Humanities desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 9 >

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 8

Portuguese comb

What exactly is a "Portuguese comb"? This I'm guessing because of this? There are some mentions in a few old books ([1]) as well, but nothing on what exactly it's history or origin or even a modern image or any image of what it is beside the one. Is it just an archaic English name for a common Portuguese hair accessory or a forgotten/obscure item of the past? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I search for "Portuguese comb" and hair in Google images, I get various decorative combs from Africa and elaborate African hairdos. It seems plausible that English speakers encountered such combs through the Portuguese empire and associated them with the Portuguese. And/or that the Portuguese brought to Europe the originally African fashion of wearing a decorative comb in the hair. Can't help any more, seems to be quite obscure. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this sort of thing, although this is captioned as "1918 Portrait of a Charming Spanish, Hairstyle Comb". A search for "mantilla comb" produces plenty of images like this and this. Spain and Portugal enjoy a certain geographic proximity if I recall correctly. Alansplodge (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE: see Peineta (comb), although still no mention of Portugal. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, it seems that Rosalie started something, because a search for "Peineta Hawaii" resulted in this image. Alansplodge (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think it must be some form of a mantilla comb, but I don't know about that last claim.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks

Dear Wikipedia

I was just wondering how many articles Wikileaks has had to retract in their entire history of journalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.107.217 (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLeaks isn't a journalism organization, so "retractions" don't apply. Are you confusing them with Wikinews ? StuRat (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLeaks and its supporters claim a 100% authenticity record. Other commentators are not so convinced, although no leaked messages have been confirmed fake AFAICT. WikiLeaks has described some leaks misleadingly (for instance, claiming that it had evidence the CIA could crack WhatsApp encryption, when the documents it leaked didn't show this at all), and it doesn't seem to have retracted these either, although media outlets that reported on these leaks did. See WikiLeaks#Authenticity and WikiLeaks#Exaggerated and misleading descriptions of the contents of leaks. Smurrayinchester 09:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their disclaimer for the many documents they've released would be that the contents of those documents are, in fact, what was in those documents. That doesn't prove that the actual contents of the documents are true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

natural gas historical prices

Looking at this natural gas historical prices chart[2] it seems that in 2016 we hit a really really low mark, at least the lowest in 20 years. Is this the lowest (inflation adjusted) price of natural gas in human history? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are places where natural gas seeps from the ground: which means there must have been times when, and places where, it was available, but completely worthless because no-one knew how to make any use of it. Wymspen (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's limit the question to industrial quality natural gas at industrial quantities then. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found Deregulation of Natural Gas Prices: Final Environmental Impact Statement which has several charts showing historical gas prices, but how you make sense of the data is beyond me. Good hunting. Alansplodge (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll lay my calculations out so in case I make a mistake people can point it out:

1. The lowest price I found in that book is $0.31 1972 dollars per Mcf at the gates of Los Angeles (which ironically has some of the highest natural gas prices in the country nowadays).

2. Using the "$ per Mcf divided by 1.032 = $ per MMBtu"[3] rule, it converts to $0.30 1972 dollars per MMBtu.

3. Using CPI[4], $0.30 1972 dollars is $1.65 2017 dollars.

That's awfully close to the $1.61 price in 2016. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Alansplodge (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you're analyzing an industrial product, CPI probably isn't the best deflator to use. One could justify a broader measure (gas is used by industry and households) such as the GDP deflator, or if the question is financial return on investment, a narrower one (e.g., capital investment deflators).DOR (HK) (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Equality and competition

