Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 23

Humanities desk
< May 22	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 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.

May 23

Term for calendar-related structure?

I'm writing an article about a house that some people have seen as an "astronomical calendar" and compared to Stonehenge because it has "four west doors [that] indicate the seasons of the year", because the sun shines directly onto a different door at noon at four specific times of the year. Do we have a term for "a structure that is built to focus on the angle of the sun at specific times of the year", whether Stonehenge or this house or Isambard Kingdom Brunel's Box Tunnel? Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article. I just can't recall the title now. F (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't offhand think of (or find) a specific name for this kind of structure, but if you haven't already seen it you might be interested in our article on Archaeoastronomy which mentions many such buildings, erections and other constructions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We also have an article about modern buildings which align with astronomical objects. F (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Manhattanhenge being one such event. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical Elected positions in Imperial China

Were there any Elected positions in the history of Imperial China before 1911? --Gary123 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Six degrees of separation

Hi. I wasn't sure whether to ask this in the humanities, science, mathematics, language or miscellaneous desk, so I'll ask it here. How long on a statistically viable average time would it take for an individual person to communicate with every person that he or she knows, so that these people communicate with all the people they know or can contact, up to a point where ≥75% of the world population has been communicated to? In this case, communication can consist of verbal communication, a phone call, online chat, participation in an online community, email, news broadcasting, public speaking, public displays of something, intercom, playing an instrument, or simply making eye contact. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Today, I guess, not that long for the internet-viewing world. But to get to over 75% of the world's population would be very hard. I was thinking upload a video on YouTube that then goes viral. That's pretty fast. Or chain spam emails. Or via a virus that streams a video of you. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 03:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course this isn't a random network though--not all people are connected to the same extent; I'm sure there have been studies done on this issue generally, although you can ask it dozens of different ways and get that many answers. As for the research that's actually been done on it, Six degrees of separation has some. The original idea comes from a Stanley Milgram article, and there's plenty of research that addresses it. Try a google scholar search for "six degrees of separation milgram". I found a lot. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

China pegs the dollar. Can America peg the yuan? What would happen?

So China is dragging its feet on floating the yuan, which they've pegged to the dollar and tightly control. Could America decide to simultaneously peg the dollar to the yuan at a different rate? What would happen? Has this ever happened before in history where two countries control currencies and demand different mutual rates? 61.189.63.157 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Think about it. China says it will give you 10 yuan for every dollar. The US says it will give you a dollar for a yuan. An enormous amount of dollars is flowing to China. A much more modest amount of Yuan flow to the US. I get rich. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The world would implode.

Pegging two currencies together recursively is absurd, someone would try to game the other. That said, as a monetary experiment, it's an interesting question.

Stephan is right: that sort of imbalance is absurd and would never persist for long. That's what arbitrage is about. However, assuming a more nuanced question, here are some very very basic thoughts.

The yaun is pegged because China sets an exchange rate. Exchange rates are dictated by market forces, however monetary policy is set by nation states. For the Dollar it's the U.S., for the Pound it's the U.K., and for the Euro it's the E.U. (I think). Pegged currencies are classical; fiat currency is a modern development.

Two currencies that moved exactly in sync would be indistinguishable. However, if the question is about the interim, or what would happen with a Chinese central bank, I can't answer. I'll leave it up to those with advanced economics degrees. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

