Humanities desk
< August 14	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 16 >

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.

August 15

Word

Word which covers the fact of a Nation turning against its children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.222.73 (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National or internecine filicide. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Infanticide is probably closer related; it actually covers entire cultural groups/nations practicing widespread infanticide. Filicide is usually restricted in usage to ones own biological/legal children, not children in general. --Jayron32 01:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, national filicide is national, not familial, and infanticide is the killing of infants. While the Romans practiced infanticide they would not have been described as "turning against their children."

I wonder if the OP has in mind reaction to the riots in Brtitain, the one-child policy in China, the generation burdening debt crisis in the US and the PIIGS countries, the demographic crisis of Russia, the state attacks on youth protestors in Syria or something more mundane like Iran or North Korea. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Modest Proposal? Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 02:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Englishman didn't consider the Irish their own. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were not so Gullival as to believe the proposal and Swiftly rejected it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good map of area controlled by Libyan rebels?

Resolved

Has anyone seen a in the papers or online recently a good map of the areas controlled by the libyan rebels? There seemed to be a stalemate around Misrata for a long time, but new events are ocurring in Zawiya right now, so I am wondering if the rebels have taken control of the region south of Tripoli, or is it an isolated western group that has no physical link and support from the Benghazi troops that would be attempting something a little desperate? --Lgriot (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the best I've seen. It's from a pro-rebel website, but I have no reason to doubt its veracity. (Some arbitrary amounts of desert have been given to both sides, so that's where some bias may lie.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, this is really detailed, thank you, Grandiose. --Lgriot (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Living with Victorian amenities and Old Guns (2 questions)

First question: If a man in the modern world wanted to restrict himself to only using technology, services and amenities that were available in the Victorian era, what would he need to remove/disconnect from his home? What could he still have that you might not instantly think would be Victorian? (He's not restricting himself to the average Victorian; if one single person could demonstrably have had access to a thing during the Victorian age, that'll do, even if that person was spectacularly rich or was the inventor.) What compromises would he absolutely, unavoidably have to make with the outside world? (It's almost a question in itself, but it would be awesome if anybody happens to know of an invention that is post Victorian by a very small degree - something completed within a few months of the Queen's death.)

Second question: With the man in the first question in mind; I'm looking for a type of gun that a person with only a passing knowledge of his restriction (i.e. knows from observation that he only uses really old stuff, but has never spoken to him to find out where his precise cut-off point is) might think the man would use, but which he would actually reject - ideally due to some post-Victorian innovation in the gun itself. I'm looking for a handgun here, really.

