Humanities desk
< December 27	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 29 >

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.

December 28

Girl with a Pearl Earring

Why is the Girl with a Pearl Earring painting classified as a tronie? Her expression is much closer to being neutral than to being exaggerated. Is this classification widely accepted among scholars in the field? — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 09:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thornfield Hall, if you go to Google Scholar and enter "Girl with a Pearl Earring tronie" into the search box, you will discover that many articles in academic journals use the word "tronie" to describe that painting. An exaggerated expression is not the defining characteristic of a tronie. Cullen328 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw it mentioned that tronie's subjects are typically anonymous, but it seems in the case of the Pearl earring, she is only "anonymous" because her identify has been lost to history, not because it was intended to be that way by Vermeer. Exotic dress is mentioned too. She has an "oriental turban", so I guess that is it, although it doesn't seem to deviate very significantly from European headcoverings of the era. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 10:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: You say "An exaggerated expression is not the defining characteristic of a tronie" but the article you linked says "A tronie is a type of work common in Dutch Golden Age painting and Flemish Baroque painting that depicts an exaggerated or characteristic facial expression". DuncanHill (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, "or characteristic" is the key wording there. Art historians determine whether or not a painting is a tronie, not Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is a distinction between a portrait, intended to be understood as a representation of a particular person, and the use of a model, who of course has an identity but whose identity is not part of the intended meaning of the work. Vermeer (like Jan Steen and other DGA painters) is thought to have very often used his household and perhaps friends as models, but they are intended to be "anonymous" to the general public, though of course art historians love to squirrel out who they think the model was. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I now see your reply up here. Thank you for the explanation. I wish the tronie article reflected this nuanced difference. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 11:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term has a different meaning when used by art historians to characterize a work of art and when used colloquially by the general populace. In the colloquial sense, the term refers to a grotesque or ugly face – and not only a depiction of such. In the art sense, the meaning is the depiction of a face, not as the commissioned portrait of any specific person but as an art genre for art's sake – although the face may be that of a live model, In this use, which used to be more common but is falling into disuse because of the inevitable misunderstandings, there is no implication that the face is grotesque. --Lambiam 22:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but not really. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know a lot about art, so why not give the correct explanation then? — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 00:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pray, tell me in what respect my contribution is less than satisfactory. --Lambiam 18:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth is this discussion happening here, rather than at one of the articles, or the VA project? Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the talk page on the article is for discussing improvements to the article. The reference desk here is for questions of curiosity that editors like myself have. Are you lost? — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 00:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parole in the US

Why do the conditions of parole issued by American courts often include prohibitions on consumption of alcohol or pornography even in cases in which those played no part in the charges? Is there some legitimate reason for it or is it merely reflective of how the US has relatively archaic laws on those two rooted in Protestant morality? — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 09:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thornfield Hall, please provide a specific example or examples. Vague, unfocused discussion is rarely useful. Cullen328 (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Hinckley. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 09:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known that Hinckley had an intense sexual obsession with a role played by 12 year old actress, so the restriction on pornography seems reasonable to me. Hinckley also committed a horrifically violent attack that severely injured the then-president of the United States, and severely disabled his press secretary for decades. It is well-known that alcohol abuse increases violence among individuals with a previous history of violence, so as a Jew, I fail to see how this is "Protestant" morality. Cullen328 (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I can concede the point in the case of Hinckley, but it seems some states implement the [1]alcohol rule uniformly.

