Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 25

= November 25 =

Largest parliament buildings
I first asked this question on the Mathematics desk, as it is statistics-related, but apparently that wasn't the appropriate forum, so I am trying again here. After much searching on-line, I haven't been able to find a single list of the largest parliament buildings in the world, either by floor space or by volume, despite the fact that I have come across claims for a couple of such buildings about their relative position on such a list. I do know that the biggest (and heaviest) of them all is the Palace of the Parliament in Bucharest; what I am looking for is information on at least the top-five to top-ten (and I am particularly interested in the relative position of the Palace of Westminster). If the source is reliable, that would be a much-appreciated bonus. Waltham, The Duke of 03:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Without wanting to discourage anyone, let me point out some things that might have got in the way of assembling such a list. Most difficult is how one defines the parliament buildings so they can be fairly compared. The Palace of Westminster, as I recall, is actually a complex of buildings, as, I think, are the parliament buildings in Ottawa (Canada). What parliamentary or congressional functions would you include or exclude, after the main deliberative chamber or chambers? The Clerk's offices? The presiding officers' suites? Committee chambers? Individual members' offices (which fill several buildings on Capitol Hill in Washington)? The offices of the legislative staff, researchers and legal counsel? The suite or office reserved for the Head of State? The Gardens? The dining rooms and library?


 * Other problems would be: are you considering only national legislatures, or also considering state and provincial ones? And the area/volume one you alluded to: how do you want to compare high-rise with single-storey buildings?


