Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 11

= March 11 =

Bengali surnames based on hindu varnas
Which Bengali surnames are associate with Brahmin caste, Kshatriyas caste, Shudra caste and Vaishya caste? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.177 (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lankan clothing
Does Sri Lankan people have their own clothing, like traditional clothing-official like how Pakistanis men wear karakul cap and sherwani coat and pakistani women wear shalwar kameez and Indian Hindu men wear dhoti with kurta and vest jacket and Indian Hindu women wear saris? I am asking this because I have seen Pakistani and Indian politicians do this to attend sessions but I have never seen a Sri Lankan, regardless he/she is Tamil or Sinhalese wear any traditional clothing to attend parliamentary sessions. Is there any websites that showcase the traditional clothing of Sri Lanka? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.177 (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a short description at Sinhalese people with no images or good links. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A photo here. This page shows the President of Sri Lanka in national dress. Here is a closer view. Alansplodge (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

receptions after ceremonies
I was wondering if any types of receptions are held after groundbreaking and/or dedication ceremonies for museums.24.193.90.61 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Servant girls in the muslim world - did muslim servant girls exist?
Where there servant girls, female domestics, in the muslim world before the 20th century? Forgive my ignorance in advance - indeed, that is why I am asking - but would'nt it in fact be very difficult for a muslim woman to be a servant in the private household of a family, considering the gender separation in a traditional islamic society, where women where not expected to have contact with men they where unrelated to? How was these matters solwed? And I also wonder: did muslim women have any contact at all with male servants? Upper-class household may have had non-muslim slaves, but was it always so? Did muslim servant girls exist before 1900? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it has any bearing, but I remember reading that there was a colony of (blonde) Gorizian women in cosmopolite Alexandria, Egypt in the early 20th century (Italians in Egypt)
 * They used to work in domestic service (Nannies?).
 * Nasser apparently was cared for by one as a child.
 * --Error (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. That would imply that muslim servant girls was rare. --Aciram (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have any empirical evidence, but I'm 100% sure that female Muslim domestic servants were in fact extremly common in the Muslim world prior to 1900. The purdah principle was never interpreted in such rigid terms as suggested by the question, and the issue of "relation" isn't entirely biological. A domestic servant is seen as a household "insider" and in some cases even a member of the household or family (albeit with much lower social standing than other family members). And in some West African cultures (Muslim and I suppose non-Muslims as well) it is rather common to "adopt" orphan children within the extended family (say the child of a distant cousin), and the adoptee basically becomes a domestic servant in the household. Such practices might have existed in the Muslim world prior to 1900 as well. --Soman (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that this is a very difficult question. Perhaps no one here has the answer to it? The purdah principle was as I have understood it strict enough to justifiy the question; or was muslim women allowed to meet men they where not related to in the men's own homes? My question does not pertain to servant girls actually related by blood to their employers, only to muslim servant girls not related by blood to their employers. The bit about a "household insider" was interesting. How was this defined? I should stress, that my question is mainly about the arab muslim countries.--Aciram (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Social restrictions of hindu women - where they allowed to meet men?
