Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 March 26

= March 26 =

"What disability do you suffer from? "
Not everybody with a disabilty actually suffers. This is an interesting philosophy. Have any studies ever been done on this? I wonder how else you can stop people from asking the question in that way. Perhaps instead "what disability do you have?" or "what disability affects you?" Difficultly north (talk) - '' Simply south alt. '' 00:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The more interesting question is "Is suffering a core part of the human condition?" It was a question that formed the basis of the Pessimism of the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.  Shopenhauer noted that people living in modernity didn't seem to be any happier, on average, than people living in more primitive conditions, and thus came to the conclusion that the source of human suffering was primarily internal rather than external.  He distinguished between pain (the physical response to actual harm) and suffering (the internal or emotional response to stress) and noticed that people suffer in roughly the same proportion in all societies.  Thus, suffering mustn't be primarily caused by pain, but had to be created in the human mind.  He famously claimed that "all life is suffering" (a concept either borrowed from or arrived at independently from Buddhism). There's a lot more to his philosophy (and a lot of is is rather Buddhist in outlook, something he himself noted) but the notion that suffering is not caused by one's physical situation (i.e. disability) but by one's own internal reaction to one's physical situation is an interesting way to look at your question.  -- Jayron  32  01:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect that "suffer" here isn't "to undergo something bad" but a fossil of the near-obsolete sense of "to undergo" in general (via an intermediate sense of "to have a medical condition"). Nevertheless of course it may cause problems anyway if people reinterpret it in the other sense. Marnanel (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Marnanel has this right. To suffer means to undergo, whether than is painful or pleasurable.  See passion. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone experiencing it themselves may interpret it differently to how others see it.

There are plenty of disabilities that are nonphysical. Again, not everyone suffers. Other obsolete terminology that shouldn't really be used include invalid, cripple and retardation. It cannot be helped if people reinterpret this in a different way as you said. Difficultly north (talk) - '' Simply south alt. '' 12:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Regading "suffers from", "afflicted with", "stricken with", "victim of", the National Center on Disability and Journalism's style guide states:
 * "These terms carry the assumption that a person with a disability is suffering or living a reduced quality of life. Not every person with a disability “suffers,” is a “victim” or is “stricken.” It is preferable to use neutral language when describing a person who has a disability, simply stating the facts about the nature of the disability. For example, 'He has muscular dystrophy.' "
 * They also write "Conforms with AP style guide" though I didn't find anything there. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as writing about disability or people who have disabilities here on the English Wikipedia is concerned I'd advise consulting WP:WikiProject Disability about the preferred styles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sample dish of Mod-Oz cuisine
Mod-Oz is Modern Australia cuisine. It is a mixture of Mediterranean, Asian, Middle East and Californian cooking practices. Is there a website that shows dishes in Mod-Oz cuisine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.19.30 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This one describes restaurants that serve Mod Oz cuisine. -- Jayron  32  00:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pay no attention to that man behind the apron. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Grave fences
In the British Cemetery in Madrid, I was expecting to see grave fences around some of the tombs, but there was none. Aren't fences a frequent feature of Victorian tombs? Which period did fences flourish in?

By the way, there is no article about grave fences in spite of commons:Category:Grave and memorial fences. --Error (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure of the period, but they flourish where the soil is loose (or just sand). Stopping scavengers never goes out of style. When you've a vault and some solid dirt, it's always been a matter of preference and money. Same with obelisks and angels. Some famous people have had fences put up later, just to keep crazy fans off. Not too much more to say about them, which is probably why the article isn't there. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's actually quite an interesting topic, especially in the UK where, during early Victorian times, bodysnatching was common. Grave fences (and some cages around the grave) were erected by families, especially in ironworking areas such as the Black Country, to keep their loved one from being exhumed by such people. I revisited a church where I used to go to in the 1970s as a child, to be quite surprised by such a sort of cage around the grave of a child - I can't ever remember seeing it before, but it must have been there 40 years ago! There are others. I don't have time to fully research the subject for an article however. There are also decorative fences around graves, or around local monuments for example to mining disasters or other calamities. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Some fences are apparently too dangerous. Great quote here from the pastor: ""We don't want to offend people but we don't want to see them dead either." That was 2011 Tasmania. In 1942 USA, some were proposed for scrapping to help the war effort. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's also part of Southern Gothic.
 * About scrap iron, some iron fences around British cemeteries and buildings were removed during the war, allegedly to be scrapped.
