Miscellaneous desk
< November 3	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

November 4

chainmail/mail

how big across would the links in chainmail typically be? Jds500 (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples shown at Mail (armour) show a wide range of sizes. There does not appear to have been much consistancy. --Jayron32 03:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there were styles - fashions - in chain mail. There always is. Some would be ornamental. But the fighting mail would have to withstand penetration by a slim point. A dagger, say.Froggie34 (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, I would say that the finer the mail, the more expensive it would be since it would take a lot more work to make, so the mail worn by someone very wealthy, say would be much finer then mail worn by a middling sort. Googlemeister (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, so what would the largesst size be and what would the smallest size of link be? Jds500 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This chap[1] who makes his own, uses a steel rod to form the rings, which is 5/8 inch in diameter. He says that he has used 1/4 inch too. This one[2] uses 6mm (which is 1/4 inch give or take). Couldn't find anything that gave measurements of surviving medieval mail. The people to ask would be the Royal Armouries [3] who say that they "offer an enquiry service to the public". Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, I actually meant the diameter across the ring formed... Jds500 (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "people-pleasing syndrome" called in professional terminology?

I think that the "people-pleasing syndrome" is interesting enough to merit it's own Wikipedia article. (Yes, I have seen the "Nice guy" article, but that is not quite the same as "people-pleasing".)
I am afraid that no one of my sources will qualify as a reliable source:

People-Pleasing Personality (A definition from www.livestrong.com).
people pleaser (Definition from www.urbandictionary.com).
How to Break Free from the Self-Sabotaging 'People-Pleasing' Habits in Your Relationships by Rachel G. Baldino, for www.SixWise.com
The Disease to Please: Curing the People-Pleasing Syndrome a book by Harriet Braiker.

Maybe the above mentioned book will suffice, but I do not have it available.
So now I wonder:

Do you know of any reliable source available online?
What is the people-pleasing syndrome called in professional terminology? (It would help me find reliable sources).
- ("People-pleasing syndrome" is not quite the same as "Dependent personality disorder". And "Codependency" seems to refer more to a superior person in the relationship while "People-pleasing" to an inferior one).

--User:Seren-dipper (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sycophancy. As you imply, it would be a bad thing if a brace of fad pop-pulp self-help books could start filling Wikipedia with articles about neologisms. 92.29.115.158 (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider

PPDS: People pleasing delusional syndrome (may be found on a blacklisted link)
5 Steps to Banishing People Pleasing Syndrome (CD) by Lynn Moore
From Parent-Pleasing to People-Pleasing by Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D.

and be sure to look at WP:FIRST. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. Please do not create Wikipedia articles that are confections of fad self-help books and personal-research. 92.29.115.158 (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question reads like advertising - an infomercial. 92.29.115.158 (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It'd be nominated for deletion, and I would vote "delete". Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User 92.29.115.158 refers to Sycophancy whose article lists 3 meanings and 16 alternative phrases but 'people-pleaser is not among them. It is a strength of Wikipedia, not a "bad thing", that it can obtain articles on notable neologisms faster than any printed encyclopedia. The OP is clear about the need for WP:RS and already in this section some more published sources have been found. The OP has a good record of contributions to Wikipedia including creating an article "Sucker-trap" (redirected[4] to Confidence trick) and should not be preemptively discouraged from trying to create a new article by a prejudice before anyone has seen it to delete the article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to see the "Sucker trap" article even though it appears to have been deleted? 92.24.190.150 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only administrators can view the content of deleted pages see Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arab - Jewish conflict

