and localised. Just in western Surrey there are Thursley and Thundery Hill - places associated with iron working and thus with hammering. Woden/Grim for ditches and dykes, Thor for iron works. There are Friday placenames too. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)}

Literary Term/"Meta"
I'm reading a book where the narrator/protagonist gets drunk and all of the words (what he says and what he narrates) are garbled until he eventually is sober again. I'm curious what the literary term is for that. Is it some kind of "meta" approach? Thank you for your time. Vidtharr (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a variation on the unreliable narrator. StuRat (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a sort of extreme version of a viewpoint character style of narration. Staecker (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your suggestions. I'm thinking more in terms of the story's content affecting how the actual story is conveyed. For example, a book ending with the death of the narrator (even mid-sentence). I hope this clarifies what I'm looking for. Thanks again. Vidtharr (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Two examples that made a strong impression on me as a child are Flowers for Algernon and "A Psychedelic Diary" by Dick DeBartolo in Mad Magazine... AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Painting the medium? By the way one great example not listed there is the crime tale Don't Look Behind You by Frederic Brown in wich the reader is the victim. See here--85.55.218.120 (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A Nazi who wore glasses and was responsible for the killings of the disabled, can anybody help me?
Thank you. Can't find him. Watterwalk (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Philipp Bouhler, or others in Category:Action T4 personnel? Mikenorton (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That's right! Thank you indeed!. Resolved! Watterwalk (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the view of continental philosophers to formal logic?
Although there is an article about "continental philosophy" it did not address specifically the stance of the said philosophers about formal logic. Does the tenet of continental philosophy put very less emphasis on the use of formal logic to the extent that it may not use it at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.33.134 (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the article continental philosophy states that "It is difficult to identify non-trivial claims that would be common to all the preceding philosophical movements", it seems that it wouldn't be possible to make a generalised statement about such a specific subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As formal logic is generally taken to include propositional logic, then continental philosophers do indeed use formal logic, as the use of propositional logic is common in all philosophy departments. More developed formal logics are usually limited to use in analytic philosophy though, as predicate logics are mostly used in the logical analysis of language which is analytic philosophy's core.  This does not mean that predicate logic is entirely foreign to the continentals.  See Heidelberg's description of their BA program :  Although they relate the "new mathematical logic" as they call it to analytic philosophy of language, they also see this strand of philosophy as applicable to Hermeneutics.  -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Reading the article on continental philosophy I think you would need a definition of that term before discussing it, considering the wide variety of schools of thought that seems to be combined in it. For example who are you referring to when you say that "they relate the "new mathematical logic" as they call it to analytic philosophy of language, they also see this strand of philosophy as applicable to Hermeneutics"? Schleiermacher, Bergson, Heidegger, Sartre? As far as philosophical terms goes, this is one of the vaguest I've ever come across. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting and referring to the page to which I linked: the Heidelberg Philosophy Department's description of their own undergraduate program. This is just working from the assumption that Heidelberg's is a department which trains its students in continental philosophy, which is not controversial. The other claim I made was that all departments deal with propositional logic, so then so do continental departments. I don't have to define what departments are continental to make that claim, as it is indifferent to the distinction. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Shariah banned in which states?
Which states in the U.S. banned Shari'ah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There was a vote in Oklahoma, but I don't know if it ever ended up being implemented. AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Alabama and Kansas also passed anti-shariah laws similar to the one in Oklahoma. As for the Oklahoma law, it was duly passed by the legislature and signed into law by the state governor, but is being challenged in the courts. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ban on sharia law is the link you need. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that mean freedom of religion is only at the federal level?DOR (HK) (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Legally, freedom of religion applies throughout the US. However, there are a few issues with that, such as religious use of hallucinogens vs. Federal laws against their possession.
 * This issue is even more complicated. On the one hand, these bans are to protect religious freedom by preventing one religion's practices (Sharia) from becoming an actual law everyone has to follow. On the other hand, certain parts of the country have no problem declaring they are a Christian community and basing their laws around that. It typically doesn't become an issue unless someone of another faith moves into that community and objects. In previous generations, that typically would have resulted in the newcomer being run out of town (or worse); now, it's more likely to become a legal matter, but some regions still would make the "outsider" feel as unwelcome as possible for challenging the local practices.
 * Keep in mind, the USA is really, really big. Some regions have been pretty insular for generations, and have only been dealing with non-Christian & non-Jewish religions for a relatively short time. So, there can be a bit of culture shock when exposed to other faiths. These anti-Shari'ah laws are reactionary to a misguided belief that people of Muslim faith will sweep in and force everyone to obey Sharia. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which, BTW, is precisely what's happening in the so-called "Arab Spring" disaster. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Jewish holidays
I was told by a Sephardi Jew that Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews don't celebrate what Ashkenazi Jews do and Ashkenazi Jews don't what the Sephardi and Mizrahi Jew do. What forgot the name of the holidays but I am asking if there was a such thing? I didn't him in the first place but I started to believe him after the day that I met him. I am sorry if I didn't make sense.


