Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 May 30

Humanities desk
< May 29	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 31 >

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.

May 30

what are these buildings

what are these buildings located on treasure island in san Francisco [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.97.66 (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They are indeed "Sage Hall" and "Cosson Hall" but they were Bachelor Enlisted Quarters or BEQ. I lved there in the 1980's while attending Hull Maintenance Technician School. We were trained in firefighting, welding, sheel metal work, wodden construction techniques and overall Damage control experts for the Navy. The building was made with 6 wings around a central circular ramp. To get to the top floors you had to circle the ramp several times. The bottom floors were for male sailors stationed in Treasure Island. The upper floors were for students attending various schools on treasure island. It was the most perfect view of the San Francisco skyline.

When I Googled for "star shaped buildings" on Treasure Island, this said they are barracks, part of the former naval base. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda weird. The armed forces aren't usually noted for odd architecture. Was the navy trying to subtly one-up The Pentagon? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They're called "Sage Hall" and "Cosson Hall", and they were BOQ (bachelor officer quarters). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just speculation, but they might be multiple sleeping quarters wings with central offices and maybe dining rooms. Corvus cornix_talk 19:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame that the City of San Francisco has allowed this great base to fall into a total pile of crap. They were given the base the same time the city of San Diego took over NTC San Diego (Boot Camp). San Diego has made it a wonderful mixed use area full of shops, lower income housing, middle income units and even upscale areas.

San Diego has done it right. San Francisco... well let's all say how we really feel. A liberal left leaning State Government in a left leaning State has allowed Treasure Island to be taken over by the worst of the worst. I drove over to TI with my wife and actually feared for our lives. DON'T GO OVER THERE AT NIGHT.... EVER!

The River Nile

To what extent is the current management of the river Nile sustainable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.164.190 (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. User:Krator (t c) 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And here's the aforementioned help with pointing towards articles. You may want to look at Sustainability Nile Hydropolitics in the Nile Basin. Don't forget to look at linked pages (click on words in blue in the text) and "See also" pages mentioned. Water management is still under construction, but may also hold useful links. --76.111.32.200 (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Walibri's strange custom

I've read on the net that when men of the Walibri tribe of central Australia greet each other, they shake genitals instead of hands. The web pages saying this story are all unreliable, of course, (blogs or discussion forums) but I was wondering if there is some truth in the story? --211.243.246.207 (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the tribe even exists (apologies to any member of the tribe if I'm wrong) but on a quick google search every reference to them talks about this genitals shaking custom. I can't find any reference to anything else about the tribe. Other aboriginal tribes seem well represented on the net so why not this one?Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Indigenous Australian group names doesn't list them.Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean the Warlpiri, whose language kept coming up in my linguistics classes... but I've never heard of this supposed custom. 134.96.105.72 (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Our leg is being pulled. Xn4 23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Our middle leg, at that.

Is there a website with the names of clothes?

I never paid ANY attention to clothing, like, I wouldn't know what twill is or what pleated meant. Now I have a job that requires me to... any web sites that would show pictures of all the clothes and parts and what they are called? I barely know what a shirt is... THANKS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.88.122.226 (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in Category:Textiles and Category:Clothing. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And a google search for "fashion glossary" brings up some useful sites. WikiJedits (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on nudism. I am certain that it covers relevant parts. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought nudism didn't cover relevant parts. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look here [[2]] for clothing show and tell. --76.111.32.200 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Europe and Cluster Bombs

See: Convention on Cluster Munitions.

File:Cononclubom.png

In the map to the right several countries are missing. That large nations such as the US and China didn't sign the convention is no surprise. However, Poland, Romania and Greece (?) didn't sign the convention either. Why would that be? This seems like a very good way to lose credibility within the EU. User:Krator (t c) 12:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends on who are the ruling parties of a country and its public interest/perception. This issue might seem like a no-brainer to sign-up to, but unless it scores you politically positive press/media coverage - or your party is generally anti-war/anti-weaponary there is little incentive to change. The nations you mention will probably receive very little detriment from not signing up. People tend to be too black & white in their consideration of the issue. Those who didn't sign the treaty are not necessarily disinterested/uncaring of the effects of cluster bombs, they may simply believe this convention is unmanageable, not worth signing up for, would cause additional issues. They may have their own internal defense-measures that prevent use of them, or they may not use them so see no value in signing up for something. The reasons can be numerous and many could be quite reasonable (similar is how people get excited by Kyoto by ignoring that just because you don't sign-up doesn't mean you don't take the issue seriously, you may just disagree with the method of control). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suspect that there's a strong correlation to how many countries found it politically easy to sign up and how many countries did not have any cluster munitions in their armaments in the first place. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, technically no countries have signed - that doesn't happen until December. Rmhermen (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Having read this question, I started to search Polish websites for some info on cluster bombs and I found out that, sadly, cluster munition is produced in Poland and that Polish Armed Forces maintain and keep expanding their cluster munition stockpiles. Poland participated in the Oslo conference but refrained from signing the convention, saying it must first "analyze it thouroghly". This has been criticized by Polish NGOs such as Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Poland and Polish Red Cross. [3] — Kpalion^(talk) 08:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That map cannot be correct since it includes Finland, another EU country outside the treaty. Finland did take part in the negotiations but did not succeed in keeping more advanced bombs outside the treaty, and thus won't ratify it in the foreseeable future. The Finnish goverment opposes a complete ban of cluster munitions because the current national defense plans involve replacing land mines with advanced cluster bombs, in order to be able to join the Ottawa Treaty banning land mines. For historical reasons there is broad support within Finnish society to maintaining non-negligible armed forces as a deterrent, however wrongheaded and outdated that kind of thinking may be. As long as a government is not willing to weaken national defenses, completely disposing of a form of weaponry cannot be done without alternative defense arrangements which require considerable time and money. The cynic in me suspects that a vast majority of the signatory countries did not rely on cluster bombs for their national defense in the first place, or had alternative arrangements already being phased in. 84.239.133.86 (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian Experience

