Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 19

= June 19 =

Athletic shoes hanging from power lines
Does anyone understand this ubiquitous phenomenon? Does it have a name? I presume there must be some purpose (although I would think not a rational one). Michael Hardy (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I always thought it was a tribute to Wag the Dog. Gabbe (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with that film, but its article says it didn't appear until 1997, and the plural shoes appears nowhere in the article. Did you never see this happen before 1997? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm showing my age (or maybe you're showing your lack thereof), but it's been around way, way longer than 1997. --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  00:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Showing my age too, but way longer than 1997. I certainly can remember it being done in my teenage years (back in the 80s) and the main reason I remember was to see if you could do it, or if they weren't your shoes, because you could do it (and get away with it). The guys who were doing it weren't really big on subtexts or metaphors  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 01:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Snopes has a page about it. --Tango (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The snopes page doesn't answer the question but only speculates. I would think there must be actual humans who've done this, who know something about why they did it. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, but they probably don't all have the same reason. Snopes doesn't do more than speculate because there isn't really an answer. --Tango (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As requested, WP:OR coming: in my high school, local bullies used to do it with victims' gym shoes. In those days (Jurassic Period), we carried our gym shoes to and from school, while wearing either leather shoe or boots, depending on the weather. Our gym shoes were always white and had to be polished at least once a month for inspection, which is why we took them home one night and then brought them back the next day. We were not permitted to wear them anywhere except for gym class. They were always carried in our arms on top of our 3-ringed binder on top of our textbooks.  They were easy to snatch and toss. For many kids, it was a huge loss. And, to agree with  Jack of Oz, this was long before the dates given above. Bielle  (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * How could you polish gym shoes ? Mine were canvas and artificial rubber, neither of which can be polished. StuRat (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. Bielle (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Somehow managed to miss this when editing earlier, but we had much the same system, with maybe less emphasis on the polishing. Apart from the obvious bigger-than-the-other-guy cases, sometimesit was just guys creatively getting rid of old trainers as they were becoming a bio-hazard and/or achieving sentience or whatever. It wasn't just shoes; it was surprising what could be sent on a ballistic course to the nearest power line or telephone pole.. School-bags, clothing, the odd teenager if they were light...  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 01:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

According to an informant, it was happening in Philadelphia in the '40s, if not earlier. In my childhood one did it with one's old sneaker's when one got new ones. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In some cases, it is merely juvenile bullying/vandalism, etcetera. In some cases, a person has an old pair of shoes they won't miss, and thinks it would be cool to have them up there. In some cases, a drug dealer may mark his territory in this way. There are an infinite number of rational explanations (consistent with Pirsig's law).Greg Bard (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The phenomenon is described, perhaps not that well but at Shoe tossing Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Drug dealer? Bullying?  Please.  I call shenanigans, Gregbard.  Provide just one legal case.  μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal case? Give me a break. You need to get off the Wikipedia for a while and get out more. Greg Bard (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I need to stop editing wikipedia because you are angered by my pointing out that you have no reliable sources to back up your speculation. Got it. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Greg's comment was inappropriate, and he should retract it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I find that hypersensitivity is very unproductive. Hardy is not asking for references. The explanations I provided are mundane, not extraordinary in any way. I was the founder of my university's Skeptics Club, and even I think this is over the top. Please get a sense of what is an is not appropriate please. No, I do not have any legal cases to back up the drug dealer or bullying explanations --only the most extremely naive, and sheltered person would be oblivious to these expalnations. Shenanigans? Um, sure I just made it up. Whatever. You're nuts. I'm sure μηδείς is a wonderful mainspace editor, and requests for sources there is par for the course. Here people are rarely ever in need of a reference despite it being the reference desk. Most people are just asking questions...you know like normal people who get out occasionally. You know people who do not necessarily treat every answer to every question as "shenanigans" unless there is some peer review that backs up, for instance, someone's theory about shoes on wires. Please get a perspective. Seriously. Taking a break from Wikipedia actually is good advise in that regard. I am sorry if anyone took offense, as that was certainly not my intention, but I can't really retract under these circumstance. I hope you can let that go. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Next time one of the regulars yells at me for failing to provide sources, I'll send them your way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are clearly reasonable requests for sources and then there are clearly unreasonable requests for sources. We aren't robots incapable of nuance, and therefore in need of absolute rigorous bureaucracy. If I had asked for sources backing up the claim that asking for someone to "give me a break" or telling someone they to take a break is somehow offensive, well I think that would be me being a jerk quite frankly. So please do not trouble yourself by digging through Emily Post on my account, and please do not ask me to do legal research over shoes on wires --DEAL? Greg Bard (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the OP is a regular, otherwise I would have advised you to take this entire discussion to the talk page, as it is not appropriate to take shots at each other in front of the OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardy is more than a regular. He's so prolific, he's probably in the top one tenth of a percent of contributors.Greg Bard (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He's a hardy boy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

. Well, some people decided it would be a good place to leave their shoes out to dry, but then forgot about them.AerobicFox (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want a retraction from Gregbeard. That would imply something that is not the case.  And she has already refused to provide any reliable source, enough said.


 * Being someone who has, along with my ancestors, participated in said activity, long before anyone had ever heard of "drug gang"s, I find her "contribution" laughable and her opposition of less consequence than the alarm call of a woodchuck to whom I have tossed an unwanted lettuce stem.


 * But let's remember that there's a real person here who asked this question, and that repeating to that person crap which has less provenance than the scrawlings found on men's room walls, as if it were fact, is hardly helpful. Attributing this activity to crack dealers is the modern analog of the blood libel, or accusing negroes of being rapists, the reflex of dead white males suffering penis envy: baseless slander.


 * In reality, the custom of heaving old shoes on a post is probably as old as that of leaving a pile of stones at a crossroads in dedication to the god Mercury, just as making stuff up is as old as Plato's forgeries of Socrates. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do refuse to waste my time providing any reliable sources to back up the claim that some shoes end up on wires because of bullies and drug dealers, so I appreciate that enough has been said. I think you have gone way off the deep end with the whole "negroes of being rapists" thing. It seems to me that μηδείς seems to think I have named him as a bully or drug dealer somehow, and that is pretty ridiculous. I am sure you are (usually) a wonderful person, not a bully or drug dealer, even though you admit to participating in this shoe throwing thing. Is there some reason you believe I am female? The name is Greg, which is not a female name, so I am requesting an explanation. If this is some attempt at a insulting me (and I'm not saying it is), then that would require a retraction, and an apology to all the women out there who would rightfully be offended that you are equating naming someone as being female as an insult. Is that what you think? I hope not. Greg Bard (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahem . . .Indeed. (For what it's worth, this whole sidetrack is way "over the top".) Bielle  (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * According to that article the British gangs are doing it because they'd heard about it being done in America. That's hilarious, since over here that's a total urban legend.
 * We need to think up some new legends for british thugs to emulate! APL (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: the earlier request for ref includes one person who says he saw it being done as a result of bullying. As for the gang thing, I don't know if we can say it's a total urban legend in the US from the evidence I've seen so far. Sure it's clearly way overhyped and likely a lot (most?) of the instances which people attribute to gangs are false and it may not have been how the urban legend started. But there's no reason to presume American gangs (particularly the lower level or wannabe people) are any less likely to copy things they've heard gangs do. The earlier link also has someone who works with gangs who discusses the use in gangs albeit not as a territorial marker (either out of respect to someone who died or disrespect to someone who left the gang). As with others I do agree trying to proscribe one reason is silly, there are almost definitely people doing it for a lot of different reasons, often because they've heard people do it for that reason (even if that's not really true). Stories from people who've allegedly done it only really tell us about one case and that's presuming the person isn't just fibbing. Trying to determine the percentage of reasons is IMO likely to be a foolhardy exercise. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The notion that this is done out of bullying is absurd. It can take a half hour of tossing the shoes to get them up there. People who do this are patiently attempting to leave a personal mark, not wasting valuable bullying energy when they could be giving wedgies or beatdowns. And if the practice were done as part of gang territory marking it would be adduced as evidence in some sort of legal case. But the plain fact is this that while this was ubiquitous in the rural and suburban US in past decades, I can't recall having seen it more than once or twice in the past 20 years in Harlem or the Bronx. The notion that it is a gang thing is just typical stereotyping of "them negroes" no more sophisticated than blaming the Mexican drug war on that guy cutting your neighbour's lawn. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Talk about blaming the darkies for whatever mischief you can't explain: Sen. John McCain ignites controversy, GOPer blames some Arizona wildfires on illegal immigrants: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/21/2011-06-21_sen_john_mccain_ignites_controversy_goper_blames_some_arizona_wildfires_on_illeg.html#ixzz1Pxzvn12D
