Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 10

= December 10 =

Who was Edith Macy? I can only find info on a conference center that bears her name.
My daughter's Girl Scout project is to find out who Edith Macy was. I cannot find anything about her on the internet. The only thing that comes up is the Edith Macy Conference Center in Briarcliff, NY. How do I search for historical figures that (apparently) aren't that well known? Even the Girl Scout site I was on had very little information about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.25.75 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A search through Google Books: turns up some promising results.  She appears to have been the wife of an industrialist named V. Everit Macy.  Wikipedia has an article about the conference center here: Edith Macy Conference Center and about their upstate New York estate, Hathaway (Tannersville, New York), but does not have any articles about either of them (perhaps it should, given the book references).  You can probably piece together details from the Google Books search I linked above.  -- Jayron  32  00:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) You start by searching for Edith Macy, and that leads you to a pertinent page on the Girl Scout's site. From the information gleaned there you search for Edith Carpenter Macy, which leads you to what looks like a biography, or at least an extended text on the woman, within the context of her girl scout work. Those are the only two links from the searches that I looked at in any depth. I suspect the second search will yield more gems. As Jayron says, google books is always a good place to look for this sort of stuff, as is the internet archive (although not in this case, it turns out).--Tagishsimon (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * About half way down this page there's an article, in yellow, on V. Everit Macy and Edith, including a photo of the woman.  --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on this discussion, I have started a stub article about V. Everit Macy. I will probably start one on his wife tomorrow.  -- Jayron  32  04:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

British Monarch Coronation
When the Queen was crowned all those years ago in Westminster Abbey she signed a document which I'm guessing is some form of legal document that officially makes her a monarch. Does anybody know what the text of this document is? --Thanks, Hadseys 02:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There may well have been a document, but whatever it was, it did not "officially make her a monarch". The document that did that was the Act of Succession Settlement, which provides that the new monarch accedes on the instant of the demise of the old monarch. Everything else is just window dressing.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) She appears to be signing a copy of the coronation oath, which ran as follows:


 * "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?"
 * "I solemnly promise so to do."
 * "Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"
 * "I will."
 * "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"
 * "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."


