Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 16

= October 16 =

what is the hookers, escorts, and masseurs association?
i was at target and there were people with these i heart hookers t shirts advocating for more prostitution or something yelling, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HELP SUPPORT ABUSED PROSTITUTES? i was quite confused and a bit curious and appaled, are they for real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.103.253 (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Helping abused prostitutes =/= advocating for more prostitution. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk)
 * See Sex workers' rights. Here's an external link.  Marco polo (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I found a website that is it hookers escorts and masseurs, but my question is, is this organization for real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.103.253 (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At Target??? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon in the US for political groups seeking signatures for various political measures to congregate in front of stores like Target, Costco, etc. (Or at least it wasn't when I was in California—I have to admit I haven't seen it in Massachusetts yet—there may be some ordinance banning that kind of activity, or maybe it is just less referendum-happy.) The theory is that if you put up a signing sheet for some political cause in a high-traffic area (and do this at multiple places across the state), you'll quickly be able to get the 20,000 or whatever signatures you need to introduce a referendum or whatever. The stores in front of which these are posted do not have any affiliation or connection with the group, usually. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about California, but generally speaking a political group or anyone soliciting outside of a store would be doing so on private property, and thus would have to get permission of either the mall or the store itself. They can't just plant themselves and ask people to sign petitions. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well. I do know about California: Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins. Hey, I can almost see it  from my house. PhGustaf (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More fully It's very common to see petitioners for almost anything at California outside malls.  The malls can post signs saying, "Ignore those guys", and I think limit their number, but they get to make their points there. PhGustaf (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here in the heartland, they would probably be advised politely to pack up and leave before the nice young men in the black-and-white cars with red-and-blue lights arrive. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 00:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or worse yet, before mall security shows up - a guy named Vito, who is known to lack a sense of humor. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 00:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Around here, the mall security guys are pretty tame. The Vitos and Vinnies work at the casinos. PhGustaf (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They work where the local businesses need them the most. The protest described here would probably fall on deaf ears in Vegas. But counting cards? That's serious business. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 00:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From a quick glance, I don't see any reason to suspect that organisation is not real. As has been mentioned, there are definitely organisations which advocate for sex workers' rights and welfare. In New Zealand where prostitution is largely legal since 2003 there exists a Prostitutes Collective in existence since 1987 http://www.nzpc.org.nz/ http://www.nzpc.org.nz/page.php?page_name=About%20Us who are definitely real. As has been mentioned these organisations don't necessarily advocate for more prostitution although they may not share your apparent stigma to sex work. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you Geolocate to California, which is wonderfully progressive about all sorts of social issues. Most likely they were trying to raise awareness for sex worker abuse, as linked above by another poster. As to their methods, you are the only witness and we can pass no judgment. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in COYOTE. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a considerable number of such organisations listed in Category:Sex worker organizations. (I am particularly impressed with the name of the Canadian one listed under C). As pointed out by others above, most such organisations are principally involved in making conditions safe and healthy for sex workers (a laudable cause), not in promoting it as a career path. Grutness...wha?  00:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Odd abbreviation
I've run across a manuscript document from Indiana from 70 years ago in which a man named John frequently writes his name as "Jno." He occasionally will use "John", so I know that I have the name correct, but I've never seen such an abbreviation. Is this at all a common abbreviation? Or is this guy perhaps dyslexic? Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not dyslexic. Jno.  used to be an abbreviation for John.  Consider John Witherspoon, signer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, who signed his name clearly as "Jno Witherspoon".  -- Jayron  32  03:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The "o" was usually a superscript, i.e. Jno. See, for example, John Harvie's signature here. Other abbreviations used by signers of the Declaration include Robt, Saml, Wm, Thos, and Jas, all very common at the time. The inverted letter order of Jno does seem a bit strange in comparison, but it too was standard. —Kevin Myers 03:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My favorite of those style was Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, who abbreviated his rather odd first name as "Danl of St Thos", which used the superscript three times in one name. -- Jayron  32  03:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers; I've never observed "Jno" before. I've run across the superscript idea in other, older, documents (if you look in the Language archives, you can find me asking questions about early nineteenth-century spelling in southern Pennsylvania, regarding one of these documents) in many forms.  As these are church meeting minutes, I often found both Mr and Revd being used, as well as a Samuel whose name is spelled Saml.  This Indiana document is different, however: it contains records from 1918 to 1938; the superscript is not used.  Was this abbreviation still in common use into the 1930s?  I'll not be surprised if it's simply that this guy is unusual; he consistently spells "minutes" (i.e. the meeting minutes) as "minuet" or "minuets" (e.g. "The minuet of the last meeting were read..."), for a reason I've not discovered.  Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Google Books tells me that in the New York Times Index of 1922, the abbreviation "Jno" was used 100 times. So it was still around, though I imagine it was getting a little musty by then. —Kevin Myers 04:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you go to Google and enter ["jno" abbreviation] you will see this same question asked many times, going back a number of years. The reason for the usage seems to be lost in antiquity. One theory is that it was somehow to distinguish "John" from "Jonathan". Another is that the superscript "o" is actually a fancified period. The John Harvie signature linked earlier would seem to challenge that, as he had a period... under what looks like a double oo (though it could just be a fancified swirl), thus adding a layer to this little mystery. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 05:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This PDF posted by BYU lists a lot of the abbreviations used for names. They say John could be abbreviated "Jn" or "Jno" and that Jonathan was abbreviated "Jnthn". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 05:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

