Humanities desk
< September 22	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 24 >

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 23

Chardin's students

Fragonard apparently studied in the atelier of the great luminist Chardin, and google gave me Thomas Germain Joseph Duvivier too (No article on any Wikipedia. He's the brother of Pierre-Simon-Benjamin Duvivier, article on French WP only. I found references describing T.G.J. Duvivier as an imitator of Chardin's art). Does anyone have any reference to other painters who studied with Chardin, besides the two I named? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our page on Per Krafft the Elder says he was a student of Chardin among others. --Antiquary (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Antiquary. I used that data point to search some more, but I'm having trouble finding any references for Per Krafft or other students. Sometimes, I suspect, "studying" also means "studying the works of" without implying actual apprenticeship or any other form of studying supervised by Chardin. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look, the more I now agree with you in doubting that Krafft ever formally studied under Chardin. Artfact, for example, only says that 'He was taught [in Paris] by Alexandre Roslin but was more attracted to the bourgeois and intimate milieu of Chardin’s and Greuze’s paintings.' FWIW I find a reference to Madame Peigné née Jouanon (who she?) studying with Chardin. --Antiquary (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered why Category:Pupils of Chardin is a redlink. According to Chardin: An Intimate Art by Hélène Prigent and Pierre Rosenberg, 'Chardin worked alone. He seems to have had no pupils, except possibly someone to mix his colours.' So much even for Fragonard in that case. --Antiquary (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Antiquary! I didn't really suspect much of anything, but, given the popularity and significance of both artists, I had found it strange that I wasn't able to find any details on Fragonard's studies with Chardin (as opposed to of Chardin's work). So I got curious. Thanks again! If no one does it before me, I shall remove this info from the articles on Fragonard and Per Krafft the Elder, and perhaps leave a note, including your reference, on the talk pages, in case someone does come up with an affirmative reference (which I now doubt). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Last Post to signal armistice?

When I was in elementary and middle school, we were taught that the Last Post had been played after the 1918 armistice to deliver the ceasefire order to the soldiers. Was this true? Do any armies still use music to propagate a ceasefire order? Neon Merlin 03:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Written or verbal orders from on high propagate to armies and down to units. Isn't "Last Post" similar in its meaning to "Taps?" It would just be a salute to some soldier having died, and that is hardly a general order to cease hostilities. The noodling on a bugle would just be an epiphenomenon of the end of slaughter in a war. Edison (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Last post is similar to taps - there would have been a seperate bugle call for "cease fire" but I very much doubt if that was used by that stage of the war. On Remembrance Sunday, the last post is used to mark the end of the two minutes' silence, which may have given rise to this story. I have seen (on TV) a typed order that was passed to a front-line artillery battery ordering the end of hostilities. Alansplodge (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An eyewitness account by a US officer here doesn't mention bugles, but this account of the French Army does. Alansplodge (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible that a bugler somewhere along the front blew "Last Post" as soon as the ceasefire started, but not as any sort of "signal" to ceasefire. Like "Taps", "Last Post" is blown at military funerals and memorials to honor the dead... so it is more likely that someone (possibly the bugler himself) decided it would be appropriate to honor his fallen comrades, now that the fighting had stopped. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those unfamiliar with the Last Post can hear it here. Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special Operations Executive

Why does the above article link to Plaka in Athens, when the reference is to an historic agreement between EAMS (Aris Velihoutis) and EDES (Napoleon Zervas)under the auspices of the British (Christopher Woodhouse), at a small town near the Plaka bridge in Epirus? I believe the reference is wrong (my father was at the meeting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CecilEdwardBarnes (talk • contribs) 06:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have good grounds to believe an article is wrong, change it - especially if you can find a published reliable source to reference. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbath navigating

