Humanities desk
< March 1	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 3 >

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.

March 2

Turkmenistan

Who controlled what is now Turkmenistan in 1066?Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I infer from the Turkmenistan article that it would have been the Seljuk Empire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of northern Turkmenistan wasn't controlled by the Seljuks. At the time, that little northern sliver was probably under the control of various Turkic petty states, probably Oghuz Turks from who modern Turkmen people evolved. --Jayron 32 01:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since the OP seems to be picking through every country in the world and it's state in 1066, here: File:East-Hem 1100ad.jpg is a map of Eurasia and Africa in 1100AD, which is about as close as we're going to get to a complete map in exactly 1066. --Jayron 32 01:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla Coke

When was Vanilla Coke Zero made and released? Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere around 1066. Or, check out Coca-Cola Vanilla. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. (No,really.)Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, check out the article. As Prego would claim "It's in there!". Dismas|^(talk) 11:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, that just says "2007-present". When's that? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it actually means present. You never know with Wikipedia sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You never know ... sometimes: What a strange language we have! That reminds me of the playground exchange between a teacher and a distressed child:

Why are you crying, Mary?
Julie's horrible to me! We're playing fiddle-de-dee but she always never lets me have a turn. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it did sound a bit dumb. But sort of true. With a busy, popular article, it's safer to assume we know. Something that hasn't been in the news for a while tends more toward getting outdated. But strictly speaking, nobody never knows nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aunts ...

Is it possible to be sexually attracted to your first cousin, half sibling or an aunt? If so, how rare is it? Also whats the correct terminology for individuals who harbour such feelings? I have thought about incestophiles, incesters, cousincest, incestophilia and siblingcest but am unsure. 89.242.85.248 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just sexual attraction, but cousin marriage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also accidental incest. If you were closely related to Mariah Carey or Brad Pitt, the word would be "normal". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Book of Common Prayer is a Table of Kindred and Affinity showing those that the Church of England thinks should not marry each other. The fact that they found there was a need for a list suggests that it's not a rare issue. Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to tell me that if your sister or aunt looked like Jessica Alba it would be normal to be excited? 89.242.85.248 (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual attraction, or lack of it, between close-ish relatives is partly determined by how unfamiliar, or familiar, they were with each other while growing up: see Westermarck effect. I recall reading that kibbutzim who, though unrelated, were raised together communally like siblings, tend to feel sexually attracted to one another no more that actual siblings do on average. Conversely, siblings (or other close relatives) raised with little contact in childhood are more likely to feel mutual sexual attraction that if they had shared an upbringing: see, as a dramatised example, the play/film 'Tis Pity She's A Whore. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, familiarity breeds disgust, not children. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the general biological concepts of kin recognition, and inbreeding avoidance. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence of Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia

The Wiki article on Maria Alexandrovna states "Queen Victoria granted her precedence immediately after the Princess of Wales." The Wiki article on her husband, Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, says that she was "She was surprised to discover that she had to yield precedence to the Princess of Wales and all of Queen Victoria's daughters". As the wife of the sovereign's second son, surely she would have automatically been entitled to a position in the order of precedence after the Princess of Wales and before the queen's daughters, without the need for the queen to "grant" her this? Sotakeit (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the default order (see this site) is Wife of eldest son > Daughters > Wives of younger sons, but the monarch can always change the order. At the moment, the theoretical order should be Camilla > Anne > Sophie, but Camilla and Sophie have been downgraded to come after Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and Alexandria. Incidentally, our article Order of precedence in England and Wales disagrees quite radically with Debrett's (here) - perhaps a matter for the talk page? Tevildo (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple orders of precedence (that of Scotland, e.g., differs from that of England): That in which Camilla Parker Bowles follows the lowest-ranked of those born princess of the Blood Royal (Princess Alexandra) in 2005 (when Camillia wed Charles) implicitly demoted those who are princesses only by marriage (e.g. Sophie, Countess of Wessex and, now, Kate, Duchess of Cambridge) but is applicable only "at court", i.e. en famille. On ceremonial occasions which occur beyond the walls of a royal palace (Parliament, weddings, funerals, Ascot, etc.) her rank remains the same as that of her predecessor, Diana (while married). As for Maria Alexandrovna, the confusion is anachronistic, because post-19th century observers deem her birth style as the daughter of an emperor, Her Imperial Highness, to be superior to her marital style as the wife of a queen's younger son, Her Royal Highness. Those same observers then presume that style is always indicative of rank: By that logic, Maria Alexandrovna was "demoted" to mere royal rank from imperial rank, a presumably incongruous and unexpected humiliation. In fact, in royal protocol style and rank did not (and do not) always correlate, i.e. nobody (in Europe) considered that the children of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil or Emperor Meiji of Japan or, for that matter, Tsar Alexander II of Russia actually outranked the children of the Queen on whose Empire the sun never sat. If this had been a matter of concern, it would have been quietly ironed out by diplomats before the wedding or, if deemed a matter of serious protocol, clarified officially in the wedding treaty signed by the UK and Russia prior to the nuptials. But it wasn't, because at the time everyone knew perfectly well (or should have) that the wife of the British monarch's younger son took precedence not only after Queen Victoria and Alexandra, Princess of Wales, but after all five of Victoria's daughters, as well (contrary to popular notion, the wives of the British sovereign's sons have always ranked after the sovereign's daughters, except the Princess of Wales; exactly as the daughters of every peer rank before their brothers' wives, except the wife of the eldest). Now if your question is did Maria Alexandrovna, having been the Tsar's only daughter of six children, enjoy her relatively low precedence once she landed in London and experienced it -- the overwhelming consensus is no, she hated it, just as she hated everything about the bourgeois Court of St James's. But there was nothing unexpected about it, so authors nowadays make of it a tempest in a teapot. FactStraight (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand

What wikipedia articles should I read to get a good idea of the political history of Thailand? Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How far back do you want to go? We have History of Thailand, but also things like History_of_Thailand_(1932–73), which covers that period in more detail. List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Thailand doesn't have much writing on political history per se, but it has lots of links to relevant articles like Siamese_coup_d'état_of_1933 and Khana_Ratsadon. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to go as far back as possible, and then from there to the present day.Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Start with History of Thailand and see where that takes you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the obvious (but since nobody else has linked it), I'd also recommend reading Politics of Thailand, although the tags at the top would seem to indicate some people feel the article may have some issues.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 09:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do any U.S. politicians, think tanks or pressure groups advocate unrestricted immigration from Mexico to the U.S.?

