Humanities desk
< March 1	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 3 >

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.

March 2[edit]

Google docs or other online free templates for legal filings[edit]

Hi all, long time lurker and you guys are great! I would have thought that this would be more easily found but I need a template with the numbered lines on the left (something like this [[1]] but with a full page of complaint and a full page of damages) (google docs word does this but only with an return key line break and google sheets will not wordwrap a whole column but only cells). Thanks for any and all help! 2600:1702:690:F7A0:E5F0:7410:5C7C:7765 (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have MS Word, there is a template available. FWIW, such a thing is apparently called "legal pleading paper". On the Word template at least, the boilerplate stuff at the top only shows on the first page; further pages are just numbered. Matt Deres (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, open to any more suggestions but that might be a solution!2600:1702:690:F7A0:E5F0:7410:5C7C:7765 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academic studies on naturism vis-à-vis sexuality & physical risks[edit]

My impression is naturism does not intend/expect at least immediate sexual gratification and physical risks. Are there any neutral and non prejudiced from either side (emphasis added) academic studies relating to following questions regarding naturism sexuality and physical risks.

Here the question is limited about studies on people physically involved in naturism and not voyeur consuming images and videos.

Does naturism leads to more additional sexual attraction then than of normal likely natural human sexual attraction?, if it all leads to additional sexual attraction duration of such attraction are normal like non naturist/ shorter / longer?

Naturism reduces or increases sexual promiscuity among men and women ?

Naturism reduces or increases likely hood of sexual assaults among men and women ?

Instances of masturbation among naturist men remain as is compared to when they were non naturist, reduce or increase?

- Masturbation related one more question 'even among non-naturist men' are there positive or negative co-relations in frequency of masturbation and likely hood of sexual assaults taking place on women?

- - Some where I read police believe that men involved in flashing and masturbating in front of women, likely to engage in sexual assaults: a myth or is backed by academic studies on criminology?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM, per the instructions at the top of the page, and per the OP's express wishes, this is not the place to post our own opinions about the topic at hand. --Jayron 32 18:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

In a world just like ours except everyone took off their clothes by room temperature, but sex mores didn't change, a universe just this side of.. the Twilight Zone [people enter a church early and nonchalantly sit on their coats and dresses and stuff and wait for Mass to start]... I wonder if guys growing up here wouldn't get excited more often even when they first started liking the opposite sex. If even just my plain 6th grade teacher's clothes supernaturally became invisible to my vision all of a sudden I couldn't learn anymore. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^[Humor]So can it be called 'supernatural fantasy of naturism with clothes'?(humor end) On serious note, as such I am looking for discourse based on academic sources.

People still need to wear clothes outside when it's cold. Presumably in the summer they would sit their bare, sweaty butts everywhere (but I heard that in real nudist colonies the norm is not an exact copy of clothes world since they allegedly sit on a towel in case a previous sitter has left diseases or something). And yes the closest practical nude universe would pretty much require supernatural intervention to happen, very few cultures are completely naked and even if everyone somehow insisted on max practical nudism someone would probably invent winter outfits that are quicker to strip off and Nunavut would have less population. I wonder why most or all hunter-gatherers from the mild-winter part of Africa wear at least a loincloth but some Amazonians (who have Ice Age tundra ancestors) decided to be nuder. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is much of a norm regarding human sexual attraction in territories concerned with naturism in the current era. See for that Role: Social norms theory and consider the number of patterns susceptible of being generated through various combinations. Regarding physical risk, the field would be "physical risk" at large, rather than specific to naturism. The notions of era as well as territory would apply again: a well known territory originally of naturism can be named: ecotone ( I found the word after reading article Tick (ixodida) by the way ). If you look at Charles Lindbergh attire