 * --Error (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It really wasn't a good time to have cherished metal objects, of any kind. There's a philosophical question here about whether it's more honourable to have the decorative elements of your final destination recycled for functional purposes, or to have the functional elements of your ongoing voyage recycled for decorative purposes.


 * And a more direct question. "Allegedly"? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Peachey tomb was enclosed by fencing to stop people lying on top of it. Byron said that it was 'my favourite spot' (it used to have attractive views, but nowadays looks out over suburbia), and composed some of his earlier poems on top of it. 86.181.15.157 (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still looks comfortable enough, if one were hooked in with bungee cords. Nice and flat, no pointy bits. Won't stop the determined fan! I'm only a moderate fan, so would settle for a nap on the one beside it. Can't be that much less inspiring. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * iron fence: "This was supposedly to provide scrap metal for munitions, but there is some scepticism as to whether they were actually used for this purpose.7" --Error (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks. Now everytime I see one, I'll have to wonder. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Religions
I am looking for evidence that mankinds adoption of religious beliefs has caused more evil than good throughout history (or vice versa) --109.144.148.27 (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You could find any such evidence as long as you set your own definitions of evil and good and gather evidence to support whatever position you've arrived at before you decided to start looking. -- Jayron  32  00:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A belief in objective, external standards of good and evil is often (though not exclusively) a feature of religion; you may find that this leads to self-contradictory evidence and a lack of genuinely objective test criteria. But in any case, you seem to have made your mind up already. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say that religion has the effect of collectivizing violence. That is, instead of killing their neighbors, they join with their neighbors to kill others farther away.  And it needn't be a religious crusade, per se.  In most wars it only makes sense to risk your own death if you will be rewarded for dying in the afterlife. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the alternative (and as OP has pointed out) some have adopted the rebuttal that religion has also "saved the most people" in that it has forced issues of philanthropy, charity and mercy among other traits to the forefront. Although there are multitudes of examples for both sides I don't think any conclusive verdict.  An additional aspect to this is whether religion was the cause of the "saving" or "evil" or was just a sideshow or excuse for something that would have happened anyway.  The old cum hoc ergo propter hoc.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   02:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The classic case of religion as excuse are the wars attributed to Protestant vs. Catholic faiths. As far as I understand, however complicated the politics of European wars of religion were, the premise was stupidly simple: you had a local prince/bishop/whatever nominally holding territory in trust for the Church, who realizes that with a simple stroke of conscience he can declare his territory Protestant and become its dictatorial ruler.  Voila.  The Inquisition wasn't much different - you had a mixed Spanish-Moorish-Jewish culture with a couple of nobles who want to take it all for the north, which means ... lining everyone up on one side, under penalty of Very Bad Things.  Whenever the rich want pretty ribbons, the slaves get the lash, religion or no religion. Wnt (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I second Jayron's answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jayron's point is apt. But if you want references to published accounts on this topic, I'd check google books. Here is a book "God is not Great", which basically takes an anti-religion stance, and here is one titled "Is Religion Dangerous?" , which I'm not familiar with, but would seem to have arguments and evidence on both sides. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * First you need to decide if atheism (or "secular humanism") is a form of religion. Wnt (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Atheism is a religion the same as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Widneymanor (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hard-core atheists have their own forms of dogma and faith. It's not exactly a religion, but it can look like one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You can begin by considering these questions: (1) If there is no true God, and if all religion is human-made religion, then how does religion differ from philosophy? (2) If there is exactly one true God, and if there is exactly one true God-made religion, then how does true God-made religion differ from false (human-made) religion?
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jayron.
 * There have been many attempts at "neutral" definitions of good and evil. Steven Pinker has suggested that one limit morals to whether people are hurt. I assume he meant physically hurt. In a related way, many years ago, Norwegian peace researchers compared lifespans demographics in a south american countries to calculate when a civil war was a good cause. When the loss of life from the war was deemed to be less than the "loss of life" difference between a normal lifespan and the shortened average lifespans in the oppressed population to the loss of life of a civil war.
 * "adoption of religious beliefs" implies that they did not have any kind of religious beliefs before that. I can not off hand think of any such large scale historical case. The cases I tend to think of are the reverse. What happens when a leader suddenly proclaims religion to be illegal and punishable by death. Star Lord -   星王 (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Capitulary for the Jews
What is the original Latin name of the capitulary? I cannot find any information on this. Thanks in advance and greetings,--Der Spion (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Capitula de Iudaeis" is the most frequent title I get (e.g.: Blankenb. 130, though I couldn't actually find it within the photographed pages, but I'm not very skilled at reading manuscripts). At any rate it looks more like a couple of capitula than an entire capitularium, though you will find "capitulare de Judaeis" too (on google that is). ---Sluzzelin talk  10:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Will be added, thanks a lot!--Der Spion (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The manuscript Sluzzelin linked to says "iuramentum Iudaeorum" on the relevant page, for what that's worth. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's interesting - "The oath of the Jews" (and I can decipher it now, thanks to Adam. I still can't decipher the rest, and the writing looks shakier than that immediately above it on the same page. See here and go to "00421 (207r)" in the "select image" dropdown menu). So perhaps the title didn't exist at all in any of the early manuscripts but was used only later in reference to that section? ---Sluzzelin  talk  10:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole thing says "Iuramentum iudaeorum. Adiuro te per deum uiuum et uerum et in illam legem sanctam quam dominus dedit ad beatum moisen in monte sinai et per adonai sanctum et per pactum abrae quod deus dedit filii Israel et si non libra naaman siro circumdet corpus meus et si non me uiuo degluciat terra sicut fecit dathan et abilon et per arcum fidelis qui de celis aparuit ad filios hominis et ipsum locum sanctum ubi sanctus moisen stetit et illam sanctum quam beatus moisen ibi haccepit de hac causa culpabilis non sum." That's not at all what the text in our article says, except for the quoted part at the end. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The other manuscripts including "Capitula de Iudaeis" (besides the "Wolfenbüttel Blankenb. 130" we discussed) are labeled "Heiligenkreuz 217", "München Lat 3853", "Montpellier H 360", and "Vatikan Reg. Lat. 520, as found in Bibliotheca capitularium regum Francorum manuscripta (pdf file!) (Hubert Mordek, 1995). That paper also mentions that the Capitula de Iudaeis were added later in at least two of the manuscripts, written with a clumsy hand. Alfred Boretius (mentioned in our article on capitulary) apparently classified the bit as "Additamenta" and viewed them as spurious. The name of Charlemagne's grandson, Charles the Bald, is brought into play; he was known to be harsher toward minorities than his predecessors. ---Sluzzelin  talk  01:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Lettuce Patch Dolls in Code Monkeys
Are the "Lettuce Patch Dolls" in the Code Monkeys show a reference or allusion to something in the real world? 188.25.127.59 (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen the show, so this is just a guess. And I bet you didn't grow up in the US in the 1980s.  I'm guessing it's satire based on Cabbage Patch Kids.  They were all the rage in the '80s in the US with people getting into physical fights over them in the stores.  Dismas |(talk) 10:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems to be it. There is indeed a store fighting scene over the dolls in the show. Thanks for very prompt answer. 188.25.127.59 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Scotland, etc.
So, Scotland is going to vote on whether to become autonomous, right? Are there any similar movements going on in Northern Ireland and/or Wales to follow Scotland's lead on this? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See Welsh independence, Irish republicanism, and Cornish nationalism for similar movements around the U.K. -- Jayron  32  16:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As a very cursory search would have told you.... As well, the Scottish referendum is on independence, not autonomy, as they are pretty autonomous within the UK already. Anyway, speaking as a resident of Cardiff, I can tell you that, apart from Plaid, the idea of Welsh independence is very much a fringe one. Fgf10 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be true in Cardiff (and in Monmouthshire, where I live) but it is much less true in the Welsh-speaking parts of north and west Wales. And readers outside the UK (and some of those within) may be unaware of the extent of devolution that has already taken place in Wales over the last 15 years - see Welsh Government, etc. - as a result of political "movements" over the last century or more, and particularly within the last 40 years or so.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And see our article on Ulster loyalism, which is the majority viewpoint in the province at present. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I don't believe anyone talks about Northern Ireland becoming independent; everyone either wants to stay in the UK or wants to become part of the Republic.  Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not currently... but see Ulster nationalism.  Incidentally, I don't think I've read anything that points out that Northern Ireland is much, much closer - certainly physically, and perhaps culturally - to Scotland, than it is to England.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Scottish question (shades of "the Scottish play") is framed in terms of independence, but really it's much more about sovereignty. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't we have an article on this yet?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah - we (sort of) do - Lerwick Declaration.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Venice voted a week ago to become independent, and Cataluña is voting in September. Crimea recently voted too, of course. Star Lord -   星王 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sort of. A foreign army wielding guns marched into Crimea and asked everyone who wanted to become independent to vote on it.  People who didn't want to become independent were likely dissuaded from voicing their contrary opinion due to the impending threat of being shot in the face for expressing that idea.  Furthermore, the sovereign nation that had legal control over the Crimea had no place in organizing or overseeing the referendum in question, so those two facts (a referendum held without the consent of the legal government, and held under the physical presence of people with weaponry who had a vested interest in the vote going a certain way) make the Crimean situation unlike Scotland in so many ways.  The Scottish vote is happening with the consent of the U.K. government, and it isn't like there's a foreign army in Scotland waving guns and saying "So, how are YOU going to vote, huh?"  -- Jayron  32  01:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See also Crimean referendum, 2014. Another interesting detail is that unlike Scottish independence referendum, 2014, it wasn't a yes/no vote. It was a "In which of these two ways do you want to violate the Ukrainian constitution"-vote. If you happened to support the constitution there was nothing to vote. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Scotland, Venice and Cataluña are much more interesting to me. The Crimea vote was of course made under pressure. Star Lord -   星王 (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The section "United Kingdom (including Crown dependencies and Overseas Territories)" in List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe addresses the question. Star Lord -   星王 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Lack of relationships
Why is it much more common in recent times for a person to go through their entire life without being in a single relationship? Is this out of choice or if it because of other reasons? 82.40.46.182 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The only way I can answer this is to direct you to the concept of the plurium interrogationum, which is a latin term to refer to a type of impossible-to-answer question. The most common form of this question is often quoted as "When did you stop beating your wife?"  The problem with a question like that is it presupposes a notion (that you beat your wife) which itself has not yet been established, and then goes on to ask a second question, without resolving the first unknown.  Now, let's look at your question, and see why it is unanswerable.  Your question says "Why is it much more common in recent times for a person to go through their entire life without being in a single relationship?"  Now, for ease of analysis, I have highlighted the presupposition you make which has not yet been established.  You have asked a question about the bold part of the statement as though it's an established thing, as though you asked "Why is the sky blue?"  It's well established the sky is blue, so we can go on to answer that question meaningfully.  However, in YOUR question, we have not yet even established that it is more common in recent times for a person to go through their entire life without being in a single relationship.  Unless we know one way or the other if that idea is true, we cannot answer the "Why" question.  If, for example, it turned out to NOT be true, it would be like asking "Why is the sky a yellow-and-red paisley pattern?"  That's a meaningless question because the sky isn't a yellow-and-red paisley pattern.  Now, I don't know one way or another if it is more common in recent times for a person to go through their entire life without being in a single relationship, but until we actually know that, there's absolutely no way for us to answer the why question.  So, if you have some studies which establish that it is more common in recent times for a person to go through their entire life without being in a single relationship, then we can look at those studies and move on to answer the "why" question.  But unless and until we have some evidence that it is more common in recent times for a person to go through their entire life without being in a single relationship, there's no sense in even answering the "why" question.  And that's why we cannot answer your question meaningfully. -- Jayron  32  01:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I just saw a TV program on PBS which was titled "After Forever After". It was specifically on the reduction in the marriage rate, but also applies more generally to your question.  They proposed that the original reason for marriage was an economic one, that you needed one person working outside the home to "bring home the bacon" and another to "fry it up in a pan".  That is, somebody needed to stay home to cook, sew, raise the kids, wash the dishes and laundry, etc.  However, in recent times, the cost of having these things done outside the home (precooked meals, manufactured clothes, child care, etc.) or inside the home by machines (dishwashers, washing machines and dryers) has come down, to where it now makes economic sense for everyone to work outside the home.  In this scenario, there's no longer an economic advantage to marriage or cohabitation, especially when you figure in the economic risk of divorce/splitting up.


 * Another possible reason is the proliferation of the Internet, which encourages us to have a large number of acquaintances but few real friends. After all, an Internet friend from around the world can't take care of you when you're sick, pick you up when your car breaks down, etc.  StuRat (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the premise is true. In Western societies, two or three generations ago, relationships (by which I assume you mean intimate, often sexual relationships lasting more than a few weeks) were unusual outside of marriage, because relationships outside of marriage led to social ostracism.  There were significant numbers of people who never found a marriage partner due to ill fortune or because for various reasons they were not considered good matches.  Those people typically never experienced an intimate relationship.  Furthermore, a much larger percentage of the population than today would have taken vows of celibacy to serve as priests, nuns, or monks.  While some of these might have had relationships according to my proposed definition, sexual relationships were illicit for those people, and many never had one. Marco polo (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, that last paragraph of mine was referring to friendships, not romances. StuRat (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On one hand you have Hitler, Jesus and Isaac Newton, and on the other hand you have Elizabeth Taylor and Anthony Quinn. Caligula lies somewhere in the middle. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)