Humanities desk
< March 31	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 2 >

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.

April 1[edit]

Cultures that don't bow (kneel/ prostrate)[edit]

In many cultures and religions (all across Asia and some Native American tribes), kneeling is a gesture that represent great submission or obeisance. My questions are: 1. Is there any counter-examples to this phenomenon? (i.e. some cultures/religion that don't recognize kneeling as a symbol of differentiated status) 2. Is there any scholarly work attempting to explain this "universal gesture"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien132 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a submissive animal often lowers itself in the presence of a dominant animal of it's species, so this isn't unique to human culture. StuRat (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to bowing, "Bowing to other human beings is frowned upon in Muslim cultures as all human beings are considered equal and bowing is only supposed to be done to God in Islam. Similarly, in Judaism the second of the Ten Commandments is generally interpreted to forbid bowing before anyone but God." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a direct answer, but here is a recent journalistic article on the implications of the word "kowtow", a Chinese symbol of obeisance, and how it was resisted by the first British ambassador. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember there was a great to-do when Ronald Reagan visited Britain and there was controversy about whether he and Nancy would bow to the Queen, or not. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? They're not subjects of the Queen; why would they conceivably bow? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was their attitude too, and a quite defensible one imo, but some protocol-obsessed geezer in a British high place made a fuss about it, the media got wind of it, it was reported, and Reagan had to make a statement prior to the trip, saying that as much as he and Nancy greatly respected the British monarchy and the Queen personally, the U.S. President does not owe any allegiance to her or any other foreign head of state and they would not be bowing (or, in Nancy's case, curtseying). Their mere taking the trouble to be in the Queen's presence would be more than sufficient indication of their respect for her and her office. I'm sure the Queen didn't lose a wink of sleep over it. In fact, she even gave him an honorary knighthood (not sure if that was the same occasion or not, though). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that this is true, since I've never seen or heard of anyone bowing to the Queen, except perhaps when being knighted - we're not Japanese. I'd like to see some evidence of this please. If there's not evidence, then its just an urban myth. 89.243.213.58 (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He'd be forbidden to accept a knighthood (without express consent of Congress) while in office, so no. —Tamfang (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Company revenue, net income, and GDP[edit]

I have often seen charts comparing the revenue of a large corporation with the GDP of individual country. The intended implication often is to show the power of the large corporations, for instance that Walmart is the size of Denmark (just as an example).

Most recently, I ran into this in the article for Chaebols, which directly compares the revenues of the largest Korean conglomerates to the national economies of Malaysia et al.

The problem with this is that GDP should be compared to net income, not revenue. This is because GDP and net income measure the value-added of the economic activities, whereas revenue measures only the outputs, while ignoring the value of the inputs used.

I'm hesitant to go on a one-man crusade in this matter and correct the offending information in the Chaebol article, especially because I had this argument with an economics professor in my graduate school, and basically had the whole classroom turn on me for not "getting it".

Am I wrong in this matter, or are people just confused about the meaning of revenue, net income and GDP? Baeksu (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue is probably more comparable. GDP measures the total value of all final goods (i.e. excluding goods that are used to produce other goods) in an economy. Remember, the value of a final good is the sum of all the value added in the value chain. "Value added" has different definitions in economics and business. Check out the other definitions at GDP and note that they correspond with sales better than profits. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter. Wikipedia is not the place to start a "one-man crusade". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends if he is asking about starting a large dificult project (a "crusade") which goal would be to edit wikipedia article which contain invalid information. --Lgriot (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue is not the appropriate measure. If I buy a building for $1.1 billion and sell it (revenue) for $1 billion, I haven’t added $1 billion of value, just $1 billion in gross revenue. The proper phrasing would be “Chaebol X’s revenues are comparable to Nation Z’s entire GDP.”DOR (HK) (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But GDP is the value of all final goods traded in a given time. So the initial purchase wouldn't count. And the cost of any maintenance wouldn't count either. Just the final sale. To compare the size of a corporate to the size of a country using GDP, revenue compares better than profits. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Un)employment in the Netherlands[edit]