and perhaps wonder you will have to think of how airfields often happen set part of the ecotone, and 1927 was a time when few facilities would allow for private hygiene indoors everywhere (naturism originated before that era though) . --Askedonty (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between naturists and non-naturists is that naturists prefer to recreate au naturel. They tend to be more often college-educated vegans and pacifists, but that is merely a weak statistical correlation. --Lambiam 10:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you meant say in a way they are conditioned for a specific way of life along with certain positive values to be observed so not many negative effects they are known for. But populations in countries like Germany seem to have practiced reasonable amount of naturist culture so any academic studies in Germany etc?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naturists are not sexually turned on by nakedness. For the rest, I guess they are like the rest of the population. Exposure to sunlight made much sense 50 years ago, now it could be considered a risk. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll believe that when you give me a reason to. To put it simply, there are some people for whom nudism is primarily a sexually exciting activity, and some for whom that's not the case. Our prudish society puts pressure on people to claim that it's not a sex thing, true or not, lest they be looked down on. You can go to Cap d'Agde (hetero) or Rooster Rock (gay) and do some research yourself. Temerarius (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any neutral and non prejudiced from either side (emphasis added) academic studies (emphasis added) Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the behavior of my colleagues. I have closed the off-topic discussion. --Jayron 32 18:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia and European neighbors[edit]

Since past some weeks in bits and pieces I was contributing and watching how does Boud putting all his effort in his Draft:WikiProject Peace. Suddenly news of Russians military on Ukraine border came, still thought it to be just a negotiation and pressure tactic. But some countries had already had issued frantic advisories asking citizens to leave Ukraine and their intelligence now seems was on spot.

On social media I went on to listen US academician John Mearsheimer's 2015 lecture on YouTube where in he had advised to make Ukraine to be a neutral state or Russia retaliation can be anticipated. Now his 2015 prophecies seem coming true. Then I came across Ukraine War: De-Escalate The Destructive Dynamics NOW!, on Youtube discussing why NATO believes in strong response to Russia but what are risks in making Putin total pariah and what can be leeway. After going through all this different questions came to my mind.

a) Since fall soviet 30 years is long time and why EU could not attract Russia to join with them?

b) Cult of Putin may be a personality problem but even without Putin a part of western fear about Russia comes from it's geographical size itself. If at all NATO succeeds what kind of geographic size rest of Europeans would prefer to see Russia be reduced to, not to fear about it's size.

c) How did Sweden and Finland dealt with NATO Vs Russia pressures for and against joining NATO in soviet time and after soviet time.

d) The way Sweden and Finland could deal the pressures why Ukraine could not?

Last but not least any inputs for Draft:WikiProject Peace?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 1994 Russia signed up for the Partnership for Peace, which was meant to be a track leading to NATO membership. While officially still a member, Russia went off in a different direction under Putin; it may be the case NATO membership did not agree with his grander plan for Russia. There are requirements for EU membership, the Copenhagen criteria, which Russia arguably does not meet (and the current administration does not appear to be willing to work towards). Inasmuch as the further answers to these questions cannot be found in such articles as History of Finland (1917–present), they appear to be asking for opinions and debate. --Lambiam 09:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a) it is important to remember that Putin is himself a product of the Soviet Union, in fact a former KGB agent, and its not hard to see that, while seeing himself as non-Communist (he's not particularly ideological), he definitely ascribes to Russian hegemony over the former Soviet states, and sees Russia as the natural enemy of the US/UK axis. That mindset has informed his politics since forever. Regarding b) Putin's "popularity" is mostly irrelevant as his powerbase is with the Russian oligarchs of which he is highly dependent on for his domestic power. The sanctions being imposed by the west are a direct attack on this powerbase. c) Regarding Sweden, see Swedish neutrality. While less famous than the neutrality of the Swiss, Sweden generally stays aloof of international entanglements. It didn't used to be; indeed prior to the early 19th century, Sweden was in constant conflict with its fellow Baltic powers of Poland-Lithuania and Russia, but since that time, it has largely remained outside of any military alliances that would have gotten it entangled in conflicts. Sweden fought in neither of the World Wars (though it tended to lean towards the German side of neutrality in both) and it also has refused to join NATO (though it maintains many informal ties to it). Regarding Finland, see Paasikivi–Kekkonen doctrine, it explains Finland's Cold War policies. Like Sweden, Finland maintains close ties with NATO (it's military, like Sweden's, is supplied by NATO-aligned companies, for example), but it is not a member. Regarding d), see a) above... Putin does not regard Finland or Sweden as a natural part of the Russian empire. He does so regard Ukraine, whose independence he considers to be dependent wholly on staying in his good graces, ala Belorussia or Kazakhstan, which maintain strong political ties to Putin. Ukraine does not, and Putin takes offense at that, seeing it as an incursion of Western powers into what he considers a natural part of the Russian sphere of influence; Finland and Sweden are not part of that sphere. --Jayron 32 15:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding Lambiam's reference to 1994, Boris Yeltsin was a very different leader than Putin. He was much more keen on aligning Russia with the west, which Putin (and others in his camp) saw as degrading to Russia, as it put Russia on a second tier under the major Western powers such as the US and UK. Putin was able to position himself to succeed Yeltsin in 1999 by keeping a low profile He was publicly mostly apolitical, and Yeltsin saw him as an ally until he resigned. He very quickly established himself as his own man, however. --Jayron 32 15:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds suit as "brilliants"[edit]