On one side, humans share a belief of equality. On the other side, they share a belief of competition. However, in competition, there are winners and losers, which would defeat the purpose of equality. How can two persons be equal when they are allowed to compete and defeat over the other? This is complicated by the fact that in the real world, humans want to pass down wealth to their offspring and make sure that their own offspring get the upper hand in education and career opportunities. That straight-A report card and engagement in several extracurricular activities may show the college admissions team that the individual is very high-achieving, thanks to parents who are willing to spend that much money. But anyway, has anyone written about the relationship between equality and competition, wealth and poverty, and whether or not there is an ideal middle ground? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To oversimplify this millennia-long debate: believing that people are born equal is not the same as believing everyone should always end up equals at the end of their lives. Based on your achievements or abilities, you can become more valuable to society than some other people. See a partial implementation of this idea in meritocracy. --Lgriot (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding what you mean by "belief of equality". Do you mean something like if 60 kids try out for the school football team you should draw lots and randomly select the required number of players and not choose players based on talent or ability? 196.213.35.146 (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Some people believe in one but not the other. At least equality of opportunity is consistent with competition leading to winners and losers. Loraof (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Equity these are sometimes called "vertical equity" and "horizontal equity". --Jayron 32 14:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "equality of opportunity is consistent with competition leading to winners and losers", I don't agree. If some people get more resources as a result of having "won", then their kids get an unequal advantage starting out. Take Donald Trump, who inherited lots of money and business contacts and was sent to expensive private schools. Was his opportunity really equal to somebody without those advantages ? There are however some ways to minimize the differences in opportunity, like a heavily progressive tax system that funds first rate education for all. Inheritance taxes on the rich, in particular, are critical in preventing society from separating into a permanent overclass and underclass. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you show is not a counterexample to "equality of opportunity is consistent with competition leading to winners and losers" for various reasons. In particular, it highlights very much that while equality of opportunity is an ideal, and possibly a goal, it is very much not a reality in most (possibly all) current societies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting to propose some system under which both are simultaneously possible. We could have all children taken at birth and raised by the state, with equal resources provided to each, and all the wealth an individual accrues would then revert to the state after their death (and perhaps their spouse's). Even then, the children of the rich would probably get better nutrition in utero, so maybe we'd need to sterilize everyone and clone babies, as in Brave New World (the cloning part). Sounds ugly, but this is about what it would take. The satire Harrison Bergeron takes it a bit further, with the Handicapper General assigned the task of ensuring that everyone is equally handicapped. StuRat (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smart people have thought about this. See e.g. Plato's Republic, although I don't advocate his particular system. Or look at Rawls' A Theory of Justice. What we can do is to equalise opportunities to a reasonable degree - with free quality education, free health care, a social security system as a fall-back for people not inheriting their private golden parachutes, and so on. This will not be perfect, but that's no reason not do do something. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some people will always be smarter or sexier or more socially persuasive or harder working or athletic. Hopefully you will be born with at least one but I don't see how this could be equalized without genetic engineering. Also the Olympics would have too many ties. How do we ensure the baby gets the standard state quality of peekaboo? (which is of course the maximum quality baby funtime that can be provided to all without disproportionate allocation of resources to this one thing). And tropical people will still have higher heat tolerance than Arctic people just from being used to it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the question becomes given that there ARE differences of those sorts, does it necessarily hold that other, unrelated, differences should be enforced arbitrarily? For example, if you're born to a family that has more money and political power, is it right that you should have better access to a defense against the accusation of a crime, or better access to treatments against disease? --Jayron 32 13:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not right that a public defender's at a disadvantage against a superlawyer but there's a criminal defense inequality floor because it's humanly impossible for the best say bar fight lawyer to represent everyone accused of illegal bar fighting. For conflict of interest if not workload (what if *both* guys in a barfight want a lawyer?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One way to solve this is to eliminate lawyers and have an automated system. For example, asking if the defendant was given their Miranda Warning and requesting that the case be dismissed if they weren't should happen all the time, not only if you have a good lawyer. An "automated defender" could always ask such questions. I believe we're already seeing this in the case of traffic ticket fighting apps. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to the OP that he/she is confusing the concept of "a belief in equality" with "a sense of fairness" (in its meaning of Distributive justice), which is a similar but different concept, and which has been shown to exist in chimpanzees and other non-human animals [which I have read of in e.g. The New Scientist and will return to add references if I can find them]. [Edited to add; simply g00gling "Concept of fairness in chimpanzees" throws up many hits on articles about this topic.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published information about competition, indexed at https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200271328.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra's language with Antony

Cleopatra spoke Latin to Mark Antony or it was Antony who spoke Greek to her? Thanks.--212.180.235.46 (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latin is not a language Cleopatra was known to have spoken. Her native language was Greek. Marc Antony certainly spoke Greek, so that is the likely answer. - Nunh-huh 17:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's overwhelmingly likely that their mutual spoken language was Koine Greek (not too dissimilar from the Greek of the Christian New Testament)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this and this, citing Plutarch, she may have spoken up to 9 languages (unless, as the second source contends, Plutarch was speaking hyperbolically, merely contenting she could speak languages of several of her neighbors) none of which was Latin. As Greek was already the lingua franca for the more populous eastern part of the Mediterranean (Thanks Alexander), all members of the Roman aristocracy would have spoken it quite well. This explanation does not mention either Antony directly, but it does note "So many patricians would have been as fluent in Greek as in Latin or at least close to it...More educated, cultured and intellectual types (mainly aristocrats) would have been literate in reading Greek and many of them would have been fluent in speaking it as well." Antony, a patrician and aristocrat, would have certainly been familiar enough with it to carry on with Cleopatra quite comfortably. Suetonis even reports that Caesar's last words, upon being stabbed, were in Greek (see Et tu, Brute? for more). --Jayron 32 18:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even in Rome itself Greek rivaled Latin in popularity for some time among the educated. Cato the Elder is often credited with influencing the Roman elite to begin considering Latin a "literary" language. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ illustration.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]