@Stephan -- my unstated assumption was that if our hypothetical US chose to take this extreme measure, they would also surely announce mechanisms to strongly deter other parties from honoring China's version of the exchange rate. 61.189.63.157 (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How would they do that? China is not propping its currency up by artificially restricting exchange (as eastern block countries tried to do during the cold war era), they are keeping it artificially low by selling Yuan for dollars (or Euros) at a better rate than we would expect in a free market. For me to become rich, it's enough that the exchange rates offered by both countries differ. I can exchange dollars for Yuan in China, and Yuan for dollars wherever the US mandated exchange rate is honoured, i.e. at least in the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the perversity described above (someone would just cycle money endlessly through the two countries for extreme profits), in pegging a major exchange rate in this way the US would lose some ability to control its own money supply (and therefore combat inflation and stabilise the economy with monetary policy). See impossible trinity.--Jabberwalkee (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The only way that this could ever work is if the two countries pegged currencies in concert — if the USA agreed to give $1 for 10 yuan, and the PRC agreed to give 10 yuan for $1. That's vaguely how the euro works, if I understand rightly; each country pegged its currency to the euro before transitioning to it, so effectively each eurozone currency was pegged to all others for a short time. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so short a time. Fist the European Monetary System defined certain target exchange rate bands, and cooperated on interventions to maintain those rates. Then the European Currency Unit was introduced. Later, this became the Euro, which first was used for banking transactions and eventually also replaced the individual cash supplies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So that's what the "ecu" was...I hadn't realised that it was an abbreviation. I'd only seen it on a few French stamps (I'm a stamp collector) and had assumed that it was an attempt to establish something such as the euro that failed rather quickly. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not quite. The écu was an old 19th century currency unit in France. When a more user-friendly name for the "European unit of account" was needed, the English language acronym 'ECU' was accepted by the Francophones because it coincidentally recalled the French coin. Otherwise no connection. Sussexonian (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

are there any aspie politicians?

who held national level office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.217.12 (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

None are mentioned on our list of people on the autism spectrum. The article on Historical figures sometimes considered autistic mentions a few, such as Éamon de Valera, Adolf Hitler, Thomas Jefferson, or Enoch Powell, but this looks highly speculative. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Charismatic and manipulative are not typical aspie traits, so I doubt Hitler qualifies. Edison (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Closed, off-topic rambling. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It would appear that alot of people have been jumping on theband wagon lately, eith pegging themselves, their children or famous people as eith Autistic, dislexsic (lol) or gay, I have nothing against these famous people, or other groups, but come on people, Hitler, Autistic, WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a Russian poem

A while back I heard a short Russian poem which I now cannot find, despite various keyword searches. Here is what I remember:

• It was written by a Soviet poet. I'm quite sure the poet was male, and I'm quite sure he was Russian.
• It was written during or shortly after World War II.
• It is a rather short patriotic poem.
• It is about burying a simple soldier, without fancy fanfare.
• The image still lingering in my memory is that of the entire globe being the soldier's mausoleum.

Does this ring any bells? Thanks in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sergey Orlov, (1921-1977) - Его зарыли в шар земной (1944) more (in Russian) russian wikipedia. The guy was a real tank soldier and just recovered after burns when he wrote it. His beard hides thes burns. East of Borschov (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"The entire globe being the soldier's mausoleum" rings a bell: Pericles' speech in Thucydides: "For the whole earth is the tomb of famous men; not only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men". Tinfoilcat (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Spot on, dear East of Borschov, this is the exact poet (no article on en:wikipedia, yet) and poem. Thank you so much! And thank you too, Tinfoilcat, for referring the image all the way back to antiquity. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

architects

Technically not homework, I need help with my coursework, which is completely different. Well, actually it's not the work itself I'm finding difficult, I am sure I can do that quite easily, instead I am having trouble choosing what work to do. Basically I have to write an essay on almost any topic of architecture, about how a building, or an architect, or a style addresses a particular issue, any issue, equality, different senses, freedom, sustainability, the representation of power or trust or democracy, whatever I want, and I simply have no idea. Having only been studying the subject for a little while, it isn't something I know much about, and I find it difficult to conduct research into a subject i don't know, so what would be really nice would be if someone could suggest a particular building or architect that I could research and write about, narrowing down slightly the area I would have to study. In particular I would like to write about a famous architect that has attempted to design buildings for ordinary people without trying to follow any particular ideals, or trying to be dramatic and modern and show off their new designs, if such a person exists. Could someone possibly help, I only have a few days to do this, and I promise next time I will spend a lot longer doing my own research.

