Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 29

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.

July 29

Flag of Hawaii

Only referring to the version with an union jack. Is there a seven stripe flag of Hawaii? There is a nine and eight stripe version but I've never seen a seven stripe version and historical sources seems to say there was a seven, eight, and a nine stripe version.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What sources? I can only find reference, either on or off Wikipedia, to a nine and an eight striped version. --Jayron32 05:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lord Byron in 1825 and Jarves (James Jackson Jarves?) in 1816.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Byron died in 1824; I doubt he spent much time in Hawaii after that, and probably didn't have much to say about the flag from his grave. James Jackson Jarves edited a newspaper in Hawaii, but he was born in 1818, so again, I don't think the little sperms living in his father's testes had a lot to say on the flag of Hawaii... Check again. --Jayron32 05:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The flag is made up of seven stripes, red, white, blue, red, white, blue, and red, signifying seven islands, and in the corner an English Jack. - Golovnin, October 1818: Press Pub Co. (1922), Paradise of the Pacific, vol. 35, retrieved 2011-07-29 ^Avic_ennasis @ 05:52, 27 Tamuz 5771 / 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Byron as in George Byron, 7th Baron Byron not the poet. This lists more observation by explorers all, with exception of one, before 1845 when the eight stripe version was adopted by Kamehameha III.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, based on those sources; especially with the one that Avicennasis has as well, you should be able to fix the article to indicate that a seven-stripe variety was in effect. --Jayron32 05:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, KAVEBEAR, you did just refactored your original comment about Byron above. You had originally written "Lord Byron", and when I checked the dates for Lord Byron, you can see why it led to my confusion. Now that you've altered your original comment that I responded to, it makes me look like an idiot... not that I don't do enough of that on my own. I just don't need any extra help from you to do that. --Jayron32 06:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry but this Byron is also called Lord Byron (which is really confusing) at least in his book and many Hawaiian history books.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that out by now. And now you've changed it back to "Lord Byron", which makes my imediately preceeding comment nonsensical. Ah, but whatever. We all know what the source of the confusion was; there have been 13 Lord Byrons (I know, I checked Baron Byron), and unfortunately one of them was a LOT more famous than the rest. But anyhoo, back to the problem at hand; you've got decent sources now to make additions to the Flag of Hawaii article regarding the 7-stripe flag. --Jayron32 06:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah in the middle of it but stuff still confuses me.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's sooooooo confusing. All the explorers' observation don't agree with each other. Some mention red and white and blue, others mention white and red and blue, others mention red and white with no blue, and one even mentions dark and light, and etc. Also the nine-striped version really confuses me since according to the wiki article and nowhere else the ninth stripe is suppose to represent Nihoa, the uninhabited island beyond Niihau. But the problem is Nihoa wasn't known to Hawaiians for generations due to its abandonment centuries ago and wasn't discovered and added back to the kingdom until 1822, eight years after Louis Choris, the first man to make an observation of the Hawaiian flag, wrote about the nine stripe flag in 1816. :Also no explorers left any mentions on where the union jack sat on the seven-striped version and probably even the nine stripe version, how many stripes down it goes. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that the Hawai'ians just didn't understand or agree with the idea that a flag should be exactly 100% the same every time? I mean, to Europeans, with all those tricolors, little details must seem very important, but if the only flags you've seen were the U.S. and the British... Wnt (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Credulity of Westboro Baptist Church members

How come members of WBC believe so strongly in all that stuff, when the rest of the world dosn't? They think everyone else is wrong: why havn't they therefore considered that they might be wrong also? 92.29.113.104 (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

