Humanities desk
< February 2	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 4 >

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 3

Veiling under Atatürk

I'm watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and I just got to the scene where Jones' friend reaches İskenderun. To my surprise, the women in the scene are veiled; is this an anachronism, or would it have been realistic? I vaguely remember reading that Atatürk outlawed the veil, but our article on him only says that he considered outlawing it. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on Atatürk's Reforms: "Another control on the dress was passed in 1934 with the law relating to the wearing of 'Prohibited Garments'. It banned religion-based clothing, such as the veil and turban, while actively promoting western-style attire". Since The Last Crusade was "set largely in 1938", I guess it was anachronistic by law. I didn't find any references on actual customs in İskenderun of 1938. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mistake any of the Indiana Jones films for documentaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not :-) thus my question is about how true to life that aspect of the movie is. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, (see my long explanation of a similar issue at WP:RDE), but historically, Iskanderun wasn't part of Turkey, formally, until 1939. So it would not have been subject to Ataturk's reforms during the Last Crusade period. See İskenderun#Republic of Hatay and French_Mandate_of_Syria_and_Lebanon#Sanjak_of_Alexandretta. During the period of the Last Crusade, the area was part of the Hatay Republic and/or French Syria (depending on the exact dates), though the many in area had long agitated for annexation to the Republic of Turkey. It is likely that the reforms of Ataturk may not have had full acceptance given the split loyatlies present and shifting political sands prior to the annexation by Turkey in 1939. --Jayron32 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson A. Boylen

Who was Nelson A. Boylen? There is a high school in Toronto named after him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.14 (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The external link from Nelson A. Boylen Collegiate Institute turns out to be a Malware site, and I have deleted it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book suggests he was a reeve of the township of North York. -- role^player 16:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David and Mary Thompson

Who are David and Mary Thompson? There is a high school named after them in Toronto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.14 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the article David and Mary Thomson Collegiate Institute explains the name. Bielle (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Presidents unpopularity

Why is it that George W. Bush is so universally hated-especially in Europe, yet Richard Nixon, who was thoroughly detested in the US, is rarely mentioned? As for LBJ, likely the man responsible for the thousands of Vietnam War casualities, there is hardly a bad word levelled against his name. I find this bizarre? It's easy to say the war in Iraq is to blame, but I'd say the media is largely the culprit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time. That is all. Public opinion about a President during (or shortly after) his term has little correlation with public opinion about him much later. If you want a very extreme anecdote (and if you will allow me to over-generalize for humor's sake), consider this: A President calls up as many men as possible to go to war. The war is not popular. The general public has no interest in fighting it. The President appears to have no idea how to go to war as is demonstrated by not even planning ahead to have room for the new troops to sleep when they arrive for service. The war drags on and on. Far too many people die. Everyone hates it, but sticks with the President for the simple reason that they hope he will figure out how to get out of stupid mess. Then, the President is finally assassinated. Many many many years later, he is considered the absolute best President that ever was or ever will be. Go figure. -- kainaw ™ 14:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One big difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War is that the Vietnam War was already happening when the U.S. got involved, while the Iraq War was initiated by the U.S. Thus the Iraq War is seen as a war of aggression on the part of the U.S., while the Vietnam War (however ill-conceived) isn't. That could play a big role in the difference between Johnson's and Bush Jr's unpopularity in Europe. As for Nixon, Watergate was a purely U.S.-internal affair that had no impact on Europe, so it didn't influence his popularity much there either. Kainaw's point that Bush is more recent in people's memories is of course important too. Finally, when Johnson and Nixon were president, people in Western Europe couldn't afford to be too anti-American, because in the Cold War the U.S. was clearly the lesser of two evils. Nowadays it's easier to be critical of U.S. foreign policy without seeming to be pro-Communist. Pais (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to claim that "The Vietnam War" was "already happening" when Johnson's and Nixon's policy decisions resulted in tens of thousands of US combat deaths and many times that of Vietnamese deaths. Granted, Eisenhower had refused to allow national elections in Vietnam in the late 1950's, because Ho Chi Minh would have won a national election as surely as George Washington did in the US in 1788, but there was very limited US involvement and very low grade conflict after the French lost at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, while trying to reassert colonialism after WW2. There were only a few US advisors in Vietnam when Johnson escalated involvement by sending combat troops in 1965. Nixon continued the involvement and escalated before executing an exit strategy akin to George Aikin's recommendation to "Just announce we've won, and leave", finally allowing the corrupt puppet regime in Saigon to collapse in the 1970's. Edison (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-war demonstrations against US involvement in Vietnam, however, were far more vitriolic than the recent ones against the Iraq War.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Americans demonstrated against the Vietnam War mostly because they did not want to get drafted to go there and get shot. There is no longer a US draft, thus the motivation to protest is less. Edison (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of US Vietnam War protestors were university students who were already exempted from the draft.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Many students lost their student deferments for various reasons. You graduate? You get drafted. Flunk out? Get drafted. Edison (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the war itself was highly unpopular (both in the U.S. and in Europe), but Bush is seen as more to blame for the war in Iraq than Johnson was to blame for the war in Vietnam, because Johnson didn't start the war in Vietnam, and Bush did start the war in Iraq. Pais (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To give this some historical perspective... Lincoln was extremely unpopular during his term in office (not just in the Southern States - his re-election in 1864 was hardly a forgone conclusion). Today he is one of the most revered Presidents.

