Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 4

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.

February 4

The man who saved pimperdale

Can any body give me a clue on where I can get this story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.98.39 (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No sorry, but I have heard of a different story "The man who saved pumplesdrop". It was story of a small town with no/few economic activities. A poor man walks in and just for fun makes a few inquiries at a car dealer for new car and walks away. The car dealer thinks that he will get lot of money by the deal and spends some money at other shop. The other shop keeper thinks that now business is going well, he spends some money somewhere else. And all of sudden the town comes out of the economic slowdown. I could not find the complete story. It was part of English lesson in school. manya (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'Sri Satya Sai University' lists author of the "The man who saved pumplesdrop" story as W.J.Turner in their Syllabus - manya (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mack Reynolds used a similar plot in one of his novels; perhaps Depression or Bust. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 09:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And our respective governments are currently trying much the same tactic: inspiring us to spend. Gwinva (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Portrait of Samuel Adams

The well-known Copley portrait of Samuel Adams is all over the Internet—it's the one at the top of our article on Adams—but there's another portrait of Adams, painted in 1795 by a John Johnston when Adams was governor of Massachusetts. The only version of this I've found on the net is here, an engraved version with a Corbis watermark. Does the original painting still exist? Do you know of any other versions of it online? Thanks! —Kevin Myers 06:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your search, I'm afraid, will be in vain. According to William Vincent Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams 1865, vol. III, p. 884, note 2, there were a lifesize portrait of Adams and a matching portrait of his wife by Major John Johnson in the house in Winter Street, Boston, listed in the probate inventory taken 12 December 1803. "The painting of Mrs. Adams still exists. That of Governor Adams, taken in 1795, was destroyed a few years since by fire". The engraving, a folio mezzotint by Graham is mentioned. Another mezzotint of Adams, after a copy by J. Mitchell of the Copley portrait, 1775, is also mentioned.--Wetman (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I suspected that the portrait is lost, since practically every biography of Adams uses the Copley portrait on the cover. Now, what we need on Wikimedia Commons is a good copy of the engraving of the Johnson portrait without a Corbis watermark. If anyone sees one, don't keep it a secret! —Kevin Myers 14:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Kahn Lectures" at Princeton (on art, architecture)

Writing about a Swedish art historian, Johnny Roosval, who held the "Kahn Lectures" at Princeton in 1929 on the topic of "Swedish art", I tried to find out what these were, but the only other result I get is that of Frank Lloyd Wright's Kahn lectures on "Modern architecture" the following year, 1930.

Is this is a long-running series that is just somehow difficult to find through Google, or were these two years the only times these lectures were ever held? Who was the Kahn who gave his name -- or whose name was given -- to the lectures? --Hegvald (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Louis Kahn was a noted architect, but I can not find any references to these lectures, either. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought about Louis Kahn, but he was just a young man at the time. --Hegvald (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not check the dates before my posting. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling is complicated by the existence of the more recently inaugurated Louis I. Kahn Memorial Lecture, also at Princeton.--Wetman (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is also the older architect Albert Kahn (1869–1942). But with the way things are named at American universities, one should perhaps be looking for a capitalist donor as the namesake rather than a practising artist, architect or art historian. How about Otto Hermann Kahn (1867-1934), "investment banker, collector, philanthropist, and patron of the arts"? --Hegvald (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, another kind of Google search confirms that it is Otto Kahn who is the donor in this case. But the relevant news hits are all pay-per-view. Still, from the snippet I can see of the Christian Science Monitor article, it says that: "A gift of $1500 a year for five years to the Department of Art and Archaelogy [sic!] at Princeton University has just been made by Otto Kahn of...".

