Humanities desk
< January 21	<< Dec | January | Feb >>	January 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 22

What is it about men Aussies and men Kiwis that could captivate American women? What is it about women Aussies and women Kiwis that could captivate American men?72.229.136.18 (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they are men and women? This is a trick question, right? Bielle (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could watch the "Crocodile" Dundee movies and tell us, perhaps... -- Saukkomies 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As any student of physics knows, opposite poles attract. Thus, people from the southern hemisphere, having the iron in their haemoglobin aligned in a southerly fashion, naturally attract people from the northern, whose iron molecules are aligned in a northerly direction. In fact, logic would suggest that a person who habitually lives at the south pole would be so attractive to a person who habitually lives at the north pole that it would be impossible to separate them. It is rumoured that military scientists are investigating these unique properties for missile guidance and communication uses. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh... :) Wrad (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that's what they mean when they talk about animal magnetism. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accent. There's always (clarify: almost always) something special about an exotic accent (especially if it's not so exotic that you have trouble understanding them). In addition, their (our) life experience is different but not different enough to cause a problem with large cultural gaps. Plus, us Aussie gents are perfect gentlemen, we are. :) Steewi (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the accent is usually marked as the key of attractiveness in foreign men, but I don't think that is entirely accurate. I know that when I traveled overseas, I could go to a port full of other Americans and there would be nothing special about having an American accent. If, instead, I went to a city with very few (if any) Americans, some women would be attracted to the fact that I was a foreigner, even if I never spoke to them. I thought about it and I felt that it was a commitment issue. If a woman has a fling with a local guy, it is hard to dump him and never see him again. If she has a fling with some foreigner who is in town for only a day or two, he will soon be gone and there is no further commitment. It makes the idea of a one night stand all the more attractive. -- kainaw™ 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's not all of the attraction, but I still think it's an important part of the attraction. American accents are heard more often, lessening their effect as an 'exotic' accent, although of course there are exceptions. I like a soft southern accent, myself (among other accents). Steewi (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any attention to the philosophical, metaphysical and theological questions that result from viewing the world as an MMORPG, such as: Is it still in beta, or is this what passes for version 1.0 these days? Are the server administrators the same people as the code maintainers? When is the next major update coming? How do I submit a bug report, and can I do it while logged in? Are there other servers out there? If so, do they all feature as much violence and competition as this one, or is there such thing as a PvE server? Why has there been so much gold farming lately, and what is the gold sold for? Might people to whom we ascribe certain disabilities just be having problems with their connections? Do all people have souls playing them, or are some of them NPCs? If this were an RP server, would I be banned for asking these questions? NeonMerlin 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In beta? Don't make me laugh. This game is designed so you can't submit a bug report from within this game; you have to check out, but then you won't be able to come back in the same universe. You don't want to know the gold thing.  --Lambiam 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here that I see is that all of the elements in MMORPGs are metaphors for things in the real world for the most part. So trying to use MMORPGs to understand the real world, in the sense you mean, seems to me to be a rather indirect way of asking more straightforward questions. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MMORPGs are, for the most part, simulations of universes like the one we live in. There are many theories that the universe is a simulation. This is backed in some aspects by religion - such as the creationist theory that God made everything, put it all here, and is monitoring it from outside the universe. There are also theories that there is another state of being outside of our universe. Again, this is backed by religion - such as the Buddhist concept Nirvana being an escape from existing within this Universe (including Heaven and Hell). There are even some religion concepts of NPCs - such as angels who must do what God (the programmer) instructs them to do without any sort of free will. All you are doing by adding MMORPG to this is giving different labels to things that have been discussed for thousands of years before anyone ever heard of an MMORPG. It is no different than saying, "Has anyone considered using a circular disk to assist in reducing friction when moving a heavy object?" Just because the term "circular disk" didn't exist in prehistoric time doesn't mean that calling a wheel a "circular disk" is something new and exciting. -- kainaw™ 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how does science describe homosexuality?

disease?disorder? perfectly natural? any other physical or biological defect?