148.197.114.158 (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Samuel Mockbee, who made a name for working with the vernacular architecture of the rural southern United States, dealing with issues of social responsibility. For broader applications, the field of urban design is much richer with discussions concerning power, trust, democracy and such, since the way towns and cities are planned has a much more evident influence on, and is influenced by, the political environment. The Bauhaus and the entire Modernist movement of the time would be a fertile area, as would the work of Le Corbusier and specifically his Voisin plan, as well as the Unité d'Habitation. Frank Lloyd Wright had similar leanings, at times. I have a book on his Marin County Civic Center whose title is The Architecture of Democracy, discussing how Wright incorporated his ideas of governance into the work. Acroterion _(talk) 11:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to suggest Wright myself, particuarly his Usonian work. In the United Kingdom, you could go for the "love-it-or-hate-it" Brutalist work seen in so many council estates and other urban residences, which eschewed "showy" and "frilly" in an attempt to push towards a more socialist ideal. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Mockbee would be the most modest of the bunch - Wright, Corb or Gropius could hardly be described as modest - visionary or socially active design usually isn't compatible with self effacement. A counter-example might be Pruitt-Igoe, a prototype of high-rise low-income housing, designed, ironically, by Minoru Yamasaki. The work of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon in the UK might be worth a look as well, since you appear to be in that part of the world. As GeeJo observes, they were in the forefront of Brutalism. The whole New Towns movement in the UK is relevant. Acroterion _(talk) 11:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Buckminster Fuller could be worth a look too. Acroterion _(talk) 11:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea of a Model village as built by philathropist or socially responsible industrialists is an easy one to quickly get info on. (You could practically just copy the wikipedia page word for word :) )87.102.18.191 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

From a less sociological/more technological point of view "bridge design" is an easy one to quickly get info on.. How different types and styles of bridge are used for different lengths of span, as well as the history of it. Google books etc should give plent via a search for "bridge engineering" etc.87.102.18.191 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

An alternative would be to browse Category:Architecture until you see something you like and write about that, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Architecture has images to browse which might be quicker.87.102.18.191 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

what do you call political views

that merge green ideology with centre-right conservatism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.217.12 (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a few Google hits for "Conservative Conservationist". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on this: Green conservatism. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is the Ecological Democratic Party in Germany, that would fit that description. --Soman (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a little bit of a stretch, and I wouldn't necessarily say that they describe themselves this way, but the Nature Conservancy is an environmental organization in the U.S. that is attractive to property-rights proponents, and yet an extremely environmentalism oriented organization. Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Note too its notable executives/board members: hardly "left wing". Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And for the extreme right, nazi.org is the homepage of a eco-nazist party (green swastika and all), if you can believe it. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Name this unhappy fellow...

Heard it on the radio a few days ago. He was French. A writer or an artist. He was so obsessed with suicide that he carried a noose with him all the time. And he did, in fact, hanged himself on a lamppost in Paris. My first googlehit would be Gerard de Nerval (born May 22), but wikipedia article differs a bit with the radio story. Could anyone else fit the description? East of Borschov (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Check out Category:Writers who committed suicide. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris Burden, an American, comes to mind. I don't think he is considered suicidal, but some of his artwork seems to involve danger. Bus stop (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My theory on the meaning of life

