Humanities desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 17

Chicago Style Tool

Is there any handy dandy tool either through Wikipedia or another site that will generate a google book as Chicago Style much like http://reftag.appspot.com/ ?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zotero can do that for most any Web site, including Google Books, and output most any citation style - and all variations of Chicago 15 & 16th editions - you'll ever need. Firefox extension or standalone. No online tool gets details so precise for complex cites or offers you such control. Hit Google Books, press one Z to capture all metadata, right click and select Create Bibliography from item, choose Citation style and output (Note/Bibliography) to copy to clipboard (all of one click), done. Pasted output below. Integrated with Microsoft Office or Libre Office for cite while you write capability. Plus, full-fledge reference management software living in your browser always ready, free sync account for online access while away from your PC. Zotfile add on takes it to the next, stellar, level for document management, if you download PDFs and want auto-renaming. Of course it's open source.

Compare other tools to output below for Chicago 16th ed. citation style for: https://books.google.com/books?id=lUZnBgAAQBAJ

Full note, Bibliography: Mann, Thomas. The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Full note, Note: Thomas Mann, The Oxford Guide to Library Research (Oxford University Press, 2015).

Author-date - Bibliography: Mann, Thomas. 2015. The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press.

Author-date - Citations: (Mann 2015) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zotero is a bit clunky on Wikipedia citation templates, needs hand edit, but still saves plenty of time. One click to capture Google Book (Amazon, Library of Congress, WorldCat, whatever book site you like) in Zotero, right click on item, select Export Item, OK for your set default of Wikipedia Citation Template, Save. 5 clicks. Open, copy, paste. Here it is in raw form from link above:

Wikipedia Citation Template exported from Zotero:

{{Cite book| publisher = Oxford University Press| isbn = 9780199931064| last = Mann| first = Thomas| title = The Oxford Guide to Library Research| date = 2015-03-27}}

Delete MM-DD extraneous metadata Google Books tosses in, then all good.

Mann, Thomas (2015). The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199931064. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"if you want to be rich you need to go to hollywood and become an actor..."

This stupid sentence is general said in Germany, but I found out that Sha Rukh Khan is the 2. most rich actor of the world with 0,6 billion dollars. Could you explain how Sha Rukh Khan could become so rich without hollywood? Are in india so many rich Regisseurs which are booking Sha Rukh? --ZinssätzigeTargobank (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting. I can find no shortage of media sites parading that figure around, but no one explains how it was arrived at. Several groups report this is a result of their own research, but then don't explain what they actually did to get the information. Not anywhere that I could find through five minutes of googling, anyway. But curious nonetheless, considering that nearly all movies Sha Rukh Khan has been in are very low budget by American standards ($5-20 million). Though we don't know what kind of royalty deals he has made with the producers. His films typically bring in around $60 million, so if he has collected a decent cut of the profits from his ~50 films, he could easily be as rich as he is described. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can bet that the majority of the people here will have no idea who this person is.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

13:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Rukh Khan - if anyone is confused. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historical bondage

Were there any historical examples of shackled female galley slaves, wearing fetters and leg irons? --Pioneerspafeer (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source seems to indicate in a parenthetical comment that galley slaves in the Ottoman Empire were almost exclusively male. No idea on other places and times, though.--Jayron 32 18:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unlikely, inasmuch as rowing places a premium on upper body strength, so females would be at a serious disadvantage. The women would be put to other uses. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many males + few females = Trouble with a capital T. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The French used prisoners as galley slaves until 1748, but again, it seems to have been men only. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why in divorce cases women are more likely to get custody?

Why are women more likely to win custody? What is it based on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.70.25 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are the ones who gave birth to the child in the first place. Other things being equal, the bond between a child and their mother is stronger than the bond between a child and their father. The courts respect this. --Viennese Waltz 18:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if the father is the sole breadwinner and property owner, wouldn't he be able to support the kids better by providing them with a home instead of living with the mother who may be homeless or return to the house of her parents? 140.254.70.25 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement about child custody after divorce isn't universally true and talking about averages when there are vast differences in implementations is pointless and confusing [2].

But even where it is true, the reasons will depend on jurisdiction. In some places, what VW says may be a significant consideration. In others, the courts will care far more about other things, like who was the child's primary caregiver before the seperation. For various reasons, this is most commonly the mother, but in cases of a working mother and stay at home father, it generally ends up being the father.