These are questions for a story I'm working on. I'm not averse to my own research so if you have any useful relevant links that would be excellent. MorganaFiolett (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No antibiotics. HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria died on January 22, 1901, and by looking at the article on 1901 in science we see that, for example, she never experienced transatlantic radio signals (Guglielmo Marconi, December 1901). The vacuum cleaner was also invented by Hubert Cecil Booth in 1901. (And Victoria never knew of the existence of okapis. Irrelevant but QI.) Any help? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, the vacuum cleaner is a good one, thank you! MorganaFiolett (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic quibble: Booth invented the mechanically-powered vacuum cleaner; manually powered vacuum cleaners (using bellows, etc) appeared in the 1860s. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.110 (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hazard a guess that the story is about a time traveller who tries to fit unnoticed into Victorian society but is exposed by an anachronistic mistake. How about he whistles the chorus "Have ye heard the brave news?" from the popular comic opera The Emerald Isle - unfortunately composed by Arthur Sullivan in 1901 a few months after Queen Victoria started decomposing. The Webley Revolver was adopted in 1887 but the better known Mk. VI version was not introduced until 1915. (Both guns are pictured in the linked article. The Mk VI is distinguished by a longer barrel.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No time travel, I'm afraid - the character lives in a modern society but wants to live with only Victorian technology. The Webley detail could, however, be absolutely perfect- it's exactly that kind of small detail I was looking for. MorganaFiolett (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a start, I would follow up on the links provided at our article about The 1900 House (a television program that centered on the same concept that you are describing). Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call - if you live in the UK, you can watch the whole series on the Channel 4 website. Otherwise, the episodes can be found on YouTube. As regards the weapon, another option might be the Mauser C96 semi-automatic pistol which was popular amongst British officers who had to buy them out of their own pockets - Churchill used one at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898. The 1896 version fired a 7.63×25mm Mauser cartridge, but the more common WWI German Army version was rechambered for the 9×19mm Parabellum round, a bullet which was first produced in 1902 and not adopted by the Germans until 1906. Alansplodge (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean live without the technology? I he allowed to use his own knowledge of recent advances to, say, culture penicillin producing fungus? Is this a test of his ingenuity or an exercise in self-denial? μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the first question: He could keep electric lights and a number of electric appliances which heat something or which have a motor. As in the 1900 house series, a bicycle and lightweight portable camera using roll film would be in keeping with the Victorian era. Disc or cylinder phonographs and player pianos would not be anachronistic. He could have a telephone, and he could have a telegraph which used a dial to summon police, doctor, cab or messenger.He could use a Remington typewriter for correspondence. Flush toilet? Sure, but some homes of that era also had an outhouse to avoid waking the household by flushing during the night. If he lived in the country, away from electric mains, he could have had a standalone acetylene lighting system which also furnished cooking gas. The kitchen might have an icebox but not a refrigerator. One odd thing that comes to mind is the lack of elastic in clothing, in general. Modern socks stay up by themselves. In 1901, he would have probably needed garters extending above the calf to hold up the socks, and elastic socks might be an anachronism. You could read the period http://www.searsarchives.com/catalogs/questions/findcatalogs.htm Sears Roebuck catalog] to find many "modern" gadgets then for sale. It is hard to prove a negative ("no one owned an electric pencil sharpener in January 1901") since some junior genius might have hooked a motor to a manual whatever, but finding something for sale does prove the existence and availability. Edison (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck finding a phone from 1900 that will work with today's system though. Googlemeister (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that telephones and electric lights were for the wealthy only in 1900. My house was built in the 1890s and you can still see traces of the gas light fittings; it has high ceilings downstairs so that the gas lamps didn't scorch the plaster (candles or oil lamps only upstairs, to avoid being gassed while asleep!). "At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, ten times more (British) homes had a gas supply than electricity". Alansplodge (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Scotland in the 1970s I rented ground-floor rooms in a house which still had wall-mounted gas light fittings connected to the supply, though the necessary mantles were no longer readily available and ceiling-mounted electric lighting had been installed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.110 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In medium sized US cities many homes were wired for electricity by 1900. Britain was a bit slower because of government policies which were less pro-utility. Some homes, in large cities, had DC, so lights and heating appliances would work, but only "universal motors" and not induction motors would work. It was common enough that it would meet the OP's criterion of at least a few people having it. A 1900 era wallphone or "candlestick" desk phone talks ok over today's phone system. I have made a call with a modern phone, then jumpered in the antique phone and talked over it, though the tone is very poor, but the ringing circuit might not work (might damage phone company equipment) and there was generally no dial for direct dialing. Spinning the crank on a phone would send out voltage which would damage phone company equipment. In the past, I have succeeded in "dialing" by rapidly clicking the switch hook the number of times equal to each digit, but errors are likely. 10 clicks (in the US) if rapid enough would get the operator, who could place calls (for a premium). A geek could build an interface which would connect a 1900 era instrument to today's phone system, with a voice controlled computerized dialler (outside the house). Could one contract with an ice company to deliver a 20 pound block of ice every so many days, for the icebox? Also, I expect he would have to disconnect the thermostatically controlled central heating system. Most homes had stoves which burned wood or coal for space heating, or they might have a furnace which burned coal or oil. A coal furnace might have had a stoker to keep it fed, or someone had to throw coal in periodically. A large building might have had a coal or oil fired boiler and steam heat. Some flats would have had a grate in the fireplace for coal. Is there still such a thing as residential coal delivery? Is a coal fire even legal(it stinks up the neighborhood and produces soot)? Oil heat would be compatible with both then and now. Edison (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's homepage says that she's British. Most UK houses had a kitchen range (a coal or coke fired oven/hob with a back-boiler for hot water). Burning ordinary coal is illegal in most larger towns since the various Clean Air Acts from the 1950s, although you can get smokeless fuel. Details here. Alansplodge (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative to researching non-fiction references, Morgana, you might also enjoy reading stories and novels set in the late Victorian period to see what contemporary authors mentioned. Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) and Arthur Conan Doyle's earlier stories and novels of Sherlock Holmes (from 1887) spring most readily to mind, but of course many other contemporary works are readily available (and out of copyright). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.110 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I can recommend Diary of a Nobody for an amusing account of the daily life of a white-collar worker in late 19th c London. You can read it online here. Alansplodge (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novels or diaries of ordinary life in a given year would in no way delineate the most advanced technology then in use. There are people today who bought a home 30 years ago or longer, furnished it, and have not "modernized" it to any large extent, except to replace things that broke. Some older or less tech-savy folks I know have never owned a computer, DVD player, video game or celphone, for instance. A diary or novelization of their life might describe technology of the early 1980's. Old technology persists for a long time. Neither of my grandfathers ever owned a TV, although TV was available. They got by with radios. Edison (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some instances such novels and stories do mention recent inventions and domestic innovations as such, and some authors were enthusiastic about such matters. Dracula, for example, makes a point of characters using typewriters in a non-commercial setting - I believe Stoker's MS of Dracula was one of the first to be submitted to a UK publisher in typewritten as opposed to handwritten form. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.70 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious question: Morgana, why does this man want to do such things? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the idea is that he and a small group of other like minded individuals believe that the rise of technology is responsible for the decline in society, so in order to save society they must reject technology; he has settled on the Victorian era as the ideal balancing point between technological advance and "civilised" behaviour so wants to use only what they had available. Others are not quite so extreme and will use stuff up to about the 1950s. The gun is a plot point that allows the protagonist to establish that the man's death is not the suicide it appears to be - because the gun that shot him is too new. MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of like secular Amish, then? I have some sympathy with the proposition: not so long ago I wrote a short piece for my literary group about how the adverts in the back of a 1938 Penguin paperback chimed very well with my own day-to-day lifestyle. I hope I/we get a chance to read your story some day. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.70 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like The Village (2004 film) by Shyamalan. Edison (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose from what I've said it sounds like it - only in my story they're living right in the heart of a very modern city, surrounded by and very aware of the technology they're rejecting.MorganaFiolett (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More like a reluctant Luddite.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parade calls