Are there any methods of aerial navigation that a Jewish navigator can use on Sabbath without breaking the halakhic laws? (Note that I'm asking about navigating an aircraft, not piloting one: I know that a Jewish pilot can't even start the engines on a Saturday without breaking the ban on lighting fires, unless this is for a rescue mission.) I'm guessing that map reading is prob'ly OK, but celestial navigation is out of the question; is this correct? What about other methods, like inertial or radio navigation? Thanks in advance! 67.169.177.176 (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that activates electricity through your own action is out of the question (so no radio). You can get a goy to do it if you agree before shabbat to have him do so and he also benefits (by not crashing let's say). Idk about using the stars, but I guess that map-reading would be okay. Bare-in-mind I am reform though, so I don't really know. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Elul 5771 06:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will the pilot and co-pilot be completely lost without navigation and end up flying blindly until they run out of fuel and crash? If so, then a Jew need not worry if their actions break Sabbath rules, so long as lives are saved. Other than that, I'm not sure. I'm curious, though - why do you think celestial navigation would be unacceptable? ^Avic _ennasis @ 07:10, 24 Elul 5771 / 07:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it requires complex mathematical calculations, so would violate the ban on "making the finishing touch"? 67.169.177.176 (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, I totally forgot about breaking shabbat rules in the event of life-threatening circumstances. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Elul 5771 07:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The navigator wouldn't be able to board the plane on the Sabbath, so would be no help whatsoever. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbath lighting

I am reminded of a question my friends and I have been asking ourselves for the past 15 years, when we bought a disused synagogue. As well as the usual electric lighting, gas lighting had been installed throughout the large extension to the building that was built in the 1960s (5723 to be exact). We speculated that this was done to somehow enable the staff to get round the shabbat rules. I've read electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law and understand that "turning on an incandescent light bulb violates the Biblical prohibition against igniting a fire" so surely turning on a gas lamp is just the same. Why might gas lighting have been installed in a synagogue in the 1960s?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no definitive answer, but the following possibility occurs to me. In order to have the synagogue lit on Shabbat without violating the ignition prohibition, one would have to have turned on the lights before the beginning of Shabbat. Since electric lighting is either on or off, this would wastefully require electric lights to be (full) on for a long time (as dimmer switches, even if then available, would not actually reduce the power consumption appreciably). However, regulatable gas lighting, once lit, could presumably be left turned down to a minimal level, and turned up only as needed, without violating the prohibition. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.228 (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In mainstream Orthodox Judaism there would be no advantage, as a Jew can turn off/down neither electric nor gas lighting on the Sabbath. Maybe gas was cheaper then? Maybe the synagogue chairman had shares in a gas company? Maybe the building's electricity supply would have needed an expensive overhaul to power the additional structure? Maybe the more romantic lighting suited a function hall? Maybe lots of things, but I see no benefit in halachik issues. --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that much about halachik issues but it strikes me that a minor advantage is likely to be that the gas lighting would generally last without problem for the entire shabbat provided there are no gas supply issues. And if there is a problem you should probably do something about it because of the potential risk to life. Incandescent lights can die at any time and it's difficult to know when they're going to die. This sounds like only a minor risk but I guess lights do die and you have a slightly over 1/7 chance of it happening during the shabbat everything else being equal (which it probably isn't, incandescent lights tend to die when they are turned on and off but may also die when on for a long time). Also I don't know what the lifespan of 1960 lights were like. BTW, my understanding of the original message is there was electric lighting (I guess functional and complete) in addition to the gas lighting so I dunno about the 'expensive overhaul' suggestion. However it may be possible the electric lighting was installed after the gas lighting was already there. Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with bulbs dying is catered for in most synagogues by having an abundance of lights. There's an idea of having more light than you need on the Sabbath (conversely, the lighting is dimmed on Tisha B'Av) so most synagogues can weather multiple bulb failures with ease. --Dweller (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's another possible answer: redundancy, so that if either the electricity or the gas supply were to be interrupted, there would still be sufficient light. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.228 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heir to the Irish throne

