Humanities desk
< September 2	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 4 >

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.

September 3[edit]

Freemasonic influence on the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Moscow?[edit]

The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour contains what to me are very odd references to the influence of Freemasonry -"The first finished architectural project, by Aleksandr Lavrentyevich Vitberg, was endorsed by Alexander I in 1817. It was a flamboyant Neoclassical design full of Freemasonic symbolism.... Alexander I was succeeded by his brother Nicholas I. Profoundly Orthodox and patriotic, the new Tsar disliked the Neoclassicism and Freemasonry of the project selected by his brother". These statements are not referenced and have no sources cited. I am not saying they are wrong as I am not an expert but the little I know about Orthodoxy and Freemasonry would indicate that it would certainly be surprising if an Orthodox cathedral was full of Masonic symbolism.I think those references to Freemasonry need to have sources cited for them or be removed. I have asked about this on the article talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia but no one has replied. Can anybody help on this? Thanks/ Smeat75 (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The architect Karl Magnus Vitberg was a Swede who only converted to Russian Orthodoxy to secure the commission. It shouldn't be too surprising if as a western architect he had a Masonic background. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone at WT:WikiProject Freemasonry might have a source. Roger (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little bit of googling will suffice. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Masonic-influenced version was only a design, and was not actually built. Unfortunately our articles on Freemasonry say nothing about Russia, but Tolstoy's novel War and Peace says quite a bit about the role of Freemasonry during that time period. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Paul favored all things Masonic. See Kazan Cathedral, St. Petersburg for example. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CIA headquarters in Alabama, or at least offices[edit]

I'm 20, and I would like to enter the CIA or at least the FBI, does anybody know where can I resort to? Auburn, Alabama. Thank you. Mark. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There should be information online. I doubt the CIA has many local offices as they, in theory anyway, lack most jurisdiction within the US. I am sure you can start the process online, though. You'd do better with a college degree, I would suspect.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI usually wants a degree in law or accounting for applicants: the CIA will want a relevant degree and would prefer foreign language ability as well. Both have online applications, and both have extensive testing and prequalification requirements. This assumes you're looking for field agent work. There are, of course, other positions for technical employees that have differing requirements. Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the CIA careers page, and this is the FBI careers page. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago, a branch of the British secret services ran newspaper adverts, explaining that they were recruiting. How to apply wasn't explained, on the basis that people who couldn't work that out, were not good candidates. --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA and FBI have booths at career fairs, so they aren't that obscure. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the British, I always found "Stand at the foot of Nelson's Column, and a man with a pink carnation in his lapel will approach you at 12.15" very quaint.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another couple of options. I have a friend who got a job in the CIA with her degree in library science. The degree is actually very applicable because library science is a lot about database management (creating databases and organizing them and retrieving information from them) and information management is a very important part of what the CIA does. So that, or some IT degrees would likely qualify you for certain jobs at the CIA. Also, it should be noted that the CIA and FBI are very different agencies. The CIA is a foreign intelligence gathering operation primarily. The FBI is a criminal investigation service; which has an intelligence element to it, but the focus of what each agency does is quite different. Another agency in the U.S. is the National Security Agency or NSA, which is involved in cryptology. There is also the Defense Intelligence Agency or DIA, which is a military intelligence gathering service. My friend's dad was a civilian analyst for the DIA. --Jayron32 15:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of a burial plot at Willesden Jewish Cemetery (UK)[edit]

Dear Wikipedians,

I am aware that Jewish burials typically only take place at Jewish cemeteries, and that many of these are filling up. I have heard however that there is a market in the remaining plots at many of these sites, and was wondering if I could find the rough cost of one for a London based-funeral. There is no urgency, but I would be keen to know the sorts of prices I should expect. I have been told Willesden cemetery is the most expensive, hence me asking about that one in particular so I can know the full spectrum of options. Many thanks, 86.163.45.50 (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC). NB: I do not wish to know the rough lifetime cost of a burial plan obtained by being a member of a synagogue, which I gather is a common route. I'm interested in the cost of purchasing the plot directly. Many thanks, 86.163.45.50 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'm fairly sure that Willesden is closed for new burials. The United Synagogue's main cemetery is in Bushey - see ([1]). You can contact the United Synagogue Burial Society using the contact details on this page. They do perform burials for people who are not members of the burial scheme, but it is, as you imply, very expensive, regardless of which cemetery you opt for. I could be wrong about Willesden - you can ask when you contact them. --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TICLAUDIUS CAESAR[edit]