I understand that the position of hindu women became similar to that of muslim women after the muslim conquest of hindu India. What I am asking about is the pure physical and social freedom of hindu women. Was hindu women before 1900 allowed to socialize with men they where not related to? Did they participate in a gendermixed social life? Of course, I realise that working class women was less restricted because of their work, so my question is directed toward hindu royal and upper class women. Did they have a visible part in social life? Where they allowed to meet male guests they were not related to? Did they show themselwes at official ceremonies? Where their presence required at officiall occasions? Did they show themselwes unveiled for non-related males in public outside or inside the house? Did they dine at the table with men at banquets? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Politeama / Polytheama
There are several Politeama theaters in Italy, Portugal and Brazil. Apparently there is even a Polytheama in Greece. So what is the story behind the name? What does Polytheama mean in Greek? Is it a famous theater of Antiquity? A placename? A mythological character? Thankk you. --Error (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * According to this article, "Politeama means theatre where you can watch performances belonging to different genres". Another reference says, Politeama means "multiplicity of shows, with alternate musical and circus plays”. I don't know Italian and Greek language, but I guess Polytheama means where you can see shows of multiples genres or categories. --Reference Desker (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to ask on the Language desk, but according to the LSJ it is a participle meaning "having seen many things". (It doesn't say what it is a participle of, though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Relative contributions to victory in the Battle of the Atlantic
Hello, as we all know, the Allies won the Battle of the Atlantic in the Second World War. I have been told in an internet forum that the major part of the credit for this victory goes to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy, with the USN playing a secondary role. I understand the bulk of the USN was deployed in the Pacific during the war, but: 1) is this assertion correct, and 2), I am curious if there is any way to quantify the contributions of the respective Allied powers (sum of tons of displacement, "scores" for numbers of U-boats sunk by each navy, etc.) during the Battle of the Atlantic. Thank you for any information. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't help with the quantification, but I will opine that this assertion is correct. When the US entered into the war it did so ostensibly against Japan, and most of its naval forces needed to be concentrated in the pacific, since that theatre was almost entirely naval.  by contrast, the European theatre was predominantly ground and air combat - The German navy (despite some marvelous technical achievements) was never intended to be a decisive factor in the way, but was mostly intended to prevent supplies and men from crossing the  waters to England or southern Europe.  I'm sure someone can give a more detailed explanation, however.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found a bit more that indicates that in 1942-1943, at least, the U.S. priority was escort of troop convoys versus escort of cargo ships. But the story provided (by the Imperial War Museum) kind of dwindled after that except it mentioned that the U.S. put a number of escort carriers into action during the last part of the war.  So it still seems a bit murky to me; apparently during the critical phase of the Battle of the Atlantic, it looks like the RN and the RCN did the bulk of the work escorting merchantmen, and yet, I get the impression that many U-boats were sunk during 1944 and 1945 as well, but I'm still not sure how the credit for the "kills" work out.  All sources seem to agree that the greater use of air units led to more U-boats being sunk; but again, who did how much of the work?  Thank you for your comments, Lugwigs2.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some information here. The USN was helping with escorts during 1941 before the US entry into the war, in persuance of the Pan-American Security Zone. Once the US entered the war Admiral Ernest King either refused to, or didn't have the ships to implement a convoy system on the US east coast resulting in a "second happy time" for the U-Boats. Many consider March 1943 to be the crux of the battle; thereafter it was all downhill for the Germans. Factors such as codebreaking, more and better escorts, escort carriers, long range aircraft, improved technology, the use of the Azores all contributed. I couldn't find any stats for number of warships engaged from each Ally, but I imagine the RN had the great preponderance with a significant input from the Royal Canadian Navy. However, the US contribution in terms of ship construction especially Liberty ships and Escort carriers and the provision of Liberator bombers to close the mid-Atlantic gap were vital. Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link and the information. I'm beginning to realize that it could be quite difficult to quantify contributions to the "Battle of the Atlantic" as an entire concept.  I'll try pursuing information on more specific aspects like numbers of U-boats sunk, what (naval / air action) sunk them, etc.  As well, it looks like a lot of U-boats got sunk near the end of the war (bunch near Denmark for example), and it seems a stretch to count those as part of losses in the Battle of the Atlantic.  On the other hand, while it appears the battle was largely won in 1943, it seems clear that all parties had to mount a significant effort to the very end just to keep the Atlantic a reasonably secure ocean to operate ships upon.  