Were the monarchy ever to be restored in Ireland who would be the heir to the throne based on the direct descendancy from Brian Boru? I once read it was a member of the Kavanagh family. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article claims that "Brian Boru is the ancestor of every English monarch from 1399 to the present. Almost certainly, more people in England can prove descent from Brian Boru than people in Ireland." So the legitimate heir to the Irish throne is... Queen Elizabeth II. Ho hum. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although due to various removals of English/British monarchs, some of these guys would disagree with Elizabeth II's claim: Pretender#English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and British pretenders. Franz, Duke of Bavaria is apparently first in line through James VII and II. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't follow your reasoning, Tammy. Boru is an ancestor of probably millions of people, including yours truly, according to family tradition. Why should whoever happens to be the current monarch of the UK, the succession to which throne has nothing whatsoever to do with descent from Brian Boru, automatically be Boru's heir? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be an ancestor of mine too, as is Edward III. The logic is contained in the first sentence I quoted - what's your point? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His point, Tammy, is that the rules of succession to the throne of Ireland are not necessarily the same as the ones to UK, and therefore even if at some point there were intermarriage, and one of the descendents became King in England, it doesn't mean the current UK monarch is suitable as per the rules recognised in Ireland. --Lgriot (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have Pretender#Ireland, but it's a bit of a mess (both the situation and the article). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Descent of Elizabeth II from William I#The descent from the Irish kings. Although I have the utmost respect for EIIR, the historical claim of descent from Brian Boru is a bit weak, since it relies on descent through the female line at a couple of points, which I understand was not allowed in the succession of the High Kings of Ireland. However, you can still see the Harp of Brian Boru on the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am already aware Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of Brian Boru through the marraige of Aiofe of Leinster and Strongbow. Many noble families in medieval England descended from them as a result of the Marshal sisters' fecundity. I was thinking of Aiofe's brother Donal Kavanagh whose descendants would surely have precedence over those of Aiofe?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What were the rules on royal inheritance in Ireland? Did the title passed through the female line, or was it restricted to male primogeniture? Was it semi-elected (ie open to which ever member of the royal family could gain support of the nobility and clan chiefs)? Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles says "A king would not be succeeded by his own son but would normally be succeeded by his mother's other sons; then by his sisters' sons; then his maternal aunt's sons; and so on, traveling through the female line of the royal house. This combination of male succession through matrilineal descent produced a cumbersome system under which the throne passed cyclically from brother to brother, then uncle to nephew, and then cousin to cousin, before starting over as brother to brother, uncle to nephew, etc" Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the high king of all Ireland was traditionally elected from amongst the ruling families of the different sub-kingdoms, or at least chosen based on who was the most threatening or generous of the candidates (who were themselves often elected from within each family), so surely there would not be a clear direct heir under this system, and if the Irish were to change the rules by which their high king was chosen, the question then becomes, what system would they use instead. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last claimant to have realistically ruled as the High King of Ireland was Edward Bruce, younger brother of Robert the Bruce. Afterwards, there existed two systems of nobility within Ireland, the Gaelic lords who continued to maintain the old systems (which became somewhat increasingly irrelevent) and the English system, which began under the Lordship of Ireland and became the (English) Kingdom of Ireland. Arguably, the old Gaelic system became officially defunct after the Flight of the Earls. If you're looking to find a suitable "High King" (Gaelic), then you'd first need to round up the current pretenders of the thrones to the various petty Irish kingdoms and then have them elect one. If you're looking for the modern pretender to the English Kingdom of Ireland, that would be fairly unambiguously Queen Elizabeth II. --Jayron32 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Net Worth