Sorry to bring up such a "full on" topic. I was wondering if there are any philosophers who agree with my theory on the convoluted topic that is the meaning of life. I believe that God did indeed create the world and and humanity and all life on the planet. However, his master plan of an all pervading harmony on earth was cut short by Adam and Eve taking a bite from that pesky apple and of course the events after that which revealed humanity's "wickedness" to each other. Over a course of time and after observing man's inhumanity and disregard for God's work, I think God realised that he'd made a mistake by creating everything, granted humanity free will and made it our destiny to destroy ourselves and the earth and thereby rectify his mistake. Sorry to sound so morbid but I just wondered if there are others who share this theory and if, in your opinions, it stands up to objective scrutiny. --Thanks, Hadseys 18:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you add a distinction between the creator god and the "real" god behind it all, you got something akin to certain variations of gnosticism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe in God as a Supreme Being and Creator, but that He is indifferent to mankind and our collective plight.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A God who "made it our destiny to destroy ourselves" would be a rather Olympian kind of God. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the topic for discussion is the raw material for a novel, to be crafted in accordance with a writer's skills and inclination. What all of us are doing is writing that novel. It is a multi-input literary work that will probably be either awesome or awful whenever it is considered to be a finished product. Bus stop (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes it sound like we're attempting to rewrite the Bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine that there are not others who agree with this, in part, or in whole. It seems as if there are more interpretations of scripture than there are followers of it (if you even based your assumptions from scripture). Does it stand up to objective scrutiny? Well, religion is very subjective. I don't think that there is any way that one person can determine that your views are more or less valid than another (though people try all the time). All they can determine is that they don't agree with your views, and that you don't agree with theirs. Falconus^{p t c} 19:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You will lose a rather large proportion of classical and contemporary philosophers, myself included, with the phrase "God did indeed create the world". Anything that follows from that would be deemed specious and unsatisfactory in any worldview that does not a priori grant the existence of a Creator God.Vranak (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Deism is, roughly put, the notion that God created the world but doesn't intervene in its current state of affairs. Gabbe (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people believe(d) that the present world is actually Hell, which seems similar to the OPs idea. Perhaps there is a word and an article that describes this notion. As someone who does not believe in the supernatural, then this is at best amusing nonsense. 92.28.255.202 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is Hell is other people. Vranak (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Satanists believe that Hell is earth and one's Self is their own god to be freely indulged.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was an obscure Russian sect from the 19th or 18th centuries who behaved like Adamites and who believed this, but I cannot find any mention of them anywhere. Edit: I must have been thinking of the Doukhobors. See also Ranters. I suppose that any person or group who thinks we are living in Hell is going to self-destruct and not survive very long. 92.15.20.47 (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The more standard belief is that earth is wicked and that heaven is perfect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Countered by Nietzsche's idea of a perfectly 'boring' heaven. Vranak (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Or Mark Twain's comment on how all his friends were apparently going to hell and all the disagreeable people he knew were certain they were going to heaven: "Heaven for climate; hell for society!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So is the Star Wars saga. :) The OP raises an interesting idea. When God destroyed humanity by flooding the earth, afterwards He promised Noah that He would never again destroy humanity. (Let's not even get into the issue of how the omniscient God didn't see all this coming.) Ah, but He didn't say He wouldn't give man the means to figure out how to destroy himself. Ya gotta hand it to God for craftiness: He wasn't born yesterday. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what he promised. (http://multilingualbible.com/genesis/8-21.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done." Which was a bit of hyperbole, as He did not kill the occupants of Noah's cruise ship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's only one translation. Most of the others are more ambiguous. Moreover, this is what he said to himself - it's not a promise. What's normally considered the promise is Genesis 9:11, where he promises "no flood", but seems to keep an open mind about fire and brimstone ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If He only said it to Himself, how would we know about it? Did He also issue a press release? Was someone taking dictation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect he reported it to his ghostwriter. It's certainly as reliable as the Donation of Constantine, since it has been transmitted through the same channels... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But if anyone is entitled to indulge in hyperbole, the creator of the entire universe would be. The universe, infinite as it is, is mere chicken feed compared with an infinite number of infinite universes. He could claim to have created everything that exists or has ever existed or will ever exist, in this or any other universe, but someone would rightly counter that he's hiding his light under a bushel, because his actual achievements far outweigh that modest tally. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All things considered, He doesn't really brag on Himself all that much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you expand on how can we have free will and be destined to destroy ourselves ? 200.144.37.3 (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• As individuals we have free will but collectively as humanity our actions, which are a result of free will, would enable us to wipe out everything God made. Of ccourse we have to do it unknowingly because if we knew we were doing it that would interfere with God's grand plan --Thanks, Hadseys 10:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the main idea, but this makes me think, so you are basically saying we have free will but not in a social sense ? like I could choose not to work today but society pressure scratch that possibility off ? I'm curious on this subject now, do we have an article on that ? 200.144.37.3 (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

200.144.37.3: There's compatibilism and incompatibilism, for example. Gabbe (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Who said: "If God did'nt exist, we would have to invent Him"? I think that is what is happening here. We are inventing God as we are un-happy with the current One! Only, we may come full-circle and find Him/Them/Her/It. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Millionaires in the UK cabinet

How many members of the current UK cabinet are millionaires? Artie&Wanda (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

