Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 26

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 26

Umm al Fahm Muslim Arab city in Israel

Is Umm al Fahm the only city in Israel that 100% Arab and Muslim?--Donmust90 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

Umm al-Fahm says "nearly all of whom are Arab citizens of Israel." It says "nearly all", not "all". 75.185.79.52 (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

@Donmust, I suggest you also look up an article here for your interest - [1]. To answer the original question, yes, the city is only 100% Arab, out of whom 99.7% are Muslims and the other 0.3% follow other beliefs. Hope this article helps and aids your general knowledge! I am present here (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Depends on how strict your definition of city and your definition of 100% Arab and Muslim are. There are very many Arab towns, villages, etc., especially up north. Arab localities in Israel Gzuckier (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Israeli ballot paper letters

What is the maximum number of letters can an Israeli party use on its ballot paper?--Donmust90 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

I am assuming that you mean political party and letters as in characters. Can you specify which political party in Israel? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Israelis certainly do have a lot of characters on the ballot, don't they ? :-) StuRat (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was not completely wrong. I did a quick search on Google and I came up with Elections in Israel. Israeli government actually uses Hebrew characters to denote the political parties, one letter for one corresponding party. So, the number of letters that one party may use on its own ballot is one, and the number of letters that one party may vote for is uncertain. I am not sure if the Israeli government allows multiple votes or self-voting (voting for your party). 75.185.79.52 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Much of that post is rather incomprehensible to me, I must say. Individual voters choose the ballot papers and put them in the envelopes. They are representing only themselves, not any party. If a voter happens to also be a politician, it would be crazy to require them to vote for some party other than their own party. That's if such a law could be enforced. Which it can't be, because it's a secret ballot. In any case, it would be Israeli law at work, not some diktat of the current Israeli government. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The response just above Jack's by User 75.185.79.52 misstates part of what's in Elections_in_Israel#Voting_method: "The slips are printed with the "ballot letters" of the party (between one and three Hebrew or Arabic letters)..." (emphasis mine) Established parties retain their assigned letters; new parties request up to three letters (order of their choice) from the Israeli Central Elections Committee among what's available - i.e. not already in use or reserved. Look at the tables on that page: the notes explain the meanings of certain letters or combinations thereof. I don't know of letters or combinations being suppressed as having scurrilous meanings (as has been the case with "vanity plates" for automobiles in the U.S.A.). As for the balloting process: the voter is given one envelope, then goes to a curtained-off stand on which there's a tray with horizontal and vertical dividers making compartments the size of a ballot slip. Supplies of the ballot slips are available for each party, plus blanks. The voter chooses a slip, inserts it in the envelope, and inserts this in the slot of the ballot box - all under the supervision of an appointed supervisory panel with representatives of three different parties, at least one a party not generally represented by voters of that polling place. After the polls close, this committee opens the envelopes, tallies the slips, and reports the results. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

something to remember DHL by

I'm well aware DHL now only ships to and from international destinations. But I'm interested in buying some DHL mementoes (ie. plush toys, lapel pins, etc.) Where's a good place to find those types of things? I don't want to order from outside the USA.142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Many such things are available on eBay. (You can sort the results by type using the options on the left-hand panel.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

former airline alliance member

Which airline alliance was Pan Am part of?142.255.103.121 (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Googling [pan american airlines alliance] turns up some possibilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There are so many of them. It's hard to figure it out. I'd appreciate some help, please. Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In the current sense of "airline alliance," probably "none." The article you linked to says that the first big airline alliance wasn't formed until 1989, and even that was just between two airlines, and that none of the current big three airline alliances is older than 1997. Pan Am went under in 1991. -Elmer Clark (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

ethics

in ethics, which one should be the basis of evrything, to do what is right or to assess if anyone is harmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTLOAFH (talk • contribs) 10:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would there be any difference? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's easy to contrive scenarios where many people would consider the two mutually exclusive, but I would agree that there's an interesting related question of "should there be any difference?" It might be a useful subtopic for the OP to work into his essay. — Lomn 14:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The core problem is that "anyone harmed" is quantifiable, whereas "what is right" is a matter of opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In the context of debates about systems of ethics, "'anyone harmed' is quantifiable" sounds a lot like a matter of opinion. ;) There's also the problem of reaching an agreed-upon definition of "harm" (or, possibly, "anyone"). — Lomn 18:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You have at least the possibility of being able to count the number harmed, e.g. the number killed and maimed by some action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

sounds a bit like an essay question asking you to compare and contrast Consequentialism with Kantianism that's where I'd start anyway. --_nonsense ferret 11:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, although the article ethics gives the more precise term deontological ethics, of which Kant's system is probably the classic example. If you (the OP) refine the question, you might get a deeper answer. We can't say which system is better. IBE (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Related to this is the concept of the victimless crime. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What is right can only be defined by if anyone was harmed. Granted this takes time and trial and error in the beginning. Once you have established what you believe to be right based on the trial and error and assess if anyone was harmed, it becomes like a classic decision analysis tree to hone in on the good-er. you need historic results to determine what is good. so I would say assessing harm is more important than doing good, because you cant know if you are doing good without assessing harm. There is also the cases of the victimless crime and its counter-part crimeless victim, but without the assessment fixing these is difficult.165.212.189.187 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that is definitely not the only way of defining right. A lot of people are convinced it was right to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on the grounds that it brought the war with Japan to a quick end and saved many more lives than it cost in the short term. You don't have to agree with those people, but you can't say their definition of right is invalid just because it doesn't square with yours. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

