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

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.

December 28[edit]

Tipping the staff for staying over Christmas (UK)[edit]

How much is an appropriate amount for N nights, S members of staff and G guests? 91.106.44.238 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At what establishment? Algebraist 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relation's private house. 91.106.44.238 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the relation. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now he is seriously rich. Hence the chef, butler, maid, etc. 91.106.44.238 (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? Algebraist 01:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not posh enough to have stayed anywhere with a butler, but I'd wager that it'd be incredibly gauche of you to tip the staff of a private residence. The reason being that the staff are professionals in the private employ of your relation - they aren't "work-a-day stiffs" at an hotel. Trying to tip them might actually be seen as a lessening of their position (possibly). I'd imagine if they were due any extra consideration because of your presence, it would be your relation who would handle paying the bonus. As others have mentioned, talk to him to sort things out. The only instance I can imagine where you might tip the staff directly is if they did something special for you which went above-and-beyond normal hospitality (accommodated special requests from you, ran private errands, etc.). If you are still at the residence, a polite and discrete inquiry to the staff members may reveal what they believe is appropriate compensation. - As mentioned, I'm not very knowledgeable, so take the above with a grain of salt. -- 75.42.233.82 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have stayed in houses with only one daily maid and another with four indoor permanent staff, on each occasion the hosts have quietly suggested that I leave a tip for the staff.--79.79.187.69 (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federally owned slaves[edit]

A previous question [1] got me thinking: Back when it was legal to do so, did the Office of the U.S. President own slaves? Not the person of the president, mind you (I know that a number of presidents had personal slaves) but the office itself - in the sense of how it's the presidency which "owns" the White House, not the person who is president. I guess the question also could be posed of Congress and, for that matter, the Federal Government in general. Were there any federally owned slaves? -- 75.42.233.82 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider indentured servitude to be equivalent to slavery, then the US military is slavery. Extending on that - if you don't consider indentured servitude to be slavery because it is voluntary, then what do you consider forced servitude created by the draft? -- kainaw ™ 02:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify and to avoid a sidetracked discussion, I was specifically referring to the type of slavery prohibited by the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (and the actual effects of such, not theoretical discussions). Please leave the draft discussion for another day. -- 75.42.233.82 (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Why is it that Ref Desk personnel seem so eager to side-track discussion with pedantry? Is it a form of preening, showing that one is more clever than others? Or does it represent a simple inability to answer the question as asked? In this case, there is no doubt as to what the original questioner meant, yet somehow the first response is a pedantic inquiry into the definition of "slavery" that takes it to places that no one would expect it to, namely that military service is a form of "slavery", which is total nonsense anyway.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, see Confiscation Act of 1861. Any slaves captured by the North became Federal property - which, in my opinion, means that the Federal government "owned slaves" during that time. As for asking for a definition of "slave" - it is important to clarify how MUCH of an answer the questioner wants. -- kainaw ™ 02:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the White House Historical Association, the early presidents were expected to hire and pay for their own staff. Several presidents were slaveowners and had slaves working for them in Washington (or, in George Washington's case, in New York and Philadelphia when these were the capital). It seems that the office of the president (as opposed to the individual occupying that office) didn't have a structure for owning slaves as a kind of staff to remain in place from one administration to the next. Even less likely for Congress, though slaves worked on both the White House and the Capitol, often under contracts extended to slaveholders. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no specific knowledge of American History or the politics of slavery, I would say that unquestionable the answer is yes, because the White House itself was constructed mostly by slaves. That's quite an inheritance for its occupants to carry around, and I think it gives (even more) symbolic weight to the skin-color of the next person to sit behind the desk of the Oval Office. It might be that they hired contractors and the contractors hired the slaves, but I personally think that would be pedantry. The point is, at one point, yes, at one point the federal government did indeed use slave labour. Belisarius (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've changed the question with your answer, but still made a good point. It seems unlikely that the "Office of the President" ever owned slaves, but yes it's worth remembering that the White House was built in part with slave labor. By the way, Obama is the descendant of American slave owners but not slaves, so the "symbolic weight" of his "skin-color" comes with a large dollop of irony, as history so often does. 71.72.148.80 (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the role of slaves in early Washington, see this recent Boston Post article: [2] . However, all of the slaves specifically mentioned in that article seem to have been "leased" to the government, not directly federally owned... AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage à-la-mode[edit]

How do we know all the details of the storyline of Hogarth's Marriage à-la-mode? It also seems that our article doesn't completely agree with what the National Gallery says[3]: Where we have "Earl Squanderfield", they have "Earl Squander". — Sebastian 07:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Often engravings of caricatures had a short poem beneath the illustration, providing some commentary and/or explanation; not sure if that was the case when Hogarth's paintings were engraved... AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

william-hogarth.com has the title as The Killing of the Earl Squanderfield, although it doesn't seem to appear on the engraving - see here. It may perhaps be in the list of plates of a book it appeared in. Squanderfield certainly makes better sense as a satirical name for a spendthrift peer. Xn4 (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sebastokratōr Isaac Komnenos[edit]

Does anyone know who was the father and mother of sebastokratōr Isaac Komnenos, a great-nephew of the emperor Manuel I Komnenos, and husband of Anna Angelina and also the father Theodora Angelina. Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I need his entire geneology.

