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

Princess Kate?

the majority of the time, her name is spelled with a "K" - either Kate or Katherine. Did it change to a "C" with her new title? I read your article on her and says she was born Catherine (with a "C"). Why did news media - TV, magazines, internet, etc. spell her name with a "K"? I still see it that way - except for your article. Thanks for clarification. Barbara Batson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.240.187.67 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC) I removed your email address. You really don't want the sort of spammers that hang round here!--TammyMoet (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most common and traditional English spelling practice is that the name "Catherine" becomes "Kate" as a nickname... By the way, according to UK royal protocol, someone who marries a prince is not actually entitled to be called "Princess X" (where X is her given name). AnonMoos (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember hearing that as a quibble against the locution Princess Di. I think very few people really care about that detail of protocol. (I'm entirely in favor of not caring about that; what I don't quite get is why they care about royalty at all.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, technically she can be "Catherine, Princess" or "Princess William" (believe it or not), but not "Princess Catherine"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine or Katherine can both be shortened to Katie, Kate or Katy (in order of popularity) - the C spellings for any of those forms are quite rare in the UK, even though "Catherine" is more common than "Katherine". "Kathy" and "Cathy" are about equally common - the latter seems to be the only widespread short form starting with C. Shimgray | talk | 00:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional nicknames are not always straightforward shortenings. You have other such nicknames as "Bill" for William, "Harry" and "Hank" for Henry, "Peggy" for Margaret, "Betty" for Elizabeth, "Sly" for Sylvester, "Stosh" for Stanley, "Jack" for John, etc. etc. The Kate/Catherine things seems pretty close, in comparison. --Jayron32 00:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cate Blanchett is the only one I can think of that retained the "C" from Catherine instead of switching it to "K". Meanwhile, there is a small collection of English names where, for some odd reason, they shorten it to one syllable, and change the first letter: Edward-Ed-Ned/Ted; Margaret-Meg-Peg; Mary-Molly-Polly; Robert-Rob-Bob; William-Will-Bill; and maybe a few others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you google [meaning of name katherine] you'll find endless references and also many variations, as it's an ancient and very common name throughout Europe. It comes from a Greek name, and supposedly means "pure". Although they don't quite come out and say it, it seems that the original pronunciation is more like "kat-her-in" than the modern "kath-er-in", and that probably accounts for "Kate" as opposed to "Kathe", for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name is related to catharsis which in Greek is spelt with a θ. Hence, the th should not be separated. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't. See Katherine (given name)#Origin and meaning. It's from Greek Aikaterinē. The Cath- and Kath- spellings are due to a folk etymology associating the name with katharos 'pure'. Countries in the cultural sphere of Eastern Orthodoxy still use forms unaffected by the folk etymology, like Modern Greek Aikaterini, Romanian Ecaterina, and Russian Yekaterina. Pais (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. Etymology is a dangerous field... --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Kate...short for Bob. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Bobbed for short. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop is making a reference to Blackadder for those not familiar with British TV humour.

I imagine the name's popularity in the west goes back to Saint Catherine of Alexandria of the Catherine wheel (firework) fame. There are a number of other St. Catherines but she seems to be the best known at least in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine or Catherine traditionally. K with an A, or C with an E. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danish-Norwegian elections

When was the Christian II of Denmark, Frederick I of Denmark, Frederick II of Denmark, Christian IV of Denmark, Frederick III of Denmark elected Kings of Denmark and Norway? We can guest they succeed upon their father's death, but the two kingdoms were election. Can someone give me the exact dates of their elections? And would Christian II and Frederick I have seperate elections?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Biographical Lexicon says the election of Christian II took place July 22 1513 on a common Danish-Norwegian meeting of the lords. Regarding Frederick I, the same source says that a common uprising in Jutland caused his election at Viborg Thing as king, where a preliminary håndfæstning was drawn up March 26 1523, and this was accepted at Roskilde Thing August 3 same year. His coronation took place August 7 1524, but it says that following this the "Norwegian Rigsråd also elected him as king". Christian IV was already chosen as heir by the Herredag in Odense in April 1580. In 1584 he was on a tour in the different provinces to recieve a jubilation (and thus a kind of confirmation) as heir. Frederick III was not favoured by the Rigsraad and it took several months after the death of his father before he finally managed, in "the first days of May 1648" to become elected as king, I presume in Copenhagen in a common Danish-Norwegian meeting, but it doesn't say. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Girls with guns