E.g., if you could eliminate cancer for everybody forever, but it required you to torture a baby.... Gzuckier (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

...Saw VIII. OK rightness, or how "right" something is relatively speaking. My emphasis was supposed to be on the fact that as I said several times that you cant know how right something is without the assessment after some sample size or trial and error. do you disagree with that?165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Could I administer the baby benzos? μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Dont you know that the cancer being eliminated is directly related to the degree of mental anguish inflicted on the little one?165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can work out a way that torturing babies will cure cancer, let me know the mechanism and I will improve it. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Not torturing, but "killing babies" (abortion) might, by providing undifferentiated stem cells for research. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's like a decade out of date, Stu--it's easy enough to make stem cells from the subject himself, no worry that one will be killed by an allergic reaction to some foreign murdered baby's phenotype. μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I rearranged this to make the thread clearer - at least in structure if not content. Sorry if I've misread who said what to whom, or if I don't really know how to indent myself, but I think it's right now. My own two cents is that we're in a long-winded debate, and 165 is begging the question. The whole point is that deontological ethicists would disagree with these statements. They are reasonable statements, but that isn't the point. IBE (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

NB: What does "Saw VIII" mean in 165's post? Any takers? IBE (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe something to do with Saw (film series)? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

They're only up to VI, according to our article. I was thinking I had missed something obvious. I'm now thinking 165 is doing some unethical experiment with us, to see how much he can mess with our heads. Maybe only he can answer this one. IBE (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you could see me I'm touching my nose reght now. I don't pay much attention to horror films (nightly news is enough for me) so I was not sure what number they were on but I knew it was up there over 5 or so.165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In any case, you're right - the latest is Saw 3D, which is really Saw VII, so you have come up with Saw VIII ... it was just a little opaque for me at the time. IBE (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And , a-thank you for conceeding that I am "right".165.212.189.187 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

From the indentation level, that seems to be a response to my post above. If you think what I wrote was a concession you were right, please read it again - because it was the exact opposite of that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Jack, that was a joke to IBE, but would you mind answering my question?165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I need to first establish how anyone could possibly have known your post was a response to IBE. It was indented, but less than his post. Responses are indented one colon more than the post they're responding to. Otherwise we have a complete schemozzle and nobody knows who's saying what to whom. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

funny, i always assume everybody is saying everything to me. ok, now that we established that there is one" colon "more on Wikipedia can you give an example of knowing something is "not good" without empirical evidence?68.36.148.100 (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're the same editor as 165.212.189.187, or his cousin, or whoever. Leaving that aside, the question you're posing to me now is not one that's been raised here so far, so I feel no need to defend an assertion I never made. I said what I said above. There is more than one way of defining "right", and it doesn't necessarily depend on nobody being harmed. If you defend your family or your home or country against some aggressor, and you harm or even kill them in the process, does that mean you've done a bad thing? No, of course not. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack, I said this: My emphasis was supposed to be on the fact that as I said several times that you cant know how right something is without the assessment after some sample size or trial and error. do you disagree with that?165.212.189.187 (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the debate, but as far as indentation goes, you are allowed to make mistakes, and most people will just assume good faith. If someone does not, it is appropriate to call their attention to WP:AGF, or just ignore it. I have always managed to avoid these kinds of arguments/ discussions/ disagreements. IBE (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

To the OP: Yes, I disagree with that. We frequently hurt the ones we love; sometimes it's only slight and soon forgotten, but sometimes it amounts to harm that takes some getting over and healing. The hurt we cause is usually unintentional. We thought we were doing the right thing; and often, if we had our time over, we'd do the same thing but tweak some aspect of it to avoid hurting anyone in the process. There's no sampling or scientific analyis of data involved in these transactions. We're motivated by our internal desires, as modified by our sense of right and wrong. That sense comes into play multiple times a day, every day of our lives after the sense becomes fully established. It's also called conscience. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what you said supports my statement: you cant know how right or wrong something is until after its done. Just because it's unintentional doesn't mean that it is automatically right. You also regurgitated what I said early on in the thread about honing in on the good through trial and error. The sense is only able to be so honed after EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND TRIAL AND ERROR. Thanks for disagreeing in your own special way.165.212.189.187 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Third Servile War 73-71BC

Are there any good books which account the events of the third servile war in detail? Clover345 (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Third Servile War#References has LOTS of good leads. Try some of those. --Jayron32 14:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lega Nord, National Front, British National Party, Geert Wilders party regions strongholds