This might lead to considering any statistical data as two groups, one for the period 1939-1943 and the other for 1944-1945.  Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945). On this side of the Atlantic, we've grown used to the Americanisation of events: U-571_%28film%29. The other surprising thing I've just read is that Americans had no idea that a nuclear bomb was possible, until we told them that it was: Tizard_Mission. 92.15.24.90 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945) says that at the outbreak of the war the Canadian Navy consisted of "a handful of destroyers," which does not sound sufficient to patrol the Atlantic. Destroyers for Bases Agreement says that after Dunkirk evacuation "the Royal Navy was in immediate need of ships, especially as they were now facing the Battle of the Atlantic in which German U-boats threatened Britain's supplies of food and other resources essential to the war effort." How many destroyers did the UK and Canada have in September 1940 when the deal was signed? [Town class destroyer] says Canada gained 16 ex-US destroyers in the deal. Also, were significant Brit/Canadian naval manpower and vessels were freed up for convoy and war duty by the US assuming responsibility of the Commonwealth bases in Newfoundland and the Caribbean under the agreement? (These bases were certainly eagerly sought by the US to extend aircraft patrol range in the Atlantic). These destroyers launched 1917-1920 are always called "old," but their individual histories indicate they were sent out on patrol shortly after arriving at their Commonwealth bases. By comparison, how old was the average Brit and Canadian destroyer in 1940 on duty in the fleets they were joining? (Edited to add: Research shows about 14 Canadian destroyers, launched 1931-1935, available in 1940 before the deal).Edison (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Life Magazine, Sept 16 1940 indicates Britain started the war with 185 destroyers, but had lost 32, with new ones were being placed into service. Edison (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Edison, about the "old" destroyers, I noticed this the other day while looking up anti-oxidation compounds: "After World War I, NO-OX-ID was used as a military grease by the navy to put the majority of the naval fleet into "mothballs". The propulsion machinery was protected with NO-OX-ID military grease compounds they called cosmoline. All of the original 50 destroyers, sent to Great Britain prior to the United States entry into World War II, were protected with NO-OX-ID. When taken out of mothballs 20 years later, they were found to be in perfect condition." From this page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In Sept 1940 there were more than 50 destroyers in home waters on anti-invasion duties, plus those required to protect the Home and Mediterranean Fleets, plus those under repair following the Norway Campaign, Operation Dynamo and Operation Ariel a few weeks previously. So the US destroyers were needed but they really weren't very good - huge turning circle, poor range, didn't do well in heavy seas. Once new escort destroyers and corvettes became available, many were quietly sidelined. One was used to blow up the dry-dock at St Nazaire in March 1942. Britain's 20 year-old destroyers, the V and W class destroyers, were converted into dedicated escorts by removing one boiler to give greater range. Alansplodge (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all comments so far. The article on the Royal Canadian Navy mentions "At the end of the Battle of the Atlantic, Canadian ships (either alone or in conjunction with other ships and planes) sank a total of 27 U-boats, and either sank or captured 42 Axis surface ships."  A fine contribution, but considering the Germans lost hundreds of U-boats to Allied action, it seems clear that someone else sunk most of the U-boats.  I'm guessing it was mostly the work of the RN based on maps that depict both spots where U-boats were sunk and the zones of responsibility for the USN and the RN in the Atlantic.  Still, it seems like an odd omission that more basic stats on who sunk what aren't easily located. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A cargo ship or convoy of cargo ships, unescorted, is easy prey to a single U-boat or a wolfpack. The most effective hindrance to this is surface escorts - even old, slow, not very manoeuverable destroyers are quite adequate for the task of forcing individual U-boats to dive and thus preventing the destruction of the convoy (while not necessarily ensuring the destruction of the U-boat).


 * However, the most effective method of destroying U-boats in the Second World War was aircraft. See RAF Coastal Command during World War II, where it says "Coastal Command sank more U-Boats than any other Allied service." U-boats have to run on the surface to charge their batteries and to make decent speeds. They are visible to aircraft from a considerable distance, and were later also detectable by radar. If a U-boat is sufficiently damaged by an aircraft that it can't dive, then it is almost always doomed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a look at that article. (later) - Wow, 212 U-boats destroyed by RAF Coastal Command -- I think that is something like 25% of all U-boats sunk by Allied action. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some more information. According to Table 70 in John Ellis' "World War II A Statistical Survey", of 785 U-boat kills:
 * 290 bombed from the air at sea or torpedoed from the air
 * 246 from surface gunfire or depth charges dropped from ships
 * 25 from mines
 * 21 from submarines
 * 48 from "air and surface" (combined action?)