John Dee on the colours of angels
In a book on the history of mirrors, I read a passing reference to John Dee's investigations into the colours of angels, but can find no other mention of it on the Net - can anyone point me to it, please? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We have John Dee ... deals with his angel summoning activities. One can imaging the angels, sitting in heaven, thinking "buzz off, barking mad person, I'm not playing your game". --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although rather a dubious work, this book appears to accurately reproduce Dee's musings on the subject. Warofdreams talk 11:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that a good deal of John Dee's original (manuscript) writings are preserved and available for study in the British Library, but have never been published in printed or facsimile form: in principle you could consult them directly. I learned this a couple of years ago in a lecture/demonstration on Enochian magick given by someone researching that subject. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these - sadly (for many reasons) i'm not in the UK, so can't visit the British Library. The book I read mentioned he went to especial pains to discover angels' colours - does anyone know what specifically he did to find these colours, or did he just ask the angels in person? Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dee's alleged conversations with the angels (via Kelley's mediumship) were extensive so it's likely that either they volunteered the information, or that he asked for it, directly. (Whether the conversations were in some way genuine, self-delusion on Dee's and/or Kelley's part, or concoctions of Kelley, is of course an open question.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe he posted questions on some divine reference desk - thanks for your help, 87. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If a man who cannot count finds a four-leaf clover, is he lucky?
An aphorism written by the Polish poet Stanislaw Jerzy Lec. Now, just for philosophical debate, Assuming that a 4-leafed clover does bring luck, does this brings truth to the conclusion of the man's lucky day? I have thought about this for a long time, and here are my thoughts about it.

Let me first clarify something. Being lucky = Attaining something people believe brings luck (like the 4-clover) + One's own belief that such a luck-bringing object exists and that it does hold this power. Now;


 * 1) assume that X is a person who believes in luck-bringing objects.
 * 2) And, There exists a 4-leafed Clover (A conventionally agreed-upon luck-bringing object)
 * 3) X encountered a Clover (can't tell if four leafed or not).
 * 4) X thinks he is either lucky OR not lucky.
 * 5) Even if X believes that he's encountering lucky events, he can't justify his luck through reasoning.
 * 6) HOWEVER; It's us, the so-called external observers, who know the truth of the situation. HE IS IN FACT LUCKY, or at least we know that this is what he should ultimately deduce.

NOW. Note that there's a BIG difference between the factors that make a belief comes true, independent of me, the experiencing person, and between the the factors that make this belief comes true to ME. Thus, in the example above, It's agreed upon that a four leafed clover will bring luck - these are the factors that make the belief true (four leaves). But I didn't experience this fact due to inadequate reasoning tools, hence for me, I didn't satisfy the requirements of justification, and I couldn't transcend from THINKING about it to KNOW it...

