Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 June 20

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.

June 20

Getting cancer and our destiny

I apologize beforehand if I am posting this in the wrong section...

I took a workshop a few weeks ago and the teacher mentioned that we choose our own destiny and people that get cancer choose to get it. Even though I don't agree with the second part, I am interested in an explanation to why some people believe this. I know this is not a place for discussion, but can someone please point me to where I can find more information about this? I am having a hard time finding it on my own.

Thanks for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.207.196 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This question is also posted on the Science Desk. Please don't post questions on multiple desks. Rkr1991 (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I believed it would fit both categories since "destiny" does fit under humanities. Also, even though you look at both sections of the reference desk, many people don't and I thought I would get more input this way. The topic does fit BOTH categories, therefore I do not believe I violated any rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.207.196 (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you haven't broken any rules except the one in bold in the big box at the top of the page that says Please, post your question on only one section of the reference desk. SpinningSpark 10:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We can answer this from a humanities point of view too though; i.e. "some people are full of shit". I hope the poster did not pay money for this workshop. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that, I have been here so many times that I just come and post my question without reading the rules everytime. I was looking for the humanities point of view since all the science people will only answer with a science point of view.... And Adam, if you read a little bit more carefully, my workshop wasn't about that, I mentioned that the topic is from another workshop that I have not taken yet. It is actually one of the best workshops out there and I don't think anyone who has taken it would disagree. It has nothing to do with what I just mentioned either. But, don't be so narrow minded, I bet you thought all the scientists and researchers who said cancer could be caused by a virus were crazy 10 years ago. Now that we have more proof, evidence, and a vaccine, you changed your answer and agree with it 100%. Don't be so quick to judge unless you hear someone's explanation. I believe it has something to do with some people push themselves in the direction to get cancer, whether they smoke or do something else that can contribute to getting cancer. I know this is a totally different example than the virus and cancer example, but don't be so narrow minded. I don't agree with it either, but I open to hear an explanation, that's why I came here to see if anyone knew anymore information.

This might almost be on the Language desk. It's a recurring theme in self-improvement workshops. But it comes down to the meaning of "choose". Normally, it means to decide between two or more probable (and 'knowable') outcomes. If someone takes up smoking, even today, they are no more than 'risking' getting lung cancer. Deciding to not smoke does not give the opposite result, ie of definitely not getting cancer.So the 'choice' being made is between taking on a 'risk' of lung cancer, OR just staying with the other usual risks of getting some other cancer. People who took up smoking 30 or 40 years ago did not even knowingly take this risk, because the link was unknown at the time. Similarly, choosing to turn left at the traffic lights, instead of say the normal straight ahead, is NOT a choice to be involved in the crash around the corner, as it is unforeseeable. The "choose own destiny" crowd is merely pointing out the obvious, that we are where we are because of choices we made in the past. But in most cases these were short-term choices, between short-term 'known' possible outcomes. Deciding between unknown outcomes is called tossing a coin, not choosing. There is an undertone of Victim blaming in this "choosing destiny" line of thinking that I always find worrying. - KoolerStill (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Rodzina odprowadziła Jadwigę do Poznania. Tam 10 października 1475 pożegnała się z rodzicami. Wraz z licznym orszakiem (ok. 1200 konnych) dotarła do Wittenbergii 23 października. Towarzyszyła jej m.in. Anna, wdowa po cieszyńskim księciu Bolesławie II.

14 listopada 1475 wjechała wraz z orszakiem do bawarskiego Landshut, dając początek świętowanemu do dzisiaj w Niemczech Weselu w Landshut. Wesele zgromadziło wielu niemieckich władców – przybyli m.in. cesarz Fryderyk III, jego syn Maksymilian, elektor brandenburski Albrecht III Achilles, Zygmunt Habsburg, elektor Palatynatu Filip Wittelsbach, margrabia badeński Albrecht, hrabiowie wirtemberscy Ulryk i Eberhard, landgraf leuchtenberski Ludwik oraz hrabia henneberski Otto. Ślub odbył się w dniu przyjazdu Jadwigi – w kościele św. Marcina. Następnego dnia nastąpiła właściwa uczta weselna, w której brało udział 9 tysięcy osób.

Google has a set of translation tools. Assuming it is Polish and using that page, I got:

Family Hedwig paid to the city. 10 October 1475 there took leave of his parents. Along with numerous retinue (about 1,200 riders) came to Wittenbergii 23 October. It was accompanied by among others Anna, a widow after cieszyńskim Prince Boleslav II.

14 November 1475 together with a retinue entered the Bavarian Landshut, giving świętowanemu to start today in Germany, The Wedding in Landshut. Wedding gathered many German rulers - among others, came Emperor Frederick III, his son Maximilian, elector of Brandenburg Albrecht III Achilles, Zygmunt Habsburg, Wittelsbach elector Palatinate Filip, badeński margrave Albrecht, hrabiowie wirtemberscy Ulryk and Eberhard, landgraf leuchtenberski Louis and Count Otto henneberski. The wedding took place on the day of arrival Jadwigi - in the Church of St.. Martin. The next day, followed by appropriate wedding banquet, which took part in the 9 thousand people.

Obviously, this is very rough and shouldn't be used literally. There are some words that it simply doesn't know (eg: cieszyńskim), and other words I suspect it has mistranslated (eg: does odprowadziła really mean paid in this context?). However, it is a start. Astronaut (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Boleslav is this guy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, this is from pl:Jadwiga Jagiellonka (1457-1502). --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the language desk? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't answer earlier. I was on a business trip and had no time for Wikipedia. Here's a translation by a native Polish speaker:

The family saw Hedwig off to Poznań. There, on 10 October 1475, she bid farewell to her parents. With a large retinue (about 1,200 riders), she reached Wittenberg on 23 October. She was accompanied by, among others, Anna, the widow of Duke Boleslaus II of Cieszyn (Teschen).

On 14 October 1475, together with her suite, she entered the Bavarian town of Landshut, commencing the tradition of Landshut Wedding, celebrated in Germany to this day. The wedding was attended by many German rulers, including Emperor Frederick III; his son Maximilian; Elector Albrecht III Achilles of Brandenburg; Sigismund Habsburg; Philip Wittelsbach, the Elector Palatine; Margrave Albrecht of Baden, the counts of Württemberg, Ulrich and Eberhard; Landgrave Louis of Leuchtenberg; and Count Otto of Henneberg. The wedding took place on the day of Hedwig's arrival in St. Martin's Church. On the following day, the wedding feast, attended by 9,000 people, was held.

I hope that helps. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

Should I watch the movie first or read the comic first? 121.72.222.20 (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll go...Movie. Why? Because often the books are better than the movie so this way you'll potentially enjoy both better (otherwise the movie may be a let-down after having read the storyline in the comic). ny156uk (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comic then movie. If you watch the movie first, you will be constantly be visualizing the actors from the movie (Natalie Portman, Stephen Fry) etc while reading the comic. The film is one person's interpretation, which will undoubtally influence your own freer (is that a word?) intepretation while reading the comic. Heinzcreamofchickensoup (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also gonna say comic. The movie is good, but the comic is amazing. Understanding the plot as it unofolds in the comic is the way to go. There is just so much more political background that makes it make sense. The movie is good, but its an oversimplification of the point that was being made.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.38.224 (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Designer of the SS uniform

Several pages have noted a Karl Diebitsch as one of a pair of designers for the Nazis' Schutzstaffel uniforms. All came from a single published source, though without a particular citation, so its verifiability is now being questioned (summarized here), along with copyvio issues that have relegated much of the content to (page) History. I'd appreciate any input by knowledgeable editors who might help straighten this out. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Purity

What is meant by PURITY of mind and thoughts????What determines a polluted mind and a pure mind???!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.174.130 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A Puritan is a person who practices Puritanism. Look at the articles for more info. Basically the 'modern usage' of 'purity of mind' is often in relation to sex/sexuality, though it can also be in reference to 'clarity of mind' - i.e. clear-thinking. ny156uk (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on context. Different religions and ideologies have different ideas about what is pure and what is impure. In Christianity, I think "pure" is usually roughly synonymous with "free from sin". --Tango (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In Roman Catholicism, "pure thoughts" is normally a synonym for "thoughts without any unnecessary sexual content". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it purely sexual? Wouldn't glutinous thoughts, for example, be just as bad? --Tango (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I can envisage a page of awful jokes coming about things sticky that would give rise to impure thoughts, some of which things might be food or drink and thus also "gluttonous", or have I got the two backwards? // BL \\ (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The OED does seem to accept my spelling (along with 9 other alternatives), but yours is certainly the preferred one! I couldn't work out how to spell the work so trusted my spell checker, not a 100% reliable method! --Tango (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, my partner and I were reflecting yesterday about how certain people have to be on gluten-free diets, and how certain others really ought to be on a "glutton-free" diet.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been on a gutton-free diet all my life, and I suspect that 99.99% of humanity is also on this diet. Donner Party not included. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Name the throne

...or at least where the throne is! Image --217.227.83.248 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The website hosting that pic captions it here as "Queen Elizabeth II enthroned at Buckingham Palace". Although a Google Image Search for "buckingham palace throne" shows two clearly different thrones in the Throne Room ... so the throne may not be there this instant, since the picture was taken 40 or 50 years ago. Tempshill (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is indeed Buck House (and I would imagine the V&A would get it right), then that is a verrrry old throne. The new (as in, since the 60's, possibly earlier) thrones are rather more restrained. No idea what would have happened to that one; try calling the Palace? //roux   10:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Finding a topic for research masters degree in social work