According to today's Mail on Sunday, 23. (Of course, you have to remember many of them live in homes around London, of the 4-5 bedroom type that sell for £500-£750,000, and this contributes to their "millionaire" status, but doesn't necessarily mean they all live like people we think of as "millionaires".) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that the number of Cabinet ministers is limited by statute to 22, that seems highly unlikely. Given that it was published in the Mail on Sunday, it also seems highly unlikely! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 09:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - language hasn't quite kept up with inflation. Being a millionaire doesn't make you that rich these days. Lots of people reach retirement with a nice house, a big pension pot and maybe a holiday home and flashy car. It isn't hard for the values of those to add up to more than a million pounds. That certainly makes you one of the wealthy, but not exceptionally rich. --Tango (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Very true. The Economist Intelligence Unit claim that there are 4 million dollar millionaires in the UK; does that mean 1 in 16 people here live to that stereotype. No.--Leon (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The houses do not have to be 4-5 bedrooms. According to rightmove dot co dot uk, in London there are 281 houses with three bedrooms for sale at over a million pounds, 71 with two bedrooms, and nine with only one bedroom. Its depressing to see the ugly terraced tatt that even a million buys you in London. And these millionaires - is that net or gross?

I recall some study from a few years back which said you need at least £3.5million to live a millionaire lifestyle. 92.28.255.202 (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

They are definitely net. It is completely meaningless to talk about gross millionaires. Property prices are determined largely by the location rather than the quality of the property. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Even ugly terraced houses in seedy locations like Finsbury Park or Haringay can sell for £1M+, so even bad locations are expensive. 92.28.251.49 (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Not meaningless at all. The ability to raise finance (resulting to high gross and lower net assets) itself is a status symbol. Surely, the subprime craze made housing loans available even to people of modest means, but those days seem to be gone, and anyway it was limited to the U.S. market. In less sophisticated places a person can be well past the million-dollar mark, net and gross, and don't qualify even for a car loan. East of Borschov (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The ability to raise finance is meaningful, but it isn't that strongly correlated with gross worth. There are people that could get big loans but choose not to and there are people that have taken out big loans in the past and not paid them back yet but now couldn't get such a loan (either due to the changing market or due to them not making payments on time). --Tango (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable estimate based on the MoS figures as to lifestyle (and not a particularly flash one) would be around 12, which brings you down to Nick Clegg. By comparison #13 is David Willetts, who owns a £300,000 house in Hampshire, a £1.3 million London home and a buy-to-let property. Th is gives him a "wealth" of £1.9 million, but based on that I don't think it's champagne dinners, caviar and house-staff. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Adulterous princess imprisoned

I have read the article here about the unfatiful Crown Princess of Prussia, Duchess Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and I wonder about something. She was divorced because of her adultary. Then she was put in prison for the rest of her life as a prisoner of state. But why was she imprisoned? She was divorced, so she should have no further importance for the state. It should have made no difference if they let her free and let her continue to have lovers. Why was it considered necessary to put her in prison? What was the reason for it? --85.226.40.118 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If the wife of the king (or heir to the throne) is unfaithful, it is usually considered treason. It's a betrayal of and an insult to the monarchy. They couldn't let something like that go unpunished or it would make the monarchy look weak. --Tango (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And there is a school of thought that suggests that punishment is for the 'good of the punished'. A little hard to swallow I know, but there is a great history of personal abnegation (self-imposed or otherwise), penance, and severe restrictions on personal freedom before... shall we say, the 20th century? Vranak (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Adultery in a queen consort or heir to the throne was legally an act of High Treason as it jeopardised the legitimate succession. In 16th century England it was punishable by execution. See Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that the article states that she had one child (Frederica Charlotte, b. 1767) and makes no mention of the result of her 1769 pregnancy. 124.157.249.129 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to her 1769 pregnancy at all on the web. I have checked (through google translate) the other wp articles, external links, and references. The only ref. to a pregnancy are the German and Italian articles, cited to an offline source. Gwinva (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Identifying Isaac Asimov short story

I wonder if anyone can help me identify a short story, which I am almost positive is by Isaac Asimov (though maybe, maybe, maybe it could be by Robert Heinlein or Kurt Vonnegut). It is a marooned-in-space type story. The main characters (about three) are near Mars and are quickly losing oxygen (or something else essential). Because of orbits and so on, even though Earth and Mars are close planets, at the wrong time they could be on opposite sides of the solar system, so they have to get to a specific orbital point at a specific time. The story goes into some depth about the details of Earth and Mars orbits. The result is that one of the characters must sacrifice himself so there is enough oxygen for the rest to survive.