 * And, as a Rhode Islander, I can sympathise with your dilemma, because the Rhode Island State House (designed by McKim, Meade and White and built in 1900) has long boasted of having the "second-largest unsupported marble dome in the world", or perhaps only the fourth-largest. This is always shaky ground to argue about because apparently no one has assembled a universally-accepted list of large marble domes by size. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We are somewhat hamstrung, definitionally speaking. But I'll just mention that Parliament House, Canberra is one of the largest buildings in the Southern Hemisphere.  It's all under one roof and it would have to be one of the largest Parl Houses in the S.H., if not the largest; and probably in the top 10 overall.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If anyone has already researched this, I would guess it might be the Guinness World Records people - perhaps you could try asking at the WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request for someone who has the book/can get it in a library to take a look for you. I guess you've already found List of legislative buildings, Category:Legislative buildings, List of buildings and structures and List of largest buildings in the world, though none answer your question. (So I hope the Guinness idea helps!) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your responses. I realise the difficulties of compiling such a list; I seem to have taken for granted that one would exist because of claims I have seen, but it now becomes obvious to me that such claims may have easily been based on original research, each with its own criteria. If I had to define criteria of my own, I should probably include, apart from the buildings containing the chambers, those that would i) contain parliamentary offices and committee rooms, and ii) be wholly owned and used by the parliament—or maybe the government. (I initially thought of restricting office buildings to the purpose-built ones, but the exclusivity criterion works better.) That would discount buildings used only as residences for officials, libraries or dining halls, but again these are buildings that would be unlikely to be large enough to claim a place in the list. Unless they also included offices, in which case they'd qualify. I'd use "legislative" in its wide sense: federal, national and sub-national parliaments. "Floor area" is a simple enough concept, I think, although I am not entirely certain about the technical details. It would seem to be the total area covered by all floors, probably including the internal walls and maybe the external ones as well. The volume would be the external volume taken up by the building, with a reservation about counting any basements.
 * And thus we'd soon arrive at a set of criteria, probably reasonable but inevitably arbitrary. Now that the fun part is over, let's get someone to do the research for free. :-P Seriously, though, I simply meant to use the information as an interesting piece of information that would contribute to a lead section fully aware of its subject's importance. I could go for the almost certainly true "one of the largest in the world", but I still need a source. Maybe I could pursue a different line of inquiry—it is quite possible that it was the largest in the world at its time. I may have actually read something to that effect (although those travellers' accounts often rank sensationalism above accuracy), and it certainly is true about many aspects of the building.
 * (To address a minor point: Although some consider it a complex, I believe that the Palace of Westminster is officially a building, and that also seems to be the prevailing view. It certainly qualifies as one in the technical sense, and is not very different in some aspects from, say, the (much larger) Pentagon, the five rings of which nobody regards as separate buildings. Its sprawling size may be a reason why many people consider it a complex, but I see it as more of an anachronism: the Old Palace really was a complex, and people still tend to refer to each House's precincts as separate addresses. "House of Commons" may be the body, the Chamber, or the entire half of the building belonging to the House.)
 * JackofOz, I am not surprised to hear this. It's a very large building, and the Southern Hemisphere is not nearly as full of those as the Northern. If I remember correctly, its main parliamentary rival must be the seat of the Argentinian parliament. On another note, I read some time ago a very interesting lecture given to Australian Senators on parliament buildings and how they affect the politics of their country, or something like that. It's in a huge .pdf document which I cannot open right now, so there is a tiny possibility the link is wrong. Especially interesting was the speaker's point about Parliament House itself, concerning the consequences of having the executive sequestered in a separate wing, away from the MPs, the press and the public.
 * WikiJedits, I actually have the book (this year's, I think). It is in my other home, but I expect to be able to have a look in a couple of days. However, even if it mentions the subject, it will only name the single largest building, which I already know. My question here concerns numbers two, three, etc. There might be something on their website or some archives; the Palace of the Parliament is not a very old building, and there could be an entry for the previous record-holder, possibly number two or three now. Waltham, The Duke of 06:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Using animation to recreate news?
(Youtube, starts at 2:00) So Apple Daily (Taiwan) and Apple Daily (Hong Kong) have this new feature where they recreate news events with some pretty realistic animation. Are there any other media organization known for doing this? I would love some links. F (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC) To clarify, lots of media uses animation, but I want to find ones that do it better than Apple. F (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. There's a news show on one of Slovenia's stations that is known for two things - unbelievably heavy-handed use of bombastic superlatives (they would probably find a way to describe a cat being stuck in a tree as shocking or inconceivable), and ridiculously lame animations used to recreate news events when no footage is available. There was one particular animation of three almost stickman-like figures chasing a forth one, but I can't find it right now. There is some not too exciting animation in this video, at about the 0:20 mark: . I'm sure there's more cases like this around the world. --TomorrowTime (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's hardly on the same level though. Apple's graphics are almost like a video game. F (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well they can't be that impressive then. If they looked like they were from the latest Pixar blockbuster, now we're talking... And the one TomorrowTime linked to also looks like it could be from a video game albeit not a particularly graphics intensive one Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Newsroom computer artists like to do something different from their usual work of putting together backdrops and photo montages. Plane crashes are particularly prone to getting the animation treatment - there was a plane which ditched off Christmas Island recently that got animated on ABC, and every time I saw it it irked me that they'd used entirely the wrong type of plane! FiggyBee (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well maybe they only had limited plane models and use the closest one they had. (Making a new model would likely take too long.). I'm presuming of course we're talking about a similar looking plane rather then the plane was a Cessna 172 and they used a model of a Airbus A380 Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a Cessna CJ1 rather than a Jet Commander. Similar class of aircraft, but I know which one I'd rather ditch. FiggyBee (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The video in the youtube is well-done, but it's still obviously animation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this really Romanesque?


If I understand a source correctly, St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Wapakoneta, Ohio (built in 1899) is supposedly a Romanesque church, but it looks like a Gothic Revival structure to me. Who's wrong? Nyttend (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks fairly Romanesque Revival to me, with few, rounded windows and simple brickwork, rather than the many pointed arches and busier stonework typical of Gothic Revival. I believe the shape of the arches (round vs pointed) is the main diagnostic feature. FiggyBee (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Romanesque label may well have been applied due to the lack of pointed arches, but in other respects it does look rather in the Gothic revival to me - compare the (original) Brick Gothic of Doberan Abbey - as the Ohio church has what appears to be a large rose window (Romanesque rose windows are uncommon and smaller), two spires (not found in the Romanesque) and is built of brick (very unusual for a Romanesque building). But many architects working in the revival styles weren't at all concerned by mixing up their styles, particularly by the end of the 19th century. Warofdreams talk 17:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)