 * Note that the oath, and the coronation itself, don't make her the monarch. The law makes her a monarch.  The coronation, and the oath, are just ceremonial. Marnanel (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm &mdash; so if she had refused the oath, what would have happened, exactly? --Trovatore (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let an expert handle that. A sort-of parallel arises in the US presidency.  The new president becomes president at noon on 20 January, because the law says so, but he cannot execute the duties of his office until he is sworn in.  If he refused to swear he would not cease to be president, but he couldn't legally do anything in the capacity of president.  Whether such a situation would apply in the UK, I couldn't say.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   09:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced - for starters, a new king or queen does everything a king or queen is meant to do from the moment they succeed, and coronations take a long time to organise, (Edward VIII of course never was crowned). I'm also not sure that there is any legal requirement for a coronation. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it you're not convinced about (not that I was trying to convince you of anything) : the detail of what I wrote? or that it was an appropriate parallel? (I did say it was a "sort-of parallel")  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   17:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Queen could do all the things involved in "the office of Queen" before she was crowned. If Westminster Abbey had collapsed in early 1953, and the coronation put on hold indefinitely, she would have carried on giving the royal assent, dissolving and summoning parliament, receiving ambassadors, and all the rest, without being crowned. So, I'm not convinced about the parallel with the swearing in of an American President. DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair call. But see my later post 3 posts below.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   06:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I broadly agree, but I believe that the Queen holds the Coronation Oath to be a binding one and not just a ceremonial nicety. She has referred to her oath in several speeches. Alansplodge (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "just ceremonial" was the wrong phrasing for me to use. It was a serious oath, but it was not what made her the monarch. Marnanel (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, UK monarchs have traditionally taken the position that it's not enough to just become the monarch and then spend their lives in splendid idleness. No, they have work to do, and lots of it, and this is their formal and solemn promise to adhere to the terms and conditions of their "employment". Plus, the Act of Settlement requires the monarch to "join in communion with the Church of England".  Apart from the fact that all monarchs since the early Georges have already been members of the Church, how does a new monarch demonstrate they are satisfying this requirement?  The Oath at the Coronation would seem to fit that bill, so it may not be as entirely superfluous to their monarchy as we generally seem to think.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The obvious way to be in communion with the church is to take communion (ie. the Eucharist), the oath isn't necessary. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, Tango, welcome back. So, that's all that's necessary?  Nothing formal, just turning up at Church on one occasion?  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've finally got internet access in my new flat (after nearly 4 months) - two ISPs each failed multiple times to get it set up. The church has its own definitions about who counts as a member, but I think being baptised (and maybe confirmed later) and taking communion occasionally is all they really look for. --Tango (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The depends on what you mean by "binding". It isn't legally binding, since the Queen is the "fount of justice" and can't be taken to court anyway. Monarchs generally consider it to be morally binding. The legal position should the monarch not abide by their obligations under law and oaths is very unclear - it would be a constitutional crisis. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To elaborate more, she became monarch the instant her predecessor died. While the law establishes legal succession in the UK, the actual passing of the monarchy from one monarch to their successor is considered automatic; there is no regular interregnum in the UK (in other monarchies, historically, there would be pending election of a monarch or official coronation of the same).  See The King is dead. Long live the King. for a related article on the topic.  -- Jayron  32  03:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that page has deteriorated since I wrote it a couple of years ago. Now it restates the same idea over and over again using identical examples from several countries for no reason. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 12:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Somali names
Is there a website where I can find Somali names commonly used by male and female? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.226 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you type the words "Somali names" into google, you get many such websites. -- Jayron  32  03:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * List of Somalis has a few. --Sean 16:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the Somalis that I meet in London have Islamic names; Muhammad is very popular. Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why can't I find street gangs in Compton, CA on Google StreetView?
I tried looking around Compton through that utility, but never found any group of young men in similar colors (not even red and blue) congregating at street corners. I never found any two guys appearing to make a drug transaction either. (I have found graffiti in various places, though, but not a single drawing of body chalking anywhere in my streetviewing travels.)

How come Compton looks a whole lot cleaner than it has been portrayed in media? Does Google have a policy of Photoshopping out serious criminal elements from their images, or what's the deal here? --70.179.178.5 (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "How come Compton looks a whole lot cleaner than it has been portrayed in media"? Maybe it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There exists an extensive community of people looking for odd or unusual things on Google Earth, which has, at times, included crimes in the process of being committed. I'm not aware of any specifically for Compton, but you can find all sorts of strange shit if you hang around the right forums.  To get you started, I recommend the Strangest Sights on Google Earth slideshow.  You can, for example, see a house on fire, or a capsized boat.  In Chicago, there even is a kid about to shoot someone. Buddy431 (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit: Drug Deal, in Chicago, street fight in San Fransisco, Public Urination all over the place, etc. A good site for this type of thing is Street View Gallery.  Searching "Crime" gets a number of scenes. Buddy431 (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And in Bergen, Norway, you can find two guys chasing the camera in scuba gear [someone insert link here]. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here you go - couldn't bring myself to edit your comment, even with an invitation! DuncanHill (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the more unlikely scenarios from Streetview features Wayne Coyne of The Flaming Lips taking a bath outside his house. sparkl!sm hey! 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the article you linked to, "Compton had 75 murders in 2005" which is just under 1 every 5 days on average. Considering many of the bodies probably aren't even found in places that you can see on Google Street View (and perhaps a few are murders despite the absence of bodies), the chance you're going to see a bodychalking is going to be slim. Of course there would be some chalkings which aren't classified as murders but it doesn't really change the point. (Note unreported murders are mostly irrelevant since if the police don't even know someone is missing they wouldn't be body chalking.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt they even do that chalk outline of bodies for murders since you might end up disturbing forensic evidence. It is also not needed since you can just take some photos to record the body position.  Googlemeister (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Identify a 18th-century painting of three sisters
I wonder if there are anywhone who can help me identify a painting of the following description : it is made in the 1770s or 1780s and depicts three young adult sisters. They sit together writing, sewing or doing something similar; one is visible from the front, the two others in profile. The sisters are dressed in frilly white dresses and they have large, powdered but still brown hair in the hair style typical of the period. I do know that this is a painting made by one of the most famous English 18th-century painters, but I have forgotten the name of the artist as well as of the painting. Are there anyone who could assist me in identifying this painting? As I understand it, it is a famous painting, so some one whith knowledge of 18th-century painting may very well know it. Thank you in advance. --Aciram (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it on the internet? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe The Ladies Waldegrave (1780-81) by Joshua Reynolds? ---Sluzzelin talk  14:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, Sluzzelin, that is the one! Kittybrewster, I actually saw it on an old piece of paper with no text, and it was hard to find it on the net just because I had no names, but now I have both. Thank you very much! --Aciram (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