The question about an Australian Aboriginal group earlier got me thinking. So here's my question: I'm a white European who has lived in Australia for 5 years, in that time I've met many different people from many different countries - Chinese, Spanish, Iranian's, Ugandans -you name them, I've met them socially. But in that whole time I've only ever met ONE Aboriginal Australian. I'm not really sure what my question is, but I think it's something like - Am I moving in the wrong circles? Have other migrant Australian's noticed this? –Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't mentioned where precisely you live. The indigenous population in Australia nowadays is rather small about 2% of the population. Even for those, a fair percentage of them are isolated in certain areas I believe. So it's not surprising it's fairly uncommon to meet one. Indigenous Australians may interest you. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Many people who live in the Australian metropolises will go through their entire lives without ever meeting an indigenous person that they're aware of. I say "that they're aware of" because indigenous people don't go around with an "Indigenous person" sign around their neck, and many self-identified indigenous people have mixed blood lines and don't have any of the stereotypical visible characteristics that some people assume they all have. You may in fact have met a number of indigenous people who didn't choose to reveal this information in a social setting. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've lived in Australia for all of my 36 years, and I have met very few Aboriginal people, although I acknowledge what Jack says, that I may have met some who didn't mention it. Most of the Aboriginal people I have met were those I met up north, when I went to Onslow (north-west coast of Western Australia). When I was there, I actually met very few white people, because I was staying in an Aboriginal community there. There is an informal apartheid in Australia, which reaches near-formal status at various times. In some country pubs, so Aboriginal people have told me, there are still "whites-only" and "blacks-only" sections. You will eventually meet an Aboriginal person if you are open and tolerant, but to guage the degree of separation, watch when you see Aboriginal people in public: see who else they are with. You guessed it, they will be Aboriginal also.

Thanks for the question, because I like hearing sympathetic people who are concerned about these issues. You might care to read My Place by Sally Morgan, which was quite a famous book in its time, at least in WA. It's the autobiography of an Aboriginal woman who, for a long time, didn't know anything about her heritage, and went through rediscovering it, and dealing with the pain, and conquering any hatred and anger she might have felt. 203.221.127.63 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The wrong circles. The circles you need to move in in Sydney would be openings of Aboriginal art gallery exhibitions (not the same as exhibitions of Aboriginal art) where the gallery is run by Aboriginal people; and other Aboriginal interest groups such as Aboriginal rights, housing, health, dance company, theatre etc. Everleigh Street in Redfern is an Aborigines only place, and as other concentrations of ethnic groups are found in certain districts (such as Leichhardt/Italians; Liverpool Street/Spanish etc) , Redfern is regarded as the Aboriginal one. Otherwise, country areas moreso, and I found that Western Australia gives more media coverage in general especially through their editions of national news media (The Australian, The Age etc). Julia Rossi (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My Place by Sally Morgan got a new airing earlier this year: BBC Radio 4 serialised it, either as Book of the week or A Book at Bedtime, I don't recall which. They don't appear to keep an archive of what has been serialised though, so I can't produce references. --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian beliefs about life after death

Hi do non Catholic Christians believe that a person is judged as soon as they die or is the fate of going to heaven or hell only determined on the day of judgement? If so is a person considered dead and unaware of anything until they are physically resurrected on the day of judgement? Any biblical quotes to do with this will be very helpful. Thanks Richie1001 (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of non-Catholic Christians. I doubt there is unity in their belief in this matter Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Even Catholic theologians aren't in agreement on this. Wikiant (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed with verses on Yahoo answers here: [4]. Rmhermen (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Child-in-Common

What does the phrase "have a child-in-common" mean? Does it only refer to biological children? Or does it include stepchildren?

