Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 21

Humanities desk
< May 20	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 22 >

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.

May 21

Robert Mugabe's siblings

From this site, how many brother/sisters R.G. Mugabr have? How many sisters, how many brother. I hear two of them is decease. Total how many and what number is he in, is he 3d out of 6th sibling?--69.226.39.79 (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the site you have linked and to this one from the Biography Channel, Mugabe had three full brothers. The first two, Michael and Raphael, were older than he, and both died when he was quite young. The third brother, Donato, younger than Robert, lived at least until 2008. Robert Mugabe appears to have been the third child. There were sisters but I cannot find any substantive record of their number or their names, save for Sabina, who is MP for the Mugabe family's home area of Zvimba.

There is one site that says Mugabe was the second of five children at the time his father deserted his mother, but as three of the siblings' names are different from those given on two other sites and Donato, who lived long enough to be interviewed in your example, is not named at all, I have little confidence in its accuracy. It is the same site that claims Mugabe is actually a "foreigner" from Malawi, whose father's surname was really Matibili/Matabiri. This would be a very unhappy fact for Mugabe, if true, given Mugabe's attitude towards foreigners in Zimbabwe. // BL \\ (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Symptoms?

Medical questions deleted. What the heck is going on? Gothrokkprincess (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the Reference Desk cannot give medical advice. Go and see a doctor. Tempshill (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Difference between Compatibilism and Pessimistic Incompatibilism

Is there a philosophical difference, or is it just a different definition of "free will"? — DanielLC 05:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Identity of murderers/criminals

Concerning the trial today about the murder of Baby P [1], I don't understand why the mother and her boyfriend (the murderer) cannot be identified (It says, "The mother, her boyfriend, who cannot be identified, and Jason Owen, a lodger at the house") although the lodger can be identified. - Is this common practice in British law or in other countries for this type of crime and will they remain unidentified this way forever? --AlexSuricata (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly common (extremely common for child defendants, although that isn't relevant here). If they were identified they would probably become the victims of "mob justice", whether the court found them innocent or guilty. If they are found not guilty then I doubt they would even be identified. If they are found guilty, I'm not sure. They might be identified and then given new identities if they are ever paroled. Our article, Death of Baby P, says that the name "James Owen" is an alias, so presumably he can't be identified either but has, for some reason, been given an alias rather than just being referred to as "the lodger". --Tango (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are other children involved in the extended family, and it's for their protection. As the lodger was only involved because he was the lodger, and therefore not a member of the extended family, the press ban did not apply to him. This will not always be the case, and these details will be released at some point in the future, however as the closure has been put into place to protect children it is likely to be years rather than months before any identifying information becomes public. -- role^player 15:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

PS my understanding is that they have already been found guilty, and that today is sentencing. -- role^player 15:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also normal that there is often a ban on victims, especially child victims, being identified. Obviously this also prevents naming their relatives (since that would give the game away) and in the tragic case where the relatives are also the perpetrators has the unfortunate side-effect of meaning the perpetrators can't be named either. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This ban must be UK-specific. In the US, the only reason I know of that a person accused of a crime is not named is when the accused is a minor. (Or, I guess, more recently, when it's a super-secret terrorism case and the entire process is allowed by a judge to be sealed.) Open trials, and all that. On the other hand, victims are anonymized more often. Tempshill (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Minors are only not named if they are tried as minors. If they're tried as adults, they are named. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it is so Baby P can't be identified. SGGH ^ping! 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What would be the harm in identifying Baby P? He's dead. --Tango (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's so that Baby P's siblings can't be identified. They've done nothing wrong and have a right to lead as normal a life as is possible in the circumstances. -- role^player 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The reporting restrictions are also intended to prevent prejudicing other trials; if the identities of the perpetrators were known, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a jury to hear a case objectively. There has already been one (so-far) further trial of "the boyfriend", who has been convicted in a separate case of raping a two-year-old child. For all we know, there could be other cases proceeding. RolandR 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is a fairly common thing in a number of commonwealth countries. In NZ, a famous recent case was Louise Nicholas were the identities of the defendents was suppressed (two had been convinced of a another sexual assault) during her trial and this remained after the trial was over. This was broken (after the trial) by supporters, but they agreed to stop. I suspected at the time and was later proven correct that there were remaining charges. The legal principle I believe (which I agree with) is as you say, that it's difficult for a jury to be objective when they are aware of other convinctions which aren't judged sufficiently relevant or even other allegations. Supression orders may in fact include additional details which may idea result in the person/s involved being identified or which may unduly prejudice the trial (since the jury may read the details without the proper context or which is later ruled ineligible etc.) This principle doesn't appear to hold in the US due to their strong adherence to the right to free speech/the first amendment. In NZ, permanent name supression may be granted in some cases to protect other innocent victims or associated people particularly children (but also e.g. the spouse of someone convicted of domestic abuse); when the person is acquited as well as; and perhaps most controversially, when it's judged that the harm it will cause the person who was convincted is excessive in comparison to the crime committed and there is not sufficient public interest in the identity being known. In other words, it's a complicated balancing of factors which with any given outcome some people are not going to agree with. The internet age, making it easy for someone to search for details as well as enforcing supression orders is also changing things considerably Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Buddism in theWest: most common sect

What is the most common Buddist sect in the West?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked Buddhism in the West, Buddhism by country and Buddhism by region, and their sub-pages? The first of these does not specifically talk about any school of Buddhism, but claims:

Western Buddhism is almost entirely modernist, not traditionalist, skipping over the tradition to what it believes to be "original" Buddhism[9] borrowing, and modifying, Asian practices such as the sangha and meditation but largely ignoring ritual, faith, devotion, doctrine etc. Western Buddhism has been heavily influenced by the concepts of freethought and secular humanism.

Tempshill (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I already supposed that people in the West chose the most liberal variant. However, how liberal can you be and still be a Buddhist? Is simply meditating enough to be one?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We should make a distinction between immigrant and convert Buddhist communities in the West, as there is often not very much interaction between the two. Among immigrant communities, popularity of different Buddhist groups depends on the country of origin; for example, for people of East Asian descent Pure Land Buddhism is often popular, while Buddhists of Southeast Asian descent are Theravadin with rare exceptions. As for Western people who convert to Buddhism, the most popular branches are Zen (particularly the Japanese variety, but also the Chinese, Koreann, and Vietnamese—e.g. Thich Nhat Hanh—forms); Tibetan Buddhism (the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism seems to have a lot of followers in the West, but all of the four major schools are represented); and "vipassana" or "insight meditation", which is essentially an approach to Theravada Buddhism. Also, Sōka Gakkai, an organisation which promotes Japanese Nichiren Buddhism, has been by far the most successful Buddhist group at gaining followers in the West through active evangelism.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Modernisation/Westernisation and political spectrum

Do believers in Modernisation/Westernisation (the whole teleological national evolution to Western-style endpoints) have a political allegiance? Are such ideas leftist or rightest or is there no particular trend? SGGH ^ping! 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many sorts of believers in modernization and westernization; it depends on the nation and historical time period.

Lenin and Stalin were very into modernization and Industrialization of the Soviet Union while being communists. Often it is linked with the free market, and to that extent mirrors modern right-wing politics, and with free trade, which is more associated with the right than the left today (though there are some right-wing protectionists. China shows that modernization may or may not involve a respect for human rights (associated with liberalism and social democracy, though also to some extent with right-wing libertarianism). The debates over modernization/westernization don't line up along the traditional left/right divide (which is more about state ownership and control).

There's a lot of information on Wikipedia e.g. Economic reform in the People's Republic of China, Westernization, Cultural assimilation, Meiji Constitution (on Japan), History of the Republic of China (pre-communist), Economic history of India, and pages on many other countries, that may be useful. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Europhile Socialists?

I'm wondering if any of the smaller political parties in the UK, who are standing in the EU elections fulfil these criteria: (a) Socialist and (b) pro-Europe? The Socialist Labour party, who might otherwise get my vote, are standing on a platform of getting out of Europe. Any ideas? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A Google search for "pro-EU socialist" comes up with a few hits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Scottish Socialist Party fulfil these criteria - see [2]. The Socialist Party of Great Britain aren't pro-EU, but they don't seem to be in favour of leaving the EU, either (this kind of position is quite characteristic of the party). Beyond that, I believe that Plaid Cymru is broadly pro-EU, and the Green parties and Labour Party are all pro-European and have some socialist members. Warofdreams talk 09:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these - if I can't find a SPGB candidate it'll have to be Green! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the Green's are pro-EU? I'd check that. 80.41.88.220 (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

They want to remain within the EU, so I'm counting that as pro-EU. They do have lots of criticisms of the EU, opposed the Treaty of Lisbon and oppose monetary union, but the same would go for the socialist groups which I have counted as being pro-EU. Warofdreams talk 13:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Relationship between "Mosaic" (tiles) and Moses (Biblical Prophet)?

In direct understanding, the word "Mosaic" would mean, "In the nature of Moses (the Hebrew Prophet)". It has been suggested, however, that the word "mosaic" in reference to Tile Art, is derived as a reference to the Greek "Muse" (Spirits of Inspiration to Artists). Is there any etomology relationship between the Tile Art "mosaic" and the Biblical Prophet, "Moses"? Just a curiosity. 19:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElleryPotash (talk • contribs)

According to Merriam-Webster, mosaic (n.), meaning small tiles, is from the word "museum", hence Latin and not Hebrew. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Greek and Hebrew words for a mosaic (Ψηφιδωτό and פסיפס, respectively; the latter reading "psifas") seem to be related to each-other but not to the English/Latin root. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are various opinions on the meaning of the name Moses. Our article indicates that it may be derived from the Egyptian root word "-mose" and was possibly linked with a proper name (as in Ra-mose = Ramses = son of Ra). When used as an adjective, as in Mosaic law or Mosaic authorship it does, of course, refer to Moses himself. I can find no reference giving any connection between the two, but a linguist may correct me.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To add to the above, Moses was really called "Moshe", which sounds nothing like mosaic. Most OT Biblical names you're familiar with are more anglicisations than transliterations - some other examples: Jacob is really Ya'akov, Eve is Chava, Isaac is Yitzchak, Jael is Yael, Solomon is Shlomo, Jesse is Yishai, Job is Iyuv, Elijah is Eliyahu etc etc. The one that for some reason irritates me most is Balaam, whose name was Bilam. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Landscape

