Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 June 30

= June 30 =

Catholic in Scotland during Mary, Queen of Scots
Were there any influential Catholic noble/aristoratic families left in Scotland during the reign of Mary, Queen of Scots?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't read it yet, but History of Christianity in Scotland may be a good place for you to start. -- Jayron  32  00:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Earl of Arran was still Catholic until 1559, but then he switched. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article Mary, Queen of Scots says of 1561 "Only four [of the 16 Privy] ... councillors were Catholic: the Earls of Atholl, Erroll, Montrose, and Huntly, who was Lord Chancellor". Thincat (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Closest named thing to this
Amongst all the ethical theories I hear about (such as deontological ethics, discussed in a thread above) I notice one thing: you could justify a lot of things using some theory of ethics, and you could have debates about the smallest things that go on forever. My practical solution is what I call "accountability ethics", but it isn't quite a proper approach to ethics. It simply goes like this: both decisions, eg. commit euthanasia/ don't commit euthanasia, could be unethical, so which of the two mistakes would you be most prepared to live with? That isn't a theory, because it doesn't say what is right or wrong about something, but it gives you a way of thinking about ethics without the abstract droning on that is otherwise needed. Is there any approach that is closest to this? That could be a general system, such as exwhyzedological ethics, or the theory of a particular philosopher (or even political theorist, since there is some overlap). IBE (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you accept the overlap with decision theory, there is the concept and application of (post-decision) regret. For one randomly selected example: Choice processes and their post-decisional consequences in morally conflicting decisions (Amy R. Krosch, Bernd Figner, Elke U. Weber, Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7, no. 3, May 2012, pp. 224-234. ---Sluzzelin talk  01:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would accept the overlap, not least because my approach does not require any particular decision about the pure "right" or "wrong" of a particular action. Certainly a good start, although I wonder if there is something in the field of ethics proper that resembles my suggestion. IBE (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't notice you there, and added the example by Krosch, Figner, and Weber after you had posted your reply) ---Sluzzelin talk  02:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What you describe as justifying a lot of things is called casuistry and doing so based on intuitions can be considered ethical intuitionism. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of Whittaker Chambers remark
I was looking at the Alger Hiss article, and I came across this exchange between Hiss and Whittaker Chambers, in testimony before HUAC. The background is that Chambers had accused Hiss of being a Communist, and Hiss had denied ever knowing Chambers. But on seeing his photo, Hiss allowed that he might have known him under a different name.
 * HISS. Did you ever go under the name of George Crosley?
 * CHAMBERS. Not to my knowledge.
 * HISS. Did you ever sublet an apartment on Twenty-ninth Street from me?
 * CHAMBERS. No; I did not.
 * HISS. You did not?
 * CHAMBERS. No.
 * HISS. Did you ever spend any time with your wife and child in an apartment on Twenty-ninth Street in Washington when I was not there because I and my family were living on P Street?
 * CHAMBERS. I most certainly did.
 * HISS. You did or did not?
 * CHAMBERS. I did.
 * HISS. Would you tell me how you reconcile your negative answers with this affirmative answer?
 * CHAMBERS. Very easily, Alger. I was a Communist and you were a Communist.

Now, can anyone figure out how Chambers' final remark above is supposed to explain anything? Logically, there's not necessarily anything to explain, of course, as Chambers could certainly have had an apartment on 29th Street without having sublet it from Hiss. But does anyone see how it's in any way relevant to the exchange, or is it just a way to be heard repeating his accusation? --Trovatore (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The continuation:here


 * Mr. HISS. Would yon be responsive and continue with your answer?
 * Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not think it is needed.
 * Mr. HISS. That is the answer.
 * Mr. NIXON. I will help you with the answer, Mr. Hiss. The question, Mr. Chambers, is, as I understand it, that Mr. Hiss cannot understand how you would deny that you were George Crosley and yet admit that you spent time in his apartment. Now would you explain the circumstances? I don't want to put that until Mr. Hiss agrees that is one of his questions.
 * Mr. HISS. You have the privilege of asking any questions you want. I think that is an accurate phrasing.
 * Mr. NIXON. Go ahead.
 * Mr. CHAMBERS. As I have testified before, I came to Washington as a Communist functionary, a functionary of the American Communist Party. I was connected with the underground group of which Mr. Hiss was a member. Mr. Hiss and I became friends. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Hiss himself suggested that I go there, and I accepted gratefully.
 * Mr. HISS. Mr. Chairman.
 * Mr. NIXON. Just a moment. How long did you stay there?
 * Mr. CHAMBERS. My recollection, about 3 weeks. It may have been longer. I brought no furniture, I might add.
 * Mr. HISS. Mr. Chairman, I don't need to ask Mr. Whittaker Chambers any more questions. I am now perfectly prepared to identify this man as George Crosley..