 * Obviously, Medeis and I grew up in different places and in different eras. One person's "absurd" is another's reality. I know it was done as a bullying tactic; over 5 years, I lost 2 pairs of gym shoes to it. If you want the how-tos, it was generally 3 or 4 "bad boys" (we didn't have gangs then) who worked as a team. One would snatch the shoes, then the others would dance around him, keeping anyone brave enough to object at bay. They would then take turns tossing the shoes until one throw was successful. (You are right that it did take time.) Sometimes they would snatch a few pair and do the throwing when the rest of us were in classes. Wedgies are from a later era, and I have never heard of a "beatdown". Noogies, however, were common. Bielle  (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am happy to accept your anecdotal evidence. But it doesn't explain the commonness of the practice, or the fact that people do it with their own shoes.  I have never yet seen anyone give himself a wedgie, and I have seen a few things.  What a horrible, vacant, malign place you grew up in that bullies could spend so much time taunting a child with no one intervening on his behalf.  μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the reason is merely artistic: --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation of Arthurian names
Anyone know a ref for how to pronounce the Knights of the Round Table and other Arthurian stuff? I had to leave some blanks at List of geological features on Mimas (I think I know Balin etc, but don't want to chance it), but we should have this at the Knights article too. — kwami (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would think the pronunciation would vary from region to region... that someone from Yorkshire would pronounce the names differently than someone from Cornwall (or Massachusetts... or Texas). Also, I would think that the names would have been pronounced differently in different historical eras (Chaucer's era vs Shakespeare's era vs modern day).  So we would need to know who doing the pronouncing and when they were doing it.  Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Only yesterday I was asking myself whether Pendragon would be pronounced like Pen Dragon, or in same rhythm as Estragon. --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  12:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not like Estragon! DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  12:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In Cornish and Welsh which both use the "pen" prefix (meaning "head of"), the stress is invariably on the second syllable; so most likely it's pen-DRAG-'n. Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Pendragon Castle in Cumbria (supposed to be the home of Arthur's father, Uther) is pronounced the same way. Cumbria shares some Celtic roots with Cornwall and Wales, of course.    D b f i r s   15:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern English. I would expect they all have standard pronunciations, though some (like Launcelot & Gawain) may have more than one. And yes, the OED has. — kwami (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So, no-one knows of any refs for these? I would think they'd be easy to find, and have been surprised by how hard it's been. — kwami (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think there is a "standard" pronunciation? There is a way in which most modern readers usually pronounce the names, which may bear no close relationship to how Malory would have pronounced them, let alone his antecedents - as Blueboar has already said.  If you are asking how the names of geological features on one of Saturn's moons are pronounced, that is a different question which might be easier to answer.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's clear that this is not about Malory's Late Middle English pronunciation and that there is bound to be a pronunciation or range of pronunciations that educated speakers generally use and dictionaries recommend, and a range of pronunciations that would certainly be considered incorrect by educated people. This applies, of course, only to names that are relatively commonly mentioned and not, say, to names occurring only once in the novels. Daniel Jones' pronouncing dictionary gives some of the more common names (Guinevere, Gawain, Excalibur, Galahad, and even Sir Palamedes) but, of course, not some of the more obscure ones (anyone remember Sir Dinadan?).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Tolkien? Read Mists of Avalon.μηδείς (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Those names definitely don't have a standard written form, so they probably also don't have a standard pronunciation either.  Heck, even King Arthur himself has multiple variants of his name (Arthur, Artur, Artus).  &#x2013; b_jonas 13:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