A friend was implying that the dispute between Arabs and Jews is often referenced back to Esau and Jacob. As if to suggest that the children of one of these two became the Arab race and thus the historical dispute began. I've tried to look into this but can only find fairly sketchy view points on this. Is there a respected line of argument that traces the disputes back to this age? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.93.48 (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula (see article) reaches back to Biblical times but I have not found a notable reference to Esau or Jacob. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had heard that it allegedly went back as far as the two sons of Abraham, though I have also heard that such is unreliable and was made up centuries later. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well the Jews (as the "Children of Israel") trace their roots back through the twelve tribes of Israel (also known as Jacob). The Arab ancestry is probably less clear, but some at least claim to be descendants of Abraham through Ishmael (Jacob's half-uncle). Esau's descendants were the "Edomites" and some nations claim to be their descendants. I don't know how respected or valid these claims are. perhaps someone can give an authoritative answer. Dbfirs 09:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Biblical story of Ishmael is the origin of this. (See Genesis 16 and 17) Ishmael was the child of Abraham and a concubine, who was taken to give Abraham a son because his wife Sarah had not conceived. Being the first-born son of Abraham would have given him inheritance rights. However, Sarah managed to conceive well into old age and produced Isaac, who was the son of man and wife and whose rights to the inheritance trumped Ishmael's. The story is that God told Ishmael he, too, would be the progenitor of a great nation, i.e. the Arabs, while Isaac became the progenitor of the Jews. To me, the whole Arab/Jew story makes sense if you see it as a family disagreement, but that's my opinion. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't found a "respected line of argument" that traces Arab ancestry back to either Ishmael or Esau, but the theory does seem to be widespread. The descendants of Jacob seem to have been in dispute with their neighbours for many thousands of years (though perhaps that can be said of most human cultures). This is a quote from one website: "Where are the descendants of Esau today? Most are still in the Middle East. The modern nation of Yemen, for instance, takes its name from Teman, the grandson of Esau, and is still called by that name in Hebrew today. Many of the remnants of the Amalekites are found among the Palestinian population, as well as in parts of Libya. Yet another Edomite colony is centered in the Basra region of Iraq, which takes its name from ancient Bozzrah, the capital of Edom.". Does anyone know of any research that verifies these ancestry claims? Dbfirs 23:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think anyone is going to do "respectable research" on tracing back to a Biblical story the modern conflict between Israelis and the "Arabs" (ie., the Palestinians, and countries neighboring Israel/"Palestine", and those cultures inclined to take the Palestinian or Lebanese or etc. side in that conflict).

Our Arab-Israeli conflict article has:

"The conflict, which started as a political and nationalist conflict over competing territorial ambitions following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, has shifted over the years from the large scale regional Arab–Israeli conflict to a more local Israeli–Palestinian conflict, though the Arab world and Israel generally remain at odds with each other over specific territory."

The modern conflict is rooted in a territorial dispute; there is no (useful) explanation of that given by any of the purportedly pertinent Bible stories. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the current conflict is territorial, but I interpreted the question to be primarily about claims of ancestry. Jewish ancestry is well-documented (though I suspect that there are big chunks missing in the records). I was wondering whether similar academic research had been done to verify the claims that certain peoples are descended from Ishmael and Esau, or are the claims just widely-repeated speculation? Dbfirs 00:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Okay, the Arab people article suggests some possible links with the Edomites. The Semitic article explains that Jews and Arabs can both "trace their lineage" back to Shem, the son of Noah:

"In Genesis 10:21-31, Shem is described as the father of Aram, Asshur, and Arpachshad: the Biblical ancestors of the Arabs, Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Sabaeans, and Hebrews, etc."