I would like to see a list of all Senators and Congressmen since 1960 containing net worth at entry and upon exit of public office — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.73.34 (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So would a lot of people... such a list would be fascinating. Unfortunately, sifting through tax records and compiling such information on Wikipedia would violate our WP:No original research policy. We would need someone else (you?) to do the research and publish it ... Wikipedia could then use that published research as the basis for an article. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't tax records only record income, rather then net worth since you are not taxed on what you own (except for real estate taxes I guess), but what you make? At least for people who have not been subject to the death tax? Googlemeister (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True... taxes alone would not give net worth (thanks for the correction)... but that does not change the point I was making. The IP was requesting an article that we can not provide. The act of compiling the information needed to create such a list would violate our NOR policy... the information would have to be compiled and published elsewhere first. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP never specified that they wanted this list to be on Wikipedia. They simply asked for a list. Dismas|^(talk) 13:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list would be nearly impossible due to all the technicalities of what "net worth" means. Just to pick a dead Senator, consider Strom Thurmond. He had a lot of investments in a lot of different things. Some of his investments were in investment groups. Some were made publicly known. Some only became public after he died. So, you could easily spend a few years trying to calculate his net work when he died (and left office) and still not have a fully accurate number. Imagine trying to get some accurate value for everyone. -- kainaw ™ 14:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To give concrete numbers, when Thurmond died, his net worth was only $200,000. This was because, starting around 1989, when he net worth was $2 million, he set up a number of trust funds for his children, which are not considered part of his estate's net worth.[1] --Mr.98 (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be an ass, but $200,000 looks like an estimate, not a concrete number. I seriously doubt he quickly checked his accounting right before he died to ensure his net worth was concretely valued at a perfect multiple of $100,000. -- kainaw ™ 14:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously rounded. The important point here is that it's an order of magnitude different from what his "true" assets were. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this page for a description of what members of Congress have to disclose and what offices hold the records. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great chart to read. If you aren't able to post it on Wikipedia, I urge you to post it on a Wikia page or someplace else along with all your footnotes. By the way, the chart should definitely not end when each person leaves office. In the US, there is a very notorious and awful cycle where politicians leave office, then immediately enter the private sector where they are hired to be lobbyists (or other roles) by very large corporations. The worry is of course that while in office they press for laws that favor the corporation they believe will be their future employer, and then get a lucrative job as a payoff once they leave. Then they go back into a government job and the cycle begins again. Inside Job bemoaned this a bit — namely, that most of the senior Treasury Department people had previously worked at Goldman Sachs, and guess who came out pretty well in the end. Similarly, Darleen Druyun, purchaser of a lot of Boeing stuff, actually negotiated employment with Boeing while she was in her government position, and went to prison. (I realize these examples aren't of Congressional office holders, but the same ideas apply.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though frankly, becoming a lobbyist after office is not a horrible thing in and of itself. The implication is that they somehow were doing bad things during office. That's a problem in and of itself, if true. It may or may not have any relation to what they do after office. Bill Clinton no doubt makes a lot more money on speaking engagements and giving advice after he was President than he did during his Presidency. But that doesn't imply he did anything unethical while he was President. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

faces

I have been struggling recently with drawing realistic faces and heads of people, particularly with trying to get all the features in the right place and the right shape. I am wondering if there is anywhere I can find pictures of different sorts of faces facing all different angles and with different expressions that I can practice copying from.148.197.81.179 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of helpful websites out there. Try this for starters or just use a search engine to look for "how to draw faces".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you get tired of that draw a stick man and watch him come to life.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't ask for advice on learning to draw, I am only after pictures that I can study in detail to see exactly where the different features of different faces are in relation to each other, how large they are, what shape they are and so on, quite difficult to do standing in front of a mirror, and more so on real people passing by. Meanwhile, that site linked to doesn't seem that much help, given that the step by step advice seems to go pretty much 1-find a picture to copy from, 2-draw the eyes, 3-draw the nose, and so on, with little advice on how to draw each of those. 148.197.80.214 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to draw the human body, you need to do more than just observe passing people. Know your human anatomy! That means knowing the bones and the muscles underneath the skin. And yes that framework oval with a crosshair thing is not only applicable for cartoons. It's used for realistic drawings as well for gauging proportions and angle. So don't discount it either.

Anyway, the best resource I can recommend would probably be Drawing the Head and Hands by Andrew Loomis. It's a public domain book, and really a spectacular resource for any artist. They're dated of course, but the principles are applicable even today. His other books are available free online if you want to get more ([2] or [3]). -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neoclassical sex?