 * For comparison, and even from a similar angle, there's the Chartres Cathedral, a gothic cathedral with a Romanesque spire and a "Flamboyant" spire. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good comparison, but note that the spire you describe as "Romanesque" is actually early Gothic. Warofdreams talk 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be right. I got my description of it from some book or article years ago. I claim no expertise on the subject. This article, the first one that showed up in Google under ["chartres cathedral" spire romanesque] says what I said. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. The "Romanesque Revival" designation was for a complex consisting of the church and the school next door (you can just barely see it in the picture that's still here), and I had wondered if the Romanesque Revival designation was primarily for the school.  Most Catholic churches of this vintage in this part of Ohio are clearly Gothic Revival, so I was quite confused by this specific one.  Nyttend backup (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

geeks,freeks,and freekshow a famous artist
I'm looking for a book [bio] about a circus geek that is his collection of photos and artwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.17.147 (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried a bookshop? If you are asking us to identify a book from that description, it is not very much to go on. Can you tell us more about it?--Shantavira|feed me 17:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Psychological effect I: suicide on the train track
If someone commits suicide by throwing himself in front of a train, does it traumatize the train driver for his whole life (as is generally assumed)? If yes, why is it like that? Normally, there is absolutely nothing the driver can do to stop it.ProteanEd (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how traumatic it actually is for drivers, but I would imagine the feeling of helplessness is part of the trauma. They are seeing the horror unfold in Prokhorovka (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)front of them, and they are the driver, in charge of the situation and keeping everyone safe, but they are unable to do anything.
 * And having blood, guts and brains splatter the windscreen in front of you is not an everyday occurrence either. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't call it everyday occurrence for the train driver either, but in general it is a everyday occurrence in Germany. Apparently it happens 1,000 times every year there. Two recent famous cases are the suicide of Robert Enke and Adolf Merckle. I do believe that German train drivers must count with hitting a couple of people through their working years, unless they have many, many thousand train drivers. Furthermore, Wikipedia even has a category for that: []. Of course, that doesn't make it an everyday occurrence either, since Wikipedia has Category pages for everything.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.99 (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've witnessed a few accidents, luckily from a distance. There is kind of a feeling of helplessness, knowing something bad is about to happen and being powerless to stop it. It could be pretty nerve-racking for the engineer in that example, and could require therapy to move on from it. And yet, even on his worst day, that engineer is basically in better shape than the guy he hit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This article from the Toronto Star may provide perspective. Apparently, Toronto averages a couple of attempts and one "success" a month and many drivers live through multiple jumpers. As the story points out, it can be extremely traumatic to the drivers - precisely because they can't do anything. Matt Deres (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Psychological effect II: trauma after torture
Although I am not questioning the horror of it, why would physical or psychological torture leave a trauma for life? There are other circumstances in life that are also painful. Just imagine that a car hits you and break your leg. That's something that can happen every time again.--ProteanEd (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the article Psychological trauma? Different people react to things in different ways, and to address your second example, many people who are involved in even quite minor car accidents have a fear of driving or traffic for years afterwards. FiggyBee (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Simple - there is a major difference between an 'accepted' accident that occur randomly from time to time and a pre-meditated (even planned) incident. Intent is everything. ny156uk (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the implication of what people will do to you is hard to overcome. We'd like to think that everyone is more or less benevolent, and that's more or less true, but torture would certainly have you wondering how and why anyone could do such things to a human being, particularly you. We have to account for that complete lack of empathy and what sort of conditions lead to it. Vranak (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to emphasis too the other side of 'Different people react to things in different ways'. Many people have emerged from things like Auschwitz with no discernable psychological harm at all. People really are different in this respect. There are lots of kind caring people who can go along to something like a train crashing into a coach and clear the whole business up without it disrupting their dinner or sleep. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack on this video