One might ask this about members of any group whose views diverge significantly from the consensus view of reality. It's clearly a human trait that groups of many sizes form their own view of reality. Some are happy with their difference, some try to force it onto others one way or another. It's not limited to the WBC at all. It's not limited to religious groups at all. Arguably the consensus view of reality is just such an approach that has been very successful for both logically valid and invalid reasons (there are lots of things that lots of people "know" to be true that are almost surely false). --Mr.98 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Westboro Baptists don't really believe any of that stuff. It's an elaborate hoax; whether they do it to piss people off for fun, bring attention to themselves for some reason, or to discredit other Baptists/Christians, I don't know, but they are the real-life equivalent of Internet trolls. They're like, say, PETA (or certain vocal elements of it), or Morrissey or Glenn Beck. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they really are bigotted against homosexuals. If you don't believe that people can be bigotted, then you probably haven't been paying much attention... --Jayron32 12:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And PETA indeed do believe in what they say. No matter how funny it sounds, even when they say meat is murder and dairy is rape. That's all seriously meant. Quest09 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of people who believe that homosexuality is evil and more than a few who believe that God is punishing America for its sexual immorality. See Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution for instance. The difference is the incredibly offensive ways Fred Phelps and his family promote their views, such as picketing military funerals with signs that say "God Hates America." My question is where do they get all their money to travel around the country, let along eat and stuff. I know Phelps was a lawyer but even lawyers aren't loaded enough to quit their jobs and do that kind of thing forever. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read Westboro_Baptist_Church#Funding? --Jayron32 23:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If evil could be explained, it would be rational. If it were rational, it wouldn't be evil. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I would dispute this; I'd say that the point of banality of evil is that evil is rational - otherwise, who would bother with it? My recollection was that Westboro tended to provoke people into taking a swing at them, and could then sue them. In general, every sort of evil has some reason behind it - robbers, gangsters, polluters, imperialists, politicians who arrange to harass the homeless to drive them to some other community, even the tough guys who beat on their wives in an effort to show the world it's dangerous to cross them. You may not respect the reason but it's there. By contrast, irrationality can drive people to do things that are crazy, but whether they're truly evil is at least questionable. Wnt (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost all religious people believe that their faith is absolutely correct, and no contradicting faiths are correct. Regardless of the unlikelihood of such stances, firmly religious people are steadfast in their faith, which they seem to think is a good thing. 64.134.228.55 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Famous only after death

Which people died unknown, but became famous after death? And with no inkling that they would be posthumously famous? 92.29.113.104 (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles about the posthumous fame of Vincent van Gogh and the posthumous fame of El Greco. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Pepys? --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Numerous posthumously-decorated soldiers? See --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Numerous victims of murder? See Category:Murder victims --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Johnson. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Anne Frank. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile differentiating between those who became famous because of the nature of their deaths, and those - like van Gogh and Johnson - who became posthumously famous for what they achieved during their lifetime. Pepys was quite famous in his own lifetime - MP, President of the Royal Society, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Nowell, John Kennedy Toole. --Jayron32 12:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Todd Beamer. μηδείς (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Gregor Mendel. Emily Dickinson. Also Johann Sebastian Bach, although not exactly unknown, was certainly not famous during his lifetime. Looie496 (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe. Schyler (one language) 18:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. See Edgar_Allen_Poe#Publishing_career. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Herman Melville was well-known and popular early in his writing career, but largely forgotten by the time he died, then rediscovered in the 1920s. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Franz Kafka. [[Malcolm X]] was little-known outside of New York until after his death. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that was true of Malcolm X - he had certainly spoken and created some controversy in London and Paris during his lifetime. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Karl Marx was "a relatively unknown figure in his own lifetime". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lucy didn't become famous for some considerable time after her demise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but was she a "person"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mostly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Who was that American author(s) whose mum got his manuscript published after he died? 92.29.113.104 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That was John Kennedy Toole's book A Confederacy of Dunces. I cited him above. --Jayron32 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim Croce? Although he did have an #1 hit two months before his death. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes him well-known in my eyes. A better example from the same time might be Nick Drake, but I'm not sure quite how "famous" he now is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Unknown Soldier. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What was the text of all the articles in the last News of the World issue?

The one whose title says "THANK YOU AND GOODBYE" - I'd like to find the whole text of all the articles in that last issue.

Being from the United States, I can't order the physical copy, so I hope that a copy of the text floats around somewhere online. Thanks. --70.179.165.67 (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Um... you can order the physical copy from the US... it's just harder and perhaps more expensive. Have you tried contacting one of the major public libraries (such as the New York Public Library or the British Library)? Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Being from Kansas, I'd be nowhere near the major libraries you mention. Can't there be a copy of the whole text (plus pictures maybe) anywhere online? Simple as that. --70.179.165.67 (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The News of the World website, previously paywalled, was made free when the paper's demise was announced and had an epaper link. The website has now been removed but the epaper might still be found somewhere. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You almost certainly want to find an epaper copy, not just the text in eg HTML, because the final copy was even more picture heavy and dependent on layout than usual. 86.164.73.187 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And the best of luck to you in finding that. I couldn't. I tried Googling headlines and such from this Youtube vid of the final magazine, but all the sites I found were reposts of just that story, or a quick summary of it. One headline ("Red Hot Chilly Peddlers") did lead me to the article here, from which I then tried Googling some specific passages, hoping that the article text might lead me to better results than mere headlines. It didn't. ^Avic_ennasis @ 11:47, 28 Tamuz 5771 / 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, it seems you can pick it up cheaply on eBay. ^Avic_ennasis @ 11:53, 28 Tamuz 5771 / 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Was there any disclaimer on the masthead? 64.134.228.55 (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A cabbage leaf?