Also, I think it is inaccurate to characterize G.W. Bush as being "universally hated". Yes, there was (and continues to be) a vocal group that hated him and his polices... But there was (and continues to be) another group (even in Europe) who actually liked him, and supported his policies. In time, these factions will move on to arguing about other Presidents... and Bush's reputation will be left to the Historians. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to question the OPs claim that Nixon is rarely mentioned in Europe. To my knowledge he is generally viewed as the worst of US presidents in recent times, also by a majority of Europeans. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least he inspired some worthwhile art. Actually, I'd say Nixon is seen as a crook who managed to do some good, George II is more of an honest man who accomplished great evil. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Reagan was a crook who accomplished great evil, thus becoming one of the most popular presidents of recent history, while Carter was an honest man who managed to do some good, thus becoming one of the most unpopular. Go figure. Pais (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carter was a good man who made possibly the single stupidest Presidential decision in the last 50 years - to embrace the Shah of Iran after he was overthrown, and we're still feeling the ripple effect for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LBJ was widely respected in Europe in the mid-60s for his actions on civil rights, and as a result of the shock over JFK's death, although he certainly became less popular in 1967-68 as the Vietnam War escalated (and as mentioned above some people blame Kennedy or Robert McNamara more than LBJ for that war). George W Bush didn't do much visible good to make up for the unpopular things he did (he mainly benefited wealthy Americans, who tend not to be European): he started controversially, with the contested election and the horrible judgment of Bush v. Gore; 9/11 made him briefly more popular, but he soon squandered that, so you had almost 8 full years of infamy. Nixon, as already mentioned, was always unpopular with large sections of the American population and internationally, but had undeniable achievements from the moon landing to his visit to Mao. Watergate seemed to be a deep psychic shock for much of the USA (where the president was regarded as more than just a politician), whereas the rest of the world took it less personally, like the difference between your father doing something bad and someone else's father doing something bad.

Also, Nixon and Johnson are dead. It's less fun hating on dead people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with Bush, to Europeans, was that he apparently knew nothing, and cared even less, about the world outside the US. And as well as seeming to be ignorant, he appeared arrogant about it. Indeed, it sometimes seems that it's difficult to get votes in the US if you do show much knowledge or interest in the rest of the world. Nixon was just seen as corrupt and sleazy, but that's par for the course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've overlooked John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton who were glaring exceptions to that rule.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that arrogance, plus saying he had to invade Iraq to stop al Qaeda, which was non-existent there, didn't help Dubya's image. His public persona of a person who couldn't string a sentence together was a problem too. Note that I am talking about image here. I don't know how smart or dumb he really was, but there were far too many examples of him sounding dumb in public. (Did he have bad minders?) To have such a person as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth was scary to many. It's important too for Americans to realise that most non-Americans have little interest in internal American party loyalties, which no doubt colours Americans' views of their President, i.e. non-thinking love or hatred based on party allegiance. Those who do pay some attention see two parties both well to the right of most parties in Europe. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, appearing to be an idiot who can't manage a simple declarative sentence is no barrier to a successful political career. Remember Joh Bjelke-Petersen, HiLo48? His famously incomprehensible utterances made Dubya sound like the Laurence Olivier of politics. Yet, he was the longest-serving Premier of Queensland (19 years) and the second-longest-serving premier of any Australian state, ever. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both LBJ and RMN are somewhat tragic figures, and I think the anger at them has tempered somewhat. LBJ is a guy who desperately wanted to be loved, yet ended up being reviled. He was a great Senator, but a lousy President. The fact that he purposefully took himself out of the reelection race (and died not long afterwards) makes him feel a bit more "redeemed" than some. RMN was a wily, unpleasant, cruel, yet unarguably brilliant politician (and diplomat) whose paranoia led him to do all sorts of unnecessary "dirty tricks" for an election he would have won handily anyway. He was similarly the source of his own undoing (quite literally, in the case of making all of those exhaustive tape recordings of his conversations). If he had not done Watergate he'd be remembered as one of our most accomplished Presidents. I think people today, helped by the Frost v. Nixon style depictions of him, are more sympathetic with him than they would have been right after the 1970s. He was politically corrupt, to be sure, but it was always about power, never about money or women or the sorts of other scandals that have such a slimy air to them. At some level he must have been aware of what he was doing (who else names their re-election campaign CREEP?). Anyway, time lets us see this people as tragic, or Shakespearean, or even laudable, in ways that they were not seen at the time. FDR and JFK and Lincoln are all heros, but they were viewed with more jaundiced eyes by many of their contemporaries. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, time erases the details from memory and makes it easy to come up with summaries that are flawed. Johnson "purposefully took himself out of the reelection race" not for any redemption, but because Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy were stomping him in the polls and he probably would not have even won the nomination as the Democratic candidate for president. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't intend to suggest he took himself out for redemption. Just that in retrospective, it can look that way, in a tragic sense. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is as good an answer as we can expect from this forum-type of question. We can chat and opine for days, or just consider that the question has been answered. —Kevin Myers 19:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The revisionist history in the comments above are not in keeping with the traditions being developed here. Rather than throw out unsubstantiated views, please point to fact-checked articles. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACT/SAT prep