 * 62 bombed in harbor
 * 93 from other or unknown causes
 * Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like this page will provide information on the agent responsible for U-boat losses. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there's also at least one instance of a U-boat surrendering to an aircraft in mid-Atlantic, after the aircraft depth-charged it and sufficiently damaged it that the crew wrongly thought it was no longer safe to dive. It's a fascinating story but I've lost track of which U-boat it was, and therefore also the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Breaking News"
Has the definition of "breaking news" changed in the past, say, 10 or 20 years? In my mind, the term should refer to news that has just come into the newsroom unexpectedly - that is, news that has just broken within the moment. But it seems that the major US news networks (e.g. CNN and MSNBC) now use "breaking news" to refer to any story that has broken in the current 24-hour cycle. They'll use the term to describe a developing story even if the basic facts of it were established many hours previously; and sometimes on the evening programs, I've seen them come back from a commercial and present the viewer with a planned and scripted "breaking news" segment on some story from the morning (I remember Olbermann doing that, in particular). Is it just me, or has the meaning of this term been severely diluted? --71.184.5.17 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Breaking" connotes to me news that is currently in the process of breaking, i.e. a news story which is still developing at the time of the report. This could be 24 hours old in some cases. Staecker (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is a major development now in a story which "broke" many hours ago, it is still breaking news. If someone took 20 hostage in a failed bank robbery 12 hours ago, and now he tosses out a hostage and shoots him, that is "breaking news." If police storm the bank and shoot the robber, or he gives up 12 hours from now, it is "breaking news." If they just repeat the story from hours ago with no major development, it is not breaking news. Old news is called "history." Naturally, one they get your attention with a "breaking story," they try to keep viewership with "This just in.." updates of which sometimes are of fairly minor significance. Edison (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Yes, the meaning has been diluted. To me, something that is "breaking news" is happening right now and sufficiently earth-shattering so as to require my immediate attention -- the type of events which would cause the terrestrial networks to break into programming. To CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, however, that is no longer the case. Real news appears to have taken a back seat on those operations, and now everything from Charlie Sheen's antics to car chases is "breaking news" or "urgent" or "happening now" or "developing story" (how are all of those any different?) as they try to jockey for the channel surfer's attention -- and once you start watching, they just endlessly repeat what already happened. And thie even extends to local news: one controversial incident in the fall involved all four terrestrial stations in my area interrupting programming from 10:30 to 12:30 to cover a failed bank robbery and hostage situation which had ended at about 9:00. Predictably, all four channels' coverage consisted of running the same 30-second clip of the end of the situation, accompanied by innumerable phone calls from people who were only asked to repeat what they saw (and they all saw the same thing). It's all quite maddening; it seems only Al Jazeera is the only organization left that knows how to run a truly incisive and informative news channel. Xenon54 (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed the exact same thing regarding the Japan quake. I would flip through channels, find one promising some breaking news on the quake, only to find they are rerunning the same old footage from hours ago.  Something else annoying is teasers ("Is there a product in your home that could kill you ? Wait through several insipid commercial breaks and our preview of 'American Idol' and we will be glad to tell you to watch a later episode to find out !").  I have taken to bypassing the news on TV and now go to the Internet instead, for such reasons. StuRat (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember that some people do not constantly watch the news channels ... What for you may be "the same old footage from hours ago" is indeed "breaking news" footage for them. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * By that logic, you could call a current account of the 9-11 attacks "breaking news", for those who spent the last decade in a cave. StuRat (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because we would expect that word of the 9-11 attacks would have reached even those who live in caves by now (word of mouth news is slow, but it does happen). A few hours passage does not make a news report "old". Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Leave aside the "breaking news" thing. Even the concept of "news" itself is very different from what it once was.  There was a time, thankfully now past, when whenever that woman whose name I refuse to utter adjusted her bra strap or scratched her arse, it was reported as "news".  in Australia, Shane Warne's antics and doings have been hitting the "news" for ages.  Recently, it was all about him taking his then paramour Liz Hurley to lunch - that's all, they left his home, drove to a swank restaurant, had lunch there, and then went home.  There was a full-scale car chase, helicopter vision, the works, with the breathless media breathlessly reporting on what all the other breathless media were doing, because Warnie sure wasn't doing anything worth reporting - just sitting in his car, driving.