Pskudnik30Pskudnik30 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pskudnik30, here's a couple of definitions: "Child-In-Common – A child-in-common is a minor or never married dependent 18-year-old living in a household with both of his/her natural and/or adoptive parents."[5] contrast with stepchild "minor or...18-year-old living in a household with the spouse of one of his/her parents. That spouse is not his/her other natural parent. A stepchild remains a stepchild even if his/her natural parent is not in the household, as long as the stepparent is still in the household." (same site) Hope this helps, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Julia, thank you! The information was very helpful.

You're welcome! Julia Rossi (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

early 20th-century Scandinavian criminal

I have tried in vain to find an article (that I read a year or so ago) about an unidentified Scandinavian criminal who targeted women sometime during the early 20th century. According to the article, he was never caught. I am fairly certain it was in the "Mysterious People" category. Does anyone know who I am talking about ? Thank you in advance. Philippe Laurichesse (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Atlas Vampire maybe? (Only one victim, though.) DAVID ŠENEK 10:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not the Atlas Vampire. As I said, there were several victims. My memory is not so good, but it's possible he only assaulted (and not killed) most, if not all, of his victims. Philippe Laurichesse (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

cremated remains found in a box

An article seems to have disappeared from Wikipedia (from the category, I believe, of "Mysterious People") concerning the cremated remains of a woman in a box which arrived at a police station in Australia. Her name and her dates of birth and death were written on the box. It was never discovered who had sent the box nor why it had been sent. Any help identifying the article or its source would be greatly appreciated. Philippe Laurichesse (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like nothing extraordinary or otherwise notable which was probably why the article was deleted if it is missing Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You might like to put your question on the Category:Mysterious people talk page where someone might be able to help you, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Google is your friend. This item appears in various places on the Internet: "Aug 14, 2007 POTTSTOWN, Pa. (AP) - Cremated human remains were found Tuesday inside a package placed in a mail collection box, police said. "In my 19 years of police work, never has something like this occurred," Pottstown police Capt. F. Richard Drumheller said. The letter carrier found the package wrapped haphazardly in a plastic bag, with no mailing address or return address, and notified police. A police dog did not detect any explosives, so officers opened it and found a box with a metal plate with the deceased person's name on it and the years "1957-2000." Police asked that the person's name not be released until relatives are found."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. In fact, Google -- being a corporation that controls its results, privileging those in English even when you type in words in other languages (for example, it refuses to give me non-English Wikipedia pages for certain subjects) -- is not my friend. (If I use it, it's because there's nothing better, as with a lot of commercial monopolies.) But, of course, I realize that your comment was not meant to be taken that way. Believe it or not, I actually did look, at one point, and, as I recall, did not find anything (or else I wouldn't have asked here), but it could very well be that I was slightly inebriated or not in my right mind at the time. Anyway, thanks again. Philippe Laurichesse (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Google has no monopoly, not by a long shot. That a product or service is "clearly the best" in its category, doesn't mean the company has a monopoly! People like you were calling it a monopoly even when Yahoo had a bigger search share, just because only Google search was even usable, everything else was total c***. Anyway did you try going to the Google domain in the country you'd like to search? e.g. for france, Google.fr? Then you can select searching only in that language, or even only sites from that country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.88.122.226 (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you an employee of Google, by any chance ? Yes, I know about Google.fr. ; I use it. I know about search preferences. Also, I, personally, don't recall ever calling Google a monopoly when "Yahoo had a bigger search share." I can't speak for the rest of the people on the planet, however. Feel free to generalize about them, just don't include me in your generalization. Philippe Laurichesse (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But you called it one now, which is still incorrect. It's like saying Wikipedia has a monopoly on online encyclopedias. Perhaps the monopoly article will help you. Hint: a monopoly has to be able to control access to something in some way. Google doesn't and never has. Matt Deres (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Unrelated to Google ;), the article title (whatever it was) will show (when clicked on) that the article was deleted. It will show the date, the deleting admin and the reason. No articles go "missing" from the history unless they are oversighted, which effectively removes the history from everyone except fellow oversighters (there are no more than about 35), but this is only done if the page contained personal information (names, addresses, phone numbers etc), or by some other reason consistent with the oversight policy. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I click on the article title when I can't find the article (whose exact title I no longer recall). Or do you mean something else ? Philippe Laurichesse (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm - Philippe did not call Google a monopoly. He did refer to 'commercial monopolies' in the same sentence, but he did not refer to Google as one. --ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"If I use [Google], it's because there's nothing better" is a defensible statement. Tacking on "as with a lot of commercial monopolies" makes the reader think he was classing Google as one such monopoly. This is because even though "There's nothing better than ..." is not a phrase one normally associates with monopolies, it's not actually untrue (but it would be more pertinent to say "there's nothing else available"). So, either:

• he was really putting Google into the monopoly camp, in which case readers were right to question that; or
• he was comparing situations where there's a choice (e.g. Google) with situations where there's no choice (e.g. a monopoly). But if that was what he was about, his choice of words was very likely to cause readers to misinterpret his meaning, and question it. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't yahoo use the google search engine?
Sleigh (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not since 2004. Algebraist 00:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)