Did Edward the first's daughter elanor Marry Alphonos III of Spain or not?[edit]

If I go the entry for Edward Longshanks, it says Alphonso died before the wedding, but if I go to Alphonso III entry, it says they did marry.

So can anyone provide better proof one way or the other please??

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.45.39.43 (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite challenging to find, but it seems they were never married. [4]. I'm unable to correct the article in question. Can someone do it (and add this source into the two relevant articles? Flamarande (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third from the right[edit]

Can somebody identify the third person from the right (behind Gordon Brown) in this cartoon by The Independent's Dave Brown? Cheers. --AdamSommerton (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Taro Aso. Lantzy ^talk 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the G7/G8 heads of state, and I'd guess the order is Sarkozy-Aso-Merkel-Bush-Medvedev-Brown-Berlusconi, but "male politician with dark hair in suit" is a broad field. Could even be Harper. Matt's talk 17:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had basically the same order as M.R.Forrester, but with Medvedev at far left and Nicolas Sarkozy as the person the OP was asking about. The coiffure looks more like Sarkozy's to me. Deor (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the nose... surely the man on the far left is Sarkozy?! Although admittedly he's (not usually on the far left). --Matt's talk 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the date the cartoon relates to the 2008 G-20 Washington summit. The first from the left is Sarkozy (I'm familiar with Brown's caricatures of him) and I'm pretty sure the man between Sarkozy and Merkel is Barroso. --AdamSommerton (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In anime, why do the characters often look more Caucasian (or European or 'white') than typical Japanese people?[edit]

Just wondering. This effect is highly prominent throughout anime and related subjects such as manga and hentai.--CretinInsiduous (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what characteristics you regard as typically Caucasian? To close off one dead end, note that Japanese people have a cultural preference for white skin. It also seems that East Asians do not necessarily regard the epicanthic fold as a key visual difference between themselves and Caucasians: the standard Mandarin insult is "big nose", and there is an anecdotal datum that the same is true in Japan. --Matt's talk 18:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the "hair thing" is because most anime and manga faces look basically the same. Ridiculous hair colours (and styles) can help distinguish between characters. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the big eyes common among anime characters are more to do with making them kawaii than occidental-looking. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some say it's a founder effect: Astro Boy had big eyes, and started a tradition. —Tamfang (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know, what we call the art of 'asking a question in such a manner that we'll get a postive/desired reply from the other person'?[edit]

Please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhi.saurabh (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are thinking of a leading question. Was yours? --Matt's talk 18:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what a positive/desired reply is. Asking a leading question tends to get yes/no answers which is not what you want if you really want is a relationship. Why on earth ask a question if you're not really interested in getting a negative answer? Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be obvious by now, bit this art is occasionally called "Wikipedia:Reference desk". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're thinking of manipulation, a form of social influence. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The art of being a trial lawyer =). See Examination-in-chief, Cross examination, leading questions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's Socratic dialogue. —Tamfang (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penn & Teller's Bullshit! had an episode in season 4, called Numbers , where they talked about ways to word polling questions to intentionally bias the results, and interviewed pollsters hired to do exactly that. StuRat (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also try loaded question... there are numerous links from that article which might also provide something relevant. Grutness...wha? 11:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

looking for a good textbook in analytic philosophy[edit]

Hi, I'm looking for a beginners' textbook in analytic philosophy that goes into a fair amount of detail, covers historical aspects in moderate but not great depth, and focuses on examples. By examples, I mean the illustration of general concepts and theoretical debates by the use of particular instances, thought experiments, specific puzzles and the like. Does anyone know of anything here? thanks in advance, It's been emotional (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At university we used John Hospers' An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis as a basic text; it's used on a lot of courses in the UK and US and is highly respected. I don't remember there being a huge amount on historical matters, but it focuses a lot on thought experiments, hypotheticals, etc, as well as using imaginary dialogues to explore issues. Generally I found it interesting and readable. A small caveat (or recommendation) for some people would be that Hospers has long been linked with the US Libertarian Party, and he does take a right-libertarian perspective on some political topics, but generally he's good at setting out both sides of issues (I'm not a Libertarian). For the historical background and a very different political perspective, Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy is a much studied text, though perhaps less what you're looking for (and for fairness, Russell was a socialist and pacifist). You could also look online for reading lists for introductory philosophy courses at universities. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this advice. It's been emotional (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]