 * It probably has to do with observing an extra day for some holidays, Rosh Hashanah, Pesach (or Passover), Shavuot, and Sukkot.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The extra day originally had to do with observance within the land of Israel vs. observance elsewhere... AnonMoos (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, a CYA when the calendar had a one-day uncertainty.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd guess that more Ashkenazi celebrate Christmas than do Sephardi. Gzuckier (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of very peculiar opinions above. Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews celebrate the same main festivals as Ashkenazi Jews do. There are lots of different aspects of the celebration, especially the liturgy, but the same days will be observed. All hues of geography (Sephardi/Mizrahi/Ashkenazi) Jews keep one day fewer in Israel (Wehalt), but there may be slight variations in what rabbis say non-Israeli Jews should do when they happen to be in Israel for a festival, or vice-versa, but that's also the case within, say, the Ashkenazi camp alone. The one day variation has been a rabbinic decree since Temple times (c.2000+ years) which long predates the Sephardi/Mizrahi/Ashkenazi splits. The comment about Christmas looks like it's angling for an irritable response, so I won't oblige it.

The only thing I can think of that the OP's acquaintance might have been referring to may be exceptionally minor dates in the Jewish calendar that are celebrated by parts of the community, eg 19th Kislev, which is celebrated only by Chabad chasidim, most (but by no means all) of whom are Ashkenazi.

Another way of looking at it could be the observance of Yom Ha'atzmaut, Yom Yerushalayim and Yom Hazikaron, whereby the split is not geographic, but how Zionist Jews are. --Dweller (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Re comment about Christmas, assume incompetent attempt at benevolent joshing. Gzuckier (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect response, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sephardi jews celebrate Lag BaOmer.

Festivals that Bengali hindus do and don't celebrate
Which festivals do Bengali hindus celebrate and which festivals that Bengali hindus don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bengali Hindus do not celebrate Fronleichnam. And many other events. --Soman (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For what is celebrated, see List of festivals of West Bengal and Public holidays in Bangladesh. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

First Class of Lahainaluna
Does anyone know the name of all the students of the first class of Lahainaluna School in 1831? The wikipedia article states that attended the first class in 1831. According to this 44 graduated from the first class. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing how this has not been answered in a while, if it doesn't exist on Google or another search engine or the official website of the school I seriously doubt any wikipedian would know. You might try asking this over at WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request if one editor may have database or library access to a yearbook or other like source.  Best of Luck! Marketdiamond (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Matrix
What is philosophical in movie The Matrix?Bennielove (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "mean"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.19 (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who exactly are "you", if not actually "me"? Gzuckier (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you folks realise it's turtles all the way down from here. --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  05:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See also The Meaning of Meaning. "The night attendant, a B.U. sophomore,/ rouses from the mare's-nest of his drowsy head /propped on The Meaning of Meaning."... Robert Lowell, Waking in the Blue--Shirt58 (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We have to go deeper! &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the philosophical explanation of the movie? It originates from philosophy.Bennielove (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Matrix discusses a number of the philosophers that (supposedly) influenced The Matrix. It's very reminiscent of Plato's Cave. Some people see Gnosticism in it (not least because one vessel was called Gnosis), for example these folks. But you'll always find someone who thinks Fast and Furious 3 is an ironclad analogy for Jainism... -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See also Brain in a vat, Simulated reality, Dream argument, Evil demon, Maya. The basic themes have been discussed by philosophers for centuries. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the Matrix that you couldn't get from an evening class in philosophy. It's really not deep. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Except the slo-mo gun fights, which are generally reserved for the daytime classes in philosophy. (I'm not actually against the Matrix as a vehicle for old philosophical ideas — they are interesting ideas, and our popular culture could do much worse than taking its plot points from Descartes et al. Descartes is deep, and the ideas in the Matrix are subsequently deep, even if they are not new and even if they are encased in a glossy, gun-fighty envelope.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You could say that The Matrix is like the shadow cast on the wall (movie screen?) of popular culture by a number of deep and complex philosophies. Though you probably shouldn't say it very loudly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Having seen it once (which was more than enough), the basic plot idea was definitely nothing new. The innovations were in the areas of special effects, which continue to be used in many places. As far as "philosophy" is concerned, it was the same as any other movie's philosophy, which is to make as much money as possible for the investors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The premise that a feature film cannot simultaneously explore a theme (philosophical or otherwise, previously touched on by other works of fiction or not) and make money for its producers seems flawed. A restaurant must make money to remain in business; that does not preclude the restaurant from expressing ideas about food. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The point being that the themes explored in Matrix were explored stylishly, but they were still derivative, unoriginal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My first-year physics textbook didn't explore any original themes&mdash;does its failure to present the material in Newton's original Latin render its treatment of inertia pointless? Translating old ideas into the current cultural vernacular can have value.  The use of parables to introduce or illustrate complex abstract concepts is at least as old as the ancient Greek philosophers.
 * Are there other works beside The Matrix that would have provided a more thorough or more original take on the philosophical concepts underpinning its story? Sure.  Does that mean that The Matrix isn't a valid potential entry point for the neophyte (Neo-phyte?  See what I did there?) to begin exploring those ideas?  I would disagree.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)