Diamonds are a classic playing card suit. Are there any playing cards in the world displaying and naming them as brilliants? --KnightMove (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by the "and naming" part. Playing cards don't ever have the names of the suits written on them - do they? There is a Kickstarter campaign from 2014 for "diamond cut playing cards". (Can't link to it due to anti-spam measures.) Card Zero (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the suit is not that of the gem, but of the geometric rhombus shape of the symbol ♦, which is inherited from the French card deck. In French, the name is carreau, literally meaning "square". --Lambiam 08:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You both are perfectly right. Still the deck manufacturer could declare the diamonds suit to be called "brilliants" in his case.

Still, I would also be happy with a card of diamonds displaying a brilliant. --KnightMove (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the question "did this ever happen", or do you desire to own such a deck? You could have one printed. Card Zero (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For my purposes, I would need an image of such a card... but rather an already existing one than one designed on my own. --KnightMove (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a line-drawing brilliant-cut ace of diamonds. Here's a more detailed, vintage one. These are stock images (the latter has a faint watermark) so the next question is: does copyright matter? (Ew! I see the same pack also has a realistic image on the ace of hearts.) Card Zero (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These "vintage" cards are fabricated images. The pattern of scratches for the two ace cards is the same. --Lambiam 10:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the whole thing is a vector illustration (including the background), so the deck probably never existed. I don't know if that's a problem for the OP. Card Zero (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, those images are actually perfect, thank you. I will check how to deal with the copyright. Please how did you find those images? They were not included in my Google image search (which may be due to national copyright differences and other reasons). --KnightMove (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Bing image search for "ace of diamonds". Card Zero (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A deck manufacturer could also declare the suit to be called "stars" (displayed as ✭), or "turds" (💩), or whatever. But why should they do that? It will only make their decks hard to sell. --Lambiam 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who indeed can say. Card Zero (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a market for fancy items, including changing traditional suits to appeal regionalism or fandom. See Douglas Crockford's California playing cards for a non-commercial example. --Error (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a fantasy of selling a deck for nerds, in which each suit is numbered 0 through F. (And if I do that, I may as well add some suits.) —Tamfang (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In some European countries, the four playing-card suits are traditionally cups, swords, coins, and clubs (literal wooden clubs)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of alternative suit schemes. German-suited playing cards use hearts, bells, acorns, and leaves. Italian and Spanish use the scheme above. The English system uses the French-suited playing cards, with slightly different names. See Playing card suit for more information. --Jayron 32 20:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese-suited playing cards use the French faces with the earlier Portuguese Spanish-suited playing cards suit names. --Error (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory link: Brilliant (diamond cut). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: Thanks - do I get it right that this card does actually not display a brilliant, but a simpler cut? In contrast, this one really displays a brilliant? --KnightMove (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am, obviously, brilliant in so many ways, but you have uncovered one of the few areas of human endeavour in which I am not an expert. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am much less brilliant than Jack, but I've been looking at the cards you're linked. I believe the answer to both your questions is "Maybe, depending on how much detail you expect the illustration to have." The second image is clearly meant to be a round brilliant cut by the shape and number of the facets, but it's missing the girdle (our article sometimes seems to call the pavilion the girdle as well, but I mean the thin "belt" separating the pavilion from the crown). But it's probably just missing to simplify the illustration. The first image is a bit harder to interpret because it's more simplified and stylized. A round brilliant cut is supposed have an octagonal top (the "table") and the illustration seems to show eight edges, but the perspective is all off; the two edges furthest from the viewer are way too large. Is it supposed to be a brilliant cut diamond? Maybe, but it doesn't look like a shape that could actually occur in nature, so I'm not sure what rules should apply. Matt Deres (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this perfectly sums it up, thank you. --KnightMove (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question on estampage process[edit]