Where is this background?68.148.149.184 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Windows Vista used Flickr images as its selection for desktops (http://blog.flickr.net/en/2007/01/30/a-key-benefit-of-vista/) though I can't see the photo you link to. I was hoping that the Flickr photo might have tags with more info on location/etc. ny156uk (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You can't see the photo I linked to? The link doesn't show a photo?68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry what I meant was "I can't see the photo you linked to in the list of photos from Flickr users." ny156uk (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be a fiord. Perhaps its Scandinavia or Iceland. Even if not a fiord, then the shape suggests it may have been formed by glacier action rather than erosion - but I'm only guessing. 78.146.162.232 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing resembling a fiord in the picture, only small ponds. It looks a lot like the view from the road between Hol and Aurland in the central mountainous part of southern Norway. If that's the case it's certainly no fiord, were at about 1000 meters above sea level. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's Summit Lake, Mt Evans, Colorado. See http://www.4x4offroads.com/image-files/mt-evans-colorado-p1020561.jpg Ericoides (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Straight ticket voting states

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is one of just a few states with straight ticket voting in general elections. There is a button or lever to vote for a party, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and not for the individual candidates. Consequently, many candidates are elected with very few votes for them in particular, just for their party in general.

My inquiry is what other states have this straight ticket voting choice. I think it is only a few others, but that is why I am asking. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Straight-ticket voting article, Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin allow straight ticket voting.Tobyc75 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In North Carolina, you must vote separately for President and then the straight-party vote for the rest of the political offices.--droptone (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Counting NC, that means 16 states with straight party voting, and 34 states without it. In Pennsylvania, there is a button for a straight ticket vote, but the voter can ignore that and vote for each candidate separately, or the voter can push the straight party button, and change individual office votes. This means that most winning candidates for public office don't receive very many votes at all, they win by being on the party slate. In Philadelphia, that means that Democrats almost always win, but upstate, there are counties where Republicans almost always win.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Largest Empire Ever

By area, as in square miles, of land covered only, which empire covered the most? Was it the British Empire or the Mongol Empire? I've had this conversation with a number of people and we've never come to an agreement. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See List of largest empires. Tempshill (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is mad. There is an article for everything! :) Thanks! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And might I say, that is a bloody excellent article! Very informative! Thanks for linking to that! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir!--Tango (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Listing the "virtual/emotional parent" in a wedding program

I guess this *could* have been humanities, but ths still seemed best. Anyway, a discussion about some teens our group has helps - including ones with absent parents - brought to my mind a question.

Is there a set way to list someone on a wedding program who has been "just like a mother/father" to the bride or groom? It's easy, I suppose, with a relative - if Aunt/Uncle X or older sibling Y raised you, they can easily be listed at the top and will probably be best man/maid of honor/giving away the bride. But, what about the best friend's parent who was always there to support the kid who hung out at her friend's house all the time, or someone like that?

I suppose perhaps a page saying, "We happily dedicate this wedding to 'x'" and why would work, but would it be considered too tacky or anything? Is there a special designation that is used? Can you really list, instead of "father of the bride," something like, "Emotional father" in their place? Thanks.Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If "father of the bride" is a role rather than a blood relationship, and the presence of a program seems to suggest this, you could name anyone at all beside the designation. Of course, if there is a blood father and he is both present in the bride's life and in the ceremony, it might cause some emotional upheaval to appoint someone else. The "virtual" father can always be effusively thanked as a part of the speechmaking. It is likely he is aware of his influence and also unlikely he would expect to upstage any blood relatives at such an event. Whatever is kind is usually the best way to go. // BL \\ (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is the father of the bride that is being replaced then you could describe the replacement in terms of their role in the wedding ("Giving the bride away: X" or "Walking the bride down the aisle: X" or words to that effect). Other parents are a little more difficult since they don't have well defined roles. --Tango (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Describing someone by their role is probably ideal. Most people will understand the nature of the relationship from their being in the role. If someone is giving the bride away, it shows that the relationship is fatherly. If the father of the bride is also present, but not in that role, it shows the change of responsibility. If the bio-father is not present, especially if he is not a feature in the bride's life, listing a person as "Father" of the bride would be easily permissible. This would be perhaps out of place in a particularly formal wedding, or if the biological father were present. Steewi (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It would seem very weird to me for the biological father to be present but not give the bride away. --Tango (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The biological father may have only been recently revealed. I do know of one wedding where the bride had been adopted as a newborn. She located her birth parents about a year before she married. All four parents attended the wedding, but the biological parents were only guests, not active particiants. Any "family" combination we can imagine has likely been played out by someone, somewhere. // BL \\ (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

True, I should have said "legal father", not "biological". I forgot about adoption! --Tango (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, being an attorney, I can tell you you get some real messes when it comes to combinations of biological, natural, adoptive, and so on fathers. Anyway, thanks for all the help!Somebody or his brother (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)