Also, the Antisemitism in the Arab world has more on the "Arab - Jewish conflict" – pointing out again the historically very recent development of that conflict. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current dispute between Arabs and Jews is primarily about the control of land and dates back no further than the origins of Zionism. Prior to Zionism, Arabic-speaking Muslims and Arabic-speaking Jews lived more or less amicably side-by-side in Palestine and other parts of the Middle East. It is true that some Arabs claim Ishmael as their ancestor, while Jews traditionally claim his half-brother Jacob as their ancestor. However, it is completely impossible to prove either group's actual descent from these mythical figures. There is absolutely no documentary evidence of the historical existence of Jacob or Ishmael. References to them in the Hebrew scriptures were first written down a thousand years or more after they are supposed to have lived. No serious scholar would claim an oral tradition as a reliable historical source, especially after the passage of so many centuries. Marco polo (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To WikiDao, Dbfirs and MarcoPolo: Your evaluations are fallacious extrapolations of media hyperbole. Atrocities perpetrated by Muslims against Jews extend too far back for the issue to be related to territorial claims. The 1920 Palestine riots and Jaffa riots, for example, happened in 1920 and 1921, respectively, -- well before Israel became a state. Islam looked down upon Judaism ever since Mohammed was rejected by Judaism as a religious leader. And while most argue that Arabs/Muslim opposition is to Israel expanding its borders in 1967, this line of reasoning is not supported by things like the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which occurred prior to Israel capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. Syria and Egypt formed the United Arab Republic in 1958 (again, prior to Israel taking control of the WB, GS and GH), with a belligerent agenda towards Israel (in concert with the closing of the Straits of Tiran in May of 1967) and the current alleged occupying of territory is a cover -- hence the PLO, Fatah, Hamas and Iranian directives to destroy Israel and wipe it from existence, rather than settle together peaceably. Because of historical realities, Israel likely doesn't, nor will it likely ever) consider its Arab/Muslim neighbors as parties with which to debate, deliberate and diplomate. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure there is bound to be further diplomating of varying degrees of seriousness and productivity as time goes on. Because the status quo in the region simply cannot endure forever (for a number of reasons, many of which are tightly intertwined with Israel's (and Israelis') material and existential well-being).

And I think the Antisemitism in the Arab world article, already quoted from above, is worth considering. It also says:

"Arab antisemitism is believed to have expanded since the 19th century. Jews, like other minority groups within the Muslim world, were subject to various restrictions long before that (see Dhimmi). However, despite its restrictive nature, dhimmi status also afforded the "People of the Book" relative security against persecution and welfare most of the time — a protection that was missing for non-Christians in most of Europe until the institutionalization of equality under a secular idea of citizenship after the French Revolution - and allowed them to enjoy their respective religious laws and ways of life.

"Antisemitism in the Arab world has increased greatly in modern times, for many reasons: the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; European influence, brought about by Western imperialism and Christian Arabs; Nazi propaganda; and the rise of Arab nationalism. In addition, there was resentment of disproportionate influence Jews had gained under colonialism, and of the Zionist movement. The rise of political Islam during the 1980s and afterwards provided a new mutation of Islamic anti-Semitism, which gave the hatred of Jews a religious component.

"For most of the past fourteen hundred years, according to Bernard Lewis, Arabs have not been antisemitic as the word is used in the West. In his view this is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up on stories of Jewish deicide. In Islam, such stories are rejected by the Qur'an as a blasphemous absurdity. Since Muslims do not consider themselves as the "true Israel", they do not feel threatened by the survival of Jews. Because Islam did not retain the Old Testament, no clash of interpretations between the two faiths can therefore arise. There is, says Lewis, no Muslim theological dispute between their religious institutions and the Jews."

