Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 June 1

= June 1 =

Are things getting better or worse?
I know this question, right from the outset, is going to look like an invitation to debate, and the heading itself is indicative of trolling. But I figure someone must have tackled this head on. By "better or worse", I mean in terms of violent crime, unethical behaviour from professionals, and dishonesty from politicians. These are among the chief malaises that affect all times, but which are frequently touted as signs of decline in a society, and occasionally portrayed (when there is some positive evidence) as examples of an improvement in human nature. On the plus side is Stephen Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature and on the negative, Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely says that many professionals are lamenting the decline in professional ethics. The various examples for and against are not contradictory (as with these two books) because they usually talk about somewhat different things, but there seem to be many people using such evidence to argue for or against the "moral standing" of today's society. Has anyone tried to synthesise things like this, and show overall how we are getting better, and how we are getting worse? The stimulus that prompted the question, if it helps any, was reading some short stories by Edgar Allan Poe, and finding the same litany of miserable sorts populating his world as ours, with apparently little difference. IBE (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Aspects of this were discussed in a recent forum at the Sydney Writers' Festival that I heard on radio yesterday. One conclusion was that politicians are probably no more dishonest than in the past. It's just that these days we expect them to be and get told about it more often and by more sources. There are definitely strong statistics showing that violent crime is dramatically reduced from previous centuries. What has increased is shock-jocks telling people that we're all doomed. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Do those statistics only consider the nature of the crime, or also the nature of the perpetrator? e.g. the age profile of the perpetrator associated with a particular crime - is the average murderer getting younger or older? Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This question tries to cover far too many topics and there are way too many unknowns for any glib answer to be appropriate. It is probably never the case that all social indicators are "better" compared with some previous period, or all "worse".  Some will be better, others worse.  You can't sort of average these out to get one label that fits everything.  Then if you drill down to country level, you'll get very different results depending on the country.  Ditto for sub-national entities.  You can pick and choose your stats to demonstrate any result you like; the media do it every night of the week.  The question as it stands is unanswerable and should be closed.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The natural order is that things always get worse - to reverse the trend requires an external energy source - see Entropy (although that simply transfers the deterioration wherever the energy came from. I remember an anthropology class I took many years ago where the lecturer told us of an ancient Sumerian clay tablet that was basically a rant about "the youth of today". The complaints, dating from about 5000 years ago, are utterly familiar; the youth disrespect the elders, play games, fight, gamble, are lazy, damage public property, they don't study, don't do their chores, don't help their parents, and so on.... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that the very real mathematical concept of entropy can be applied to human society. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we wouldn't be able to apply the concept of entropy to any system. Equally, I don't see why the Earth, which has an external energy source, wouldn't be able to create more order. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @HiLo48 - You don't think that the rest of my post is an indication that I don't actually believe things are getting worse? People have been complaining about the exact same social "degeneration" for 5000 years but humanity has actually not (yet) turned into completely degenerate savage beasts. "The more things change, the more they stay the same" - cogitate on that for a bit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a school of thought that "things" are actually getting better over time. Things that were socially acceptable a century or two ago, or even 50 years ago, no longer are. But progress is slow, human nature being what it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, various metrics such as lifespan, disease statistics, etc. show that things have definitely been getting better. I read some years ago - the impression it left me with was that crime was certainly a lot worse before our time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * After years of standing largely or partially vacant, it was announced by the owners, early in 2001, that The Twin Towers had finally reached full occupancy. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you live in the UK, Things Can Only Get Better (D:Ream song) (or Things Can Only Get Better (Howard Jones song)) according to John O'Farrell (author).   D b f i r s   19:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait. There are bad times just around the corner, so don't get too complacent.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A George Carlin comment, as his weather forecaster character: "Remember, inside every silver lining, there's a dark cloud! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Does anyone want to do an analysis of the relative frequency over time of songs about doom and gloom vs all is good? HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, thanks. I'm more interested in finding out about this lining that's on the outside of its cloud.  Sounds very Anna Russell-esque to me.  She once remarked on how some parts of the Sydney Opera House were notoriously too small for certain desired productions, and she mused that, rather than building the inside inside the outside, they might consider placing the inside outside the outside.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Amusing, because it already looks inside out to me IBE (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Fugu
Is fugu/Tetraodontidae the most dangerous food to eat for humans? If not, which is the most dangerous? I mean foods which are actually eaten. Its difficult to find sources. Pass a Method  talk  09:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Fugu is very safe to eat, if prepared correctly. And leafy greens can be very dangerous, if contaminated with E. coli or salmonella. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * But which is the most dangerous food?  Pass a Method   talk  11:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is confusing premises. If a food  is classed  food, then it is food. However, if faulty preparation leaves  you to end up dead, you are no more-or-less  dead, than any other food stuff that may leave you dead. You can't end up being just a-little-bit-dead –  just as one can't end up being  just  a -little bit-pregnant...  It is not the 'foods'  that should be  scaled as most   dangerous but some of the individual idiots that prepare it.--Aspro (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Amanita phalloides. Looie496 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which, by definition, is not a food, because it is not safe to eat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * castor oil beans. μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As in "Ricin Roni, the Terrorist T(h)reat". The word "food" means "nourishment". Would deadly substances qualify as being "nourishing"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Another foods that can be toxic if not prepared correctly is poke salad. And even foods normally not considered harmful can be deadly to people with food allergies.  A single peanut can kill if the wrong person eats it.  -- Jayron  32  16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The criteria could be quantified by comparing number of meals eaten per fatality, but I doubt the statistics exist.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that criteria wouldn't bode well for McDonald's --Aspro (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Some other ways to define "dangerous foods":


