Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 April 22

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.

April 22

May 1958 crisis in France

I was reading the May 1958 crisis in France article and have some questions.

1. It sounded like most of the French military supported the coup. Were there any military units that remained loyal to the government?

2. Between the start of the coup on May 13th to its end on May 29th/June 1st, there were about 2 weeks of time. What counter-coup options did the government consider? Did they consider resisting using loyalist military units (if there were any) or the police/paramilitary units?

3. What percentage of the French population at the time was for/neutral/against the coup respectively? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Do the sources on this article not cover this? Is there a source you are looking for? This comes acrost as a homework question (see the quidelines). μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not a homework question. The article made it sound like the government forces had zero resources and were just twiddling their thumbs for the two whole weeks. I was just wondering if there's more to it, that's all. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There hasn't been a king or emperor in France since 1870. Royalist forces didn't come into it. Rojomoke (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a typo for "loyalist"? Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The WP article is not clear on any of the points raised above, and none of the pertinent citations are viewable online, so this IS a valid question. Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I meant "loyalist". ECS LIVA Z (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @ECS LIVA Z:, have been looking for online sources that might answer your questions. There is a detailed discussion in this book which gives some poll results relevant to the third question ("52 per cent of the French wanted integration and 41 per cent independence"). You might also glance through [1] (and page 134ff) for context. On page 137 it mentions "The French army [took the] unprecedented step of writing President Rene Coty on May 9 that it would accept only a government committed to a French Algeria". Or here. There's a detailed discussion of various military units in this book too. See also [2] [3], and, for contemporary newspaper accounts, [4], [5] and [6]. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"preventable illness"

What does it mean when an illness is "preventable"? What if an illness is preventable (if you are a multimillionaire or billionaire) but non-preventable (if you are not a multi-millionaire or billionaire)? What if you don't really know the exact cause of an illness, but doing a series of things seems to prevent the illness, but this set of behaviors cannot be done by everybody for whatever reason? What if the illness is caused by a pathogen, but the pathogen cannot be cured because that specific strain is resistant to all known chemical treatments? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring all of the 'what if's - a preventable illness is one where the actions of a person directly contributed towards the malady in question (including where early warning signs are ignored). Such as a smoker developing lung cancer, an excessive drinker of alcohol developing cirrhosis and also those ignoring . It can also be expanded to those who develop a problem directly related to a effective vaccine that they have refused. See also preventable causes of death. Nanonic (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

So, suicide would be counted as "preventable" because the suicidal person refused to not kill himself? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Suicide isn't an illness, but is included as a preventable cause of death in most statistics. See for example [7] and [8]. Nanonic (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It may be preventable by others, by getting the suicidal individual into proper treatment. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

True, but suicide is not a disease, it's a symptom. So the question is whether mental illness is preventable. The answer would depend on the cause of the illness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Not preventable, just treatable, long enough for them to die from something else. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

True of any disease, really. Successful treatment is just living long enough to die of something else. - Nunh-huh 00:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Some can be actually cured, but for the rest, yep. StuRat (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone ever died in a tai chi accident?

Hundreds of millions do tai chi chuan every day (many elderly) and it has balancing on one leg. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If so, it has eluded Google. However, there are many articles explaining that Tai Chi helps prevent falls in the elderly by a factor of "up to 45%": see Harvard Medical School - Try tai chi to improve balance, avoid falls and National Health Service - Tai chi 'prevents falls in the elderly'. Alansplodge (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Time to update this xkcd? --Trovatore (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This gives me some food for thought as regards my inheritance... μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If they do, I bet it's a very slow death. StuRat (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Breaking your neck after losing your balance isn't that slow. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Fairfield, Connecticut

Resolved

 – 17:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

While researching Fairfield, Connecticut, I noticed a population decrease of −33.6% during the 1870s. Can anybody find a source that might explain this? The decades before and after showed increases, so it is unlikely to be simply a demographic trend. My guess is an epidemic. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:984A:CA94:A2BD:E53B (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Black Rock, Bridgeport and Black Rock Harbor was annexed by Bridgeport in 1870. It was previously part of Fairfield. Nanonic (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks! --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:984A:CA94:A2BD:E53B (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