What is the point in making a distinct film genre called Girls with guns? I mean what is so special with a girl carrying guns? If it is because in the past girls generally did not carry guns/were considered weak, then why there is no counterpart for boys, say "Boys with dolls" or "Boy babysitter" films? --Eaon flux (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many are there, aside from Brokeback Mountain and Mr. Mom? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because girls with guns are a popular male fantasy and lots of guys think that girls with guns are hot, while you'll have to search a while longer to find women who get hot and bothered by the thought of boys with dolls. Dismas|^(talk) 08:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to search far for women with that fantasy on the internet. I would argue that the moment a girl becomes a soldier, she becomes a woman. The strength of character of the soldiers of local forces, coastal defence, and anti-aircraft in the People's Liberation Armed Forces and People's Army of Vietnam is notable; especially given their logistic and operational problems. So I'd argue there's a dissonance in effect here in the desire for girls with guns. Women with guns would be far too threatening. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Croft came to mind as a modern strong woman. I wouldn't say "Women with Guns" is threatening, but definitely more serious. "Girls with Guns" somehow implies a combination of youthfulness, naivete, strength, attractiveness and heroism. Many fictional heroes tend to be young and relatively innocent. As you suggest, "Women with Guns" can be the real-life heroes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've known a number of Gen-X women who prefer to be called "girls". Why? "Because 'women' are old!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of James Bond movies (i.e. most of them) have girls with guns, although that's obviously not the main focus (most of the time, anyways). That's obviously an attempt at the combination Baseball Bugs describes above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better yet, with a crossbow. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has commons:Category:Females with weapons... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Conservative Party

What is the position of the Canadian Conservative Party on economic issues such as 1. tax reduction, 2. social security, 3. healthcare, 4. public education? --Reference Desker (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Party of Canada has some info. Their website has a link to their policy (and a link to a longer PDF file for more in-depth policy).

Thanks. --Reference Desker (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-pornographic cover of a pornographic video

During the 1970s child pornography was legal in Denmark (see Pornography in Denmark, Color Climax Corporation). If the cover of a legally produced video of child pornography was not itself pornographic, and was available under a free license, would it be likely to be legal for the WMF to host this image for use in an article?

I am only asking whether we could host such an image, not whether we should. The latter question would depend on the exact image and it's relevance to the article - I don't even know whether such an image exists (although as some adult pornography videos have non-pornographic covers it is theoretically possible) so the latter question is unanswerable.

This question is inspired by Talk:Child pornography#images where someone asked why we don't have images to illustrate that article. The reason being that nobody has found an image that is both legal and relevant. This question is wondering whether this hypothetical image would be legal as it might be relevant (we can't know the latter without knowing whether such an image exists). Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question that Wikimedia's lawyers would have to answer. However, I think you are correct in taking the cautious approach here. It is safer to assume that adding the image would be illegal... unless you have competent legal advice that says it legal. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time imagining that a non-pornographic image could be regarded as pornographic (legally or otherwise) just because the contents of the media it was sold on were themselves pornographic. But I am not a lawyer, and child pornography laws are notoriously squirrelly. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question is so specific that it qualifies as a legal advice question, not a legal information question, so you're going to have to ask a lawyer; presumably, the lawyers of the Wikimedia Foundation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a huge brouhaha on this and other matters at Commons:Sexual content (which in the end had little result). Because the status quo favors a regime of censorship which is anathema in every other context, there are some very strange wrinkles to it. For example, Commons has a large number of images by Guglielmo Plüschow, a Victorian era photographer, which are apparently museum pieces and discussed as fine art. It turns out that the Victorian era was quite laid-back on sexual matters, so it was not uncommon for little boys to swim in the nude, nor seen as improper for Pluschow to photograph them; and when he was convicted of common procuration and seduction of minors it meant only a few months in jail. So - despite clear assertions in major court cases to the contrary - Wikipedia now finds itself in the position of serving up images that in other contexts would very likely be called child pornography, showing genitals of young boys, taken by a pedophile, because it has clear historical and artistic significance. And given that Larry Sanger's FBI investigation didn't lead to any prosecutions, it would appear that the government either accepts that, or at least, is afraid that a court presented with the case might finally extend the First Amendment's Maginot line all the way to the sea. There was also a dispute mentioned there involving a Virgin Killer album cover. But I've never heard of a an image being illegal simply by association - see Traci Lords, for example. Wnt (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama photo

