Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 4

Humanities desk
< May 3	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 5 >

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 4

Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga, Duke of Guastalla

How was he burned alive exactly?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the Italian Wikipedia version (run through google translate) it appears he had been hunting on a cold, rainy day, and when he got back to the lodge, rubbed himself down with alcohol (perhaps as a linament, maybe he was sore?) and being cold, he moved close to the fire place. That unfortunate combination caused him to accidentally catch fire. Someone who actually speaks Italian may be able to get a better translation. --Jayron32 01:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Homosexual Novels

Are there any novels that express anti-homosexual sentiments? I mean fictional stories, novels, short stories, novellas, that kind of stuff. Sneazy (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A google search for anti homosexual novels would be a good starting point. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Revolt of the Pedestrians" by David H. Keller is a semi-classic science-fiction short story which still retains some interest, despite being very "pulpy" and over eighty years old. However, it contains a rather strange anti-lesbian sub-plot based on the idea that lesbianism is not just a form of deviant sexuality (a pretty standard view in 1928), but is the deeply pathological manifestation of a very disturbed mind... AnonMoos (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I keep reading this, and I keep not understanding what is being asked. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You could always ask the OP for clarification, rather than just reporting your difficulty to AnonMoos. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Medieval shipyard

Was a medieval shipyard such that the construction of the ship was done high up on scaffolding and then rolled down into the sea, -OR- was the ship built in a large hole and that hole filled with water when the ship was done? Is there any pictures of such medieval shipyards where they did ship construction? LordGorval (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This picture [1] indicates rolling down but I guess others might do it differently. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The first picture in that series showing galleons being built has them surrounded by big banks of earth, I think that was for easy access and a sound base though. I'd have thought the problems if there was some rain and the hole was filled would be too much unless you were sure it wasn't going to rain for some months. In one case of building a dry dock I know of they had the area protected with a big bank of earth and used pumps to keep the place dry and an electric field between the pump holes in the bank to keep it in place, it was quite deep so not the same problem but that technology wasn't available in medieval times! Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Just had a though, they could have used a canal lock type arrangement and built them above the water line that way, so I think it is worth your seeing if there was anything on those lines or something else I haven't thought of. Dmcq (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "medieval"? If you mean the usual thing (prior to 1450 AD), then there weren't very many large sailing ships. The largest ships, I believe, were Venetian galleys that sailed mainly in the Mediterranean Sea. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I mean between the year 1000 and 1400. Yes, I realize they were small sailing ships - but I would imagine merchant ships traveled the Mediterranean Sea in this time period. Yes? LordGorval (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I see at Roman shipyard of Stifone (Narni) they did what I said in effect, they had the river fill up the channel in which they built the ship and then the ship went downstream to the sea. Before Medieval times but seems a sensible way of doing larger ships and I think people did sometimes build galleys later to ram and sink pirates. For smaller ones the Norse for instance could pull their ships across land [2] rather than go around by sea! Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Shipbuilding seems to be Wikipedia's article on this though it doesn't seem to answer your question. Dmcq (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Most medieval shipbuilding would have been on a slipway and launched from there. Trying to build a drydock would be much more involved than "digging a large hole", since nearly any hole near a navigable waterway would fill up with groundwater very quickly. Medieval Viking ships were certainly build on slipways. My (modern) copy of Architectura Navalis (1629) also seems to assume that every type of ship is launched from a slipway. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. I believe my question has been answered.LordGorval (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Intermarriage in Israel

I realize this question has the potential to be highly controversial, but I'm curious and can't find many sources that aren't blatantly biased.

This article about anthropology says that "over half the Jewish population in Israel believes that the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national treason". Our article on Arab citizens of Israel says the same, while this link claims that "75 percent of participants did not approve of apartment buildings being shared between Arabs and Jews".