...However, the article states 1821 and 1895, and none of the other Towns created from Fairfield correspond to the 1870s. Dou you have a source for "annexed by Bridgeport in 1870". --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:984A:CA94:A2BD:E53B (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's in our Bridgeport article - Bridgeport, Connecticut#19th century and uses [9] as a cite. Page 11 of that document states it was subsumed in 1870. See also [10] and [11]. Nanonic (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:984A:CA94:A2BD:E53B (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the difference between polling and campaign analytics?

I was reading about the 2016 and the DNC "moneyball" strategy of using analytics instead of polling. Analytics are cheaper than polling and supposedly just as accurate.

I don't understand exactly what analytics are though. I did some googling and learned about how it simulates models and stuff. But I don't really understand how it reacts to new information and changes in sentiment without polling. I read one of the factors was volunteer data from calling. Which seems like a version of polling.

Could someone explain the difference? --Gary123 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that some polling data is required to analyze, although actual election results should be included. For example, if candidate X won this district by 1% last election but only got 10% of the vote of ethnicity Y there, and now the portion of people who are ethnicity Y has increased dramatically, that doesn't bode well for candidate X winning that district at the next election. So, election results and demographic info from the census, etc., might be sufficient. StuRat (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the March for Science American or global?

My web browser pointed me towards a news article, which then pointed me towards Wikipedia. After reading the article on Wikipedia, I still don't get it. Is this a global or American phenomenon? It seems to be global, because European and American people are doing it. But the central location is Washington, D.C., while the other locations are "satellite locations" (whatever that means). If this is an American movement, then why would a German or British person care about what Americans do or how Trump's politics will somehow affect the average guy in London? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I can only speak for the UK (and then only because my cousin went on the Manchester one, I should have gone but I'm working). We are very much linked to and affected by the USA and whoever is in charge over there. We have had similar issues over here too, with reductions in education funding over the past few years. Plus we just don't like Trump. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge, science is a big industry. There is a lot of money and workers involved in science. If a government or individual wealthy patron does not fund the sciences and puts money elsewhere, then that will cause a great loss of jobs and workers; and of the remaining workers, science may progress more slowly. Even if the government does not sponsor science, it may be possible for wealthy individuals to donate money to science; and there are always private corporations who may hire scientists to enhance a product/service. Even without science, I'm sure people will still live. The people just have to look to other fields for jobs, like medicine. It is possible to have medicine without evidence-based practice, because people did that before. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Human civilisation is currently facing long-term existential threats from matters including (but not limited to) global warming, antibiotic resistance, over-use of pesticides, general pollution, mass extinction of species which may be vital to the ecosphere, and so on. Worldwide scientific activity is vital to detect and measure many clues to these problems, and to devise both technical and behavioral solutions to them (such as discovering new antibiotics and reducing man-made carbon emissions, to mention but two). Because the USA is large in terms of geographical size, population, resource use and global political influence, what it does as a nation effects the whole world. Many of President Trump's current policies aim (often ineptly) at short term financial benefits (mostly for rich industrialists) by ceasing or greatly diminishing the USA's funding of many scientific endeavours relevant to these problems, hence worldwide opposition to his misguided plans. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