and what does different religions say about its validity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this question would be better asked in the Reference Desk's Science category, since you are looking for an answer based in science, rather than in, say, philosophy, which is what the Humanities section deals with... -- Saukkomies 11:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing very scientific about homosexuality, or heterosexuality. What is "natural" anyway? Our excellent articles about homosexuality will answer most of your questions. Religion considerably complicates everything. See religion and homosexuality.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality is as natural for the homosexual as heterosexuality is for the heterosexual. MrsBucket (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really must disagree with you Shantavira about nothing scientific being associated with homosexuality. I do agree, however, that the wiki article is quite good, and if you were to refer to the section in that article that discusses the physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, you would have to come to the conclusion that there ARE indeed some scientific aspects pertaining to the subject. Not all people who are homosexual necessarily have these physiological differences, and not everyone who has these physiological differences are homosexuals, however there is a fairly strong connection between these specific physical traits that are described in the article (plus some others that may be found discussed in some of the links at the bottom of the article) to demonstrate that at least some homosexuals have physiclogical traits that they share with other homosexuals, but not with heterosexuals. Whether this means that these people were physiologically predisposed to become homosexual or not is a question that I will leave untouched. But to negate the established scientific observations made about these physiological differences is a mistake, in my opinion. -- Saukkomies 16:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science has described homosexuality in many different ways over time. At the moment, most scientist try to find ways of talking about it that aren't within a disease/disorder paradigm. One would like to believe this is because scientists have over time become more enlightened but I suspect it has more to do with politics than anything else: as homosexuals as a group became more politically mainstream and politically organized during the 1970s and 1980s, the description of homosexuality as a disease/disorder became less tolerable by society. As a consequence it stopped being talked about (by most scientists) in those terms, it got written out of the books on diseases and disorders (e.g. the DSM), and now the paradigm for dealing with it is considerably more complicated. Perhaps though I am not giving the scientists enough credit; some of the changes in talking about homosexuality come not at all from the immediate political or social domain but instead from the newer more complicated insights into the interactions between environment and genetics that have similarly rendered the nature/nurture debate mostly obsolete (for most scientists, anyway). How's that for a Humanities answer, Saukkomies. ;-) --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of sources for you on this subject, a few more:

• Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints (1999)
• Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 August 31#Science of gayness