How are reproductive motivations treated in neoclassical economics? I'm looking for background information on how mating, procreation, nesting, and the like influence individuals' utility maximization and demands. Certainly these are important factors influencing large amounts of consumer demand, involving dating behavior, marriage and related expenses (and savings from cohabitation), conspicuous consumption, prostitution, and child rearing behaviors and expenses, but I can't find any treatment of utility maximization which explicitly addresses anything beyond food, clothing, shelter, and transportation. 69.171.160.21 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The classic analysis is Malthus' "preventive checks" (in Britain during the Renaissance or early modern period, working-class people married later if they couldn't afford to marry earlier, so that economic factors could exert a limiting effect on the rate of population growth). There's no Wikipedia article on preventive check or preventive checks, but it seems like there should be. Anyway, the modern theory of sexual selection has a more comprehensive type of analysis which could be called quasi-economic in some aspects... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helped me find the material I need for my assignment. 69.171.160.21 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-rated constellations ?

Since most of our constellations come from the Greeks and Romans, who were also known for their erotic art, I'm curious as to the lack of erotic imagery in constellations. Were they censored at some point ? (BTW, I think this is a better place for this Q than the Science Desk, since, while stars are natural phenomena, constellations are entirely from man's imagination.) StuRat (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, there's certainly sexual undertones in the Andromeda story. There are lots of overtly sexual parts to Greek stories; I don't know that there are any overtly pornographic constellations per se, insofar as the constellations themselves represent the characters in these stories then one could consider the erotic parts of the stories can't be ignored when considering the constellations. --Jayron32 18:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a bit more, you may be interested in digging up an english translation of the Catasterismi, which is basically the ancient text which tells the stories of the origin myths of the constellations. --Jayron32 18:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you introduce the concept of pornography, Jayron? Stu was asking about erotic imagery. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Stu titled the section "X-Rated". I wasn't using the term "pornography" in a perjorative sense; I hadn't intended it to be anything except a one-to-one synonym to erotic art. If it means something different to you, that's fine; but it wasn't intended to have a different meaning for me, and certainly not in any perjorative sense. --Jayron32 02:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, out of the current formally-recognized 88 constellations, some of the large and conspicuous ones were inherited from earlier middle-eastern etc. civilizations, while many other constellations (which are either small and lack bright stars, or are only visible from southern latitudes) were filled in centuries after the fall of the Roman empire. So I don't know that there's a dominant overall imprint of Greco-Roman culture... AnonMoos (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greek mytholgy held that the milkyway was created when Hera found Heracles biting her breast as he suckled from it as an infant. She pushed him away and the milk splattered across the galaxy forming the milkyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.31.81 (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also seem to remember reading about another creation myth for the Milky Way. It was from a hunter-gatherer culture, but I can't remember from where. It was basically that Milky Way was the ejaculate of a god.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian statehood application

Does anyone know where I can find the full text of President Abbas' letter to the UN Secretary-General which was handed over today? ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 18:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/En/lateste.pdf be what you're looking for? Rcsprinter (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Fraid not; that's a transcript of Abbas' speech to the General Assembly, not his written letter to Ban Ki-Moon. ╟─Treasury Tag►Subsyndic General─╢ 19:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The letter should be issued as a UN document within a day or so of receipt. At that point it should be listed on this page. It doesn't seem to be there yet, but it should turn up; and if not, it should appear in the Security Council official records (UN membership applications are referred to a Security Council committee of the whole). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College dating; sociology; hookups vs relationships