Resolved

I was recently at the Savaria Karneval in Szombathely, Hungary. There were lots of Roman shows on, and one of the activities we could get involved in was to actually make a Roman coin in the way the Romans made Roman coins, by hitting round pieces of metal on a mold. Anyway, I looked at the inscription, and it said on one side 'TICLAUDIUS CAESAR'. I know that Claudius was the Caesar at the time when Savaria was founded, but what is the 'TI' before his name? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same as the "T" in James T. Kirk. The full name of Claudius is "Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus", but he acquired most of the later ones during his lifetime. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, of course. I knew the Romans abbreviated their names, but I just hadn't expected a two-letter abbreviation. Thanks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you resolved this, but you may find the articles Roman naming conventions and Praenomen. The Praenomen (or pre-name) were usually chosen from among a limited number of names, and there was a fairly rigid convention by which these were abbreviated consistantly. For example, Ti is usually Tiberias to avoid confusion with T which is usually Titus. A person may have had multiple Praenomen, among which one which they were commonly known, the one they used for personal use would usually be the one left unabbreviated. --Jayron32 21:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra information and links, Jayron. I did Latin for A-Level at school, and I vaguely remember it now (this was back when it was still a spoken language :) ). Thanks. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breasts and kissing[edit]

Why do men find breasts sexually arousing; is this a culturally learned response? And wherin lies the sexual appeal in a kiss? Ankh.Morpork 22:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breasts#Sexual_characteristic has a brief intoduction and a lot of links for you to follow. I seem to recall Desmond Morris, in one of his TV series on Human Sexuality drawing the connection between the shape of breasts mimicing the shape of buttocks; and that connection being his explanation for sexual arrousal caused by breasts. Kissing#Sexual_or_romantic_kiss has some discussion, and while it doesn't have a lot of internal links, it has some explicit and footnoted references that you can follow. --Jayron32 22:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall where I read this, but the theory I heard was that having breasts look like the buttocks helped encourage face-to-face intercourse, which promoted emotional bonding (which itself has been argued as evolutionarily important). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a commonly spouted theory. It is clearly nonsense, though, for one simple reason: breasts don't look anything like buttocks. There is a slight resemblance if the breasts are contained in a push-up bra, but push-up bras didn't exists for most of humanity's evolutionary history... --Tango (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The greater effect is probably that breasts are often tactile erogenous zones in both males and females; that is many men and women get aroused by having their breasts and nipples touched. Men may either recognize that a woman's breasts are a source of sexual arousal for the women, or they may recognize by analogy that the region is a place of sexual arousal for themselves and associate it with women as well. I suspect that plays a key role in seeing another's breasts as sexually arousing. --Jayron32 22:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tango, maybe you have just never been exposed to the right set of boobs. They can certainly resemble buttocks. Ultra-modern hi-tech "push up bras" are not required to achieve the mimicry.98.220.239.210 (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That just shifts the question, though - why are breasts an erogenous zone? It's just an example of sexual selection. It doesn't have to have any particular meaning. Secondary sex characteristics tend to be indicative of health and good genes, but that small advantage can be blown out of all proportion by many generations of self-perpetuating sexual selection. (Read those two articles for more details.) --Tango (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of both. Culturally, there has been a push towards larger sizes (small ones could fall under Micromastia and require augmentation according to some physicians). Some relevant literature:

Jasienska, G. (22 June 2004). "Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 271 (1545): 1213–1217. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2712. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Freund, Robert M.; Dyne, Alexander Van (17 June 2004). Cosmetic Breast Surgery: A Complete Guide to Making the Right Decision--from A to Double D. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-1-56924-455-5. Retrieved 3 September 2012.
Williams, Florence (7 May 2012). Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-08386-6. Retrieved 3 September 2012.
Riordan, Teresa. Inventing beauty. Random House Digital, Inc. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-7679-1451-2. Retrieved 3 September 2012.

Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all men find breasts sexually arousing (I certainly don't), while some women do. As for kissing, see kiss#Biology and evolution. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite certain that male attraction to big breasts is just as culturally influenced as women's attraction is to powerful men. If only we could get Hollywood on board with our genetics, then maybe we'd make some progress... Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During much of the 1920s, the idealized body type pushed by western "glamour" media was somewhat small-breasted, while the 1950s went to the opposite extreme... AnonMoos (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved