Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 9

= December 9 =

When did privacy become sacrosanct?
It used to be that there were phone books that printed names, addresses, phone numbers and in some cases, even jobs. Why was it okay then but now people freak out about cameras in public (which is PUBLIC). Aaronite (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an unusual question that's really asking us to compare apples with oranges, or in this case, phone books that listed a home address, with cameras that display where we are at any time of day or night. A very different level of information on a person. I'm not quite sure what the point is. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're getting at, but public cameras can't exactly follow me home. I know there are many cameras. But seriously, even the authorities don't really care what you're doing. Aaronite (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And you could opt out of said phone books, as well (see unlisted number). A lot of privacy is about who gets to control the information and what they allow others to do with it. But anyway, I don't see an actual Reference Desk question here. Public attitudes towards privacy have certainly changed over time, and since the 1970s at least people have gotten more concerned with the possible misuses of personal information. The explosion of "public" information since the 1990s, due to information technology, has certainly caused a lot of new issues to pop up in the public mindset regarding privacy, and the combination of internet information being easy to add and essentially impossible to remove has created an information environment pretty different than in times past. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Often in this context I hear the fear expressed that society will become like Nineteen Eighty-Four, a book which was written in 1948. 213.122.59.245 (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the desire for privacy has not changed very much over the last 50 years, but the topic comes to the forefront due to new threats to privacy. In 1970, calling people on the phone was expensive enough that cold calls were unattractive. Today, a computer will dial automatically, the call is nearly free, and human effort is minimized. In 1970, a camera would produce a paper picture that could be either published or filed away. Today, automatic face recognition can be used to generate movement profiles automatically and on a large scale. And the "not really care what you are doing" is a canard. If nobody cares, we don't need cameras and can save the expense. Data that has once been collected can be used and can be misused. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We have an article section, Privacy. I assume you're being sarcastic when you use the word "sacrosanct", because obviously privacy is not valued as much as things like property rights, free speech, etc.  In the US, the most important privacy-related provision in the Constitution is the Fourth, which bars most searches and seizures without a warrant; as that article states, the roots of the Fourth are in English common law, where in 1604 one judge wrote that a man's home is his castle.  In the 200 years since the Fourth, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly had to decide how far to extend this concept.  Cars:  Currently not a man's castle, mostly.  His person:  Counted as part of the castle.  You can't search him without a warrant.  Mostly.  Privacy became a big social concern in the cities of the US when the 1900 Kodak Brownie camera became popular.  Our article shamefully does not discuss this at all, but after millions of the cameras were sold, many citizens were outraged that street kids could take their picture in public, and the taking of photographs of private citizens in public places was apparently banned in a few small towns.  This was a pitiful move against the tide, though.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You might also be interested in reading The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere by German philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas. He chronicles the transformation of the public and private sphere from the Greek Polis and Oikos, until the creation and decline of the Bourgeoisie public sphere in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. P. S. Burton  (talk)  18:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What a silly comparison. A security camera might show you doing all manner of embarrassing, illegal, or employment threatening things, a phone book tells where you live. (Also, what's this "used to" business? I've got this year's phone book right here.)
 * Sure "The Authorities" might not care about what you're doing, but a reporter might, the corrupt boss you're blowing the whistle on might, the minimum wage security guard who's collecting funny clips for YouTube might. APL (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what Aaronite's getting at. I'd be more concerned about everybody and anybody being able to look up where I live (after all, isn't that why we're not supposed to post things like our phone numbers and addresses on the internet?) than some random security guard catching me picking my nose. After all, if you decide to pick your nose in public, there is a reasonable expectation that somebody might see you. If you don't want to be seen doing something, don't do it in public. Public is, by definition, not private. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Aaronite might be confusing phone directories with city directories. The latter are/were typically arranged in two sections, one kind of like the phone book, the other organized by streets and addresses; and they often had occupations, if known. Phone directories were published by the phone company and contained name, address and phone, UNLESS you were willing to pay extra (effectively "payola") to be unpublished. This ramped up a bit with caller ID becoming available, and now you have to pay extra to either have caller ID or to block your own number from being ID'd. Either way, the phone company makes money, and that's what it's really about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we didn't have a City directory article, I created a stub. Thanks for pointing out a (rabbit?) hole, Bugs.John Z (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

planning frameworks in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
what is the difference between the Irish National Spatial Strategy and the Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queensuni89 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Planning framework in Ireland
Does anyone know what the difference is between the National Spatial Strategy for Ireland and that of Northern Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feathercropper (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the document linked to above - or even a small part of it - it should give you the answer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Death of King Henry VI of England
An editor posed the question on the talk page of Henry VI of England as to how exactly did Henry die? I have never seen the precise cause of his death written anywhere. Would other editors be able to shed any light on this matter. It has me curious as well; besides if the cause is known, the article needs to state this fact.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Lady Antonia Fraser (who is generally regarded as quite a good, if remote, source on these matters), he was "quietly done to death in the Tower of London". "The chronicler Henry Warkworth recorded that he 'was put to death... between eleven and twelve of the clock' " (The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England, p 138). I think this is about the closest you'll get to exactly how. Unless someone else has access to Warkworth, of course. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I have read before. I suppose nothing was noted at the time how he was quietly done to death. That line of course implies strangling but this is purely OR on my part!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For many of this time period, there may not actually be any reliable contemporary accounts of their death. If he had been killed by his opponents, that's regicide, and said opponents probably have very good reasons for not being too public about the manner of his death.  There's lots of people from the late middle ages for whom there is no accurate record of their death; sometimes modern historians can infer in general whether they died of natural causes or at someone elses hands, but beyond that, we often don't have specific, detailed analysis of how someone may have died.  They didn't have autopsies and forensic science back then.  Other regal deaths from this time period, for which the details are at best an educated guess, include Edward II of England, Richard II of England, the Princes in the Tower, etc.  Usually, when a king was deposed, they were stuffed into the Tower of London for some time, and killed eventually, but those who killed him generally didn't widely publicize it, likely to prevent questions from being raised regarding how the current king came to the throne.  -- Jayron  32  13:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A. L. Rowse says of the death of Henry VI that he "died in the Tower on the night when Edward's younger brother, Richard of Gloucester, was there (21 May 1471)... Next day his corpse was exposed in St Paul's, where the body bled, telling its own tale." DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You had to be there. :)  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was there, but cannot recall a thing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't many of them buried under the floor stones of churches in London? Dig'em up and let the forensic pathologists have their way with the skeletons, to reveal the manner of death, even if the killers are beyond the reach of the law. Edison (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Henry VI is buried at St George's Chapel, which I think you'd have a hard job getting permission to dig. Anyway, there's something a bit off about disturbing royal bones. DuncanHill (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Or any bones, really. But if there was sufficient justification for doing so, the royalness of the bones should not be a particular or additional deterrent.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   17:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bones may not reveal much about the manner of death. Perhaps, if someone was stabbed or bludgeoned to death, but it is quite possible that many causes of death, natural or unnatural, leave no such permanent marks.  Regardless of what CSI has taught us, forensic science is not magic, and even it is limited in what sorts of things it can prove.  -- Jayron  32  17:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The skeletons of the alleged Princes in the Tower were examined upon their discovery, and the remains of Anne Boleyn were also analysed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Myth of Venice born whole from the Aegean or Adriatic?
I read this myth a while ago, and can't find the specifics - someone claimed it was born in a particular year - can anyone help me?

Thanks all - thanks to the ref desks in general - I've been hassling you a lot recently, and I get useful answers every time Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this fits with the city of Venice, which while on the coast of the Adriatic seems unlikely to be born whole or in a mythological manner. I suspect you might mean the goddess Venus?  Googlemeister (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhere at home I have an old book on Venice, which I'll check. That said, I suspect Googlemeister may be correct (mis-hearing Venus as Venice). P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Our article on Venice describes a gradual development into a powerful city-state in the 9th to 12th centuries, and no indication that it was named after the goddess-of-a-similar-name. Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  17:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The similarity of name is an artifact of the Anglicized form and its pronunciation. "Venice" is "Venezia" ("Venetsia") in Italian, and "Venedig" in German. The name is derived from the Veneti tribe, and has, as far as I know, nothing to do with Venus the planet or Venus the goddess, both of which are known to rise from the waves on occasion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I started out in agreement with Googlemeister, but I'm beginning to think there may have been such a Venetian foundation legend after all. This extract from Dana Facaros & Michael Pauls Venice, Venetia and the Dolomites (London: Cadogan Guides, 2007), p. 110, refers to something not a million miles from the OP's myth:
 * Venice has always been so different, so improbable, that one can easily believe the legend that the original inhabitants sprang up from the dew and mists on the mud banks of the Lagoon...According to Venetians' own legends, the city was founded at exactly noon, 25 March 413, when the refugees laid the first stone on the Rialto.
 * --Antiquary (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, Antiquary - I missed your post - that's a nice quote.
 * There was always a tradition where the Doge would go down to the sea and ceremonially marry the sea.  Corvus cornix  talk  19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it was the author of the half-remembered text being mischeivous, conflating Venice and Venus - not impossible - but I'd love it if the research could continue - it just feels to me like the sort of thing the renaissance Venetians would have claimed about their beloved city. Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Venice was not named after Venus, but medieval and Renaissance authors sometimes did make the link. A good place to check on this is "Myths of Venice: The Figuration of a State" by David Rosand, who gives some examples of literature that make the connection. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam - great help - the book is on the shelves of the library where I work! Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

African-American names
is there a website where i can find african-american names for girls and boys like letisha, latanya or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.98 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Typing the words "African American names" into Google returns a bunch of sites that do exactly that. -- Jayron  32  16:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Or you can watch football and basketball (WNBA for the latter); that'll give you some ideas. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See for several lists of such names, as Jayron suggested. There are also random name generators which create names generally sounding like these.  Edison (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

POW Camps in WW2 Germany - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_Luft_III#The_.22Great_Escape.22
I have a number of questions concerning this article:

Whilst I am sure everything has been accurately researched, some of the behaviour of the Germans & POWs seems highly unlikely

1. "Luft III issued "Non-working" German civilian rations which allowed 1,928 Calories per day, with the balance made up from British Red Cross parcels and items sent to the POWs by their families"

Why wouldn't these parcels be confiscated? The German war machine is bombing British cities by night, murdering thousands of Jews and other minorities in concentration camps, but for some reason food parcels are deemed "un-touchable" - I don't deny this happened, I just dont understand Germany's logic behind it?

2."The Germans paid captured officers the equivalent of their pay in internal camp currency (lagergeld) which was used to buy what goods were made available by the German administration"......"As British government policy was to deduct camp pay from the prisoners military pay, the communal pool avoided the practice in other camps whereby American officers contributed to British canteen purchases"

A camp currency seems reasonable, but somehow these "wages" are reconciled against the officers' salary - This implies some sort of dialogue between the camp's administrators and the payroll of the RAF - This seems highley unlikely in the middle of a war? - Also the British government's policy doesn't surprise.....they are still treating their soldiers badly (I am British BTW)

3. "Hitler eventually relented and instead ordered Himmler to execute more than half of the escapees. Himmler passed the selection on to General Artur Nebe. Fifty were executed singly or in pairs"......"The British government learned of the deaths from a routine visit to the camp by the Swiss authorities as the Protecting power in May; the Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden announced the news to the House of Commons on 19 May 1944"

This makes no sense whatsover.

Hitler decides to murder 50 POWs but then permits inspectors to sniff around the camp? Again I'm sure it's all correct - but if you don't care about mass murder, why would you allow an official visit.....What exactly is going to happen if he refuses?

I have the deepest respect for the POWs and I'm sure this article has been meticulously researched - I just find some of behaviour at odds to what would happen in the middle of a war? Jaseywasey (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See Red Cross parcel for the first one. With these parcels, British POWs had a better diet than the Germans, and could use luxuries like chocolate to bribe, and I assume later blackmail, the guards into getting them things like cameras for forged documents. For thje 'logic' behind it, see the Third Geneva Convention. 92.15.30.71 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand about Red Cross parcels. However, the Germans looted their way across Europe.....why would they not steal these items? Also, if you are a guard a the camp - why allow yourself to be bribed.....simply confiscate the items? Again I'm not denying the historical records - I just don't understand why the Germans behaved the way they did?Jaseywasey (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, this wasnt Chicago. 92.15.30.71 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an historian but I think the Nazis considered British and North American POWs as 'Aryans', and so treated them much better than the Russians or Poles, who were treated brutally and mostly starved to death. I understand that Russia had not signed the Geneva Convention was one of the reasons given. They may have been thinking that nice treatment would encourage Britain at least to capitulate. There were German POWs in Britain, so there was a lot of tit-for-tat. They may have thought that news of a soft life in POW camps would encourage soldiers to surrender more readily. You could read some of the many memoirs of POW camp life. "World War II The Autobiography" edited by Jon. E. Lewis is an anthology of excerpts from memoirs and first-hand accounts of WW2 and would be a good starting point. A few of the German command had been POWs in Britain during WW1. 92.15.30.71 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that many of the POW camps were run by the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe, that is the "regular" German military, which was largely outside of the politics of Germany at the time. The "regular" military tended to be much less ideological vis-a-vis Nazi dogma.  Other groups like the Sturmabteilung and the Schutzstaffel were part of the Nazi party and so had different views and likely behaved differently towards prisoners.  This attitude difference is evident in the fictionalize account of the event, the film The Great Escape.  The interactions Commandant of the prison camp towards the plainclothes agent who brings in prisoners is telling, and likely roughly on par with the actual relationship, in many cases, between the "regular" German military and the Nazi party.  -- Jayron  32  21:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The US and Japan treated POWs mutually badly, or murdered defeated soldiers rather than taking them prisoner. The US treated German POWs very well in general, sending them to the US, where they worked on farms in many cases. Many returned to the US after the war. While in the US, they got packages from Germany, and some took correspondence courses from US colleges, with credits transferred to German universities, all while a war was going on. While there were certainly atrocities and war crimes, there was relatively good reciprocity between the US and Germany. Jewish US prisoners in some cases were separated and sent to slave labor camps where they were brutalized and worked to death. Gentile US prisoners, especially aviators were treated very well, considering how the Germans treated most prisoners.  Edison (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This has made me think that all the accounts or films of POWs I've seen were based in officers camps. I wonder how camps for privates were - the privates were required to work, the officers were not. 92.15.0.115 (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * http://kiuchi.jpn.org/en/nobindex.htm has a fascinating account of POW camp life for Japanese POWs in Soviet Union after the war. --Soman (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * With regard to question #2: military pay is sometimes highly structured and non-negotiable, unlike private employment. For example, see this chart for a description of United States military pay grades. If the same conditions existed in WWII, then the Germans would be able to determine a captured officer's base pay without having to consult an enemy government. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

did people used to think the moon changes shape?
Did people used to think the moon waxed and waned changing shapes? (When I look at it, all I see -- probably due to my knowledge of it -- is a circle, partially dark). If they used to think it changed shapes, when did they realize it was actually a circular shape as visible all the time, just sometimes partly dark. Thanks. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can see the "darkened" part of the moon paritally even when it is a crescent shape. That would have been plainly obvious even to the ancients.  What significance they assigned to it probably depends on which culture you are discussing.  -- Jayron  32  19:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * it's not "plainly obvious" because in the ryme of the ancient mariner, there's a star inside the crescent! Next answer, if you please... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "the ryme of the ancient mariner": SO WHAT?  This tells you nothing about anyone but Coleridge, in the 19th century.  It's like saying, "Indians greet you by saying 'How!'" -- because that's what old Hollywood writers tell us.63.17.66.60 (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you see when you look at a crecent moon. The fact that some people will draw pictures of a star inside a crecent is irrelevent to the fact that, when you look at the night sky with a crecent moon in it, you still see the rest of the moon, albeit darker.  Again, what the ancients used to explain the darkening of the moon is a different concept, but any person can go out at night, look at the crecent moon, and see the rest of it.  -- Jayron  32  21:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See Earthshine, or the stubby Earthlight (astronomy) for why this is. Buddy431 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit: I also think that a lot of those pictures exaggerate how prominent the Earthlight is. If you look at how bright the lit portion of the moon appears in those photos, it's clear that in many cases, the earthlight would be hard to see.  I'm not denying that the Earthshine isn't visible under some circumstances, but it's certainly not obvious most of the time, especially in cities with a fair amount of light pollution. Buddy431 (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you ever looked up under a really dark sky? The dark segment is very visible. Of course, we all grow used to living under conditions of very bad light pollution nowadays, but that would not apply to people even 300 years ago. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the "star inside the moon" thing is referred to as a "star-dogged moon" and there are a number of sites out there that talk about Coleridge's particular use of it (example1, example2). Matt Deres (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Our page on the moon says "The ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras (d. 428 BC) reasoned that the Sun and Moon were both giant spherical rocks, and that the latter reflected the light of the former." Libration of the moon allows an earth-bound observer to conclude that the moon must be roughly spherical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SemanticMantis (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Shortly after publication, Anaxagoras was executed as a heretic by the followers of Apollo and Helios. Googlemeister (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Anaximander of Miletus definitely believed the moon actually changed shape - he thought it was a hole in one of the tubes or wheels filled with fire that surrounded the cylindrical Earth, that its waxing and waning were due to the hole itself constantly changing shape, and that stars were just smaller holes of the same kind. See Anaximander.  Other myths and legends, such as the ancient Egyptian idea that the waning moon was being gradually consumed by Set in his pig form, would suggest a belief at some point that the moon itself really did change shape.  It's true that sometimes earthshine does illuminate the dark face of the moon quite well, but at other times it is completely invisible.  If you didn't know that the moon is three-dimensional, or that it shines by reflected sunlight, you might not necessarily make the connection that the ghostly apparition in between the horns of the crescent moon is just the rest of it, still there but gone darker for some unexplained and probably quite scary reason.  Ka renjc 22:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I could be mistaken, as I haven't read my Egyptian mythology in a very long time, but I thought that they believed that Ra wouldn't allow one of the gods to have children during one of the days of the year, so one of the other gods started gambling with Khonsu, the moon god. After toying with him for a while, this god eventually got Khonsu to wager hours of his light, ultimately getting him to bet away 5 days of it (one for each god, since they weren't days of the year).  Khonsu was so weakened by this that he could only shine at full strength for a few times a month, and during the rest of that time he was either collapsing or building up his strength.  Of course, I could be totally wrong, so do correct me if I am. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In Egyptian mythology contradictory ideas could easily coexist; it can get very strange and confusing. I believe I've seen the bit about Set as a pig somewhere before, but I don't know if it was at all a reliable source. The story about the moon god and the days of the year is mostly correct, but as far as I know it's only found in the writings of Plutarch, who claimed to be relating genuine Egyptian stories but referred to most of the gods by Greek names (see here, section 12). A. Parrot (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I kinda got that sense; similar things happen in Greek mythology, where Hephaestus was either thrown off the mountain by his mother for disagreeing with her or by his father for siding with his mother. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't totally losing my mind.  I'll have to read up on it after I finish reading Faust; listening to a metal band grunt about Egyptian mythology only gives one a tiny sliver of it, after all. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So is it fair to say that for many thousands of years only really stupid people thought the Moon actually changed shape every day rather than being something circular in aspect which was differently illuminated through the lunar cycle? In earlier times, with less pollution, persons with good vision would have been able to see the "dark" portion of the moon easier than in urban areas today, thus allowing them to assert that it was a partially bright circular body. (Added) Oh well, I suppose that official religious views or opinions of great thinkers that the Moon was some creature changing its posture, or a hole in the sky with light shining through, could exist in the minds of ancient persons who could every night see (if they had 20/20 or better vision) that it was a partially bright circle with some surface detail visible which stayed in the same relative place as the supposed creature moved around or was eaten or the hole got smaller. It could be like the story "The Emperor's New Clothes." Similarly, today we have bloviators on US TV and radio and politicians who deny folks the evidence of their own senses and still have have large followings.  Edison (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with you're first statement, but it's perhaps a bit kinder to replace `stupid' with `unobservant and/or uncritical'. Seems to me that earth-shine and libration, coupled with a relative lack of particulate matter and light pollution in the atmosphere should make the spherical nature of the moon apparent to any serious enquirer, however ignorant s/he may be. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is obviously circular, but it probably wasn't obvious to everyone that it was a sphere. But most people probably did not need to know anything about the moon aside from its phases. A few philosophers and scientists may have thought about it every once in awhile, but why would most people care? And are we much different today?  Maybe we today know more about the moon than any ancient person, but can an average person today talk about the moon in great detail? I don't think I can even explain how an eclipse works, for example. (Remember when Mars was relatively close to Earth a few years ago? How many people thought we would be able to see it up close, as if it would be as close as the moon? People don't know anything about space...) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)