The question remains if these lectures actually continued for five years or if the donation was so badly invested that they couldn't continue after the first two years. --Hegvald (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the full NYT article: [1] --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Hegvald (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I finally found a good source, the introduction to the newest edition of Wright's lectures, which I used as the basis for an article: Kahn Lectures. I bypassed most of the detailed discussion of Wright's lectures. --Hegvald (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Speeding safety

Hi, I have a controversial issue... are there situations in which it's actually safer to go over the posted speed limit? Or is that just a myth? I realize that the posted speed limit is designed to keep people from driving too fast to be safe, but what if everyone else on the road is going, say, 10 km/hr above the limit (I live in Canada)? Does that mean if you drive at the speed limit, you would be blocking traffic and might cause accidents? I'd especially be interested to know if there are any actual cases in which someone caused an accident by driving at the speed limit. Thanks Jonathan ^talk 15:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is true that having all vehicles go the same speed is safer, but whether you blame the speeders, the law-abiding, or the absurdly slow limit for speed differences is a matter of opinion. There are other cases where speeding could save lives, like when someone requiring emergency assistance is on the way to the hospital. This is why police vehicles and ambulances are allowed to exceed the limit. Unfortunately, your average car is not allowed to, even when carrying the same patient. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but my intuition tells me that having all vehicles go the same speed is not safer. Left to their own devices, competent drivers will tend to drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions. But, there will be some variance among individuals. Pretty much every time I'm on the freeway, I see cars all clumped together, presumably owing to not wanting a speeding ticket. If we didn't have these ridiculous speed limits, there'd be more small variations in speed and the cars would tend to clump together less. Not having cars all clumped together certainly seems safer to me. That said, going much faster than the traffic around you can certainly be unsafe. Also, when passing, it's safe to spend as little time as possible in the "wrong" lane. So more speed helps there. I suspect if someone caused an accident by going the speed limit, the blame would instead be placed on all the cars around them who exceeded the speed limit. At least where I live, it's blindingly obvious to the casual observer that speed limits are about revenue generations, not safety. If traffic cops cared about safety, they'd be actually watching people drive and giving tickets to people doing dangerous things, rather than sitting there reading a magazine with their radar guns on. The one-size-fits-all speed limits really are preposterous- why should my car (a high-performance model, in good condition) be subject to the same limits as a semi, or some 6000lb monstrosity of an SUV that can't turn or stop in a reasonable distance? Hmm. I suppose this is more of a rant than a ref desk answer, so take it with a grain of salt. Friday (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To the last question: because E=0.5MV^2 applies just as much to you as the next man. Quite why driving at a safe braking distance behind the car in front comes to be "dangerous clumping" is beyond me. Pip pip, Toad. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that equation helps make that point. My complaint was that these speed limits are aimed at vehicles with twice the mass and much poorer braking and handling performance, yet they are also blindly applied to smaller, better-performing cars. If higher energies mean more danger, shouldn't speed limits take mass into account? Friday (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd look at the contribution mass make to that equation, in comparison with the contribution made by velocity. Velocity disproportionately contributes. Which somewhat answers your question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

True, but the variation in speed between a "slow" and a "fast" car, on a given road, might be 20mph or so - say around 25% of the speed. Contrast this with variation in mass, which can easily be over 100% when comparing a small car to a big car, or over 1000-2000% when comparing a car to a semi with trailer. I'd like it if speed limits were designed by taking physics into account, but my point is that I don't believe they are. They're a bit like bumper laws- in the US, car bumpers have to perform to a certain level, for safety and to minimize damage in minor collisions. A car with bad bumpers isn't legal to sell. Yet, it's legal to drive around with a big steel spike (i.e. a trailer hitch) sticking out the back of your car. These laws do not appear to be based on anything rational or consistent. Friday (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A "semi with a trailer" in the UK would be constrained to, IIRC, 50mph whilst cars can go to 70mph. If you compare car mass with car mass, you get the same sort of bell curve as you will for speed. Do you think there's a practical way to mandate variable speed limits according to the amount of ceramics in your brake system? Really? Designing rational and consistent and practical law is not so simple, and your argument is of the best driving out the good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I ran numbers for a 50,000lb truck at 50mph vs a 3,000lb car at 70. I get about 5.7e+6 joules for the truck and about 6.7e+5 joules for the car. Now, obviously, real-world safety is more complicated than simply comparing energies. And, sure, you can't easily enforce some law that requires complicated calculations. But, you could easily divide vehicles into say 3 or 4 different classes, with speed limits differing according to class. I know it can be complicated. My complaint is that the lawmakers don't even appear to be trying. They're satisfied with their money-generating speed laws, and don't seem interested in learning what actually makes driving safer. But, heck, this is just my opinion, it doesn't count for much. Look at what the sources say. Friday (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

They tend to say things like:

• If someone is hit by a car at 40 mph they are 90% likely to be killed.