It just said on the news that the lowest unemployment rate in the Eurozone at the moment is the Netherlands with just 3 %. That seems great in times of crisis here, how do those clever Dutch guys do it? Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fudge the figures? Exclude people on benefits from official figures. It could be that the Netherlands just have a robust occupational base but usually any headline unemployment % figures have their flaws (or at least they aren't as simple as the high level figures suggest). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much any statistics of this type have their flaws. Is there any evidence that figures from the Netherlands are less reliable than those elsewhere in the Eurozone? What's interesting is that unemployment rates have risen considerably almost everywhere, in the Netherlands they have barely increased from the lowest point, and are well down on 2006 or 2007 (see [1]). So, is the country doing something right, is it just luck, or is some feature of the social security system delaying a rise in unemployment? Warofdreams talk 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some articles about this in the Dutch press as unemployment was expected to rise faster; one possible explanation is that many companies have used the option to let their employees work part time during the crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TREATMENT[edit]

Hi Are there any documents that I can look at that explains the content of a Treatment?I.E. Concept,Theme,master scenes,camera angles.I am looking for an outline to follow and create my own Treatment. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at film treatment and it's links? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hodges[edit]

I have been researching my great great uncle's history for both myself and my grandfather. His name is Frank Hodges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hodges_(trade_unionist)) and he lived in Wales. Among his works was "My adventures as a labour leader (1924) pub. G Newnes." I am looking to obtain a copy of this book from the publisher or even an online copy. Does anyone know how to get a hold of a copy or how to contact the publisher? Any information will help. Thanks. 142.179.154.95 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct link is: Frank_Hodges_(trade_unionist). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Was his middle name Jonah? - Eron^Talk 18:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

There's a couple of copies for sale through this excellent rare books website. Also copies of his other book, should you be after a copy of that as well. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 18:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalisation of the Mines is online. 75.62.6.87 (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia[edit]

The article Armenia states that the country is "located at the juncture of Eastern Europe and Western Asia". So which continent should it be considered part of, Europe or Asia? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 17:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasia --Digrpat (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned that is not a continent. Is Armenia in Europe or Asia? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The geographical border between Europe and Asia in this area are the Ural mountains and the Caucasus. As Armenia is located to the south of the latter mountain range, it would be located in Asia (minor). On the other hand, Armenia had a multitude of cultural influences (from Hellenism and ancient Persia via the Ottoman Empire to Soviet Russia), which place it at the above quoted "juncture". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent "problem" is a mirage; it is simply a product of the statement "As far as I'm concerned Eurasia is not a continent."--Wetman (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I was taught about the continents at school there was no mention of an entity called Eurasia, and from my point of view nothing has changed in the world since then. As usual, Cooky has given the best answer. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Borders of the continents#Europe and Asia. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Richardj has his own definitions of the continents in mind, perhaps he could just assign it to one himself. Other problematic countries for you to tackle: Columbia (where does North America end and South America begin?), Turkey, Russia, Egypt... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The distinction between Europe and Asia is a well-established one, and remarks suggesting that Richardrj is making up his own definitions are quite unnecessary. But then that would involve answering the question rather than heckling the OP, wouldn't it? Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh those are easy. Colombia is entirely in South America - the dividing line is the isthmus of Panama. (There might have been some ambiguity back before Panama's independence - but happily that problem has already been solved for us.)

Turkey is all in Asia except for the small section west of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles.

Russia is in Asia (east of the Ural mountains) and in Europe (west of the Ural mountains).

Egypt is all in Africa except the Sinai, which is in Asia.

They're not problematic, they're just complicated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even call it complicated. There's no law that says a political entity must belong to only one continent or one division of the world. France, for example, belongs to both Europe and Oceania (as was made clear when they refused to stop nuclear testing at Moruroa Atoll; they were asked by the world community to please confine their tests to their own borders if they absolutely had to have them, and they replied that the Polynesian parts of France are not just colonies but as fully part of France as Paris is); then there's Spain (Europe and two outposts in northern Africa, Ceuta and Melilla). The complication is that continents are sometimes defined by being surrounded by water (but too big to be classified as "islands") and sometimes not.

Eurasia (and maybe even Eurasiafrica) would have been considered a single continent if the people who decided these things came from somewhere else. And the UK would not have regarded the land across the Channel as "the continent", but as "the mainland". But the people of the UK, France, Germany, Italy etc could never think of themselves as being part of the same continent as the people of China, Japan, India, Arabia, or Egypt, so they created artificial boundaries. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France is also in South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only sensible way to answer this question, particularly on the Refernce Desk, is to look at different reference sources and see what they say.