Are these claims an accurate reflection of Jewish Israeli culture, or is there something that I, as an outsider, am missing? Is there a large divide between Haredim and secular Jews in terms of their opinions about intermarriage? I find it hard to believe that these attitudes would be the norm among well-educated citizens of a 21st century democracy. --128.112.25.104 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we please try this again, but in a manner helpful to the OP?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yup, the question IS highly controversial. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Why? HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC) I won't pretend to have no opinion on the matter, but please trust that I'm not trying to stir up a debate. There's enough of those on the Internet already. --128.112.25.104 (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) See Deuteronomy 7:3, 4.—Wavelength (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC) I've read Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Kings, so I'm aware that the Bible prohibits intermarriage in no uncertain terms. Nevertheless I was under the impression that secular Jews don't take the Bible literally, even if they're religious at all, just like how most Christians don't stone women to death for adultery. --128.112.25.104 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC) [The account of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is not universally accepted as part of the original Bible. —Wavelength (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)] They no doubt take over 73 years (and still going!) of fighting seriously. Anyways, stoning women to death for adultery and whatever is tantamount (since adultery would not actually approach treason in the USA) to (merely) saying adultery is “treason” are quite separate matters. Maybe you should just take a step back and realize that it is journalism based on haphazardly done studies the details of which (specific questions asked, protocols taken, etc.) have not even been disclosed. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC) How much support is there for gay marriage among the Orthodox? It would offer an in-house alternative to those who Jewish men might otherwise consort with Arabs or seculars. On the other hand gay miscegenation might be seen as weakening Israel's enemies. And what about the rights of Stan? μηδείς (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, that was completely over my head. Was it supposed to be helpful, or just a joke? (I'm not criticizing you, just puzzled about what you're saying.) --Bowlhover (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC) The OP is overlooking one slight detail, in his rather smug remark about "well-educated citizens of a 21st century democracy": When an ethnic group's leaders have declared their intentions to destroy you, that tends to trump other considerations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) As is par for the course with your contributions, that remark is (a) irrelevant to the question and (b) tendentious to the point of absurdity. --Viennese Waltz 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC) As is par for the course with your contributions, that remark attacks a responder while making no effort to actually answer the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not coming here to answer the question, I'm coming here to register my opposition to your contribution. I could do that on your talk page, but I think you need to be called out on it at the place where you made it. --Viennese Waltz 14:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC) So you came here not to try to give the OP any useful information, but rather you came here specifically to attack another user. Way to go, VW. You continue to live down to expectations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, I second Viennese Waltz here, if not happily. Your comment was not helpful, but a stupidly misleading platitude. As part of our educational mission, it is important to point these things out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I notice he had nothing to say to Medeis (whose bizarre comment was pointed to on the talk page), nor did he criticize the other users who likewise gave no useful answers. So I figure that VW (and you, by inference) are initiating these attacks for strictly personal reasons, and you should know better than to do that. You also totally missed the point: Israel is constantly being told by the leaders of nearby Islamist nations that they are targets for destruction. But you're much less dumb than I am, so maybe you can explain to us why "well-educated citizens of a 21st century democracy" shouldn't put their personal and national safety above other considerations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) You seem to assume your own conclusions. Also, as far as I can tell you fail to differentiate between "islamist", "islamic", and "Arabic". And, apparently, you think the state Israel is plural, or you fail to differentiate between the state and its citizens. You also seem to fail to differentiate between Arabs and "people hostile to Israel" (ignoring the fact that a sizable minority of Israeli citizens are indeed Arab). Try to sort these things out first. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Before you continue your personal attacks on just me, how about you go to the talk page and address the question another user raised about another user's comment here that you don't seem to find troublesome (probably because I'm not the one who said it). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Baseball Bugs, I'm not very familiar with the issue, but who are the leaders of Israeli Arabs that want Jews to be destroyed? Do most Israeli Arabs agree with that sentiment? The most likely Arab men to marry Jewish women are Israelis with moderate political and religious opinions; I highly doubt that many of them are Islamists from neighboring countries. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Bugs, please stop just for a minute and consider whether your view would be altered if the Arab in question were a Christian? There are a lot of Arab Christians in one of Israel's neighbouring countries, Lebanon. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to be both Arab and Jewish. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We can provide sources; we cannot judge a source's validity for you. We cannot comment on the contents of your mind and what may be missing there. What you find hard to believe is not something we can help you with. Please seek an internet forum. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, following the links, the first source actually gets its data from the second source, the Ynetnews article here. The news site is operated by Yedioth Ahronoth, which is a tabloid newspaper in both senses of the word. So I would take the claims with a big grain of salt. Possibly the original posters scepticism is justified. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Ynetnews website is a skimpy edition and rife with mistranslations into English, good only for quick updates if you don't read the better-written Haaretz English edition online. I strongly disagree, though, with disparaging Yedioth Aharonoth as a "tabloid": it's Israel's largest mainstream daily newspaper, quite comprehensive over a broad range of topics. If it leans towards populism, one might equally say that the more left-leaning Haaretz is narrower in its coverage and doesn't adequately reflect what's happening in the country. (I subscribe to the daily print editions of both, so am not biased.) --'Deborahjay (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You could track down and take a look at these and see if they point you in the right direction.