This is a question about estampage. Would be grateful for any information from people who know the process. Recently, I came across doctoral thesis (not in English) which describes the process in some detail in its preface. http://hdl.handle.net/10603/215169 The details look a bit bizarre and I couldn't independently confirm the veracity of the description. Maplitho paper, boar bristle (B?)bent brush (the thesis says pig hair, I am guessing it could be boar bristle), dog skin dabber etc. are the accessories. For ink, a mixture is said to be the made of lampblack (soot), gum from moringa tree, and Indian ink. Is this the standard procedure? Or, was it a historical method, at least? (Tried posting this on a Facebook page dedicated to the area but didn't pass the admin's moderation.) Thanks in advance for any information. --Narrativist (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, we have an article at Estampage and it includes a section on standard process, though it seems far from exhaustive in terms of options, at least to my untrained eye. For example, it has stop-by-step instructions, but not much detail in terms of what kind of brush to use. But maybe it's a start? Matt Deres (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can see the intention behind these choices. Braille comes up a lot when I search for maplitho paper, so the idea must be to use paper suitable for embossing so that it will conform well to the surface. Hog hair is a normal bristle for a stiff paintbrush, see Paintbrush#Artists' brush bristles. (The idea is to paint on the raised surface but not to paint in the cracks, and a stiff brush would be more reliable for that purpose.) India ink is water, soot and (sometimes) shellac, so adding more soot and tree gum is just equivalent to reducing the water content and making the ink thicker (which, again, will keep it from flowing into the cracks). Dog skin, I have no thoughts on. Card Zero (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the information. Wonder if dog skin is used for any purpose at all. --Narrativist (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, although it may also have been replaced more recently by something made from Polymers. Dabber stands for dauber: “cushioned pad used for applying ink” (wikt:dabber). Also the name "Dagobert" is sometimes given to dogs in French. The dog's name "Timmy", from Enid Blyton's Famous Five is translated as "Dagobert". --Askedonty (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there also exists an antiquated term for shark as a seadog. There exist old-age techniques for producing so-called "fish-leather", in some cases for producing swift varnished natural rubber-like surfaces. Here are some french links: fish skin leather, Cuir_de_poisson (possibly sometimes called dog-skin). --Askedonty (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that French article is illustrated with the same picture as the English Shagreen article, yet fr:Chagrin (cuir) is different. I think maybe this is one concept in English and two in French. Also: dogfish are several families of sharks. I have to apologise for assuming that the hog brush is used to apply the ink, by the way, our article clearly says that it's just used for cleaning and wetting the stone, and the dabber is for applying the ink. wikt:dogskin says that sheepskin can be used as imitation dogskin. Sheepskin has fleece on it. Fleece or fur would be excellent for dabbing ink. Sharks, shmarks. Card Zero (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]