The idea seems to be that Chambers is saying that he was granted use of the apartment to expedite the Communist conspiracy of which Hiss was part.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks very much. That does help. I think the way it stands in the Hiss article is confusing, but the page is currently protected, and I don't really want to wade into the content dispute, not being particularly qualified to evaluate the evidence. --Trovatore (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought of doing that article as part of my Nixon project but it was a huge quagmire and I dropped the idea in a hurry.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I think that the key word is "sublet". IMHO, Chambers is being pedantic (aggressively so, by not explaining without being pushed every step of the way) but accurate in his answers. It's not about a plot. It's about the terminology of economics. A true Communist by definition does not sublet to another Communist, as neither believes that such a concept has a valid place in society. --Dweller (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on, that's really forced. Whether they believe in subletting or not has nothing to do with the factual question of whether subletting occurred.  Also, Chambers had renounced communism by then.  (Hiss, presumably, had not, either because he had never been a communist, or because he still was, depending on who was telling the truth.)  --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is it forced? It's a totally natural understanding of the text:
 * HISS. Did you ever sublet an apartment on Twenty-ninth Street from me?
 * CHAMBERS. No; I did not.
 * HISS. Did you ever spend any time with your wife and child in an apartment on Twenty-ninth Street in Washington...
 * CHAMBERS. I most certainly did.
 * HISS. Would you tell me how you reconcile your negative answers with this affirmative answer?
 * CHAMBERS. Very easily, Alger. I was a Communist and you were a Communist.
 * ie "I lived there, but didn't sublet because we were both Communists."
 * I don't see how the interpretation could be any less "forced". The factual answer is he lived there, but without paying rent. --Dweller (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I suppose it's possible, but I really doubt it.  I don't think there were very many Communists who just let fellow Party members stay at their place for free out of pure ideological solidarity.  Also, Chambers seems to be using the word "Communist" more in the sense of "Soviet agent" than "person who's read Das Kapital and agreed with some of it". --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither man could have lived a truly communist lifestyle without attracting unwanted attention. I don't see the issue.  Chambers needed a place to stay, Hiss had something available, and an informal arrangement took place motivated by the fact that they were working for the same cause, i.e. spying for the USSR.  Both men were angry during the testimony and were constantly zinging each other. Remember the suave Hiss's constant references to Chambers (who was physically unimpressive) and his bad teeth. They were going at it hammer and sickle tongs.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, are you agreeing that Chambers was pedantically responding to the use of the word "sublet"? --Dweller (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. There was no subletting as there was no lease.  He did not pay Hiss, nor give him a deposit.  Presumably he considered himself Hiss's guest.  It's all about the closeness of the "relationship".  Chambers is trying to characterize it as host/guest.  Hiss wants it to be seen as an arms-length business transaction.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To expand a bit: You'd have to know someone pretty well to let them stay gratis in an apartment you own for some weeks.  Were that so, it would be damaging for Hiss.  Chambers had been, by his own admission, a Soviet agent. There would be nothing obviously wrong with subletting as a business relationship to someone who had been a Soviet agent, after all, they have to live somewhere and a landlord, receiving rent, would not be presumed to know.  Staying there gratis, with wife and small child for three weeks is quite another matter and Hiss was a very smart man.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. There was no subletting as there was no lease.  He did not pay Hiss, nor give him a deposit.  Presumably he considered himself Hiss's guest.  It's all about the closeness of the "relationship".  Chambers is trying to characterize it as host/guest.  Hiss wants it to be seen as an arms-length business transaction.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To expand a bit: You'd have to know someone pretty well to let them stay gratis in an apartment you own for some weeks.  Were that so, it would be damaging for Hiss.  Chambers had been, by his own admission, a Soviet agent. There would be nothing obviously wrong with subletting as a business relationship to someone who had been a Soviet agent, after all, they have to live somewhere and a landlord, receiving rent, would not be presumed to know.  Staying there gratis, with wife and small child for three weeks is quite another matter and Hiss was a very smart man.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia delete the part who says Albanian first kingdom is created in 200bc from the illyrians?
> Hello Wikipedia!! > I have a question about Albania? > Why wikipedia delete that part who says albania first is createt in 200BC from the illyrians? > it was very nice to see that and is certified that albanians are descendants of the illyrians and is think is only is just the right too see that again there. > But if this is not possible to write more in the page "albania" that albanian's are the illyrians. > Greetings from Kosovo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.175.126.168 (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not uncommon for a nation to have enemies who will try to write its history out of the history books as much as possible, and claim that they couldn't be descended from anyone in ancient times (so they must have landed from another planet?) etc. This is called damnatio memoriae and has been going on for thousands of years, for example the Romans tried to erase the Judaeans' history after the Bar Kokhba revolt.  So one would expect it to be continuing today, naturally with the support of "experts" since only the books that they wrote count, and books written by others saying something else don't count!  Welcome to wikipedia, I've been seeing this for 8 years. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, when in doubt, invent a conspiracy. I can't find a version of that article that had that information in it, so I can't explain why it was deleted.  The most likely explanation is that no high-quality sources are available to support the story. Further information would be helpful.


 * Our Albania article says: "The history of Albania emerged from the prehistoric stage from the 4th century BC, with early records of Illyria inGreco-Roman historiography. The modern territory of Albania has no counterpart in antiquity, comprising parts of the Roman provinces ofDalmatia (southern Illyricum) and Macedonia(particularly Epirus Nova). The territory remained under Roman (Byzantine) control until theSlavic migrations of the 7th century, and was integrated into the Bulgarian Empire in the 9th century. The territorial nucleus of the Albanian state formed in the Middle Ages, as the Principality of Arbër and the Kingdom of Albania. The first records of the Albanian people as a distinct ethnicity also date to this period."  That passage does not cite any sources, but relies on our History of Albania article, which covers the material in more detail and does cite sources. Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Looie, it seems the part that the "experts" probably would rather not be mentioned there is covered at Albanoi. According to the "experts" it is a complete coincidence that they lived in what is now Albania, since everyone knows the Albanians had no ancestors before the Middle Ages. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While it is quite possible Albanians descend from Illyrians, there is no evidence supporting such an identification. It is a surmise based on (a) population continuities in the region (b) the Albanian language as a possible unique survival from Illyrian. We have, however, almost no evidence about Illyrian that would secure a nexus. It is anachronistic to use the word 'Albania' of prehistoric and historic Illyria.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will second everything Nishidani has said. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (EC) Has mitochondrial DNA been sequenced from bones buried in what is now Albania back in the period in question, around 200 BC? The bones of kings would be particularly interesting, if such have been found. If so then comparison to the DNA of present day Albanians would be interesting. Similar testing has been done in other regions: Cheddar man lived in England 9000 years ago, and his DNA was matched by Bryan Sykes to that of some present day inhabitants of his locale.  Of course more data would be needed from other locations to rule out the DNA being common in other possible origin sites.  Linguistic comparison can also be informative in historical research on populations, as done by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. It would not be surprising for some nationalistic Europeans to make false claims about the history of people inhabiting a country, since there is quite a history of such disputes, such as the Macedonia naming dispute. Edison (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Many linguists are not too persuaded by many aspects of Cavalli-Sforza's attempts to link other things with linguistics... -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There's also Origin of the Albanians. Pfly (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Language continuity is no guarantee of genetic continuity, as Hungarian linguistics and genetic studies of Hungarians show.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

American education culture
Hi, I'm from India and, as expected, I don't much about American culture than what's shown on films and TV. Recently, I was watching the TV show "One Tree Hill" and one episode got me very curious about the way Americans view education. The character Jake, who had a baby with his ex-girlfriend (I can't remember her name, so I'll just refer to her as just "mother"), wanted the mother to stay away from his baby. So, his friend, and later girlfriend, Peyton fooled the mother into believing that Jake had gone to Seattle with the baby, and so she immediately started off for Seattle. My question is: these are high school students. don't they have school to go to? don't they have studies to complete? do American teenagers just go off to a different city or state just for their personal problems, without seemingly a care about their school life? In India, no high school student would ever dream of leaving behind studies and if for some reason, he/she has to go some place for a long period of time, he/she ask to seek permission from the school authorities.

Please forgive me if I come across as arrogant or xenophobic, but please enlighten me about the study culture in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.233.218 (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything can happen in the fantasy world of film and TV. In real life, this scenario would be unlikely, unless they had wealthy parents who gave them large allowances and otherwise paid no attention to them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * American TV shows about high school typically portray the students as much more mature and independent than high school students really are. The level of oversight for high school students varies widely -- it tends to be lower in more rural areas. Substantial numbers of students drop out of school or only attend school for part of the day. Also, students are usually on vacation (and completely free of school) during the summer months, if that matters. Looie496 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The OP might benefit from watching the films Heathers and Donnie Darko. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a suspicion the writers of those shows might be projecting their own fantasies on what they wish they had done in high school. The movie Peggy Sue Got Married gets into that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the writers of Heathers wish they had been serial killers in high school? --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I liked but do not (after one viewing 30 years ago) remember the details of Peggy Sue. The point is that good art distills the (moral) essence of things.  The OP would be extremely poorly served by watching a commentariless unselective documentary of an American school day.  The movies I mentioned are great commentaries, and highly selective works of art, pungent with moral implications. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What about The Breakfast Club, which is intended to depict how some American high school students in the late 20th century supposedly had to spend large parts of their weekends? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What a tiresome piece of tripe that was. --Trovatore (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That teen exploitation movie had about as much insight as a can of spam.  Not to put down spam in comparison. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When watching it a decade or so later, I mostly just found it odd. (My school, in England, looked very different and had very different rules.) And a bit slow. Is it more realistic than the OP-mentioned One Tree Hill in terms of how much control American high schools have over their pupils? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's almost like a Mediaeval morality play, with stock characters as seen from the imagination of a Hollywood casting director; the nerd, the jock, the stoner, the princess. The essence of formulaicity. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Homer had some success with formulaic material, too. You didn't answer my question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't personally say if it's better than One Tree Hill, not having seen the latter. I can say that the first season of Heroes was hugely more realistic (Save the cheerleader; save the world!) than The Breakfast Club.  And from what I remember, it was strange how much control the school seemed to assume over the students in TBC.  I saw the film while in high school and did not find it realistic in characterization or plot.  The theme of kids drop differences to defeat tyranny was good. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the original question: The law in most states requires students to stay in school until they are 16.  Students who have reached the age of 16 can legally discontinue school ("drop out").  Of course, dropping out of school places the ex-student under a significant disadvantage in life, but it is something that is possible and that some people do.  I haven't seen One Tree Hill, but it's also possible that the trip to Seattle was during the long summer break, when for a period of about two and a half months (varying by location) schools are not in session.
 * If school was in session and the young mother intended to stay in school, American high schoolers would not necessary consider this an insuperable problem. An unexplained absence of a few days might do substantial harm to the student's standing that semester, but it probably would not mean she would be expelled or fail her courses, unless she was otherwise a marginal student.  American high schoolers would be more concerned about getting permission from their parents, financing the trip, and finding a place to stay.  John M Baker (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Most American high school students could not afford a trip to a distant city, whether they wanted to make such a trip or not. So the movie is unrealistic in that way. Even if they could afford such a trip, I think that most American parents would not allow their children to make such a trip without a good reason.  That said, many American high school students do not take their studies very seriously.  For students of average intelligence, it is possible to avoid failure in high school with a fairly minimal effort.  As long as students don't fail or leave high school, they will be able to attend university if they choose (though maybe not a prestigious university), and they will have a fair chance of a middle-class standard of living. So there is less pressure on American students to achieve academically than there probably is in India. Certainly there is a significant subset of American high school students who are ambitious and who take their studies seriously because they hope to attend a more prestigious university as a launching pad for a more prestigious or lucrative career.  Marco polo (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)