When I mentioned Protestant morality I was referring to how many of the laws the US has on alcohol are highly arbitrary and oppressive compared to other Western countries and were pushed by Protestants wishing to legislate their temperance views. I was wondering if the parole restrictions have the same pedigree I suppose you can call it, as those laws. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 10:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An important part of the temperance movement (and ultimately, Prohibition) was to try to keep husbands from spending all their money at bars and beating up their wives and children. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parolees are expected to behave themselves once they are out on parole. So, the restriction on alcohol use is part of that, and is probably only enforced if the parolee gets arrested for an alcohol-related crime such as drunk driving or a drunken brawl in a bar, in other words, if they commit a parole violation. Abductive (reasoning) 18:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thornfield Hall, the opinion piece that you linked to has an explanation regarding alcohol restrictions on Pennsylvania parolees: The Pennsylvania parole board adds these conditions because, in its view, many offenders are prone to impulsive behavior, poor cognitive thinking skills and anger management issues, which do not mix well with alcohol, and because bars are seen as places of gang and drug activity. The bottom line is that if someone does not want their drinking and other behaviors restricted, they should not commit felonies. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing though--it is often enforced even in cases that did not involve abuse of alcohol. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 00:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their initial crime might not have involved alcohol, but after 12 years in Sing Sing they might want a drink. Abductive (reasoning) 00:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point! I didn't think of that. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 00:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CA ballot initiatives

Why do ballot initiatives in CA almost always have an anomalously high number of invalid or blank votes? An extreme example is the case of 2016 California Proposition 66, it actually was 5 times the margin!

2018 Washington Initiative 1639 inexplicably has zero invalid or blank votes listed. Is it perhaps because of CA's low literacy rate or is it somehow a consequence of how their voting is conducted? — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 10:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No specialist knowledge, but:

The state of California automatically sends ballots to all registered voters, who are then permitted either to vote by mail or in person. During the 2022 midterm elections in California 21.9 million ballots were sent out and 11.1 million people voted, leaving around 10.8 million ballots sent to voters who did not cast them.

Reuters: 10.8 million ‘unaccounted for’ ballots in 2022 midterm in California not an indication of fraud Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the low rate at which people voted would impact the number of invalid or blank votes though. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 11:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally true. Such initiatives are at the end of the ballot, and voters are well known to stop voting with each page turn on a ballot. Judge races, local races and special election races all tnd to get fewer votes, and it is believed by political scientists and by seasoned politicians to be entirely due to eyeball fatigue. Abductive (reasoning) 11:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense! However, it doesn't explain why its so prolific in CA. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 11:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pehaps ballots are longer there? Abductive (reasoning) 11:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive is correct. I have been voting in California since 1972 and was a volunteer poll worker for many years. Ballot propositions are much more common in California than in most other states. Take a look at recent decades in List of California ballot propositions. Ten statewide propositions on a ballot is common, and it is not rare for there to be 15, 20 or 25. Plus city and county measures. Less informed voters are prone to vote for president, governor and senators, and ignore most of the obscure propositions. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ballot that you get in the mail has choices for major elected offices, minor ones like judges school boards, state ballot propositions, municipal ones, etc. Lots of it is obscure. Lots of people just vote the major offices (that's why turnout is higher in presidential election years) and leave the other stuff blank, since they will not have heard of the candidates or issues. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:1927 (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some indication that it's something special about California. California isn't the only initiative state, for example; do other initiative states have similar undervotes in propositions? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I linked one from WA with zero invalid or blank votes. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 08:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The actual source doesn't show any entry for "invalid or blank" at all; rather, the Wikipedia article is using Template:Infobox referendum, and no data at all was entered for "invalid or blank". just for "yes" and "no", so the template put in zeroes. In other words, it's not valid information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wp:deny

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(edit conflict)There surely is a difference between "undervotes" (not voting for everyone you could have voted for) and "blank" or "invalid" voting papers. Do voting machines feature in any of these ballots? 2A00:23D0:C82:9A01:844E:39:F208:D382 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voter turnout shows there are various metrics for turnout. 2A00:23D0:C82:9A01:844E:39:F208:D382 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed the problem in 2018 Washington Initiative 1639 and a couple others. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive licence/license on Wikimedia Commons contributions

If someone uploads an image to Wikimedia Commons with a non-CC0 licence, and then submits it in a journal article which involves granting the publisher exclusive use, what is the status of the image for the uploader, as well as for everyone else? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 13:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'd do best asking at C:COM:Village pump/Copyright. But my understanding is that a licence that will be accepted by Commons must be irrevocable, so (assuming it has been done with the correct legal formality) any subsequent grant must be subject to it. (IANAL). ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @ColinFine: I'll ask there. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]