Hello again. I noticed that most ACT/SAT prep guides are focussed on raising a below-average score to average or an average score to above-average. Their tips are mostly assuming you will make mistakes and focus on "getting done in time" or "guessing effectively" (which I do not have probleme with). I can already get a very good (top 5%) score on both these tests and I want to see if I can get a perfect score (not out of any real need for college admission or anything but just to see if I can do it, as an interesting personal challenge). How would I do this kind of test prep? Are there any good guides for my situation "out there"? Thanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well speaking as someone who did get a perfect SAT score (in the verbal section only). Unless you are supremely intelligent, it is mostly luck. I took the SATs once and took PSATs (which if I recall correctly, is functionally identical) twice. I never did any serious studying. My PSAT verbal scores were in the high 700s, but when I took the real SATs I lucked out and got all questions I could answer correctly. You can increase your chance of getting a perfect score, but it is still going to come down to the questions that they ask that day. If you can score in the top 5% you could probably get a perfect score by taking the test a number of times. If that doesn't sound fun (it sure doesn't to me) then you could try studying hard (also not very fun). I can't speak for anything but the verbal section, but the real trick is to fully understand the meaning of all the words on their word list, if you can do that and you are good at taking tests, you are probably in business. A final bit of advice though: don't bother, if you don't need this for college admission. I can think of many more fulfilling personal challenges and no one really gives a damn about SAT scores outside of college admissions (and maybe sperm banks). --Daniel 17:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even college admissions doesn't split hairs over exact scores either. They use the SAT as a weeding tool, assigning students into pools based on minimum scores, and then usually having differing requirements for students in the different pools (for example, they may be looking for extenuating circumstances in students with lower scores, and very high scores may be able to help overcome a few bad grades). But if you are already in the top 5% or higher, there is nothing at all that a "perfect score" will gain you that a slightly-less-than-perfect test (say missing only 2-3 questions) wouldn't also get you. Admissions officers are well aware of the limitations of the test, and of the role that chance plays in the scoring, and you can't actually help yourself in any conceivable way by getting those last 2-3 questions right. You need to score good enough on the test. But perfection is not anything that will get you any net benefit. If you want to "go for it" just for amusement or the challenge of it, then have at it. But it isn't necessary for your college prospects. --Jayron32 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I improved my scores from the PSAT by 100 points (high 600s to high 700s) by taking a dozen or so practice tests (from those test booklets that bookstores sell (or sold), though no doubt there is now an online equivalent, since I did this 30 years ago). For the GRE, I did more practice tests and managed an 800 on the verbal part. Beyond ability and background knowledge—in my case, having been a voracious reader since the age of 6—I think practice is the key. It may not be tons of fun, but I treated the practice tests like a game, and they were mildly fun. Marco polo (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, you may find that these days ova banks care about such scores too. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Land

Hi, you know every land mass on earth like Eurasia, Africa, The Americas etc are they all like embedded in the seabed or do they just bob like a cork so they can move gradually?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 16:27, February 3, 2011