When random people talk about the same thing
I remember reading an article about a phenomenon, where during the span of one or two days you hear different people talking about the same obscure subject (i.e. a little known author). I remember this phenomenon being named after some reporter, who described it. However, I can't remember the name, and the things I remember are too abstract to construct a meaningful web search. Can anyone help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasombra bg (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Synchronicity? -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Not that. As long as I remember it was about a journalist, who heard two strange people talking about something (I forget what) that he had forgotten for years. Then he heard another couple discussing the same subject. Eventually, when he walked into his office, the editor-in-chief asked him to write an article about that very same subject. lasombra bg (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe Clustering illusion or Apophenia? -- Jayron  32  18:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Serendipity? Zeitgeist? Coincidence? 92.29.112.168 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No. This is not about about an illusion (such as the tendency to discover pseudo-meaningful figures in random patterns). Another example of this effect would be if several different people, not knowing each other, tell you about the same movie that no one has heard of. I definitely remember a journalist being involved in the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasombra bg (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the largest amount of info we have on this is collected in the AfD for the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Orange Suede Sofa. It turned out to be the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. I owe you a beer! lasombra bg (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's apparently a medical counterpart of this, known as Velpeau's Law. It's about a doctor encountering an extremely rare condition in one of his patients, probably for the first time in his career, then a short time later sees another, completely unrelated, patient, with the same very rare condition.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this damn interesting article.Greg Bard (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC) http://www.damninteresting.com/the-baader-meinhof-phenomenon/
 * That was mentioned at the AfD discussion cited by OSS, and it is damn interesting, and well-presented, too (but I agree with the article deletion). WikiDao    &#9775;  22:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

History question: ancient Roman Vulcanal (Volcanal)
There seems to be some confusion to the location of the actual alter known as the Vulcanal. I need to find specific information that places it correctly. Is it under the Lapis Niger or is it located elsewhere. The area of the Vulcanal was quite large as was the original Comitium space. Currently our articles conflict and the Vulcanal page seems to state it's location as such that I cannot find proper sourcing, but I continue to look for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Books is often a good resource for questions like this. This book contains an extensive discussion of the question on pp 776-777; other likely sources are also shown. Looie496 (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Love Google books. It's a permanent link on my favorite places. Love this book, read it and used it as a reference here. The problem is...I am being told this is old information and that the theory does not hold . The new stub for Vulcanal is directly challenging the references used for (Rostra, Comitium, Graecostasis, Lapis Niger and several other articles and subjects, however, none of the references used there can be checked for accuracy without locating the books in a public library of bookstore and before I spend hours pouring over books again on this subject I was hoping someone had a reference that I could check to verify either way online...or knew for sure what the answer is and what the best route would be to take from here.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Unwritten rules" of interpersonal interactions
I'm not exactly sure what to call what I'm looking for. In the workplace or in a social group, what a person says or does gets interpreted and has symbolic meaning ascribed to it. It may be interpreted as a reflection of the person's attitude, a statement of his role relative to others, or some (symbolic) message the person tries to get across. It seems that there are rules are unstated but expected to be understood, and people get offended if their expectations are violated.

I got a feeling that social scientists must have studied these tacit rules of interpersonal interaction/communication. Has someone compiled a collection of articulations of those unwritten rules?

TIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.33.204 (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm far from fully informed on this, but my understanding is that those rules vary across cultures, and largely have been studied by anthropologists. In particular Edward T. Hall wrote several very interesting books on the theme, including The Silent Language.  Our articles on nonverbal communication, body language, and proxemics may be relevant. Looie496 (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Personal hygiene also plays a part, as somebody who doesn't wear deodorant or bathe isn't going to get very far in the US and many other nations. Then there's the choice of business clothing to consider.  And there's how you decorate your work area, with porn, alas, not always deemed to be acceptable.  And if "flipping the bird" is frowned upon, then you'll have to reserve that for church. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 108.16.33.204—I am not so sure there are any rules of interpersonal relationships. How one conducts oneself can be recreated at will. Of course who wants to be bothered recreating oneself if interpersonal relationships are limited by real-world factors beyond one's control? Under such circumstances shallow pleasantries may just be the best option. Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pierre Bourdieu's concept of habitus might be relevant here? I'm reminded of it, anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Try reading books about social psychology. Michael Argyle (psychologist) for example wrote The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour. Reading the OPs piece again, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman might be relevant. On the other hand both of these are 40 or 50 years old by now so probably you'd be better off reading more recent books, although I think the former has been revised. There's also things like the Milgram experiment. Or maybe role is what you refer to. Or anthropology. 92.24.186.129 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The most important factor is "know your audience". These "rules" are more connected with a "culture" at some level, and those "rules" vary widely. Someone mentioned porn on the walls. Typically not suitable for a business environment. Although if the business you were working in happened to be a porn shop, then it might be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, for a sufficiently broad definition of porn, a garage. Also see Pirelli Calendar and Pin-up girl. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Humans are, surprisingly, animals, specifically, apes. For the unspoken rules of animal behavior, see ethology. μηδείς (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no set list we can reference, as it varies from culture to culture. See Norm (sociology). &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)