Humanities desk
< October 27	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 29 >

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.

October 28

Cypriot deposit haircut

2012–13 Cypriot financial crisis

I seem to remember that the news stated that the deposits in question were cut by 10% (after deducting the 100k guarantee) but the article doesn't say anything about the percentage, and reading a few references would suggest it was more likely larger and varied from depositor to depositor. Is the 10% claim a false memory? 93.136.55.123 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These [1] [2] suggest there was once a plan for a 9.9% on those exceeding €100,000 but it also included a 6.7% or 6.75% levy on €100,000 or less i.e. including the amount which was supposed to be guaranteed. But it's clear even then the details were still be worked on and they were controversial. According to [3] [4] [5], it was eventually 47.5% on deposits above €100,000, with up to €100,000 fully protected. (RT may not be the best source, especially given their interest in this, but it actually has the most details of how the plans evolved of those sources I found.) So I don't think false memory instead you simply didn't follow the story closely enough or otherwise remember the proposal which ended up being implemented. In fact this [6] basically mentions both figures. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, 47.5%? That sure explains why there was so much furore about it. Yeah, I guess I didn't follow it closely enough, luckily not having a Cypriot bank account myself :) 93.136.155.134 (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics

What makes something aesthetic? Is it hard or easy to determine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7471:6C00:F4DE:196:9322:663E (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we been here before? --Viennese Waltz 13:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less than a month ago,[7] and probably from the same Aussie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posit to the OP that the aesthetic quality/ies of something is/are a subjective perception in the mind of the perceiver. What may seem to be an aesthetic quality to one person may not seem so to a different person with different sensibilities, and vice versa, and neither are wrong.

Seeking an absolute objective judgement of whether something "is aesthetic" or not is therefore an exercise in futility, although persons educated, formally or experientially, in the same milieu with the same values may come to agree closely on such matters, and may have motivations to do so. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.118 (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some fairly universal standards among humans, though. For example, just about everyone would say that an alligator is "uglier" than a cat. SinisterLefty (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, can't be too sure about that... For one, I haven't seen any cat skin purses lately 93.136.155.134 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on culture and habit an individual grows up in or under. Some azian cultures idealize for example extra white toned skin color while native cultures paint theur skin or add patterns to it. --Kharon (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that "aesthetic" is expanding in meaning right now, when someone says something "is aesthetic" rather than "is an aesthetic," it sometimes means they strongly identify with a look or a situation or a proclivity that they consider to be ingroup- specific. (Unsurprisingly, it's often ironic; used to self-stereotype or focus on things you wouldn't expect to be celebrated.) The form "X is Y aesthetic" is what I'm describing here. "X is aesthetic" is less ingroup/outgroup-distinguishing; it's more of a "me_irl" statement. Compare feels, mood, X sounds; contrast oof, its cousin big oof and F. (F is not short to the expletive "fuck" in this context.) Temerarius (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you count growth not exclusive of work then you may try that aesthetic is a dimension added to work. I would associate that dimension with the human perception of love - but that's tentative. --Askedonty (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What?Temerarius (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetic is a dimension added to work. Aesthetic is a dimension taken out of work. The rest emerges. That's growth. Never mind. I was not suggesting that skin painting or tatoos are outside of aesthetics, although there is more of it at design time maybe than at painting time but the "out of work" remains, it's still in the artist's individual "touch". --Askedonty (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything lends itself to aesthetic evaluation. If we truly believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder then it is valid for someone to say that in their evaluation El Capitan is aesthetically not much to look at. Bus stop (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the evaluation is taking into account where it comes from. Thus Action painting, etc. Beauty right at the corner would only right smash one into a dream. --Askedonty (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations for art are only theories waiting to be supplanted by new theories; Action painting is open to reinterpretation. Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"What makes something aesthetic?" Nothing makes something aesthetic. The primary definition of aesthetic is "concerned with beauty, artistic impact, or appearance". Anything lends itself to aesthetic evaluation. Bus stop (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a restraint device designed to hold the captives in the Crusades time