But life will still go on without humans around. The fact that there is antibiotic resistance shows that bacteria are thriving. Hopefully, humans will figure out a way to destroy themselves. If humans don't willingly destroy themselves, I'm sure Mother Nature can easily do that job. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sentence 1 of the Wikipedia article, March for Science, says that it is taking place in "over 600 cities across the world". Loraof (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Just curious, was the event originally scheduled for March, but then delayed to April ? That would help explain the name. StuRat (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're not joking, it means "march" in the sense of a lot of people walking – several other such demonstrations have been called "marches", such as the Million Man March. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.185} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it looked to me like they were going for a double meaning with that title, as there are many ways they could have put it that wouldn't have the calendar month meaning, like using the word "walk" instead of "march". (In the case of the "Million Man March", they were going for alliteration, but that doesn't apply here.) StuRat (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The event was scheduled to coincide with Earth Day so no it was not "scheduled for March and then delayed." MarnetteD|Talk 18:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• The article (now) has some other references which are specific to European marches. As well as speeches against Trump's climate agenda, and climate denialism more generally, the one I attended had speakers and protestors representing Central European University (threatened by the Hungarian government), Turkish universities closed by Erdogan, and general anti-pseudoscience topics. Smurrayinchester 16:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Tracing Robert Sheckley short story

In Robert Sheckley short stories bibliography it says there is a story called The Rabbi from Perdido. The only reference given is "Crazed World Construct". I have tried googling both to no avail. Can anyone help me track down a copy of this story, ideally online or for sale if not? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisom (talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I found an Italian translation, Il rabbino di Perdido, which was published in 1991 in Ritorno nell'universo [12] Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparently Ritorno nell'universo was a full translation of Crazed World Construct according to this. Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

And according to that ISFDB page Crazed World Construct was "[u]npublished in English", so it's possible that the original English story has never been published. The ISFDB page for the story itself does not cite an English publication. Deor (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

But how does a story exist if it was unpublished? How does anyone know it was ever written...? Amisom (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Presumably the person who translated into Italian had access to manuscripts or typescripts... AnonMoos (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Most writers don't live in a secretive bubble of isolation (though some may), so there are many ways in which the existence of an unpublished story can become known.

Some writers mention, discuss or show their ongoing or unpublished work to family, friends and fellow writers, either as casual conversation or to obtain useful critical input (and sometimes even offers of collaboration). Pre-submission readers/critics are sometimes referred to as 'Beta readers'.

Most writers (if they have any business organisation at all) routinely keep records of their written-but-not-yet-published stories, if only to keep track of where they've been submitted (and rejected). Isaac Asimov, for example, famously kept a very detailed card index which amongst other things recorded the exact date of every work's completion (see his 'Opus . . . series of books (Opus 100, Opus 200, Opus 300) which give many insights into his working methods).

After a writer dies, their unpublished works become part of their estate, and their surviving spouse, children or other heir(s) may continue to seek publication of them.

Most writers for the magazine market of which Sheckley was a contributor had literary agents who attempted to market their work for them (while they got on with producing more of it) – the agents obviously kept records. Frequently such records are, or become after a writer's death, available for academic study by others – many successful writers late in life or in their will donate their papers to university archives. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

When a publishing venture falls through (as apparently the English collection Crazed World Construct did), that doesn't mean that nobody is aware of its contents. We have, for example, an essentially complete list of the more than 100 original stories accepted for The Last Dangerous Visions in the 1970s, but more than two thirds of the stories (including one by Sheckley) have never been published. Deor (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Why did people make single-sex schools?

1) All-boys school. All-girls school. Men's college. Women's college.

2) Co-ed school. A co-ed student is a female student at a co-ed school instead of any student at a co-ed school.

3) Men's sports teams. Women's sports teams. In a co-ed school, the sports teams may not be co-ed at all! Instead, there is a men's team, and there is a women's team. There is no mixed-gender team.

4) Where do non-gender-binary students go - men's school or women's school?

5) What about non-gender-binary singers? If a non-gender-binary person sings like a soprano, then is he/she/it/they/whatever-you-call-it/ze a soprano? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to separate and number your Q's. StuRat (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1) The thought was that each would do better if they could concentrate on their studies, rather than on the opposite sex. This is less important for younger kids, so mixed-sex schools are more common there. Also, in some societies, mixing boys and girls is condemned because it is feared this will lead to premarital sex, teen pregnancy, and the cycle of poverty.

2) Yes, the term "coed" referring to the female students only at a coed school is strange. Blame it on the fact that the female students were the unusual ones there, at the time the term was adopted.