Plate tectonics has the explanation. Moving this to science reference desk. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestors of Qais Abdur Rashid

I am looking for genealogical information of Qais Abdur Rashid. It is said in Wikipedia that Qais Abdul Rashid is the 37th descendant of King Saul, but I couldn't find the genealogical ancestry tree anywhere. I would be grateful if furnished with the requested information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saying silence (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be quite legendary... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Carpenter Poetry

When I was young (50 to 60 years ago) my father read to me two poems by Edward Carpenter. One was about his body (which was doing its own unwished for activities) and his mind (which was also on its own). I cannot remember the names of these two poems. Any ideas what they are and where I might find the? 75.165.86.253 (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I'm not as familiar with Edward Carpenter's works as I should be. There are some potentially helpful links in our article (at this section), Wikisource is sadly deficient (s:author:Edward Carpenter). DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might try asking at The Edward Carpenter Forum. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first actress in Italy and Europe

Who was the first actress in Italy? By first, I mean professionall, not a woman performing temporarily in a festival or similar, and the starting point is Christina Europe, not antiquity. I have heard, that Italy was the first country in Christian Europe to allow women performing professionally on stage. The first actresses in Italy - and thereby Europe - was to have performed in travelling theatres in the 1530s. Is this correct? Can anyone verify this? When was the first actress noted to have performed, which year and where? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article (which is used as a reference at the Wikipedia article Actor) reports on an unnamed woman as an actress in Venice in 1611. While not strictly considered "plays", that same article also reports women appearing in Masques in England during the reign of Henry VIII and says that such practice came from Italy, Spain, and Portugal and proposes that it is likely that women appeared in Masques in those locales as well. You can read the article yourself for more background on the history of women as actresses. --Jayron32 21:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Aciram (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empress Theodora was an actress (or an "actress", which probably included prostitution). So was her mother, and this was the 5th/6th century, so well into the Christian era. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but she seem to have been a dancer and entertainer rather than an actress, and in any case, Byzantium had a completely different cultural history from Western Europe. I should have specified that, though. --Aciram (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first known Italian professional actress was Donna Lucrezia of Siena, who signed a contract in 1564, but France is known to have had actresses as early as 1545. [1] [2]. In the 12th century Hildegard of Bingen wrote Ordo Virtutum, a play intended to be performed by the nuns in her German convent. Hrotsvitha (c. 935 - c. 1002) was another dramatist nun, but I believe her works weren't actually performed in her time. --Antiquary (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nuns was not professional actors, but those links was very helpfull, thank you very much! --Aciram (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never really thought about it before, but would mystery plays have had female actors? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember there where women acting in some of the religious plays in the middle ages, but they where local women doing this temporarily and not proffessionals. --Aciram (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italy wasn't a unified country until the 1850s or 1860s, so technically, you could have a first Venetian actress in 1611 say, or a First Milanese actress, but you can't have an Italian actress until unification. Googlemeister (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very well aware of that. It does not seem that anyone had a problem to undestand my meaning. --Aciram (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The appearance of women in masques should remind us of the separate cultural history of masque and theater.--Wetman (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

history

So, when did the iron age end? I know, it stops being used as a description once better documented and understood civilizations appeared to name the eras after, but other than that, when did iron stop being the most popular material for making tools and such like, and what replaced it? Steel? Aluminium? Plastic? Something else? Or is it still?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Iron Age. There's likely to be some good information there. --Jayron32 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those too lazy - the term "Iron Age" is a way of categorizing pre-historic societies. To qoute the article linked above; "The Iron Age in each area ends with the beginning of the historical period, i.e. the local production of ample written sources. Thus, for instance, the British Iron Age ends with the Roman Conquest." So people didn't stop using iron, we just know a lot more about them and can give them more accurate descriptions. Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To see some of the regional variety following the three age system, take a look at list of archaeological periods. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "plastic age" is used occasionally, by the way, but I don't think it's a scholarly term for a historical period. We don't have an article on it (only on a novel, film, and song of the same name). I guess atomic age is somewhat similar to stone, bronze, and iron, in that it refers to technology. The articles on history of technology and timeline of materials technology might interest you as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iron is still the most popular material for making tools and parts. Mainly because it's quite abundant (so cheap) and it's very strong. Plastic is used where wood used to be used, but it's rare for it to be structural. Concrete is probably second. (When did the concrete age begin?) I read somewhere that iron and concrete are by far the two most studied materials. Ariel. (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 3

Contents