I see peace between "Jews and Muslims" (more to the point, between "Israelis and Arabs") as attainable and in the ultimate best interests of both parties. Long-term "alternative scenarios" would, in my view and expectation, be unacceptably unpleasant all around. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Telushkin + Prager disagree very strongly with Lewis, and I find their arguments very compelling. How can you say that Islam does not see itself as a form of "true Israel"? They maintain that the ancient ancestors as documented in the OT are indeed prophets of God, only to assert that Judaism corrupted and adulterated the message of the Lord -- I'd say that Israel seems quite threatening, as it would maintain that it has not been the corrupter, but that rather Islam is. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that many Muslims, in many places, at many times throughout history, had a good relationship with the Jews. If you isolate yourself to Iran and the Palestinians during the last 70 years or so, and ignore the entire bredth of history, then yeah, it looks pretty shitty. But compare the experience of the Sephardi Jews in Iberia under Islam vs. under Christianity. Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain covers some of this. Blanket statements about what every muslim believes, especially about what every muslim that has ever lived believes about Jewish people is pretty bold, and also a gross inaccuracy. Yes, some Muslims, at some points in history, have said and done some pretty horrendous and abhorrant things about Jewish people. But it doesn't mean that all Muslims at all points in time have. --Jayron32 20:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, anyway, DR, you are describing an entirely academic, doctrinaire dispute over finer points of religious interpretation. No one needs to die over that. That dispute, and its outcome or lack of it, makes very little practical difference in the lives of the actual people on-the-ground in the actual dispute, which is primarily about territory (and the rights, economic opportunities, infrastructure, systems of civil-society and governance, etc. of the people who live on it). Bringing religion into it only makes those real-world – therefore solvable – problems more difficult to resolve, only obfuscates the real sources of the conflict, and only makes any discussion of the issues still more emotional and less rational. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bringing religion and family disputes into a simple territory dispute usually makes it unsolvable. Human nature being as it is, disputes between brothers and half-brothers are often the fiercest and can last for many generations, and can even be resurrected after thousands of years! Dbfirs 11:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's nice to be nice -- but I'm looking for validity to claims, not just consensus. My examples above reveal that this is not about territory but has extended farther in the past than your claims can support. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the dispute is about territory, but I agree that it is also about history and cannot be divorced from the disputed founding of the modern state of Israel sixty-two years ago, or even the previous (almost) 4000 years of disputes between families, nations and races. Our articles on Abraham and Abrahamic religions are relevant, though the latter concentrates of theological differences. Dbfirs 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

organisational structure

(So, imagine a young man, perhaps mid twenties, who, having interests in a particular area, decides to set up an organisation and attract members with similar interests, in spite of having almost nothing to build on, and knowing many of the future members will be older and more knowlegeable and experienced than him) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would someone go about setting up a private, mostly secret organisation, based around the practicing of a particular skill or trade, perhaps loosely based on the old guild system, from nothing, in spite of the fact that potential members arrive only one at a time, meaning it would have to be started with only one or two, and gotten ready for more to arrive later? I imagine it would be strange for the first few people turning up and finding this out, especially if they are rather older than the group's creator.

Also, how might the founder of that organisation maintain their control over it even as older, more experienced people arrive and start trying to take over, but without having to establish a specific rule that says he is in charge, just by knowing all the rules, all the loopholes and everything, through having written them all himself, or perhaps with a little help from a friend?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to rethink this question. It does rather ramble on. One point: nothing can be MOSTLY SECRET. It is or it isn't.Froggie34 (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider founding a religion. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest using the internet to organize your medieval-style secret guild. Google_groups might be a good choice, depending on what you're trying to accomplish.

You'll need to work hard to actively recruit people in your target audience, and convince them to do the same.

Staying in charge is largely a matter of politics. Be hardworking, charismatic, and do whatever you need to to convince people you're the best person for the job. APL (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also am finding it a bit hard to make sense of what you're asking for. Let's put it this way. You are trying to attract members to a group, without advertising it. OK, that's not impossible, though it is inefficient. But you're also trying to guarantee that the others won't take over the group. You can't do that without some sort of leverage. It could be resources, it could be charisma, it could be threats of violence (as in, for example, a street gang), whatever. Internal group rules are probably not sufficient leverage. Let's say I find your group. I feel I would be a better leader. I convince the others of this. What are you going to do? Point to a rule book? "Fine," I say, "but we all quit the group, and are forming our own, new group, with me as the leader, and you don't get to be in it. So there." What can you do to stop that from happening? A rule book is not going to do it. Maybe if you were the one holding the purse strings, you could say, "OK, but then all funding disappears," and that would work. Maybe if you could assault the splitter and make the others fear splintering off (the mob's way). Maybe you could give an elegant speech that showed exactly how much more clever and how much better leadership you had than the splitting guy — in which case, though, the situation probably wouldn't have ever arisen. Maybe you have material that you can blackmail everyone else with, maybe you own the basement where the meetings take place, maybe maybe maybe. Whatever the case, you need leverage. Appealing to rule books by themselves gets you nothing unless people respect the rule books. (Which in most situations — like governmental laws — requires their being enforced with violence or other forms of coercion, in the end.) It's possible that you'll find people who will just respect rules for their own sake... but unlikely. If you don't set things up so that it is people's mutual interest (for whatever reason) to follow the rules, they won't. And shouldn't, frankly.

