Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 August 15

= August 15 =

Was that dude skinhead?
I came into contact with a man with many tattoos. I got a closer look at one that was a symbol that I did not recognize. It was basically four thick arrows nested together with each one of them pointing to a different direction and the configuration of the arrows formed a prominent swastika in the middle. I now think he is a nazi and have prejudice against him, what did it actually mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.48.229 (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It could have conceivably been a design based on the Arrow Cross, a symbol used by Nationalist groups. Nanonic (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The arrows were similar. They were pointing the same way but they were bunched together, there were no empty space like that between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.48.229 (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The ADL offers an online Visual Database of Extremist Symbols, Logos, and Tattoos. Click on the headings on the left-hand navigation bar and then scroll through the images. Note that the general description includes "racist and non-racist skinheads..." and this is separate from neonazi. Some might be regionally specific. If you don't see the particular design here, try Google Images. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I found this image of pre-Nazi swastikas from various cultures - do the ones marked "Lapland" and "Greek" look similar? Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes! The lapland one is exactly the one I saw. Wonder if it has a real name or what it means because I can't really find anything interesting by googling lapland and swastika. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.48.229 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, I found it here on wikipedia, it is Tursaansydan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.48.229 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently Marilyn Manson has that tattoo too and I am currently in scandinavia so either one of those seem like reasonalbe inspirations for that tattoo. I judge that he was not a nazi. 128.214.48.229 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * However, people wearing ancient "pagan" symbols of this kind may be sympathisers of The Finns Party. This group attracts some xenophobic (maybe even racist) elements of the electorate.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, you really shouldn't worry about that too much. Seems harmless.  You could have asked the dude what his tattoo meant.  Is this someone you know personally?  Tell us more.  Herzlicheboy (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What was the average number of children in ancient times?
And how much did it vary from place to place and time to time? Thanks! 84.109.248.221 (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to this source, the average (assuming two parents and an occasional unrelated adult) would have been about 3 living children at a given time. This would imply a higher number of live births per couple, maybe more like 5 or 6, considering high infant and maternal mortality rates in ancient times.  The number would have varied considerably from place to place and time to time, with higher numbers in times and circumstances of plenty (e.g., when the area of settlement was expanding or agricultural productivity was increasing) and lower numbers in times of want (e.g., famine).  Marco polo (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It was extremely variable. In ancient Greece before the Hellenistic age, the amount of food that could be generated by ancient agricultural methods on the available land was fixed, and if the population grew to the maximum that could be fed by an ordinary harvest, then in a year with a poor agricultural harvest, some people would starve.  For that reason, female infanticide was quite common.  (That's also why Greece started exporting olive oil and wine in return for grain quite early -- though a population which depended on such supplies for basic food could suffer famine if the trade was cut off -- and why so many colonies were sent to the west, to Cyrenaica, and to the Black Sea coasts...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If the population was static, it follows two children on average were surviving to reproduce, and one can likewise calculate the average based on a set growth rate, for which ask someone at the math desk. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Depends what you mean by "ancient times". If you mean Greece and Rome, we have Classical demography, but a better broader article is Historical demography. Further back still, paleolithic people lived as foragers (hunters and gatherers), who typically have fewer children than farmers. Also, by "average number of children" do you mean births per woman, surviving descendents, or population of minors in a given society? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What did Hitler think of England and English culture?
What did Hitler think of England and English culture? If Germany would have invaded England, what would he have done to England? Did Hitler consider the English people/race as aryan or Germanic? Apologies for the many questions above but answers would be appreciated! --Barthern Woodland (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hitler, at least for a while, considered Britain a natural ally of Germany. However, that did not stop the Nazis from planning invasion and occupation. Take a look at Operation Sea Lion and The Black Book, which contained the names of 2,820 individuals to be immediately arrested, from obvious Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle to thinkers like Bertrand Russell, H. G. Wells and C. P. Snow. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There was a lot of academic interest in their common "Teutonicness" from the German side. G. K. Chesterton discusses it in his essays on the outbreak of WWI.  Tolkien received a letter from the Nazi's inquiring as to his German ancestry, which he responded to curtly. The letter is in his collected letters, which are great if you have any interest in him. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to give you some short answers and point you in the right direction for further reading, yes, Hitler did consider the English to be fellow Aryans, and yes, Hitler did admire British culture and felt that the British should be a natural ally. You might want to look up this fellow: Franz Six, an SS officer and academic that the Nazis planned to make the head of future Einsatzgruppe state police operations in the event of a successful invasion of Great Britain.  Hope this helps. Herzlicheboy (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Smoking Prime Ministers
Is Harold Wilson the most recent British Prime Minister to have smoked? (Probably not counting youthful experimentation - I suspect David Cameron, for example, may have tried smoking a cigarette when young but I wouldn't consider him to be a smoker in a way that, say Nick Clegg is. ) Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cameron was apparently a regular smoker until 2008 and returned to the odd fag in 2011 if you believe the Mirror. Keresaspa (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All the rest seem to have been non-smokers; James Callaghan didn't drink either. Alansplodge (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Francis Wheen, Blair smoked until he got married, way back in 1980: . Warofdreams talk 14:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