  If someone is hit by a car at 30 mph they are 50% likely to be killed.

  If someone is hit by a car at 20 mph they are 10% likely to be killed.

and oddly they do not ruminate on weight. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with car vs pedestrian, speed is very significant. Lately people have been paying attention to vehicle shape also- taller cars are more dangerous. Mass matters little- energy transfer is not a big issue there. Friday (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

True - in terms of personal vehicles, off-roaders/SUVs etc are far more dangerous to pedestrians (and other cars for that matter) than more traditional vehicles. If you run an off-roader/SUV and have bull bars fitted, you might as well have a bumper sticker saying "I don't mind killing children if I can't stop in time" - they are incredibly dangerous to pedestrians and the bars are typically just about the right height to smash children's heads. A more conventional car hitting a pedestrian will generally cause leg injuries and less serious upper body injuries as the pedestrian "rolls over" the bonnet (hood in USA parlance). Exxolon (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW this is a link that seems relevant. Friday (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Then the lead of National Motorists Association - "a for-profit corporation ... that advocates a libertarian point of view on issues related to traffic laws" - also seems relevant. You could equally have cited US DOT Report Confirms Speed Not Major Accident Cause which notes that "'traveling too fast for conditions' accounted for only five percent of the critical pre-crash events", but goes on to say "More significant factors included 22 percent driving off the edge of a road, or 11 percent who drifted over the center dividing line", both of which things tend to happen faster, with less scope for decision time and greatly constrained options for avoidance, as speed increases. Of course you have a point: all things being equal, a more performant car (if you'll excuse the neologism) will outperform a less performant car. Making a leap from that to a criticism of blanket speed limits is another thing entirely. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I normally keep to the speed limits but one time I had gone through a puddle and the brakes failed just as I was coming up to a junction, so I pressed on the accelerator instead to get over quickly and not get smashed in on the side. The people coming across must have got a shock. Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a coin I bought that I cant find. online

the coin I am trying to find out about is 'GEORGIVS VI REX IMPERATOR "2.5 shillings" SOUTH AFRICA SUID-AFRIKA "1941"spelled exatly like it is on obverse and reverse sides, it is a silver coin from south africa the front simply has the the profile of the afor mentiond person with his name stamped on the outer edge of it and the back has a shild-like symble split verticly by a thin line and horizontily by a waved line that cuts it into four sections with the upper left holding what appers to be a woman leaning on a mountian with an ancor brest hight in front of her,the upper right holds a lion leaping onto a wildabeast,the bottem left holds some sort of fruit-bearing tree in grass,and the bottem right holds an old car with spoks for rims.and i allredy know that 'suid-afrika' is from when the dutch rulled south africa,but my problem seems to be that (1)this coin dose not show up on any search engine that I have used. (2)wikipedia dose not have any south african coins under georgivs VI rex imperator. (3) It does not seem to exist!?!.2/4/09 10:40 cen.time 72.251.10.0 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Georgivs VI is George VI. REX IMPERATOR means King Emperor (he was King of the United Kingdom, South Africa, and several other countries, and Emperor of India). 1941 is the date of the coin. A shilling was 12 old pence (or one-twentieth of a pound). DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't seem to have a picture of the coin you describe, but the article Coins of the South African pound does have some more information. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

2½ shillings is called a Half Crown, which may help in further googling. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This google image search has some pictures [2]

The image on the reverse is the Coat of arms of South Africa, 1910 version, the article explains the different symbols. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you for going to all the truble on my behalf I greatly appritate it your infomation has ben invalueble and thank you agine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.10.0 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources on women in Islam

(Moved from Language Desk. Oops. Marco polo (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