There's probably a proper name for these which would help me find a list. What are those calls which the leader of a march or parade, particularly in a military context, shouts out to give instructions? Like "Parade fall in", "eyes right", "parade halt", etc. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drill commands. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this was helpful. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political corruption

There are numerous websites that list all the corrupted politicians whether they are Republicans, Democrats. I believe they all belong in the same boat. They list all on charges and sentences but no images. If it has not been done I have accumulated over 400 images along with the details. I would appreciate any feedback on this.I don't know if anything similar like this has been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotlow (talk • contribs) 15:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you perhaps mean "all politicians in the USA that have thus far been convicted of crimes related to corruption"? That would be a much smaller category of people than "all corrupt politicians" or even "all corrupt politicians in the USA". Anyway, for each of these individuals, if you have an image of them that you can license completely freely, and if an article about the individual already exists and does not have an image, you should perhaps look into adding the image. (Some more information about licensing your images is at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries - this assumes you own the copyright to the images, for example if you yourself are the photographer. This would presumably mean that you have spent a great deal of time travelling from place to place for the purpose of meeting corrupt politicians and photographing them.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a fuzzy line. Where does a campaign contribution become a bribe? Where does legitimate fundraising cross the line into actual corruption? You first need to define what makes a corrupt politician vs. what makes a "clean" one... --Jayron32 20:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to create your own website? I'm a little confused about your goal. Falconus^{p t c} 01:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Studies about the point at which foreign nationals and their descendents become considered locals

My Wikipedia- and Google-fu is not proving very helpful so I thought I'd ask here.