Rockpocket 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the section on physiological differences cited by Saukkomies, I wonder about their statistical validity. That is, I wonder about the size of the samples on which they are based. I frankly doubt that there are significant physiological differences. I am a gay man, and while I have not measured the obscure parts of my brain mentioned in the articles, I turn out to be on the "predominantly heterosexual" side of at least two of the supposed differences. (I am a first-born son and my hair spirals in a decidedly clockwise direction.) Marco polo (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The January-February 2008 issue of "The Gay & Lesbian Review" has some article relating to these subjects.LShecut2nd (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not really cite those articles, Marco polo, but rather just pointed out that they are cited (by someone else) in the wiki article. If you do have a serious disagreement about those articles being cited, I'd advise taking the issue up with those who have contributed to the wiki article. -- Saukkomies 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you blame the infection or the doctor who held in is hands the cure but failed to act for the death of a paitent? xxx User:Hyper Girl 15:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Insufficient information. Was the doctor legally constrained from applying the "cure"? Was the cure a highly experimental drug with a high risk of failure and side effects? Etc. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really "blame" an infection, because it's not an agent with free will. Whether to blame the doctor depends on the details of the situation, as jpgordon said. —Keenan Pepper 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can "blame" it in the sense of assigning responsibility. In any case the question of whether the infection killed the patient is going to be true no matter what. The question is whether you share responsibility with the doctor or not. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the infection is responsible for the death either way. Depending on your ethical and moral framework, there may be guilt attached to the doctor in question, which I imagine is the OP's intent. I don't have the background to comment on the legal nature of the question (not just for the rules, I simply don't know). The ethical responsibility, to an extent, can come down to the doctor's duty of care and the hippocratic oath. Assuming that there were no outside factors (risk of extended suffering to the patient as part of the cure, risk of damage to others or to himself, etc), I think the Doctor himself might feel guilty of failing to act, and have that as a weight upon his conscience. Furthermore, it might be reason to suspect an ulterior motive (a grudge?). This is, however, in a closed system, and things would rarely be so clear cut. Steewi (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Mountbatten' biography by Philip Ziegler refers (page 256)to a daily newspaper 'SEAC' for allied troops in SE Asia during WWII. Citing an unpublished autobiography by Joubert, the troops apparently enjoyed the "Jane" strip-cartoon. Is it possible to locate the Jane series?Perrypie (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SEAC is an acronym for South East Asia Command, over which Mountbatten was placed in charge in 1943. The Jane cartoon series was actually published by the Daily Mirror, the eponymous heroine based on the real life Christabel Leighton-Porter. You could have a look at Jane: A Pin-Up at War by Andy Saunders, though this is more about Christabel than her cartoon alter ego. However, here's a little sampler of Jane herself [1]. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Jane (comic strip) which you may find of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Clio and Duncan. Very quick and useful: I'm impressed. I talked about this at Rotary tonight and some of our old soldiers remembered Jane. As a child, I remember enjoying the 'Katzenjammer (sp?) Kids' comic about two German boys at home. Very sad when distribution was stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perrypie (talk • contribs) 08:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can help you there too - we have The Katzenjammer Kids. DuncanHill (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium seems to have chosen CC-BY-SA 3.0. That license requires the user to "Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license."[2] Is the GFDL similar to or compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it similar to: yes. The clause you refer to is known as viral licensing, the GFDL has the same thing in it. As for compatibility, if you mean, can you take two materials, separately licensed as CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and merge them together into one copyright-safe document, the answer is no. Both licenses allow you to create works that contain mixed licensing as long as it is clear where one work starts and another work ends, and the different licensing schemes are clear, but they are not compatible as in convertible or interchangeable. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, talks have been underway for a fair while between folks from the Wikimedia Foundation, Creative Commons and GNU about making the licences compatible, and allowing licensees to swap between them. No firm results yet, though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised, but happy, if that happened. (Surprised because all three groups have really pretty different philosophies about what they are trying to accomplish and how to do it, from what I can tell, even though the basics of their licenses are identical) Free licenses really fail when they become proprietary in their own little ways—you end up with little ghettos of freedom that aren't allowed to be interchanged, and that doesn't help anybody. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears that the talks have been successful (at least as far as Wikimedia projects are concerned). See foundation:Resolution:License update and this anouncement by Jimbo. Once that's done, Citizendium's content can be re-used (with attribution) on Wikipedia, though to be honest I've yet to see anything that could be instantly ported across. They've quite a different Manual of Style over there. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While looking for information for an article about an early 20th century footballer, I came across a passage in one of my books stating that Manchester City and Derby County player George Brooks was the last British soldier to be killed in World War I. I am sceptical of the claim, but have thus far been unable to prove or disprove it. World War I states that Canadian George Lawrence Price is traditionally viewed as last soldier killed, but is there anyone (whether Brooks or someone else) generally viewed as the final British casualty? Oldelpaso (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CWGC reckons that George Edwin Ellison, 5th (Royal Irish) Lancers, might be the last British KIA of the war. He is buried in St. Symphorien Military Cemetery, near Mons which also contains the first British KIA of the war (John Parr, 4th Bn. Middlesex Regiment, killed 21/8/1914) as well as Price's grave. Of course, there will have been casualties long after 11/11/1918 as soldiers died of wounds are also casualties. 121.44.239.8 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, there was sporadic fighting for some days after the official armistice, due to miscommunication and other reasons. Is there any evidence of this? Moreover, the fighting in the dying days was apparently rather fierce, as the placements at the armistice could form national borders. A few extra metres could have helped either side. Steewi (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry about these 'how' questions!)