I know it may sound familiar in the previous question about stronghold but this one is different. Which regions have been giving votes to Lega Nord since 1992? Which municipalities have been giving votes to Party of Freedom (PVV) since 2006? Which departments have been giving votes to Marine Le Pen's National Front since 1974? Which cities or counties or regions in UK have been giving votes to British National Party since 1983?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

This site will help with the UK answer. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lega Nord is a regional party, based in north Italy. The French FN tends to be stronger in southern France than other parts of the country. --Soman (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

UK Respect Party councillors

Who are the 7 councillors in UK that are members of Respect Party?--Donmust90 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

In Bradford there are 5: Alyas Karmani, Mohammed Shabbir, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Ruqqaya Collector and Faisal Khan. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC) And 2 in Tower Hamlets: Fozol Miah and Harun Miah. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And the London Borough of Tower Hamlets has two: Councillor Fozol Miah (Respect) - Spitalfields and Banglatown ward and Councillor Harun Miah (Respect) - Shadwell. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Was the Great_Sphinx_of_Giza based on the sphinx in Oedipus in Sphinx#Greek_traditions or Sphinx#Egyptian_sphinxes?

Was the Great_Sphinx_of_Giza based on the sphinx in Oedipus in Sphinx#Greek_traditions or Sphinx#Egyptian_sphinxes? Or any other kind of sphinx? Also when Thutmose_IV had a dream dream about the Giza sphinx it said it's name was Harmakhis. Wasn't Harmakhis falcon-headed and what did it have to with sphinx? Venustar84 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the Great Sphinx predates the Oedipus story by centuries, and that Sophocles based his Sphinx on the well known statue at Giza, and/or on the Egyptian myth which would have been well known to the Greeks at the time. Sophocles wrote in the 5th century BC, while the Great Sphinx of Giza dates from almost 2000 years before that. In other words, the difference in time between the Oedipus story and the building of the Great Sphinx is the same as the time difference between now and the time of Christ. So, no, the Sphinx was not based on the story from Oedipus. Even the earliest parts of the Oedipus story date from the time of Homer, which puts it in the 12th century BC at the absolute earliest, or still 1300 years after the construction of the Great Sphinx statue. --Jayron32 23:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition, our Sphinx article reinforces the differences between the Egyptian and Greek versions; "Unlike the Greek sphinx which was a woman, the Egyptian sphinx is typically shown as a man (an androsphinx). In addition, the Egyptian sphinx was viewed as benevolent in contrast to the malevolent Greek version and was thought of as a guardian often flanking the entrances to temples." It doesn't mention that the Greek sphinx also had a pair of eagle's wings, which the Egyptian sphinx lacked. See also Colorado University Classics - The SphinxAlansplodge (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

right on red turn

the other day while driving, i came to an intersection in which my lane had the ability to turn right or go straight and the lane next to me could go right only. there were red lights displayed but separate from the lights there was a lone green right arrow. i was wanting to turn right so i would not have a hard time merging into the far left lane from the far right lane. so while across from my lane there were the red lights and the vehicle in front of me turned right and since he/she did, i did to. what i would like to know is if my turn was legal. if it helps, i was driving away from the Walmart on sawdust road in spring Texas. so if you know the intersection im talking about please answer. it would be most appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.22.114 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the Texas driving manual, it says that right turn on red is legal after stopping. This site says that when there are two right turn lanes, you may legally turn right-on-red from either lane (search for §544.007) unless there is specific signage that prohibits it. If you have any questions about actions you have taken specifically, which you may be held liable for, seek the advice of a lawyer. --Jayron32 23:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

When two lanes turn, each typically has a target lane they can turn into. So, the outside turning lane must go to the near target lane and the inside turning lane must go to the far target lane. Turning on red is legal, but turning into the far lane requires that both the near and far lanes be clear. StuRat (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Solution(s) to the is-ought problem

What are proposed solutions to the is-ought problem that have 'conquered' it? --Melab±1 ☎ 23:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

See the "responses" section in the article you just linked. --Jayron32 23:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That any claim that there "is" a reason that you "ought" to take the dilemma seriously is self-contradictory? μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not see it as self-contradictory. The article and fact-value distinction don't give many specifics. It seems like it is not taken into consideration much by philosophers today (Ayn Rand is an exception, who heavily harped on it). I'm also trying to find a basis for foundationalism. --Melab±1 ☎ 03:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean as a basis for Foundationalism? (Rand, since you mention her, held that both foundationalism and coherence theory are true--but that's epistemology. Rand's ethics are logically consequentialist, although she does portray anyone who disagrees with her own specific values as inherently evul.) David Kelley's Evidence of the Senses gives what you might be looking for in a basis for foundationalism. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think R M Hare's universalizability argument is a solution, although I've been assured that better minds than mine see the flaws in it. Henry^Flower 10:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)