Another question. Uncyclopedia has a photo of Obama which says it was taken during Europe visit. I want to know exactly where and when the photo was taken. --Reference Desker (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 2009 G8 summit, in L'Aquila, Italy. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It made all the news outlets in the US when it happened. See this Google search for "Obama Sarkozy girl". It was at the G8 conference, if I'm not mistaken. Dismas|^(talk) 12:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) [1]. TinEye is great for this kind of question. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This video shows the context of the entire "event". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not reinforcing bad behavior

If a child/grown up child starts screaming, crying, demanding something, ... you don't want to reinforce this behavior, however, at some point in the future, you'll give some gift, prize or whatever to this person. How much do you have to wait, so that the persons understands that you are not reinforcing his behavior? Quest09 (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That depends entirely on the maturity of the child. Dismas|^(talk) 13:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't time. It is the context. I can take my screaming son out to the car and make him sit in his carseat until he stops crying. Then, I can buy him a toy for staying right next to me while I shop for groceries just a little while later. From a child's perspective, time really doesn't exist. Everything is right now. So, there is no real confusion. -- kainaw ™ 13:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that "time doesn't exist", but the time gap needed is very short for young children, and steadily gets longer as they age. For a toddler, a few minutes is usually enough. For a teenager, perhaps a few days (also depending on the severity of the infraction). Or, another way to handle it is that the child is forgiven once they apologize and make amends. If your kid breaks another kid's toy in a fit of rage, then he is forgiven once he apologizes and gives the kid his toy as a replacement. Thus, at this point, you can continue to provide "rewards". StuRat (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that children learn from you. Don't think about this from the child's perspective: If you are giving something to the child as a tool to get the child to behave, the child will learn from your attitude that this is normal behavior (s/he does things that make you give him/her things so that s/he'll do other things). On the other hand, if you are clear about boundaries (giving the child things when you decide it's correct to do so, and not allowing the child's behavior to dictate your actions) the child will learn to interact with you rather than demand things from you. It takes time - learning social interaction skills is an incredibly complex task for a child, and they will do it wrong for a long time - but you need to be consistent about modeling the kind of behavior you want to see in your child, because the child will learn more by watching you than you can possibly imagine. --Ludwigs2 18:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it called "rewarding bad behavior", which at the child level is equivalent to the adult-level approach called "appeasement". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background of homophobic violence - studies?

Hi, I have often wondered about anti-gay violence, and the Wikipedia article on the subject isn't much help.

Secularists tend to blame religion - but what percentage of "gay bashers" in western countries are actually religiously motivated?? (I'm talking about those who commit assaults, not merely those holding anti-gay attitudes or engaging in discriminatory conduct). And of these, which religions? How many are motivated by Christianity, for example, compared to, say, Islam? The Wikipedia article mentions anti-gay violence by Christians in Africa, but I've almost never heard of this phenomenon in the western world (other than perhaps fringe ideologies like the Phineas Priesthood). Can someone point me to research on this question?

Distorted ideas of masculinity also seem to feature in the popular perception. What does the research have to say on this matter? I've also read that some men will abuse lesbians whom they perceive as rejecting their sexual advances. Dunno how often they turn violent, though.