Anyway, these sources are primarily intended to establish the primary caregiver issue, I would treat any other conclusions or statements of fact with caution but see e.g. [3] [4] [5]

Note also, the modern standard in places you're probably referring to is often "the best interests of the child" or something similar. The implementation of this varies (and may or may not be well defined in law). Whatever outcome there tends to be a lot of controversy about whether it's really in the best interests of the child.

BTW, in quite a few jurisdictions, both parents are required to contribute financially to the upbringing of the child if they can afford it, no matter what degree of custody they have. In cases of unequal custody, this may entail the parent with less custody paying something to the parent with greater custody to help support the child.

And for various reasons after a seperation or divorce, such as if one spouse limited their career advancement as part of the marriage, the other spouse may also be required to provide some financial support to that spouse seperate from any contributions to the raising of the child.

While these details will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the scenario you outlined about the mother being homeless is generally not supposed to happen if the father is of sufficient means. (In many of these, in most cases it's generally not supposed to happen point blank, no matter the means of the parents.)

As to living with the (grand)parents, this may not be considered harmful. Particularly since whoever gets custody someone is going to have to look after the children. And if there is an increase in working hours for one or both parents plus a reduction in parent-child time (which may arise whatever the custody arrangements edit: and regardless of any change in working hours due to reduction in time spent with both parents simultaneously), time spent with the grandparents may be considered beneficial. In some places, for various reasons such arrangements aren't uncommon even if the parents aren't divorced.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While men do not commit 100% of domestic violence in the world, they do commit the majority of it, see for example this study, which notes that in every major statistical measure of domestic violence, men commit more of it than women. Being beaten by one's husband is a common grounds for divorce: this study notes that physical and emotional abuse are a very common cause of divorce in America. Abusive spouses are less likely to be granted custody of children, for what I hope are obvious reasons. So, it isn't a great leap of faith to understand that more men are abusive --> less men are granted custody in divorce. This may not be the sole factor, but it is a reasonable one. That conclusion is positively confirmed here, where it notes that domestic violence is the main reason why one partner is granted sole custody of the children. --Jayron 32 02:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philome Obin

This is Philip Robert Obin again. Can you tell me how my grandfather, Philome Obin, became Captain of the Haitian Army? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.105.40 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the grandson of Philomé Obin you are probably closer to the source of that information than any of the contributors here. Our article says: "For example, it was not until after his death that his children discovered in his safe some documentation which stated that he was a commissioned officer—a Captain in the Haitian army before the American Occupation." If this unsourced statement is correct, those documents could still be in the posession of some of your relatives. --NorwegianBlue^talk 22:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Gertrude Svensen" in The Dinner Party

The correct name for the person called "Gertrude Svensen" in List of women in the Heritage Floor is actually "Gertrud Svensdotter", as the article of her say, and the (Swedish) references also calls her. Gertrud Svensdotter was from Sweden, and her last name Svensdotter was a Patronymic meaning "daughter of Sven": the ending word "dotter" in the name meaning "daughter". I am from Sweden myself, and no references in her home country, were her story is well known, ever refers to her as "Gertrude Svensen" - which would also have been strange, as the name "Svensen" is also a patronymic meaning "son of Sven". Further more, "Svensen" is also a Danish patronymic rather than a Swedish, which would have been "Svensson". Her first name also has the wrong spelling, as the Swedish spelling of Gertrude is Gertrud without the e at the end, but that is a smaller matter.

My question is: is the name actually wrong in the art exhibition The Dinner Party itself (which means that it would have to continue being wrong in the article), or is it simply wrongly spelled only in the article (and can be corrected)? Thanks! --Aciram (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a line break better to separate your question from the context statement. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article reflects an error. See the Brooklyn Museum website, which gives her name as "Gertrude Svensen" and makes another spelling error in its description, "Gertrude Svenson". Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for the explanation and link. Yes, the museum indeed gives several errors: not only of her first and last name, but also of her year of life and death, which is 1656-1675, and the year of the accusation 1667/1668 rather than 1668/1669. But, as the exhibit was founded in 1979, if I understood it correctly, I suppose it was easy with such errors, as the story may not be so well known outside of Sweden. If the error is the same in the exhibition, than of course it must stay here as well - though it would be good to have the error pointed out some way, I suppose. This reminds one of one great thing with the internet!--Aciram (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't appear to be the only one among the 999 women on the Heritage Floor whose name got misspelled: Tibors is spelled "Fibors", e.g.. See also "Writing Women Back Into history" by User:Alexandrathom (pinging her, as she might have something to add). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]