On the Fortnum & Mason website they have a video about the store which has a very lovely soundtrack, just wonder if anybody knew what it was. --Thanks, Hadseys 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC) P.S isn't it a great little shop
 * Someone will probably be along with the answer shortly; but my guess is that it's from one of Handel's oratorios, though I don't recognize the piece offhand. Deor (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know it, but Handel certainly sounds right to me. You could try asking one of our noted Handelian editors at User talk:HWV258.  ReverendWayne (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Searching for a quotation
This is a bit of a long shot, but one never knows. (Incidentally, if this question is more appropriate for the Entertainment desk, please move it). In 1995, Alan Bennett made a documentary on Westminster Abbey ( on IMDb, if it helps). At one point, he mentions James VI and I's opposition to tobacco, and goes on to mention that, when the king's tomb was opened by a Dean of the Abbey in the nineteenth century, a broken clay pipe was found by the coffin, "presumably left by one of the workmen who had put it [the coffin] there.". There's a brief pause, and Bennett then recites an appropriate "Pale death with impartial foot" quotation. What I'm trying to find out is - what was that quotation? It _wasn't_ "pale death with impartial foot", if that needs saying. Does anyone else remember the documentary and the line? Tevildo (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And, we have an article on the documentary - The Abbey (documentary) - if it's of interest. Tevildo (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say I knew it by heart, but actually I googled your quote (in inverted commas) and behold: "Pale Death, with impartial foot, knocks at the cottages of the poor and the palaces of kings. / Pallida mors aequo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas regumque turres." Quintus Horatius Flaccus Horace 65-8 BC . Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I misread the question again - perhaps this....
 * The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power, / And all that beauty, / all that wealth e'er gave, / Awaits alike th' inevitable hour:- / The paths of glory lead but to the grave. (Thomas Gray) Alansplodge (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence the title of the Stanley Kubrick war film, Paths of Glory. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A personal favourite quotation of mine. So true, as well. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Germany question
I have come to understood that Adolf Hitler was the only person ever to be both President of Germany and Chancellor of Germany simultaneously. Is this true? J I P | Talk 20:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hitler was never President of Germany; he abolished the office and absorbed its powers into the new rank of Führer. No-one else has ever been both at the same time (or even not at the same time). except possibly... FiggyBee (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's entirely correct. In any case, Friedrich Ebert was Germany's Chancellor, after the fall of the Kaiser, although he never used the title. He was then elected President (but did not hold both positions at the same time). - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Adolf Hitler's rise to power answers this question. Shadowjams (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Searching for a quote on writing
Trying to remember the source (and content!) of a quote. I think it was from Annie Dillard?

The gist of it, or my recollection of it, not even close to the actual quote: Don't save up your "good ideas" for fear you'll run out. Use them and you'll get more. Store them for later, and when you try to retrieve them, they'll be gone. 198.161.238.18 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe this:- "Do not hoard what seems good for a later place in the book, or another book; give it, give it all, give it now. the impulse to save something good for a better place later is the signal to spend it now. Something more will arise for later, something better." Annie Dillard (The Writing Life) Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Brilliant, that's exactly it, thank you! Now that I have that, the rest goes like this: "These things fill from behind, from beneath, like well water. Similarly, the impulse to keep to yourself what you have learned is not only shameful, it is destructive. Anything you do not give freely and abundantly becomes lost to you. You open your safe and find ashes." 198.161.238.18 (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for getting me to search for it - I had never heard of Annie Dillard. Either I'm more ignorant than I'd imagined or she's not well known on this side of the pond - I'm hoping the latter... Alansplodge (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we write a "Resolved" over this? How were you able to find it, Alansplodge? Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I googled ANNIE DILLARD QUOTES and flicked through a few pages. Alansplodge (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is pretty good. I'm impressed. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)