--some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The OP needs to strike his condescending remark about "well-educated citizens of a 21st century democracy". Israel is under constant attack and threat - and you all know from where. If there's a strong cultural reluctance to interact with people who "could be" the enemy, it's totally understandable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I read that remark not as condescending but as naive and woefully undeserved. Israel is not the sort of democracy ruled by the majority while protecting the rights of minorities. It doesn't have a Constitution. The party that forms the government after any election has never gotten even a simple majority of the votes; instead, coalitions are cobbled together of a cluster among the myriad small parties, with ministries (governmental departments, in AE) handed out to coalition partners who thus gain power and budgets far out of proportion to their share of the plebescite. The Haredi ("ultraorthodox") parties, representing a fundamentalist minority stream of Judaism, has frequently held the Interior Ministry and wielded enormous influence on matters of personal status: marriage and burial, to name two. This is why there is no civil marriage, although marriages performed abroad are recognized as legal. (They also have imposed strict Orthodox observance of the Sabbath that restricts public transportation and commerce for the majority: secular Jews and all non-Jews.) The education system (public and private) is almost entirely segregated, such that religious and secular Jews don't send their children to the same schools, let alone Arabs (of any religion) and Jews. Almost all residential neighborhoods and communities are likewise segregated. Don't forget the language barrier: although Arabic is an official language of the country, it isn't mandatory for Jews to learn it (although the Arabic school curriculum includes Hebrew; both learn English). The Haredi school system, by the way, promotes religious study and avoids teaching secular subjects such as English, math, and history, so hardly up to 21st C. standards.

Underlying this, kindly recall: Israel as a sovereign state has only been in existence 65 years, approx. 3 generations. Both the Jewish and local Arab populations on the whole have their mutually exclusive identities, and each has historical and current reasons to feel threatened by -- or fear the risk of destruction at the hands of -- the other. The likelihood of intermarriage in these circumstances is extremely marginal, and the situation I've described here is likely to continue even with the new government that excluded the Haredi parties from the coalition. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Good answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Breton duke

Who was the last duke of Brittany to speak Breton (not Gallo)? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't Brittany a county? Should you ask, who was the last comte to speak Breton?
Sleigh (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If Brittany wasn't a duchy, why do we have an article titled "Duchy of Brittany"? Gabbe (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This book says "Apart from the colloquial Breton that she spoke with her nurse, Anne, like all upper-class Bretons, was fluent in formal" - so Anne of Brittany for sure. That leaves Claude of France (likely, for similar reasons?), Henry II of France (unlikely) and Louis, Dauphin of France, Duke of Burgundy (even less likely) to investigate. 174.88.10.231 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't fluent in formal mean fluent in French?
Sleigh (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, especially since that book says "fluent in formal French", specifically. But do we know how different 15th/16th century Gallo was from 15th/16th French? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)