I am looking for Islamic sources on the place of women in that religion. I have already found several Muslim feminist sources that stress the equality of women under Islam. What I am having trouble finding is a more traditional view of the place of women, i.e. that women need to be protected by men, to conceal themselves for their own protection, etc. This is for presentation to schoolchildren aged 11–12 and for scrutiny by parents and teachers. I have found some (translations of) direct quotes from the Quran and the Hadith that would not be suitable for this audience since they suggest violence against women or are otherwise insulting and degrading. What I am looking for is a paternalistic (but not insulting) view of women to counterpose with a feminist view to help students learn about different approaches to this question within the religion and to teach them to critically assess point of view in written sources. Can anyone suggest appropriate sources? Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Women in Islam would be the logical starting point. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I took a look there before posting my query and found nothing useful. Can anyone suggest non-Wikipedia sources? Marco polo (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you check the "See Also" and "Further Reading" sections for more useful info? Exxolon (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Nothing useful there. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about the website of Yusuf al-Qaradawi or the websites of the Shi'a Grand Ayatollahs? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What about phoning your local mosque? (Sorry to be obvious, but...) I've also found this site, with this tone:

"It would appear therefore that the Islamic system has achieved the right mixture of freedom and security that women seek and that is in the interest of the society as a whole."

BrainyBabe (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Is tea ever smoked?

I mean, is tea ever smoked, as in smoking? Because I was talking with some people the other day and we got onto the topic of smoking tea. Who does this? And how is it smoked? (as in, using Rizla skins, or using a pipe, or whatever).--ParrRae (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tea can be smoked as in smoking salmon, not as in smoking tobacco. See Lapsang souchong for a delicious smoke-dried tea. I've never heard of anyone smoking tea as a substitute for tobacco, or for whatever other reason. Burnt tea leaves smell pretty bad. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can say from personal experience that tea is highly unsatisfactory as a tobacco substitute. DuncanHill (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That is expected, as there is no nicotine in tea plant (Camellia sinensis). Nicotine is only found in Solanaceae as far as I know. As for caffeine (theine) in tea leaves, it is likely destroyed by heating. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean caffeine is destroyed when smoking or, to some extent, when boiling tea (see chifir', preferrably the Russian Wiki article). It is not destroyed when brewing tea properly, of course. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not simply the lack of nicotine - it also does not burn in an acceptable fashion, and lacks the great taste of real tobacco. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a friend who as a virtually penniless student used to keep the tab-ends of cigarettes and when he ran out he would recycle this tar-ridden tobacco by making a roll up and "diluting" it with tea. They were disgusting - I tried the same thing once. They had a dry acrid taste and because we obviously used cheap tea which was powdery you would get flakes of dry tea in your mouth. My friend found it a price worth paying for the nicotine hit though. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

At one time, "tea" was a term for marijuana, or as amusingly stated on the Tea (disambiguation) page, "beatnik slang for herbal cannabis". --LarryMac | Talk 21:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the line from the Aerosmith classic song Mama Kin "Sleeping late and smoking Tea". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried Lapsang souchong... many times actually. Smoking tea may seem just like a juvenile experimentation with what could lead to tobacco smoking, but is there any history of tea being smoked (as in orally smoked, not like like smoked salmon) in culture?--ParrRae (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean I don't smoke myself because of the health reasons primarily.--ParrRae (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I found garlic stems a very delicate smoking (really). On the opposite side, I heard of one fellow trying tobacco infusion, with unsatisfaction and regret pma (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicotine is highly poisonous. You friend would have been better advised to use his brew as a drench of the Schefflera.--Wetman (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There's always smoking banana peels. AnonMoos (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The rumor was spread in Adams House dining room, ca 1966, expressly to embarrass the United Fruit Company.--Wetman (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What parts of the constitution overrules the Ten Commandments?

This question has been removed. Please do not use the Reference Desk as a soapbox. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about whether or not this was soapboxing is here: [3]. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

World illiteracy before 1970

The literacy page cites Unesco data of world illiteracy since 1970. Does anyone know of any older data than this? I didn't find any earlier illiteracy data at the World Bank either. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Paul Chitwood

I would like for Wikipedia to post a biographical sketch/history of Dr. Paul Chitwood, who was recently elected chairman of the board of trustees of the International Mission Board. Chitwood currently serves as the senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Mt. Washington, KY, and has served as the president of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, first vice-president of the KBC, and as the president of the KBC's pastor conference. Chitwood currently resides in Mt. Washington with his wife, Michelle, and his three children (one of whom was adopted from China). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.152.239.6 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources to show that Dr Chitwood is notable? If he meets WP's policies in those regards, then feel free to write the article yourself. If he does not meet those policies, then WP will not post a biography. Gwinva (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)