'Free' education that's too expensive
It's possible there's some term for this that would make a search easier. I'm looking for a few examples of countries that offer 'free' education to all children (at least primary education), but the children or their families have to provide uniforms and all equipment such as pencils and paper. I'm trying to introduce children to the idea that there are other factors beyond just going to school in whether children have fair access to education (many many more), but I want something fairly simple to point at to start them thinking. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a standard complaint in parts of society about the Australian public education system. However, my observation is that many such students carry the latest tech gadgets and their families holiday in Bali every year. In genuine cases of hardship, support is usually available to cover costs of uniform and material. My point is that, while the education is technically not totally free, the complainers are really often trying to justify a different set of priorities where education is not high on the list. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my school district, at least at the high school level, education is "free" but still subject to fees (for participation in some classes, activities, etc, in addition to enrollment fees), school lunch cost, and all supplies must be bought by the family. However, it also works to where low-income families can have fees waived or reduced, get school lunches for free or a reduced price, and either receive vouchers for school supplies or receive school supplies from various charities (I can't remember which system we currently have regarding people unable to afford school supplies, but I know it is one of those two). The only fees I can think of that cannot be waived or reduced are optional, with the exception of a cap, gown, and class stole for graduation senior year, which costs about $60 USD (~ £38) and can be paid up to three months after ordering, so the families have some time to collect the money. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While interesting, I'm really looking for a few countries whose education system I can investigate in a bit more detail where this is actually a barrier to education, without extra funding to help the poorest. I know I've read cases from such countries (but cannot remember which), where usually there are other barriers too (the economic value of the work the children could be doing, cultural resistance to formal education, lack of perceived value of education for women, etc), and I'd like to be able to start simply and build. I recall specifically reading of countries which are trying to get all children a primary education, by providing schools, but many children do not attend, or attend rarely, or drop out, for these reason. I'd also ideally like to start with a country very different from the UK, to get them started, then bring it back to problems in the UK and similar countries: I'm hoping this will give a sense of scale and a feeling for similarities and differences, it being easier to see this stuff in a culture that isn't your own. But to do this, I need a few countries to start me off. Do you know of such countries? 86.161.208.185 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * From a quick search for 'free education can't afford uniform pen paper'  mentions Colombia,  mentions Nicaragua and  mentions Kenya but I suspect this isn't uncommon in many developing countries (obviously only those with theoretical free education). Note that one complicating issue is that even if subsidies exist, things like corruption, lack of awareness etc (combined with what you've already said and including in some cases racism or similar problems) means that they may not always reach those in need. Subsidies may also be general for the parents rather then specifically targetting school supplies for children. And the subsidies may only cover those in extreme poverty (when they actually reach them) but not those where it's still a barrier. Nil Einne (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Are mobbing victims sometimes at fault?
Normally, if you read the literature (in psychology or similar fields) it is considered common wisdom that anyone could be a mobbing victim and that they are indeed victims, not contributing to the process. However, following my personal experience and hearsay (not very reliable, I know) it seems that almost always the victim was at least partially at fault. The victim normally engaged in a certain dynamic, being victim (perhaps at the beginning) and hitting back (being also nasty or passive aggressive). Is there any psychologist who developed a theory in this direction? Are there any other reliable sources of this phenomenon (mobbing victim engaging in the process of being mobbed). 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note for confused Americans: Mobbing in this context seems to be what we would call "bullying," not in reference to crowds or the mafia. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant actually workplace bullying, nothing related to the mob.80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are referencing a complex social phenomena. I don't think there could be a simple answer to the question you ask, but I don't really mean to discourage others from trying to respond more substantively. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I also do believe that really anyone could be a victim, similarly to any crime. However, if you consider passivity to be a contribution to the dynamic, then I'll say that some victims do contributed to it sometimes. "Don't be a victim" is also a common phrase in the counseling of bullying/mobbing (potential) victims. However, I wouldn't, by any means, say that the victim are at fault somehow. They simply didn't know how to react in such a situation. Quest09 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What kind of bullshit is this? Because someone doesn't react to an uninvited act of aggression in the way you want them to, they are somehow at fault?  That the situation is predictable to outside observers doesn't place any responsibility on the act of the victim of an act of aggression or violence.  That the victim could have behaved differently doesn't somehow make them "at fault" in any way.  If I go walking, at night, in a dangerous neighborhood and start flashing money around, that may mean I am stupid, but such stupidity does not remove some fraction of responsibility from the person who mugs me.  The responsibility for violence lies 100% with the perpetrator of that violence, and no fraction belongs to the victim.  Decent people don't commit acts of aggression and violence, period.  