I'm looking for studies about the point at which foreign nationals and their descendents 1) consider themselves to be a local and 2) are considered to be locals by the people of the host country. I'm aware that the concept of nationality and citizenship varies widely from country to country and would be interested in local, regional or worldwide studies. I've seen examples such as someone who is British by citizenship but born in France consider herself to be entirely British, and a second generation Pakistani in the UK call himself as British as anyone else born in Birmingham. Thanks in advance. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the most common definition is that you are only considered to be native if born as a citizen of that nation. In the US, for example, people may move there and become citizens, but are not allowed to become President, due to concern over divided loyalties. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking about the legal implications of citizenship, but the sociological one. In the example above the person born in France to British parents (and who holds a British passport and citizenship) does not consider herself French. In my second example the person is considered by many to be Pakistani, despite being born in the UK. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't even need to consider the international situation here. Just under 5 years ago, I moved from my state capital Melbourne to the relatively remote Gippsland. I was often told that I wouldn't be considered a Gippsland local until my family had been here for 5 generations. Trouble is, many of them were not joking. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively remote? That's only 300 km, apparently. That's not far for an Australian is it? 88.14.196.229 (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remote relative to some other part of Melbourne, for example. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Germany: no matter how many generations have passed: you are foreigner if your ascenders were foreigners, if you look like foreigner and have a foreign name. It does not matter if you were born in Germany, speak the language and hold the German passport. I suppose it has to do with the fact of a people defining themselves through blood - jus sanguinis - or place of birth - jus soli. 88.14.196.229 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know Germany? I would think that David MacAlistair, Philip Rösler or Miroslaw Klose are considered German by the vast majority of Germans. As are the scores of Kowalskis and Nowaks. 109.149.46.89 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, yes. And I know that David MacAlistair, Philip Rösler or Miroslaw Klose are exceptions. Try to think with an open mind about if Germans would still consider them Germans if they were not famous. Regarding Germans with Eastern-European names: they are certainly in many many times ethnic German who simply lived in Eastern Europe.88.8.66.196 (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Germany is not particularly different than other Western nations in this regard. Different parts of German society are more or less accepting of what they have defined for themselves as German or Non-German, and the rules for determining the difference are not universal or consistent, and broad generalizations cannot be made. And the whole point is "what makes someone an ethnic German"; which is merely circuitously defined as what ethnic Germans define as "the self" as distinct from "the other". And MacAlistair et. al. are not exceptions because they are famous; there are lots of people with non-German names who aren't famous and who other Germans consider German. --Jayron32 13:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that a third generation immigrants to the US would not be considered non-US. Equally, it is a glaring difference the recognition of Russian-Germans as being German. But, yes, I agree with you that under different environments (big/small city, other foreigner/pure German, ...) of Germany the criteria vary. 88.8.66.196 (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed very cultural. See Jus soli and Jus sanguinis. Also, in many places people can be de jure jus soli; that is legally nationals of the country they are born in, but culturally de facto jus sanguinis, that is in cultural realtity treated like foreigners. Even in the United States, which prides itself on having a strong jus soli tradition; it is really a "white European jus soli" in many places. Of course, it varies a LOT from place to place even in the U.S., but there are many examples and countexamples of people who can feel fully native in one part of the U.S., and be made to feel foreign in another. A person whose physical appearence tags them as "other" in, say, Colorado or Alabama or Minnesota could walk down the streets of New York City or San Francisco and not raise anyones eye. There is the curious case of Native Americans, who in some ways stradle a paradoxical line where they are clearly more native than anyone else on the continent, but are treated both legally and culturally as foreign. It is almost impossible to give this sort of qualitative situation any sort of hard numbers, as there are a nearly infinite number of cultural permutations in the world. --Jayron32 20:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nearly infinite". Heh. Even .0001 per cent of infinity is infinity. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Nitpicking II: It's not very cultural, it's completely cultural. 88.14.196.229 (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

There's another aspect to this, the origin of the immigrants. Some groups tend to maintain for longer than others their belief that they still belong to the place they came from. In my country, Australia, we see examples of this in support by locals for foreign teams in sports like soccer (football). THat's not going to speed up their acceptance as locals. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I suspect that the standards by which "localness" are judged vary too much between different cultures (including those within the same national society) and even individuals for any general rules of thumb to be applicable. For what it's worth, speaking as a not-necessarily typical "native Englishman", I personally would feel someone in the UK to be "local" if they spoke English publicly with a completely "native" accent, which would usually necessitate their having been born in the UK.

For example, a Pakistani whose parents had immigrated and who speaks to me in a pure Glaswegian or Mancunian accent (regardless of how they might speak to relatives in their own home) seems to me "local", whereas someone of Chinese descent whose grandparents had immigrated but who speaks with a trace of Chinese accent, or a German who has themself immigrated as an adult and retains a trace of German accent and/or phrasing, seem to me not so "local." (Contextual information, I myself have lived in Hong Kong, Manchester, Scotland and Germany, and all of those examples represent people I've actually met in the UK.)

A natural (though possibly mistaken) assumption to make is that if someone is so assimilated as to have a local accent, they are probably sufficiently familiar with local culture as to comply with it in public (even if they may not practice it in private). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.110 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on cultural assimilation and its references could be useful. 130.188.8.11 (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]