I am about to undertake a masters degree in social work and I am having trouble finding a researchable topic. The problem is that I have several ideas but I do not know if I have enough passion for any one of them to sustain me through 2 - 3 years of study. A bit of background. I am a social worker in a physical rehabilitation clinic. I am interested in issues of disability, patient education, and the role of the social worker in physical rehab settings. I am not yet registered in a university programme so I don't really have access to large internet databases / journals so I'm not sure what problems in these areas need further research. This has become very frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.97.188 (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You say that you aren't yet registered in a university program, so I don't understand why you're looking for a thesis topic. The usual procedure is that one enrolls in a program, studies the discipline to understand what has and hasn't been researched, and only then attempts to find a research topic. Wikiant (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dis Chord Discord

I have run across some typed guitar tablature which indicated a "Dis" chord in a song, but gives no chord diagram. A google search hasn't really given me much info as to what this is, though some results suggest it may be similar to the E7 chord... Anybody know what this is supposed to be? The song in question is "Cold Milk Bottle" by The Mountain Goats. Tuckerekcut (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't spot this in any of my too-long-neglected guitar tutors and chord encyclopaedias. Might it be intended as an instruction to play a deliberate dissonance or dischord, i.e. not any specific fingering but anything that will sound deliberately "unmusical" at that point? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The dis disambiguation page says its German for D♯, and indeed de:DIS says "in der Musik das um ein Halbton erhöhtes D", which means "in music, a halftone higher than D". -- 87.115.17.119 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it sounds right as D#. Much appreciated Tuckerekcut (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

List of billionaires in jail

Why don`t we have a List of billionaires in jail? Can you cite some? I just remember that Martha Steward and Mikhail Khodorkovsky are on this list. --Mr.K. (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Martha Stewart is not in jail, and she is not a billionaire. I don't think Khodorkovsky is currently a billionaire. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Billionaire in what? U.S. dollars? Or Zimbabwean dollars (in which case the list would be a lot longer)? Do they have to be in prison now or at any time in the past? Would you include people like Al Capone, who would probably have had the equivalent wealth, but not that many zeroes? Any crime no matter how minor or only major ones? There are just too many questions. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages trivial lists. See Wikipedia:Listcruft.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides, a list of billionaires in jail would be pretty short, since jail is pretty short term. Prison is used for longer terms.65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The OED does not support that distinction, nor is it a familiar one to me (though I would be unlikely to use the word 'jail' in any case). Is this a distinction commonly made in America? --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about short-term vs. long-term, but with respect to jurisdictional levels, there is a common terminological distinction between county "jails" vs. state and federal "prisons". Oscar Wilde used the word "jail", but under the spelling gaol (which many Americans would have no idea how to pronounce). AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting if it was a private run jail the billion air could purchase it and have some nice curtainsChromagnum (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Type of "curtain" in coat of arms

I've noticed several coat of arms have a kind of drawn back curtain (see image)

. Could anyone tell me what they are called or tell me anything about them? I couldn't find them in your heraldry artciles, but then I didn't really know what to search for...

They seem to appear in continental coat of arms but not British ones if that helps... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.98.18 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In the book A Complete Guide to Heraldry by A.C. Fox-Davies, it's called the "pavilion" (to be distinguished from the more common and ordinary "mantling"): "It is confined to the arms of sovereigns, and the pavilion is the tent-like erection within which the heraldic achievement is displayed."; "quite unknown to British heraldry" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Usually German, although also present in Nordic countries. The first part of that is basically down to the fact that they were mostly used for the Royal families, rather than most titles, and hence there were more of them in Germany, is what I am led to believe. Almost all German ruling families used them in full arms, and were at least almost all dropped for middle or lesser versions of the arms. I'm unsure if there were any actual rules on it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is meant to symbolise the ermine-lined robe that many European sovereigns wear/wore, as well as reflecting the tent-like structure (I forget the name) that is erected above thrones. //roux   10:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

An African-American janitor and his homemade basement kingdom

Years, maybe decades ago, I saw an article somewhere or other about an old black man who had died; when people came to clear out his stuff, they found his life's work - an amazing throne room he had jerrybuilt from aluminium foil, cigarette packets and other detritus. Can anyone tell me who it was?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

James Hampton (artist) -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Anon - you're always v quick and concise Adambrowne666 (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

History of History

Who were the first historians? The first people to study history? esp. academically or for the purpose of understanding or improving their present or future. 209.148.195.177 (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Herodotus is often called the "father of history". He's okay, but Thucydides, who lived a little later, is much closer to what we would consider an historian today. This is, of course, only in the Western tradition; other cultures have their own "fathers of history," for example Sima Qian in China. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The term you are looking for is historiography. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)