Some abusers are clearly motivated by "personal" grievances. "Honour killings" in conservative societies, discovering one's child is gay, having "gay" as a surname (in one case) and being bitter about it, having suffered sexual abuse as a child by an adult of the same sex, mental illness making one believe they are doing "god's work" by killing homosexuals, etc, etc. How many "gay bashers" fall into this category?

Are there any other motives which feature prominently in such violence?

Note: I'm not moralizing, just asking for facts - so please don't flame me. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for other motives, it is often claimed that a fair portion of anti-gay violence is perpetrated by men who are gay themselves but highly closeted. On the one hand, they resent men who are comfortable with being openly gay (since the bashers themselves are not comfortable with it); on the other hand, they want to deflect suspicion from themselves as much as possible by being so clearly anti-gay that (they hope) no one would ever dream of thinking they might be gay themselves. (I'm getting mixed up with my pronouns here, I hope you can follow me.) I don't have any sources or refs for any of this, sorry, but it's another angle to look at when researching the motivations of anti-gay violence. Pais (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always felt it odd that straight men would hate gay men; by being gay, aren't they increasing the pool of available women? --Golbez (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to it than that. Straight men know what filthy things they themselves think about women, and it terrifies them that other men might be thinking the same things about them. —Angr (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Western societies, I don't think religion is often the primary motivation. Instead, personal insecurities are, I think, usually the primary motivation for violence, as ~~Golbez~~ Pais suggests. However, I think that homophobic religious teachings do allow some queerbashers to have the feeling that their actions are righteous and somehow sanctioned by God or their church. Here are some references to research on motivations: [2] [3] [4]. Here is a bibliography. A relevant Wikipedia article is Karen Franklin. Marco polo (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was the one who mentioned personal insecurities. And I guess I'm displaying mine now by writing this... Pais (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Sorry, Pais. I missed the signature between those two posts. Marco polo (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I doubt the OPs claim that "Secularists tend to blame religion" holds water, especially, but not exclusively, since a lot of secularists are theists (you might benefit from reading secularism). --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A classic example would be mistreatment in Soviet prisons, where religion would at least not obviously be a factor - see thief in law. As we see with American kosher laws against horse, dog, and cat meat, it is possible for people to develop apparently religious taboos in the absence of religion, or even when their religion expressly contradicts it. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on Wnt's last sentence above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably has as much to do with "machismo" or male "pack" behavior as anything. In that approach, anyone who is seen as "unmanly" or "different" (i.e. the broader definition of "queer") is not to be trusted. The ever-politically-incorrect George Carlin once said that in his day, "faggot" meant simply an "unmanly" man. Or as he put it, "A fag was someone who wouldn't go downtown and help beat up queers." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the 18th century, an "effeminate" man was one who dressed up to attract women. In Roman times, an effeminate man was one who loved his wife! --NellieBly (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the historians on Pompey the Great. Pompey was accused of effeminacy during his lifetime specifically because of his love for Julia, Caesar's daughter; the belittling ridicule he experienced from the popular party embittered him and may have contributed to his break with Caesar after Julia's death. As for the 17th and 18th centuries, I would suggest some further reading about Beauclerk, Rochester, Swift, or even Pepys (he's early but still). Sober dress may be associated with masculinity these days, but before early Victorian times it was associated with poverty, disinterest in society (including women), and lazy slobbiness. This is old hat among historical costumers, though, and nothing to be shocked over or demand extra confirmation. I'm sorry, but that's like putting a {{cn}} tag on the assertion that men wore wigs. --NellieBly (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the "pack" thing is that there is a lot of "conformism" in what might be called "straight male culture", and if someone doesn't conform they're considered "odd", to say the least. Gays may wishfully think that straight men are secretly closeted. I think it has more to do with non-conformity. Specifically, "Why are you acting like a girl?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While some gay men do sometimes engage in wishful thinking that certain straight men are merely closeted, that wishful thinking is virtually never applied to the ones who are beating us up. —Angr (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who would beat up gays are probably violence-prone in general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but do they go seeking out people from other minority groups who are minding their own business, with the specific aim of beating them up? Racist violence often happens too, but is there any evidence the people who do that are the same people who commit homophobic violence? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They might or they might not. It depends on who they feel like targeting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to about 4 minutes into this clip,[5] which in a way speaks to one of the theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motives for assaulting a gay man: "I'm a straight guy. He came on to me, and I was so surprised/disgusted/etc that I lost control and attacked him." (Do we have an article on this defence?) Another motive is even more gruesome and banal: showing off, as in the so-called Clockwork Orange queerbashing in Trafalgar Square, in the middle of London. Guardian story here:

David Pollard cannot help thinking about the ease with which abuse can turn to violence.

"When it's extreme, there's an assumption that the people behind it wanted it to be extreme on that occasion," he says. "But I think the distinction that's being made is perhaps incorrect. These things are often only less violent than they could be because the people involved don't have something sharp on them. It's the recklessness of it."

BrainyBabe (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the more extreme cases happened in connection with the Jenny Jones talk show. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BrainyBabe -- that's the so-called "gay panic defense"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History Of Harold E Monser

I have a Bible of 1910 Author Harold E Monser. It is Cross Reference Variorum Edition. American Standard Version. I am trying to find out the History of the Author and my Bible. This is not a school project. Thank you for your time. 71.59.154.147 (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever Harold E. Monser was, he isn't the author of the Bible you have. Where do you see his name in the book? You can find out more about this translation in our article American Standard Version. Pais (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was the editor-in-chief of the Cross-Reference Bible. You can find a little about him here. --Antiquary (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more concise info here. His dates were 1868 - 1918. He gets a brief mention in Wikipedia at Logos International Study Bible. Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the ASV is not generally remembered as one of the better or more useful efforts in Bible translation... AnonMoos (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did the original authors tell you that?DOR (HK) (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)]][reply]

You can look at the comments I added to Talk:American Standard Version#Criticisms back in 2008. In short, there were certain technical problems, which were not compensated for by any very notable gain in lucidity or literary quality over the KJV... AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4th Avenue?

The source for Armenian communist newspaper Proletar gives its address as "407 Fourth Avenue, New York City". Would that be in Brooklyn or Manhattan? --Soman (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but I can tell you that Union_Square_(New_York_City) was a hot-bed of left-wing activities during the much of the 20th century, with left-wing bookshops etc. on the surrounding streets... AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never been to New York but Google Maps says it's in Brooklyn. Alansplodge (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Brooklyn addresses always specify the city as "Brooklyn", not "New York City". Having grown up in the area, I can say that an address giving the city as "New York" almost always refers to Manhattan. If you look at our article, Park Avenue (Manhattan), you will see that the northern end of the former Fourth Avenue in Manhattan was renamed "Park Avenue South" in 1959. I'm guessing that your source dates from before 1960. Marco polo (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion probably because "New York" means "Manhattan" and "New York City" means the Five Boroughs. But I would think that the "default value" for an address that ambiguously says "New York City" would be "New York". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No confusion necessary... looking at the source actually gives the address as "407 Fourth Avenue, New York, N.Y." (not the broader, and more potentially confusing "New York City"). In 1925 (when the source was published) an address of "New York, N.Y." always referred to Manhattan (and usually still does.) Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was actually "New York, N.Y." then it's definitely Manhattan, and hence the joke about calling the city "New York, New York" for those who didn't get it the first time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The city so nice they named it twice"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 407 Fourth Avenue/Park Ave. South, on the northeast corner of 28th Street, was the site of the once-famous Belmore Cafeteria, a popular grubby eatery seen in the movie Taxi Driver. The building was demolished in the early 1980s and now an apartment building stands there.--Cam (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the no 407 be in the same place as in 1925 or would they have shifted over the years? --Soman (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The street numbers apparently did not change with the street-name change. But I have no idea if the Belmore Cafeteria building was there in 1924, or if it was built after that.--Cam (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I googled the cafeteria name, and one of the first items that came up was this,[6] the obit of its long-time owner. It says he bought it in 1929, so presumably it was built at least a few years before then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 4