I am writing the article College dating. I am trying to determine why hookups are so much more common than relationships in college as compared to dating in high school and post-college. Using this study, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2932467/ it is clear that hookups are becoming very common. I used the article http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105008712 and decided that the main causes were lack of time and effort to commit to another person. I could not find any more information as to why this sudden boom might be happening. Thanks! BonnieNoel (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because young people like sex, and in college they have no supervision? --Jayron32 19:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if you are synthesizing articles to come to your own, unique conclusions, that is a definite violation of WP:NOR. If the theories are not in the literature you are citing, don't add them. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just an old bloke out of touch with modern language conventions, but can someone please give definitions of hookup and relationship, so that this topic makes sense? HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hookup = one-night stand. Relationship = steady dating (generally for a few months or more). Hope this helps. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is hardly a current trend... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-known fact that the current generation of kids are always going to hell in a hand basket. Back in our day, sure, we "experimented". But these kids today, they're out of control! --Mr.98 (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"One night stand" I'm familiar with, but not "hookup". Maybe it's an American thing. (Which I'm not.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That really surprises me, HiLo. Aren't you a teacher? Don't your young charges go on constantly about "hooking up"? Maybe you've taught them so well that they use only formal words and sentences. :) I'm very familiar with this expression from just my general participation (such as it is) in the Australian community. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hooking up" used to mean simply "joining" or "meeting", as in "I'm hooking up with the gang after work." If my grandchildren were to say "I'm hooking up with so-and-so after school" I now understand they'd be more than a little surprised at my laid-back response. Bielle (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's the whole point of the young generation (my generation) using this terminology? 67.169.177.176 (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. Hooking Up was published in 2000, written by a guy who was then 69 years old. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.98--I am looking for literature to verify my hypothesis. I am also trying to determine if this is a proper section to add to the article or if it should be deleted...what are your thoughts, everyone? Also, Adam Bishop, what do you mean this is hardly a current trend? That college students don't typically hookup? BonnieNoel (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no, sorry, that was poorly worded. I mean it's not a "sudden boom" as you said, although I suppose it would depend on how you define "sudden". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Law

I recently downloaded an iPod application about Roman Emperors. Each page (copied from wikipedia btw without attribution) links to a series of pictures of busts/paintings etc of each emperor. I'm interested in developing such an app, but have no idea about copyright law in regards to reproducing images legally for such an application. If I were to develop such an app, how would I go about finding images that were either copyright-free, or images that I could (purchase?) gain the use of? Skinny87 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, before it's said: we can't offer you legal advice. We can't guarantee that anything you read on here will be fine in your legal jurisdiction (which we don't know). So don't take any of this as gospel.

That being said, the images on Wikimedia Commons, which are the source of most of the images you find in Wikipedia articles (but not all!), state their copyright restrictions (or lack thereof) very clearly. Any image you find on Wikipedia can be clicked on, and it will tell you whether it is copyrighted and what your rights are with regards to re-use. Wikipedia tries to be much clearer on this than the rest of the internet. If you are not experienced in judging the copyright status of things on the internet, you should probably assume that most of it is copyrighted. If you'd like to read a nice primer on thinking about copyrights, I recommend Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, which is, incidentally, free. It's an interesting read and over the course of the book you'll get a much better understanding of what the relevant considerations are. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks like a good book to work through. I can see a lot of images on Commons that could be used in such an app, but even the ones that seem free to use are confusing. Take this one. The CC notice states that you are free to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work and refers to You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. But this brings up several questions. Firstly, what are the manners specified by the licensor, the Bundesarchive? And if this were used in an iPod application for which money is charged, is that a legal use, as money would be made off of the image, indirectly at least. I realize legal advice can't be given and I'm not really asking for it, IANAL and so forth, but where would I even go to get these questions answered?Skinny87 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that particular case, those tags say what the attribution needs to be (in that case, "Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-198-1383-39 / CC-BY-SA"). In cases where they don't specify it, you're safe listing the name of the author. (You also have to list the license, like CC-BY-SA, because of the ShareAlike requirements). You are allowed to make money off of any images on Commons as long as you do everything that is said in the requirements. You don't gain the copyright yourself — you must re-license the image according to the same requirements — so you couldn't sue someone for reusing your version of things. But you can make money off of it. Does that clarify things? These sorts of general questions about licenses don't fall under legal advice, and the CC licenses are meant to be interpreted by people without legal skills, so I think we can help you if you have further questions on those.