How do you create your own music by just listening to a tune by both writing it and playing it on the piano? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.3.242 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but how does listening to a tune become "creating your own music"? Are you talking about tunes you make up and hear in your head, or tunes you're listening to on CD/TV/Ipod/radio ... ? Also, in future please provide a more meaningful header than just "Question". All questions are questions, so "Question" tells us absolutely nothing about the question. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a keyboard, you can connect it to your computer through a midi-interface, and some software will turn that music into sheet music on the page (with a little fixing-up of inaccuracies). Some midi software can create a form of sheet-music from a midi file, and even from simple mp3 files, although they are not completely accurate and require a lot of fixing up. I hope that helps a little. Steewi (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this expression mean? Where did it come from? Did ancient scholars like Plato or Aristotle use this or a similar expression?--Doug ^talk 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the Bible, Matthew, c3,v4 "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his path straight". DuncanHill (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, Matthew (3:3) is quoting from Isaiah 40:3: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord; Make straight in the desert a highway for our God.'" (NKJV) The NIV translates it as "A voice of one calling: 'In the desert prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.'", which is actually a bit different. The other gospels also quote Isaiah, (Luke 3:4; Mark 1:3; John 1:23), in the context of John the Baptist, whose ministry is said to have 'prepared the way' for Jesus. Gwinva (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Matt 3,3, my mistake. DuncanHill (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I now see it comes from the Bible, however what does it mean in non-religious simple English terms? I've seen it used in modern books.--Doug ^talk 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A single person or minority taking an stance opposing the arguments of the majority; I'd guess normally made about a person with whose views you agree, and often made after the fact, when said person's views were validated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the expression is used, the context usually is of a prophetic voice that is being ignored. --Wetman (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Doug ^talk 16:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When reading about the Bible, I've seen chapter-verse notation written in two ways: Matthew 6:9 and Matthew vi.9. Which is correct, and where is each style more common? Thanks. NF24^{(radio me!)} 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the first is more common and the second is perhaps the more traditional; they are equally correct. You will also find (as demonstrated in above section, Matthew c6v9 or Matthew 6v9. Just keep your style consistent within your writing. (the v. is useful if you are discussing Matthew 6 and want to draw someone's attention to v9). Gwinva (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conventions also vary between languages. I've seen the "Matthew vi.9" a lot in Spanish references (although it was Matteo vi.9, of course). Steewi (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. If it matters at all, I believe I saw a couple of Biblical references in this style in British History For Dummies, leading me to think that it was an American vs. British thing. NF24^{(radio me!)} 01:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might be to some extent. I live in Canada and "Matthew 6:9" is the only style familiar to me. Not that Bible references are something I ever see a lot of. --Anonymous, 01:33 UTC, 01/23, 2008.

In recent UK usage Matthew 6:9 (or even Matt 6:9) is the style used. I suspect it is because of a general decline in the use of Roman numerals in general. SaundersW (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Regent Park, what other parts of Toronto do Somali-Canadians live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.72 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Canadians

Which area of Toronto do all Arabs(Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan, Palestinian, Saudi, Lebanese, Omani, Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Kuwaiti, Qatari, Bahraini, Emirati and Yemeni) live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All? I don't know Toronto, but I'd be very surprised if all these people live in the one area. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz is right. Assuming that (a) most of the Arab communities you name are predominantly Muslim and that (b) most will live close to their local mosque, this site lists many, if not all, of the mosques in the Toronto area: [3]. From a brief visual scan of the list, the mosques are almost everywhere except the very centre of the city, which is mostly business skyscrapers anyway. Perhaps you can tell by the name of the mosque which ex-pat group lives where, but it is a task beyond me. Bielle (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all of your ethnic Toronto questions, see this page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but are you good at math? because I want to how to convert the percentage into persons like at the bottom, the very red numbers is ranging from 2096 to 3330 and percentages are 9.2 and 9.7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.165 (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latino-Canadians

Which Part of Toronto do all Latinos(Argentinian, Chilean, Uruguayan, Paraguayan, Brazilian, Spaniard, Portuguese(European), Guatemalan, Nicaraguan, Honduran, Costa Rican, Dominican Republican, Cuban, Bolivia, Peruvian, Bolivian, Mexican, Panamanian, Venezuelan, Colombian, Ecuadorian and El Salvadorian) live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you'd be interested in TorontoHispano.com? --M@rēino 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African-Canadian

Which area of Toronto do all African-Canadians (slavery ancestry, Caribbean ancestry and those who speak Spanish because they come from Cube and Dominican Republic) live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.72 (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they live everywhere. Or do you mean which area are they concentrated in. 202.168.50.40 (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central and eastern Scarborough, northern Etobicoke and northwestern North York. See this PDF map. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this will help, this guy asks the same or similar questions every month or so... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same one who wants to know the exact origins of the Haitians, is it? —Tamfang (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are Australia and New Zealand the only English-speaking Pacific Ocean nations whose majority people are white? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Assuming:

1. You either don't count Pitcairn Islands as a nation or don't count its multiracial population as white, and
2. You don't count the United States or Canada as Pacific Ocean nations (Note: Hawaii is plurality-Asian, and Colony of Vancouver Island missed its chance to become a nation a while ago.)

--M@rēino 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean it's neighbors like Solomon Islands, Papua Guinea Islands and Marshall Islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.72 (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those countries are all definitely majority Islander populations, although they're not really English-speaking. English or English-based pidgins are often used as a lingua franca between the very diverse language groups in the islands, but the languages of everyday commerce are the local languages. Steewi (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]