It doesn't make a bully more decent because his victim was "asking for it".  -- Jayron  32  20:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * People who claim that violence solves nothing are apparently not well educated about violence. Googlemeister (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, come on. We are discussing this in the context of bullying.  I'm not sure that bullying has a positive effect on society in any conceivable way.  I'm sure some case could be made for some situations where a person is injured or killed by the deliberate act of another which is a net benefit to society.  But this is not the context of the question asked here.  Your comment, while true, is apropos of nothing and unrelated to the question being asked.  -- Jayron  32  20:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to second Jayrons rejection and surprise at such a theory. Even if there are certain psychological "victim" behavioral mechanisms, and as far as I know there have been studies in behavioral patterns of victims of both bullying as well as assault and torture, it would never ever be the fault of the victim, but entirely the fault of the aggressor. And this would apply both in law and psychology. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to third that too. 92.24.190.135 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Conflict is a great teacher for humanity. Individuals who are not exposed to conflict as a child are less able to cope with it as an adult.  Overprotecting people from bullying as a whole may not be beneficial in the long run.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the macho view. That's what bullies say. If someone is bullied at work, are you saying the victim should thump their boss, and that then the problem will be solved? 92.24.190.135 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Googlemeister. Conflict is a useful thing, as is learning how to deal with conflict.  At some point, however, there is a distinction between legitimate conflict, whereby people have a legitimate mutual disagreement, and someone just being an asshole.  Assholery isn't excusable. People do need to learn how to deal with an asshole on a personal level, but when assholery rises to the level of causing real harm to other people, the assholes need to be removed from society.  One can learn how to properly manage conflict and still not need to tolerate obnoxious acts of violence.  At what level does bullying need to be tolerated?  Do we allow bullies to gang up on people and isolate them socially?  Do we allow bullies to hit other people, uninvited?  Do we allow them to rape others?  At what level is the line drawn when it crosses over from acceptable to unacceptable?  You must be able to draw that line somewhere, and once you have drawn that line, it isn't the victims fault in any way once the bully has crossed it. -- Jayron  32  20:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your general position, Jayron. Now, what about situations where the victim had been deliberately and persistently provocative? When they finally get what they "were asking for", are they still zero percent at fault?  "I was provoked" is not a defence the perpetrator can use; but the victim might nevertheless come in for some criticism for making the violence more likely than it might otherwise have been.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what I am trying to say has been a bit misunderstood. I am not claiming that it is the fault of the victim that they are being bullied, just that some of the draconian attempts to completely eradicate bullying, while well meaning, may in fact be doing more harm then good.  Children who have never been put under strain will develop into adults that do not know how to manage situation that involve strain, and any adult who tells you that they do not encounter stress in their life is either the luckiest person on earth, or untruthful.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(UNDENT) @JackofOz: You have to define provocation carefully. It depends on the context whether an act should reasonably be perceived as prococative, that is whether a "reasonable person" would judge the act to elicit a certain response. A quiet, nerdy kid on a playground isn't being "provocative" if a bully shows up to kick his ass every day just because he's bored. That's not provocation. The victim is not responsible. If a woman wears revealing clothing to a bar because she intends to have sex with a man that night, but a man who she doesn't specifically ask to have sex with her roughs her up and forces himself upon her, that's not provocation. The victim is not responsible. If a drunk man in a bar starts to threaten and make sexual advances against my wife, he's not a "victim" of the asskicking I am going to attempt to deliver to him. What he did is provocation. @Googlemeister: Expecting children to get bullied at some level, and preparing them for that fact, and teaching them how to deal with that situation is good. Teaching children how to avoid being bullied is good. Allowing the bullies to go unpunished because it teaches other children to "deal with conflict" is just stupid. There is zero evidence that allowing bullies somehow makes children better adults, while there are lots of studies that show that allowing bullies has a detrimental effect on children. Seriously Googlemeister: Show me studies which show that children who are protected from bullying grow up to be lesser adults. Seriously, put your money where your mouth is. You keep claiming this to be "true". Prove it. -- Jayron  32  21:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Our article on Helicopter parenting has some relevant references I suspect. Googlemeister (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An entirely unrelated issue. The issue of individual parents who take such an interest in their children as to prevent the child from making, and learning from, their own mistakes is completely different than saying we should let kids get beat up so they can learn a lesson.  Completely different.  Protecting people from violence is not the same as allowing children to learn independence, to say that it is seems rediculous.  Again, show me a study that shows that bullying benefits the kids that are bullied.  You keep saying that it does, but then you refer to unrelated issues.  -- Jayron  32  22:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32: just imagine a situation when a child gets bullied, reacts correctly - informing the teacher, or by whatever other socially accepted means he has learned - and is able to get the bully punished. Would the bullied child feel empowered? Would the bully re-think how he interacts with others?