The problem is, MANY epistemologists think that if these two factors mentioned above didn't match, then you have NO KNOWLEDGE of the fact in question. That is, An experienced philosopher would answer that, since X didn't justify, he didn't know. What one doesn't know, doesn't exist, at least in the Understanding.

Hardest thing about philosophy is that one must use formal logic, not the informal methods of argumentation, to prove his argument. Still, that's why philosophy is great. This is typically similar to why mathematicians don't trust mathematical proofs if brought upon via PC calculations, as they might go wrong at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkLaguna (talk • contribs) 13:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an aphorism, not amorphism. 194.39.218.10 (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Counting objects such as the leaves on a clover is a skill and as such, has nothing to do with luck. Googlemeister (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk or information desk of a library is a public service counter where professional librarians provide library users with direction to library materials, advice on library collections and services, and expertise on multiple kinds of information from multiple sources.

I'm simply asking for guidance on a Philosophy-related topic. I know many wikipedians here can point me to rather plausible sources to fully understand the aphorism mentioned. Maybe If I hadn't added my personal opinion about it I wouldn't have been adding this comment!

And again, My premise did assume that a 4-leafed clover does bring luck. DarkLaguna (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing reference to primary source in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papier-m%C3%A2ch%C3%A9_Tiara
The article with the above URL, "Papier-mâché Tiara," seems to be missing an important reference citation to a primary source document. I copy the middle paragraph under the section "Continuing usage": "A new silver papal tiara to replace the destroyed ones was only manufactured in 1820, but the papier-mâché tiara continued in usage for decades afterwards, its lightweight design making it a comfortable alternative to the heavier silver alternative for popes as they aged. It was finally officially retired from usage in 1845, when a new lightweight tiara was manufactured for Pope Gregory XVI. Contemporary reports suggested that Pope Gregory viewed it as demeaning that the Vicar of Christ should be seen wearing a crown made not from gold or silver but from mere crushed paper."

It seems that the author omitted reference to a primary source which must have mentioned the existence of the lightweight tiara manufactured for Gregory XVI in 1845. I have done a tremendous amount of checking this out, with the aid of the Google search engine. I found no references at all to this 1845 tiara, outside the Wikipedia article itself. The lone reference: Lord Twining, A History of the Crown Jewels of Europe, 1960, seems to be related to another part of this article. Still, I thought it might be the hoped-for primary source, so I had a reference librarian go through it. She was kind enough to supply PDFs of the key pages referring to papal tiaras, but there is not a whisper about this 1845 lightweight tiara.

In conclusion, it would be thrilling to resolve this matter, if you can obtain from the article's author either a true reference to the tiara in question or a restatement of the sentence in which the claim appears. Either of these options assumes that there is no typographical error with respect to the year 1845 or that the statement as given contains a factual error.

Elbuckoaqui (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Elbuckoaqui, welcome to Wikipedia and kudos on doing all that research and checking. I hope you stay and continue to contribute in this way. Looking in the article's history (click the "history" tab at the top of the page), it says that the creator of the article is User:Jtdirl. The way to ask them about their source is to go to their talk page User talk:Jtdirl, and edit the page to leave them a message. They can respond either under your message or on your own talk page, and hopefully you can get that resolution. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article List of papal tiaras in existence lists three tiaras commissioned by Gregory XVI, but gives an unknown date for the lightweight version. The 1845 tiara seems to have been a "heavy duty version", but both are non-links.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus
Can anybody recommend some good academic or otherwise authoritative sources on the subject? Our current sources on the subject are vaguely appalling for their low quality - a blog article by Larisa Alexandrovna repeating rumors, a bizarre and utterly unconvincing interpretation of a vague one-liner in a White House memo, and ostensible reprints of NATO and Washington internal documents with no convincing proof of their provenance. Ray Talk 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding the entry "China" in Wikipedia's database.
I'm sorry if I am wrong. I had mostly just skimmed the article, but I could only find one instance of a round-about population number thruought the entry.

I would like to see how the population had changed during and thruought China's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.47.245.122 (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For more detail, with some history, see Demographics of the People's Republic of China. The article goes back to the first PRC censuses of the mid 20th century. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Historical Population" section of that article has estimates going back to 2100BC. TastyCakes (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, the good ol' CIA World Factbook. I missed that part. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)