I was flicking through a fascinating book (at a friend's house) which is a genuine Edwardian baby care book (reprinted). It's fascinating because it mostly gives fairly decent advice, often with explanations of the scientific justification, which take account of the practical difficulties at the time. So in the chapter on clothing, it gives lots of advice on how to dress a child to manage their temperature while still making it easy for them to run around and climb and play, and taking account of costs and washing. It emphasises the need to protect a child's head when out in the sun, and suggests a pith helmet to protect while still letting air circulate around the head. And then, bafflingly, it adds a simple sentence to the effect that a cabbage leaf in the crown in a sensible homely precaution!

What? What was a cabbage leaf in your hat supposed to achieve? This is a book which carefully explains the basic practical chemistry of how casein reacts in the stomach, and various ways to treat various animal milks to make them more nutritious to babies who cannot be breastfed. There must be an actual reason for the cabbage leaf, but it was apparently so obvious that no further explanation was given. 86.164.73.187 (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The early 20th century was a transitional time for the sciences, especially medicine, where the beginings of sound scientific practice of medicine and related fields lies interspersed with the sort of "folk wisdom" and blatantly wrong stuff like this still bleeds into stuff. Good intentions gave us the taste map for example, and that's as close to bullshit as it gets. I am not surprised when something completely off the wall like that ekes into books. Heck, it probably even happens today. --Jayron32 17:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Cabbage Leaves are still in use today in the 21st Centery.Cabbage Leaves for Treatment and Prevention of Breast Engorgement . An' don't ridicule -or nurse will pick you up by the ankles and smack your bottom!--Aspro (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so is it supposed to be cooling the head? I could sort of see that, actually. 86.164.73.187 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Aspro's cabbage leaf link relates to applying the cabbage leaf to a breastfeeding woman's breast to ease the pain of engorgement with milk. Apparently it works. (And the effect is the same whether the cabbage leaf is chilled or room temperature.) So maybe cabbage leaves have interesting effects apart from temperature. One scientist suggested that the mechanism re: engorgement pain may be that "sulfur in amino acid methionine acts as an antibiotic and anti-irritant, which in turn draws an extra flow of blood to the area." I'm not sure how this would be useful for an infant's head... Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Er... no. That highly questionable suggestion was made by a "Sister Merle Lees who has been researching this topic." [1]. There is no suggestion that she is a scientist. --ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my bad... I thought it was taken from one of the decent-looking studies the page cited. Anyways, even if the mechanism is unexplained, it's possible that cabbage leaves applied to skin have interesting effects. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently this was a cooling technique. It was recommended by newspapers during heat waves [2] and said to have been used by Babe Ruth and other ball players of the day. Casquette mentions it. My guess is that this was a perfectly reasonable method of cooling: given a cabbage, a cheap vegetable, you can pry off any number of leaves, each of which comes wet, clean, and with a large surface area to evaporate from; once it loses its cooling virtue it still is food. Eminently practical. We should always be skeptical, but ancient tech often worked, and wherever cooling was concerned, they tended to be a lot more efficient and intelligent than the modern age of noisy gas-guzzling machines. Wnt (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In my day it was two slices of cucumber on my forehead. Dont people do that anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.129.211 (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of them on the eyes, when you sunbathe. It's also supposed to reduce wrinkles, but I'd guess they just prevent additional wrinkles, by blocking the Sun's UV rays. StuRat (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Contribution-lands

In Evelyn's diary, he visits the Netherlands, then in a state of war involving England, Spain, France and Holland. In the course of his tour, he comes across what he calls Contribution-lands. What were these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.196.174 (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This book (see note 66, glossing a roughly contemporaneous quote) says North Flanders and North Brabant. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It took me a while to work out exactly who you meant: John Evelyn's Diary. 92.29.124.70 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a specific Conrad Gessner quote