 * Yesterday, the media surpassed themselves. It was reported that a number of drivers had been breath-tested in Melbourne as part of the campaign to reduce road accidents over the long weekend (Monday's a public holiday in Victoria).  The people tested happenened to include Shane Warne - but he was found to be sober and allowed to continue.  That's it: Warne is driving his car somewhere, legally.  And that's what passes for "news" these days?  Heaven help us. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realized that the decline of TV news quality was also a problem outside the US. Is this a world-wide problem ? The one bright spot on TV news in the US is PBS (Frontline, NOW on PBS, Wide Angle, PBS NewsHour, Nightly Business Report).  Do other nations have an equivalent ?  StuRat (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * SBS World News is generally considered to have by far the best and most comprehensive and most globally-focussed and most immune-to-trivia TV news service in Australia. But it has among the lowest ratings, paradoxically partly because it not populist and sensationalist.  People are just as addicted to "Shock! Horror!" here as they are anywhere, so any service that's fully committed to giving them a full plate of such stories every night of the week is a sure-fire winner, and any service that's committed to providing quality factual news is relegated to "boring".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Alfred Hitchcock used to say that people like to see people in peril in movies because they like to see someone that's worse off than they are. The same principle would apply to news. It's fun to read about someone else's public disasters. Hence the apparent fascination with Charlie Sheen's apparently ongoing meltdown. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that sensationalism is necessarily incompatible with good news. For example, here in Michigan, we have a bank president who was apparently murdered, having been shot in the back of the head, and the police appear to be covering it up.  First they claimed the cause of death could not be determined.  Then, when the family rejected that conclusion and paid for their own autopsy, the truth came out.  Next the police claimed he shot himself in the back of the head.  So, this is a rather sensational story, but the news seems to have dropped it.  I would think they would want to do their own detailed investigations of his life and death and do a special on the case, focusing on police incompetence/misconduct.  Instead, they prefer to just repeat stories that come "over the wire", say about Charlie Sheen, since that's cheaper. StuRat (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an effect of the increasing immediacy of news coverage and the advertiser-driven system they use. a half a century ago, news came out once every 24 hours (maybe twice, if there was extreme 'breaking' news stories that could justify an extra printing).  This prioritized depth-of-coverage - If you only get to talk about news once a day, you you set yourself off by being comprehensive and sophisticated in your reporting; people would buy the source that gave the best coverage, and advertisers would follow.  now, news is covered on a minute-by-minute basis.  This prioritizes immediacy and salience - you want something fresh, spicy, and geared to short attention spans (because you don't want to miss the next big moment because you're still covering the last big moment).  Advertisers, then, follow the news outlets that can attract and hold the attention of viewers with the most frequency, which means outlets that are constantly producing the kind of voyeuristic trivia that a sizable section of the population can't get enough of.  Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, Charlie Sheen, Mel Gibson - these people get tons of news air-time because they are decadent sex symbols, and people tune in in droves to watch them destroy their lives, and the more people that tune in on average, the more money that comes from advertisers.  very sad...  -- Ludwigs 2  05:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is just an example of the debasement of a value-laden term, just like the use of the word "limo" to refer to airport vans. Perhaps the best example is the daily Fox News program Special Report. It used to be that a "special report" was, well, special. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * it still is special, but now in the 'special ed' sense of the term. -- Ludwigs 2  05:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer a mixture of StuRat's question and the original poster's question, I think the most respectable 24 hour news channel in the UK is BBC News 24. From what I can remember, this channel does have a standard "Breaking News" graphic template, but it's so intrusive that they wouldn't be able to leave it up for more than a very limited period of time. So things are only "breaking news" there for maybe half an hour or considerably less. Sky News, the main competitor, is similar, or in fact I may be conflating the two because I watch them so rarely. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)