 * 1) Fatalities due to microbial contamination. While many types of foods can go bad, some seem far more likely to do so than others.  Live sprouts are an example, since their growing conditions are also ideal for many microbes, and serving them live prevents sterilization.


 * 2) Fatalities due to chronic health effects. Certain foods, like fried chicken, might contribute to more deaths than others, due to sodium, fat, saturated fat, trans fats, and bad cholesterol.


 * 3) Choking hazards. Fish with small bones are a threat, as are octopus tentacles (the suckers can stick to the throat). StuRat (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Think that only applies to 'live' raw Octopuses.  Preparing raw Shepherds Pie also has the potential for suffering brain damage if the shepherdess whacks you round the head with her crook  before you have had time to completely cover her with  mashed potato.  One cannibal to another: Your wife makes very good soups. His companion: “Verily, but I shall miss her”. Then there is the popular  root  tuber Cassava that contains cyanide, Scandinavian mushroom that give of toxic amounts of cyanide when being fried but after that, safe to eat. Raw Red Kidney beans -bad.  The Inuits love of fermented fish head that have been buried in the ground until they dissolve into a pulp – but when prepared untraditionally can cause botulism – (but can results in a hollywood-film-star-like unwrinkled appearance)( one has to admit that Nanook of the North looked way younger than her years. Oh, why   don't they make documentaries like that any more?). >http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.aelsindia.com/rjcesvol112013/7.pdf&sa=U&ei=WkGrUd_COoGV0QXKgIGwDQ&ved=0CBsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHDChJGG4qfe242x1vzaaD9YQZAOw<  Then there is  Solanine in green potatoes,  Rhubarb etc.,  this list goes on and on.--Aspro (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Re 1) For a moment, I thought you meant British sprouts!    D b f i r s   06:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