Right now I'm building the article about the Bernese Mountain Dog up from scratch (in sandbox) and am already running into problems. In several of my books, the earliest written in 1989, there's a statement that, in 1523, Conrad Gessner said the following:

"Some of the big and strong dogs are especially trained to stay around the houses and stables in the fields. They must protect the cattle from danger. Some guard the cattle, some the fields and some the houses. Other dogs are trained to protect people. They must contend after murderers and other mean people. They must be fierce and big and strong, as they must fight against warriors in their armor."

This is also listed on the BMDCA's site here. The issue there, of course, is that Conrad Gessner would have been seven years old in 1523. I can't find anything remotely close to this text in the English translation of Historiae animalium either -- if it does exist, it'd be a nice addition, but I'm not convinced at all. Google results for portions of this quote turn up only the BMDCA website. Any ideas as to where I can look for such a statement? This wouldn't be the first time dog writers got it wrong, to be sure. Anna ^talk 20:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything confirming this quote - sounds like it could be apocryphal... Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably is -- thanks. Anna ^talk 00:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually the passage at the top of this page, from the Thierbuch, a German translation, seems to run along those lines (my German is too meager to say for certain).--Cam (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it's very appreciated. If no advanced German speaker comes across this and is generous enough to confirm I'll try to seek one out myself. Cheers, Anna ^talk 04:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You truly need a bigger image with bigger letters. I tried to read the whole text but I was unable to find the quote mentioned above. I was unable to find anything about warriors in their armour, but several sentences escape me. The text mainly speaks about the characteristics and appearance of big dogs - they should be white so that they become a part of the herd and so that the owner may recognize them during the night - and that these dogs protect [their master's] home from robbers and other kinds of human scum. The text seems to begin with:

"Etliche grosse and starke Hunde werden besonderlich dazu erzogen das Sie den Haus/die Stell/auserhalb des Haus/das vieh so sich weidet vor gefahr und schaden werhüten werden gementlich genenet Schaffhund:...

A word-for-word translation: "Several big and strong dogs are specially trained so that they the house/the ??? (probably Stall - animal stable)/outside the house/the livestock who is grazing from danger and damage prevent are commonly called Sheep dogs [an ancestor of the German Shepherd Dog?]:..."

I would translate it into: "Several big and strong dogs are specially trained so that they protect the[ir master's] home, the stable, and the livestock who is grazing [in the field] from danger and damage. They are commonly called Sheep dogs:..."

The "outside the house" might refer to the barn OR to the livestock, I'm not certain. As I said, you truly need a bigger and sharper picture. Flamarande (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Baseball, Duff Cooley question

I'm expanding the article Duff Cooley, with a draft in sandbox. Slight problem; this book states that Duffy was traded to the Pirates for Heinie Reitz and Tully Sparks, but baseball-reference states he was purchased by the Pirates. So, what should I write here? Albacore (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are various ways I deal with this when I'm editing:

• Go with only one source if that source seems significantly more detailed/reliable.
• Present both views if the sources seem comparable.
• Just leave it out if explaining both views would be tedious and the fact is not that important.

In this case, I'd probably go with the book and drop a footnote to the website. I think the book looks more reliable (though I know that ordinarily baseball-reference is good... so you may disagree), and it's also more specific (if he was in fact just bought, why would they invent two specific players he was traded for? I always think the less detailed one is more likely to be a sloppy mistake). I'd keep a footnote to baseball-reference though because ordinarily they're accurate. Alternately, I'd just present both views. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually now that I see that baseball-reference gives a specific dollar amount, maybe you should just give both in the article text. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Baseball reference is usually good in absense of other sources. I would basically use it as generally reliable if there is no other source, but would trust any other more reliable source when there is a conflict. In this case, I would go with the book reference in the main text. Perhaps a footnote noting the discrepency would be good. I ran into a similar situation when working on the Plymouth Colony article, where a normally reliable source contained what appeared to be an inaccurate or contradictory statement. If you go to Plymouth Colony, and look down at footnote 119, you can see how I handled it. I think a similar approach may work here. --Jayron32 23:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrosheet, which is often a source for the other sources, has a complete transaction history for the player in question.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)