When will Wikipedia realize that the Social Sciences are not part of Humanities?
Why does Wikipedia use "Society" instead of "Social Sciences" and why isn't there a separate section for them: Anthropology, Economics, History, Political Science and Sociology? Wikipedia seems to have a good understanding for the what composes the physical sciences and the natural sciences but are clueless about the social sciences. Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Where on Wikipedia are you referring to? The ref desks, community portals, or someplace else? As for where social sciences should be grouped, see identity politics and Self-categorization_theory. For everyone who says "social sciences are not part of humanities", we can find other voices that say "social sciences ARE part of humanities"... or even "So-called social sciences are not science." Even in your example, do you really think that physical anthropology has much in common with political science? If so, maybe they should both be grouped under primatology ;) I am joking a bit, and mean no disrespect. I also don't have any opinion on the matter, but if you want to change how WP classifies topics, this probably isn't the best place to try to build consensus for such a change. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the reference desk, we provide answers to requests for sources here. not debate. Your concern would be better addressed on the talk page for the category you are interested in. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is put together by an enormous number of people, and there is no overall scheme of classing articles into physical sciences, humanities etc. If there is a specific place where you have seen "Society" as a main heading, you may want to ask a question at a talk page there.  But in general the articles are the important thing, not the huge array of categories, templates, outlines, portals, projects etc that has grown up and are mostly ignored.  Sussexonian (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Category:Library cataloging and classification has a variety of systems for classifying information.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding in this case is that the social sciences are academically scientific, but for the layperson the subject matter is people, hence the affinity with the heading Humanities. For an example from a different field: botanically, the seedbearing part of a plant is the fruit - but relating to food (and possibly dietary metabolism), the nonscientist layperson "classes" many of these as vegetables (e.g. eggplant, cucumber, peas, etc.). -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It was generally a question when I saw how the reference desks were broken up. Yes, the social sciences are sciences as even an introductory survey class would show. And I was using the standard disciplinary breakdown, as you can see in Social sciences. I was mistaken to leave out Psychology. And some academics consider History to be one of the Humanities not the Social Sciences but the list is otherwise correct.

I was not trying to start up a philosophical conversation about how we divide up knowledge. It's more of frustration to see the sciences clearly defined on Wikipedia but the social sciences lumped together, unnamed under the name of "Culture" or "Society" which all includes topics like flags, holidays, internet memes and cat videos. It's an inaccurate and fuzzy designation. I believe that part of the poor shape of the social science articles on Wikipedia is because of a lack of visibility and the fact that, when you look at Reference Desk topics, they don't exist.

I was hoping someone could provide me with a logical explanation. I doubt that one frustrated sociologist can change the way areas are organized on Wikipedia. There is just a physical science bias here that comes from its origins in computer science professionals. So, since I can't effect change, the best I can do is to seek an explanation.

But there doesn't seem to be a good reason, it just reflects the ignorance of Wikipedia's decision-makers, and I'll just accept that. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 00:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Oldest known depiction of Stephen I of Hungary
What is the oldest known depiction of Stephen I of Hungary other than a coin? So it could be like a fresco, illuminated manuscript, icon or stone carving maybe, the oldest one that is. I would prefer if one didn't go through here and choose the oldest one without much of a source. So what do the sources say?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Does File:Portrayal of Stephen I, King of Hungary on the coronation pall.jpg really date to 1031? It seems questionable.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, not being an expert on 11th Century textile technology, I had to Google, but I can't find any sources online for anyone questioning the authenticity and provenance or date of the Hungarian coronation mantle, from which the image is taken. Textile experts do say it is remarkably well-preserved. According to a detailed investigation in 1983, (preview on Google Books for 2012 book "Chemical Principles of Textile Conservation) it has been much repaired, which is hardly surprising, but there doesn't seem to be any doubt about the date, nor can I find any suggestion that the portait of Stephen is a later addition. The mantle is actually dated to 1031 exactly by an inscription giving details of the commissioning of the garment by Stephen and the year of manufacture. (Of course, whether the portrait of Stephen is an accurate portrayal is another question: embroidery is hardly the most faithful of reproduction media.) The mantle is a rather prominent Hungarian national treasure (currently displayed in the Hungarian National Museum) and has been the subject of quite a few scholarly works if you want to look around for yourself.   (And in an aside,  if anyone has the necessary linguistic skills  and technical knowledge, the article on Hungarian Wikipedia would be well worth translating.) FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 03:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)