As started in the question, Armenia's Wikipedia article says "at the juncture of Eastern Europe and Western Asia". Georgia and Azerbaijan are each in both Europe and Asia according to Wikipedia.
The CIA World Factbook says all three countries are in Asia except for a small part of Azerbaijan that is north of the Caucasus Range.
My copy of the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (1979) says all three SSRs (as they then were) are in Caucasia, and says that the Transcaucasus Mountains are the boundary between Europe and Asia in Caucasia. I believe this works out to be the same as the CIA World Factbook answer.
My copy of Webster's New World Encyclopdia (1993) says Armenia and Azerbaijan are in Asia but does not specify any continent for Georgia.
The current World Almanac says all three countries are in Asia.
My copy of the Columbia Concise Encyclopedia (1983) says all three SSRs are in Europe.

In short, there is no general agreement on this. You would think that the best answer would be whatever the people of the three countries say, and I'd be interested to see if that's reported somewhere. I would not necessarily go by what their governments say; they might choose one or the other answer for political reasons. --Anonymous, 02:15 UTC, April 2, 2009.

Another approach is to not just assume there is one universally accepted definition of "continent" - because there's not* - but to say "According to Definition A, Armenia is in Asia; according to Definition B, it's in Europe; and according to Definition C, it's in both. Which definition would you like to use today?"

(* Continent#Number of continents tells us there are 7, 6, 6, 5, or 4 continents depending on which definition you choose) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I have my clicks in order, this is the Armenia article in the Wikipedia (which only has 2210 articles). Anyone able to read it and see how they self-define? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. The Armenian article about Armenia is hy:Հայաստան. I can't read Armenian, but at the bottom of the article there are two navigation templates which, looking at what they link to, seem to be "Countries in Europe" and "Countries in Asia". Which, predictably, would indicate that Armenians consider themselves Europeans and Asians at the same time. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily; it could be that they consider part of the country European and the other part Asian, like with Russia and Turkey. --Anonymous, 00:15 UTC, April 3, 2009.

Slavery in ancient times[edit]

Back in ancient times, in the time of the Roman Empire or even earlier, when slavery was still legal, how common was it for slave owners to form romantic and/or sexual relationships with their slaves? Did it happen that people bought slaves specifically for this purpose? Was it more common among male owners and female slaves, or female owners and male slaves? JIP | Talk 18:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples may be: Hagar, (the second wife of Abraham), Al-Khayzuran bint Atta, the mother of Harun al Rashid. There is also Traguilla and Amalasuntha (daughter of Theodoric) from the reverse aspect. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potiphar's wife certainly wanted Joseph. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at sexual slavery. Would it really have been possible to form a consensual relationship of any sort betwen an owner and a piece of property, in an age where slavery was accepted as one of the natural states of humanity? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Roman Empire, there are numerous cases both of non-consensual (or highly questionable) sexual use of slaves, and of personal and romantic relationships developing between slaves and owners. In Roman law, the paterfamilias had absolute control over his entire household, so he could do pretty much anything to his slaves. Killing them was (I believe) a crime, but a crime of destruction of property, rather than murder. Anything else was fair game. Male and female slaves were often purchased for sexual purposes; Juvenal includes references to sexually attractive slave-boys in his poems. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hagar The Horrible didn't have slaves.--KageTora (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Sexual_slavery#Bride_kidnapping_and_raptio:

The practice is surmised to have been common since anthropological antiquity. In Neolithic Europe, excavation of the Linear Pottery culture site at Asparn-Schletz, Austria, the remains of numerous slain victims were found. Among them, young adult females and children were clearly under-represented, suggesting that the attackers had killed the men but abducted the nubile females.(reference:Eisenhauer, U., Kulturwandel und Innovationsprozess: Die fünf grossen 'W' und die Verbreitung des Mittelneolithikums in Südwestdeutschland. Archäologische Informationen 22, 1999,

215-239; an alternative interpretation is the focus of abduction of children rather than women, a suggestion also made for the mass grave excavated at Thalheim. See E Biermann, Überlegungen zur Bevölkerungsgrösse in Siedlungen der Bandkeramik (2001) [2])

I don't know how wide your geographic scope is, but slavery existed all over the world, from China to the Americas. It is likely that sexual slavery formed a component of this in at least some places. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still happening. It's been happening ever since people were invented.--KageTora (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]