It is NOT "Marooned off Vesta." Someone without a doubt dies to save the others. Any ideas? zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The end result sounds a lot like The Cold Equations, though the rest of the setup doesn't. That article notes a couple of similar predecessor stories, one of which features three characters. I'll note, for what it's worth, that a detailed discussion of Earth/Mars orbital mechanics doesn't sound much like Vonnegut or Asimov's fiction to me (and I'm not familiar enough with Heinlein's to judge that). — Lomn 23:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, not *that* detailed. Asimov can just be a little dry to me at times, and it struck me like that. Probably just a couple lines. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind: it wasn't Asimov (or Vonnegut or Heinlein), and it wasn't even Mars. The story I was thinking of is Breaking Strain by Arthur C. Clarke. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I did think of that one, but there were too many differences for me to think it worth mentioning! --Tango (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Asimov's Law of Universal Attribution: If you can't remember who wrote a piece of science fiction, assume it was the good doctor. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Church attire

Does anyone know the name of the clothing that these choristers are wearing: [1] (the young men singing in red and white)? Thanks, Blurpeace 23:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I consulted a reliable Church Lady, who advised me that the innermost visible white garment, with the lace collar is likely an alb. The red garment is probably a cassock. The white "angel" garment is a cotta. Edison (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's time for me to come out as a former choirboy. I once wore the exact same choir uniform that you see in the video. The lace collar is not an alb, and it's not really made of lace. More like cotton. We called it a "ruffle". I guess you could call it a "ruffled collar". That's the first thing that goes on. Over that goes the long red robe, known as a cassock. On top of the cassock, the white frock-like thing is called a surplice. At least one of the choirboys is wearing a ribbon and a medal. The color of the ribbon and the type of the medal are indications of the choirboys' rank. This is all more or less standardized for Anglican churches by the Royal School of Church Music. Marco polo (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And six little Singing-boys, - dear little souls! In nice clean faces, and nice white stoles... DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who holds that costume near and dear is better off not having seen Paranoiac (1963 film). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any one all encompassing name for the garbs, or does one have to refer to the attire generally (e.g., chorister clothing)? Amendment: also, could you please explain choir "rank"? Do the ranks lead to some form of graduation, or higher position? What is the purpose of ranking in Anglican choirs? Blurpeace 01:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Would they fall under the category of vestments, or perhaps that term is limited to the garb of ordained clergy. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we called the whole ensemble the choir "uniform" or "choir robes". My memory is a little hazy on that; there wasn't really much discussion of the clothing since we took it for granted. As for what is the purpose of rank in Anglican choirs, there are a couple of purposes. One is that the prospect of gaining a more respected medal or color of ribbon is an incentive to improve one's performance through practice and such, since choristers are "promoted" based on attaining a higher level of achievement. A second reason for the rank is that higher-ranking choristers sometimes have a leadership role. They are supposed to encourage more junior choristers to improve their singing and to lead sections of the choir in multi-part singing. (The choir is often divided into sections singing different parts. If you are in a section and lose track of the line you are supposed to sing, you are supposed to be quiet and listen for the lead chorister for that section.) The lead chorister also sometimes has a disciplinary role when younger choristers are misbehaving or joking around when they are supposed to be sitting quietly. (This is usually just a matter of looking in the direction of the younger boys in a friendly way and putting your finger in front of your lips.) Choristers are therefore promoted not only because of their singing performance, but also for their leadership. At least in the choir in which I sang, the junior choristers respected and looked up to the lead choristers. Marco polo (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A current member of a Church of England choir speaking. Yes, "Robes" is the collective term. I agree with cassock and surplice, but the neckwear (for Trebles only) is a Ruff - some Anglican choristers wear an Eton Collar as an alternative. As Marco Polo says, the blue ribbon represents musical competence, while a red one denotes a Head Chorister. There are two of these, one leads the half of the choir that sits on the north side of the church called Cantoris and one leads the southern half called Decani. The ribbons can only be worn by choirs that are affiliated to the Royal School of Church Music - many parish church choirs don't make the grade or choose to follow a less rigid choral tradition. The red cassock can only be worn by churches that have the status of a Royal Peculiar - ie having royal patronage. Major churches and cathedrals each support a full-time choir school. Although the British don't think of themselves as a musical nation, there are 44 choir schools here, while most European countries only have two or three[2]. Alansplodge (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the dress is referred to, collectively, as "Chior Dress". This is a point the OP may not be aware of. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)