juries
What is the difference between a grand jury and a regular jury? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.150.4 (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the U.S., a Grand Jury issues indictments, which sends a person to trial. In that trial there is a regular jury which hears the evidence and determines guilty/not-guilty.  That's greatly simplified, of course.  You can read the article Grand Jury that has much more detail and how it works in other countries.  RudolfRed (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Going to petit jury will also help; "petit jury" is the official name of a regular jury. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Grand" and "petit" meaning "large" and "small" respectively. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Did the French Revolution give power to the people?
Topic says it all. ScienceApe (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, specifically Napoleon. Otherwise your question is poorly defined, sounds like homework, and seeks to be inviting debate.  You should rephrase it see we can answer it. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The question itself is so glib that nothing but a glib response would suffice. The French Revolution is a very complicated and messy affair, which encompasses several decades of history, and which has very distinct phases which need to be understood as being so different that you cannot make any sweeping statements regarding the entirety of the time period.  If you really want to know what the French Revolution did for the social structure in France, you really need to look at French history in detail, including the situation in France for the decades before the Revolution, probably through at least the 100 years after it.  The conflict between "republicans" and "monarchists" in French history did not end until well into the 1900s, really it was WWI that ended it; it was the major political battle during the French Third Republic; and that's just looking at the political question.  The social history of France during this time period is equally as complex and long, and really, a question like "Did the French Revolution give power to the people?" is just unanswerable.  -- Jayron  32  16:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Given Jayron's agreement, suggest this be closed as inviting opinion or debate. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not so fast, folks! While agreeing with Jayron that the French Revolution lasted, in effect, for 100 years, it is still worth considering the effects of the early Revolutionary period. In that kings and nobility were executed at the guillotine by people of lesser class than themselves, that suggests that those people had the power to do such a thing, and so the question can be answered in the affirmative. However, if you're asking "did it give people the power to govern their own lives, occupations and futures", well that merits closer investigation and further references - which I'm sure one of our learned friends will be along with shortly. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Why, it was like reading about France and the French, before the ever memorable and blessed Revolution, which swept a thousand years of such villany away in one swift tidal-wave of blood -- one: a settlement of that hoary debt in the proportion of half a drop of blood for each hogshead of it that had been pressed by slow tortures out of that people in the weary stretch of ten centuries of wrong and shame and misery the like of which was not to be mated but in hell. There were two 'Reigns of Terror,' if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the 'horrors' of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror -- that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves." - Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, chapter 13 John Z (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To add to the complication, we could also say that "the people", or at least certain people, already had power, as represented by the Estates General. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to revolt in the first place. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Repeat my suggestion that this be closed as discussion, that no reference exists to answer the question, nor has one been given. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a simplistic question with complex answers, but that does not mean it's not legitimate. I suggest you stop suggestion closure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. We will not close this question.  -- Jayron  32  22:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It may not be evil in the grand scheme of things, but it's like that bullshit which beer is best question, it is not something we can answer better than an internet forum or a random selection from a local bar. We just had a long discussion about banning various users which ended with the conclusion that the questions are usually the problem. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, its a completely different kind of question on which many people have written significant scholarly literature. The French revolution did lead to a significant transfer of power from the Second Estate to the Bourgeois - something that still echoes in how we use that term today. It's a major example in the Marxist scheme of historical determinism, which most now consider to be at very least wildly overstated, but which formed a major framework for plenty of historical analysis. Beer, on the other hand, is mostly a matter of taste (and at least the taste aspect is not very relevant to the world at large). And anyone knows that original Budvar is the best beer of international renown, anyways, but is often topped by the local microbrew of choice. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's your argument, it isn't a reference. I assume you know the difference.  And a link to bourgeoisie is no more helpful than a link to reign of terror. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn't think people would interpret my question as a homework question, I'm 29 and have been out of school for quite some time. The reason why I asked was basically to clarify my own conception of what the revolution did. For some reason the revolution was taught as if it was a bad thing in schools when I was a child, but now that I'm an adult (and quite anti-religion) I've seen the revolution in a different light. It seemed to take away the power that the catholic church had, as well as the power of the king of France. That seems like a good thing in my book, but I was just uncertain of whether or not it gave the every day man any real power. Certainly, Napoleon, who came from rather humble beginnings, was able to work his way up to become the Emperor so that seems to count for something. ScienceApe (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This book may interest the OP, being titled A Social History of France: 1789-1914. This one is titled similarly, A Social History of France: 1780-1880.  Both of them are likely to help answer the question regarding what happened to the "people" of France during and after the Revolution.  -- Jayron  32  22:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also found This one titled A Social History of France in the 19th Century. -- Jayron  32  22:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's important to remember that, especially if one compares it to, say, the American Revolution, there's a perception that "France had a revolution too, became a democracy... um... Napoleon... um... Yeah, something something, Jean Valjean, Eiffel Tower, hairy armpits, bailed out of two World Wars, isn't Carla Bruni hot?" roughly covers the average American's perception of French history from the Revolution.  Which is not to say that either a) you are American (no idea) or that b) that is your perception (again, no idea).  France from about 1780 forward underwent the following political changes:
 * Absolutist monarchy to 1789
 * Constitutional monarchy to 1792
 * Republic to 1804 (though this Republic had at least 3-4 distinctly different phases and structures)
 * Empire until 1814-1815 (including the Hundred Days restoration of Napoleon)
 * Absolutist monarchy to 1830
 * Popular (constitutional) monarchy to 1848
 * Republic to 1852
 * Empire to 1870
 * Military junta to 1871, followed by a brief Marxist period of a few months
 * Republican since then, though with strong monarchist factions through WWI.
 * 19th century France was an insanely turbulent time, and teasing out what happened to people's lives as a result of the actual French Revolution, versus all of the other political changes that just kept on rolling incessantly, is hard. I mean, the Reign of Terror killed thousands of people directly.  Did that make their lives better?  Also consider something like 1,000,000 French people (that is, people from within the borders of what we still consider France Proper) died in the Napoleonic wars; they're hardly better off.  However, did the next generation benefit from the liberalization of French society, the installation of Revolutionary ideals enshrined in Code Napoleon which as a law code, is pretty forward looking and egalitarian way to run a country.  It's a messy question; I've not read any of the three books above, but if you're honestly looking to try to see what happened to the average French person in the years following the Revolution, I'd go there first.  -- Jayron  32  02:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Going with Jefferson: "Never was so much good gained with so little innocent blood lost. Rather than that revolution should have failed, I would have seen half the earth descimated. If there were one Adam and one Eve alive in every nation and alive free, that would be greater than the present." Of course, Jefferson was a blood-thirsty anarchist, and had no use for organised religion. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can tell me "who the people are?" I could answer this question. The question of "who are the people" is a difficult one. In actuality it tends to be resolved politically, by violence. In research, work like Martyn Lyon's on every day literacy provides avenues into the question of "were the people the people for themselves?" Might want to look at Marx and Engels' response to this, which is the idea of class consciousness in classical Marxism. 18th Brumaire ought to be a go-to work, as would Engels' German Peasants' War. My initial answer would be that given that self-reflective acts of popular politics, like Roux's circle, were shut down by even the most extreme of the liberal revolutionaries, that "the people" never got their go of it during the Grand French Revolution. The last part of E.P. Thompson's Making of the English Working Class provides a comparison example from the UK. And of course the film Sade/Marat provides an easily appreciated view of the "problem" of "the people" in the Great revolution. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What is this form of time notation?
Please see Talk:Nazi_human_experimentation. I was referred here. Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1B69:3DFE:8698:6402:748A (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, minutes of time and angle are denoted ′or ' or ʼ or something similar. The table would be clearer if the heading said "time in minutes", then the entry could be just a number.    D b f i r s   19:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Time of death, however, is also noted in this format. This does not give us information as to what time it actually occurred. It only gives us information as to something which it is in reference to. 4:00 PM would be definite, but 66' must mean 66 minutes after something, such as the beginning of the experiment. Can somebody please clarify? 2602:304:59B8:1B69:3DFE:8698:6402:748A (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, I see what you mean. I read it as "time to death" i.e. from the start of the experiment, but someone else might have an alternative explanation.    D b f i r s   06:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I read it the same as Dbfirs, which seems fairly obvious to me. But if anyone knows a better way, go ahead. Alansplodge (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Why was Omoo named so?
Hi all,

Why is Herman Melville's work Omoo named that way? Is it the name of a place?

Cheers Gulielmus estavius (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * According to Critical Companion to Herman Melville, "the title, Melville claims in the preface, is taken from a Polynesian word meaning 'rover'". (I can't find an online edition of the book with the preface, although I'm sure there must be one out there.) If it is a real Polynesian word, the "o" is probably a particle and not part of the actual word. Europeans always used to record the O as part of the word, as in "Otaheite" for Tahiti, or the Tahitian Omai who came back to England with Captain Cook. (I always assumed Melville took "Omoo" from the name Omai, but I don't know that for sure.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You can read the preface here. The passage in question says; "The title of the work — Omoo — is borrowed from the dialect of the Marquesas Islands, where, among other uses, the word signifies a rover, or rather, a person wandering from one island to another, like some of the natives known among their country-men as 'Taboo kannakers.'" A few sentences earlier, he admits that he hasn't studied any textbooks or vocabularies on the Polynesian language or the Tahitian dialect, but has been "mostly governed by the bare recollection of sounds". Alansplodge (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I had read the book from the Project Gutenberg version, sadly the preface is missing in that.  Gulielmus estavius (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as it is in the Google version. I find archive.org is an excellent resource, especially when they have the full page views, like the link above. Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)