3) For younger kids, mixed-gender teams are quite common, but for older kids, the boys can often outperform the girls, so that the girls would not be able to compete, if on the same team. There are some ways to fix this, though, like requiring a certain proportion of girls and boys, as in mixed doubles tennis, or the same way in figure skating.

4) How about going to a coed school ? StuRat (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

How about entering your question into Google? Then you'd find for instance Wikipedia has an article on Single-sex education. Try reading it. As to the question about sopranos. I entered it too and Wikipedia yet again came up with Sopranist. Dmcq (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

In the history of English-speaking cultures, young boys and girls might learn the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic together, but after that, "serious" schools teaching Greek and Latin were for boys only, since the learning of Greek and Latin was considered highly unsuitable for women. Upper-class girls tended to be taught modern languages (French, sometimes Italian), music, embroidery, deportment and etiquette etc. For the most part, it wasn't until the 20th century that coeducational secondary education started to be the default. Nowadays some people advocate single-gender education for the purpose of removing distractions (as has been said), building girls' confidence, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I remember reading a Wikipedia article that talks about written Chinese in Japan. Japanese women were forbidden to learn classical Chinese. Keeping a group of people illiterate/ignorant of Chinese or Latin or Greek may be a way to control that group of people. Books were written in Latin, so women, who didn't learn Latin, probably didn't read those books of specialized expertise. Well, there was always apprenticeship and joining the clergy -- oh, wait. Women couldn't become clerics in some churches. Monastery then. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

In some periods of medieval Japan, women tended to write in the hiragana syllabary, while men wrote with a heavy infusion of Chinese characters. We have something about this at Hiragana#History. It doesn't seem to have kept women from writing some diaries and works of fiction which are still quite famous, while the legal/historical/religious works and esoteric poetry written by the men of the time tend to be of lesser interest to most people nowadays.

In Britain, after the adoption of printing and the rise of Protestantism, most books tended to be in English, except for those on certain specialized subjects and/or intended for Europe-wide audiences... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• In England, at least, before about 1850 the government did not provide children's education. Poor folks did not go to school. The gentry educated their children at home up to age 10 or so and then sent their boys (but not girls) to a boarding school. Girls' schools were a later innovation, and co-ed schools are much more recent than single-sex schools. -Arch dude (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a little oversimplified -- you left out Dame schools and "grammar schools" in the original sense (i.e. schools for teaching Latin grammar, often charitably endowed and overseen by local civic or church officials, but not really "state run" in the modern sense). AnonMoos (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

With a few exceptions - I went to Walden School (Saffron Walden) - founded as a co-educational school in 1702! The Quakers were often ahead of the rest in social matters. Wymspen (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Misogyny.--Jayron32 05:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

For (5), there are two schools of thought. One is that the vocal range that results matters more than the way you are producing the sound, so then "soprano" just means a vocal range and you can perfectly well have a male soprano just as you can have a female soprano. The other school of thought is that the mechanism matters more, so that there cannot be true male sopranos in the absence of hormonal anomalies (most sopranists use falsetto for the high soprano range). For male altos the distinction doesn't matter quite as much as it is possible for hormonally normal male individuals to sing up to around F5 in modal voice, if rather uncommon. Double sharp (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There has already been a well-known category of "non-gender-binary singers": the Castrati. However, most men's attempts to imitate women's voices (whether by falsetto or otherwise) are quite unconvincing (listen to Clarence "Frogman" Henry singing "Ain't Got No Home" or Flip Wilson as "Geraldine", and you'll hear what I mean)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Calling the castrati "non-gender-binary" seems a little anachronistic: IIRC they were almost always thought of as men, if physically deficient ones, and were far more popular among the ladies than among the gentlemen. ^_^ Indeed most attempts are not very convincing, though there are ways to make them more so. Double sharp (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Eunuchs would appear to have at least as good a claim to non-binarity as those whose non-binarity is psychological in nature, and appear on Template:Gender and sexual identities... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

When a single-sex school loves a school of the opposite sex in a special way, they can produce ... a kindergarten. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)