Or failing that, any academics, or anyone noteworthy? Willy turner (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of relevant links here. Marco polo (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Willy turner (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a book "Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders" by Jason L. Riley (ISBN 978-1-592-40349-3), though I'm not sure how influential he is... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many (most?) libertarians, e.g. the Future of Freedom Foundation. —Tamfang (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good careers for people who enjoy helping others

What's a good career for people who enjoy helping people and being a leader? Is operations and customer services management good? Or is charity work better? Clover345 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charity has the potential to really put the "customer" first, while for a "customer service" worker, the real goal is only to make the customer think you are putting them first, while ripping them off: "We want you to believe your call is important to us, although obviously it isn't, or we would hire enough staff to answer in a timely manner".

Of course, there are also many bad charities out there, who spend most of their money on a high CEO salary, etc. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you name one, and state its total budget and percentage of that spent on the CEO's salary, please? --Viennese Waltz 07:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're seeking to make a point, Viennese Waltz, you're being a little disingenuous. The majority of the "bad charities" that largely fund their CEO's salary are basically one-man-band outfits, and their names only appear in small print in the newspaper, generally when the charity is being wound up by the regulators. Whilst the larger and more well-known charities sometimes pay ludicrous salaries to the senior executives (see here for a well-known example) these are smaller as a proportion of turnover. Among the smaller charities, I believe there is one that will be well-known to editors who are regular commuters on the London Underground that turned out to be mostly paying the wages of the man with the collecting tin. I'm also aware of one medium-sized and very well known London charity that was, in effect, taken over by the chief executive and his wife; they paid themselves very handsomely, and transferred substantial charitable assets to themselves. (For obvious legal reasons I'm not going to name names.) RomanSpa (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not seeking to make a point. I'm asking StuRat to come up with a source for his assertion. I'm not holding my breath, put it that way. --Viennese Waltz 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd blow anyone's mind by pointing out that Susan G. Komen for the Cure is also Susan G. Komen for the money. And Susan G. Komen for the "public health education". Did you hear breast cancer is bad, and has to do with breasts? Do you know you can ask your doctor about breasts?

"At Susan G. Komen, our mission is pretty simple: to save lives and end breast cancer forever. How we do it...well, that’s a bit more complex." (Tip: See how much it spends on treatment.) InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the necessary faith, you can have a career in evangelism (Matthew 9:37, 38), and support yourself financially with work that is adequate for your needs (Acts 18:3). Then you can store up treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:19, 20, 21) and experience happiness from giving (Acts 20:35). However, it is important to avoid counterfeit organizations (Matthew 21, 22, 23).

—Wavelength (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your post mentions the words "good" and "better", which could be understood in various senses (emotional, financial, spiritual, and so forth). You may wish to consult the Occupational Outlook Handbook.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC) and 04:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though there are a few bad apples, in my experience the great majority of MPs (of all parties) are decent, honest people who enjoy at least some aspects of their constituency work, which is largely about helping people, particularly where their lives are affected by government. Most also seem to gradually develop an interest or specialisation in one or two areas of government or national policy, and provide leadership within those areas. Are they unimpeachably perfect? Obviously not, and they have their worries about their pensions and their egos to be massaged, just like people in any job, but in my experience a very high percentage have a strong impulse towards public service. RomanSpa (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot go into politics with big dreams and good hearts, but the system has ways of stifling that and jading them. Not particular to Canada or even politics. Doctors, teachers, police and humanitarians all eventually stop giving a shit, or care too much about things they can't change. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "some" or even "many" would be more accurate than "all eventually stop giving a shit". Some of us still care - I don't directly fit into any of the categories above, but do work long hours for below average wages for a charity because I know I make a difference. Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was an "or" after that. Caring about things you can (and do) change doesn't preclude you from also having troublingly unrealistic pipe dreams. Everyone has those, in a #SaveTheWhales sort of way, but actually getting to work means having to see actual eyes, and getting emotionally invested. If the whales die, they'll #SaveSomethingElse, but when real acquaintances and friends die, it's a tougher pill to swallow. The less we put in, the less the job takes out.

If you know all the caring in the world will hurt you more than it helps the doomed, and won't do a thing for the helpable, you'll either need to stop caring to help efficiently, or stop helping anyone to save yourself from feeling like a failure.

Care's good, but it's always too much if it's never enough. Thanks for doing what you can! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai

I went for a holiday last summer to Dubai and the weather is extremely hot. However the workday is strangely during the day which results in an enormous amount of energy being spent on cooling systems. Changing the working hours to the evening and nights would result in cheaper energy consumption, so why don't they change their working hours? 89.242.81.32 (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because people are generally more productive working during the day and sleeping at night. --Jayron 32 01:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

89.242.81.32 -- Traditionally many Mediterranean societies have had a long mid-day siesta, which cuts down on work during the hottest hours. AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]