The reason medieval guilds "worked" was that they had something that people wanted. They had a monopoly on skills and access to work. That's leverage. Founding a guild for something which you have no monopoly will not get anyone to join. Founding a guild where you have a monopoly on skills but not access to work will mean that your first student (or so) will leave and found their own competing guild (or company, or whatever). Guilds only worked (for awhile, anyway) because they could preserve their monopolies and thus their leverage. They fell apart when their monopolies were broken (either by the winds of commerce, or by the revocation of their status by the state), when they ran out of leverage. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose he's imagining a situation where everyone comes up and says "Bob, we've voted you out as leader. Alice is the Grand Poobah now." and then Bob says "Wait a minute. According to the charter you can't elect a new Poobah without first posting a coded advertisement in the local newspaper." and then he reveals that Poobah elections may only take place once every ten years.

I can't imagine this working very well, especially if everyone knows he's the one who invented the rules in the first place. APL (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mr. 98 has summed it up pretty well, though for the sake of argument, I'll throw in the Keyser Soze arrangement. Any organization needs people to do various things: operations, finances, leg breaking, what have you. If you can keep as many branches hidden from each other as possible, you can use your knowledge of the branches themselves as your leverage. The guy who's loading the trucks or printing the pamphlets or whatever it is can't very well take over the company if he doesn't know what the rest of the company is or who is doing it. And being younger and less experienced is not an issue if you only present yourself as an emissary of "The Powers That Be", while keeping to yourself the truth that there is nobody above you. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something a bit like the Freemasons? ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon about English and French ant armies

Sorry if I'm being dense, but can anyone explain the cartoon on this page? TresÁrboles (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It likely refers to the recent news that England and France recently entered into an agreement to share military resources. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that must be it, thanks! TresÁrboles (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is in this pic?

Does anyone know what the... umm... pipes? coming out of the wall in the pic on this page might be? It's the pic of the guy taking a pic of himself in a mirror. Art? Some useful spice rack sort of thing for stuff? What? Dismas|^(talk) 20:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cylinders are from a magnetic spice rack (it looks familiar; maybe from IKEA); I think he's stuck them to a metal-backed whiteboard rather than the stainless-steel plate they came with. I'll see if I can find the specific rack. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if you search Google Images for "magnetic spice rack" you find a bunch of ones just like these; some are shown on a stainless steel plate, others (including some DIY ones) stuck to various metal things. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Okay. I can't really think of too many things that would fit in those that I would use in a bathroom... Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 21:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new york world telegram and sun

Have tried everywhere to get the front page of the above newspaper for January 1, 1936. My father was the first baby born in NYC one second after midnight Jan 1, 1936. His picture was on that papers front page. We are having a grand party for him, and would love to show him that original paper. Thanks so much for any help.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evetsnibur (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's available on microfilm at the New York Public Library. You could have a copy made. Other research libraries, especially in the New York area, are likely to have it on microfilm. The original newsprint page may be very hard to find. Newsprint doesn't hold up well after about 30 years. Marco polo (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked with New York World Telegram & Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection for the photo? They say they have the paper on microfilm in the Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room. So NYCPL or LOC should do.John Z (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]