A very old piece of paper from genizah dated around 900 years ago, describes shortly a restraint device designed to hold the captives in the crusades time, by binding them to a rafter(? or wooden beam, girder) at nights, while in the days the captives carried it. I tried to find something like that, but I couldn't find. Do you know such device? ThePupil (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May we see the brief description ? SinisterLefty (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing additional to what I wrote is described in the fragments I mentioned. If you want to know more about this specific fragment, here it is (look at the bottom of this page). I guess nobody dealt with the identification of this description before.ThePupil (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pillory / cangue? Gem fr (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stocks? Shackles? Rope? The question is too vague. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Maybe we can exclude some of the choices and minimize them if we will focus on the specific time and location which are relevant our question. For example, we may assume that it wasn't an Asian device which mostly found in China.ThePupil (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you translate the text from the article you linked to? (For those of us who can't read Hebrew) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be accurate the text is in Arabic language but in Hebrew letters (a way that Jewish from Muslim Spain or other Arabic countries were used to write then). I asked a friend who read and understand these languages and this is his translation to English: "It is a a rafter(?or wooden beam, girder) that ones are bound to it at night and they should transfer it at the day time, as we saw that it was made to a part of Christian captives". As you can see his information is not much expended more than what he said. ThePupil (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a device as such, just someone being manacled to a high beam. I say "just", but it must have been unimaginably horrible. Flippant link: [8] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, as this is a Wikipedia ref desk, Judah ibn Balaam --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shrew's fiddles like this one are used in Medieval reenactments in Central Europe. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything of the document in the link, but the abstract says it's commentary on Lamentations. Could it be Lamentations 1:14 Hebrew motah?—eric 02:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...but according to this page yoke in 1:14 is ol not motah, but Jeremiah did carry around the yoke of Babylon for a bit.—eric 04:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Count Dracula

Did he have a first name in the Stoker book or any other reasonably canonical sources? I skimmed through the relevant wiki articles for this and didn't see anything, other than the outside-the-book possible connection with Vlad the Impaler. For that matter, was "Vlad" a proper name, rather than a title of some sort? Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that his full name is Vlad Dracula.[9] Vlad is also a nickname for Vladimir, as in Putin, Guerrero, etc. See Vladimir (name). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs I think you slightly misread that websites info. It states Dracula "name of the vampire king in Bram Stoker's novel (1897)." Then in the next sentence it says "It was a surname of Prince Vlad II of Wallachia (d. 1476)" In Stoker's book the only name used is Dracula. See this - it has been two or three years since I last read it but my memory jibes with Mr O'Hanlon's. This summary of the book makes no mention of a first name. Just behind the request to register with them this site has the sentence "Dracula never uses a first name." Now there are 1000's of websites that mention Vlad Tepes/Dracula as one of the basis for Stoker's character so it does get confusing. MarnetteD|Talk 01:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Count Dracula does not mention a first name given by Stoker. It does discuss that Stoker heavily implied that Dracula was in fact Vlad III Dracula, but deliberately did not say this outright for a few reasons. TV Tropes says Stoker got biographical details mixed up with John Hunyadi. As alluded to above, loads of subsequent fanfiction creators have taken "Vlad Dracula" as the character's full name. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. The Quora answer was particularly informative since it explains an issue I was wondering about, whether omitting the first name was a 19th century literary stylistic point. Mr. Morden from Babylon 5's first name is purposely omitted with maybe a similar vibe. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if they don't want you to "get to know" a character and see things from their POV, they may avoid giving a first name, and in some cases last name either, only referring to the character by a nickname. For example, in the book, we were supposed to empathize with Victor Frankenstein, but not with Frankenstein's monster, which wasn't given a name. But later filmmakers wanted us to empathize with the monster, and thus the name Frankenstein was (mis)applied to the monster, as in Bride of Frankenstein. SinisterLefty (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasonably canonical source"? These "classical" and "Fantasy" novels and stories are madeup BS with a grain of historical truth or fantasy. Real History is full with super bloody brutal rulers who organized genocidal acts everywhere, like Genghis Khan. Many people are and have been fascinated by evil in all forms and they bring and keep this BS (in)to life in the end. --Kharon (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical meaning Canon (fiction), e.g. Stoker's book and commentary about it, rather than fictional follow-ons. The same way that canonical sources about Star Trek characters include the TV show and the official books but not stuff like fan fiction. It doesn't matter that Star Trek itself is completely fictional. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]