 * Obviously, this is not the question asked. Expanding my answer above: see also the official UK campaign of "Don't be a victim" here: Indy_Sagu. Again, victims, although they can and should learn how to protect themselves. are not at fault, even if as victims of some crime sometimes they might feel guilty. Quest09 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Violence is conflict, but it is not the only kind of conflict. Bully is conflict, but it is not the only kind of conflict. Bullying is harmful and affects a child's view of themselves and others, often leading to 'victim-like behaviour' that makes them the target for more bullying, even into adulthood: it doesn't make them stronger. This is the same deal as abused children ending up with abusive partners in adulthood. A life free of bullying is not a life free of conflict, a life free lof violence is not a life free of conflict: conflict presents in many more healthy ways, and can be resolved by children. Finally, "just imagine a situation when a child gets bullied, reacts correctly - informing the teacher, or by whatever other socially accepted means he has learned - and is able to get the bully punished. Would the bullied child feel empowered? Would the bully re-think how he interacts with others?", well, that's the dream. Many schools are working on a way to make that happen, and a few think they've cracked it. But, at a lot of schools, that wouldn't at all be the 'right thing to do', and would just make it worse. If the child is in an unhealthy social environment that allows or encourages bullying as 'part of being a child' or 'something you have to learn to cope with' or 'teaching the victim to fit in', there is almost nothing that child can do to avoid it: they can move, or they can kick up enough fuss that the system has to change. The second option relies on their being a broader system or society that disapproves of bullying, and risks retribution from the bullies either inside or outside school. If most people think dealing with bullies is an essential life skill children have to learn, there is nowhere a child can reliably turn for help. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Making them stronger" means making them more aggressive. This is not any solution but is like a situation where a superficial peace is kept in a possible Middle East where every country has nuclear weapons and lives in fear of other's responce. People live in this fear in for example UK sink council estates, and its not a pleasant experience. Might is not right. 92.15.28.181 (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullies will often play the "look what you made me do" game, trying to assign the fault for their bad behavior from themselves to the victim. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The bullies aside, one could argue that the parents themselves should actively abuse their children physically and mentally in order to prepare them for the abuse that they are probably going to suffer from other people in their adult lives. (In general, this world is terrible, and therefore we must prevent our fellow humans from getting dangerous illusions and forgetting that fact; and the way to prevent such illusions is to personally do all we can to make sure the world remains as terrible as possible). However, both letting children be bullied and abusing them personally is wrong, precisely because it's so good and correct. This approach is so wise and useful to the children that it will give them a false sense of over-confidence that adults will always make such wise and useful decisions. Instead, we should strive to make stupid decisions, so that children get used to the fact that in this world, people inevitably sometimes make stupid decisions. Specifically, children should get used to the fact that adults will ruthlessly seek to deprive them of all the valuable bullying experience they need. In this world, you'll have to learn to be tough and stand up to the overprotective adults and actively fight for your right to be bullied. We live in a world that is so harsh and mean that you can't even count on adults to bother to let you realize how harsh and mean it is. The children had better learn to deal with this evil, and we shouldn't prevent them from doing that by trying to fix it.