You're absolutely correct to think that copyright is a complicated mess of things that someone "outside" of shouldn't try to reason their way through without some guidance. I heavily recommend the Lessig book as a primer to wrapping your brain around the subject — it's one of the things I used when learning to wrap mine around it, anyway. Lessig is also one of the creators of Creative Commons and the CC licenses, so he covers that sort of stuff in the book pretty well. There is a logic to copyright, but it takes a little indoctrination to really grok it. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually start with Wikipedia:Public domain, which is US-centric (because Wikipedia is in the US). Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prison account

On the Desmond Keith Carter article, it says that:

In July 1993, Carter was sentenced to death for first degree murder and to 40 years imprisonment for robbery with a dangerous weapon. On the eve of his execution, Carter declined a special meal. Instead, he bought two cheeseburgers, a steak sub, and two Cokes from the prison canteen, for which he paid $4.20 from his prison account. He was executed by means of lethal injection on December 10, 2002.

Is this "prison account" phenomenon wide-spread? Is it notable enough to warrant an article? If so then I might start one when I have some free time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous.translator (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In American prisons (perhaps others, I don't know), prisoners have accounts with prison commissaries that carry basic goods. The accounts are usually filled by people outside of the prison. The commissary article describes it pretty well. I doubt having a separate prison account article is necessary; it seems like something that could just be redirected to the commissary article. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's particularly useful to maintain an account for prisoners, because coins are contraband in prisons, as you can scrape the edges of a coin into a blade. My only source for this is the novel American Gods. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unanswered questions

why is all images of the Lord and savior Jesus Christ depicts him as apolloyon and as being white if he wasn't a gentile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.38.64 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All?... hardly. This website has many images of Jesus depicted as being non-white. The reason why Jesus has so often been depicted as being white is due to the fact that the common cultural image is based on European religious art. Through most of history Christianity was primarily confined to Europe ... and Europeans painted and sculpted what they were familiar with - ie European features (it's not confined to depictions of Jesus either... Medieval and Renaissance art depicted all biblical characters as being European.) And before you cry "racism"... The same phenomenon can be seen with an Afro-centric take when looking at medieval Ethiopian religious art works, which depicted biblical characters (including Jesus) as having African features. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I'd agree Christianity has been most a Eurpoean thing, although it's true that most of Europe has been Christian for much of the time Christianity has existed, and it is certainly true that most Christian art seen in the Western world comes out of the Western, European tradition. So it's certainly true that the 'white Jesus' effect is from the art being painting as part of a white European tradition, I just don't think it's true to say that Christianity was mostly confined to Europe throughout most of history. Much of Europe was relatively late in joining Christendom, compared to things like the Ethiopian Church and the Syrian Church (the Armenian Church and Constantinople I can see someone arguing are Europe): they just don't tend to feature greatly in our history and art lessons over here. 212.183.128.45 (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) Your assertion that that all images of Jesus are such is simply not true: see the article Depiction of Jesus and in particular its section Range_of_depictions. In Western European art there was a common and long-lasting convention of depicting historical figures with the racial features, clothing styles and surroundings of the intended contemporary viewers rather than authentically. This may sometimes have been due to lack of imagination or knowledge on the part of the artist, sometimes to cater to the (paying) customers' expectations, or sometimes to make a philosophical or theological point about the relevance of religious figures to the present day and the racially different beholders rather than the distant past and the subjects' original race and/or culture. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.228 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on your last point, I have seen depictions of the Stations of the Cross which show the children in "Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem" as modern schoolchildren wearing a local parish school uniform. This obviously isn't because anyone involved thinks that modern local schoolchildren were in Palestine 2000 years ago, or that children in that place and time dressed like that, but because Jesus says to weep not for him, but for "yourselves and your children", and the image is making a statement about what "your children" means in this context. 86.164.78.26 (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]