P.S. Ehem. . --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mobbing question section break
This has been an interesting discussion, but again the original question was about work-place "mobbing", which is very clearly defined at Mobbing, and does not generally involve physical violence. I think the OP is asking about "targets" of that particular kind of collective adult behavior, and I haven't seen anything yet about any studies on how or why a particular target is selected to direct that behavior at, or to what extent, if any, some of those targets do "bring it on themselves" due to their own workplace behavior. It seems at least certainly not always the case that such behavior is "provoked" by anything actually about the victim him-or-herself (and such behavior is of course never really "justifiable" – one must be civil, for example, even to trolls at the RD!;). Wiki Dao &#9775;  (talk)  18:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is helpful to draw a line between violent and non-violent behaviour. Non-violent behaviour such as verbal abuse and shunning are more harmful and long-lasting in their effects than having a fight. 92.28.246.75 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

taiwan, singapore, education
1) the curriculum of Chinese literature (what does it cover)in high school (Taiwan), & time spent per week in that subject

2) the curriculum of Chinese literature (What does it cover) in high school (Singapore) & time spent per week in that subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.2.2 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Who was the first actress in Germany?
It seems that most nations in Europe did not allow proffesional female actors until the second half of the 17th-century. I wonder: when was this allowed in Germany - and could anyone give me the name of the first German actress? I am most interested in theatre history, and I would be gratefull. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We had a similar question over two years ago: "Woman on the stage in Germany", where references pointed to Catharina Elisabeth Velthen as a possible candidate, in the second half of the 17th century as well. ---Sluzzelin talk  03:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see, thank you for linking it. It says that the first actresses appeared in 1654, and that Velthen was active from the 1680s. Is she the first actress whos name is known? Are there information about her somehwere on the net, and if not, could you given me the year of her birth, death and first known appearence? --Aciram (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately not. I was only able to read Christel Weiler's review of Claudia Puschmann's Fahrende Frauenzimmer. I can't read the book itself full text. The only hit I got for "1654" (in that book) gave me a snippet mentioning a request submitted by George Jolly's troupe for permission to play in Basel; the request clearly includes women in its staff description.
 * The article doesn't say whether the troupe would have performed in German language. If we count performances in other languages: the German article on Ariana Nozeman states that she performed at Frederick III, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp's court, as well as in the German cities Flensburg, Rensdorf, and Neumünster during a Northern European tour lasting from 1649 to 1654. Susanna van Lee appears to have been another female member of the same troupe. The performances were held in Dutch (which, at the time, was better understood in Northern Germany than it would be nowadays). I found no references for the absolute first woman to perform on stage in German. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way; you seem to have knowledge about the subject. Do you known the name and years of the first actress in France, Portugal and Russia? Or perhaps someone else here knows? If anyone knows, answer any one of those above you now off; I would be gratefull, as I have a great interest in women- and theatre history.--Aciram (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My knowledge on European (or any) theatre history is wafer-thin. I did a little bit of research, and scanned several books on the history of theatre, and the history of women in theatre, but found no clear (or even vague) answers to your questions. I hope others will know or find more. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)