Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 23

= March 23 =

political violence in middle east vs. geopolitics of oil
How does political violence in Middle East relate to the geopolitics of oil? Is there website where I can read how political violence in Middle East is related to the geopolitics of oil? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.103 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Resource curse may be relevant. Ariel. (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a heavily biased and propagandistic article (by the left-wing Center for Research on Globalization) related to political violence and oil, but still worth looking at to know what different people think about the geopolitics of oil. Frankly speaking, most of the claims that political violence and oil are interrelated are inaccurate and pseudoscientific views. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may well be right, Reference Desker, but since equally you may not be, such a sweeping claim could use some corroboration. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230 195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

factors of Chechnya conflict
What are the central factors of the conflict of Chechnya? What are the causes of it? Is there a website where I can read about it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.103 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you can read Chechen War, Chechnya, and so on, or if you'd like a more poetic account, The Captive in the Caucasus, etc. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More specifically Origins of the war in Chechnya, Historical basis of the Second Chechen War and Prelude to the Second Chechen War. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And this. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Resentment by many Muslim Caucasus nationalities towards Russian rule goes back to the 19th-century Czarist wars (see Imam Shamil etc.). In the post-Soviet period, the Chechens really have not always been wise in the measures they have chosen to express or further their autonomist or independentist grievances or aspirations -- in the early 1990's, they seemed to take no care as to whether they were provoking a national government which (though less powerful than formerly) still had far more military might than they did, and was under a leadership that was determined to halt the decline and stave off any further territorial fragmentation; while by the end of the 1990s, they were fully embracing the international Wahhabi and/or Taliban and/or al-Qaeda jihad, and launched the aggressive Invasion of Dagestan for the purpose of bringing it under Islamic extremist rule... AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Profitability of early whaling? (Nantucket, sailing era)
I'm working my way through Moby Dick and have begun to wonder about the profitability of early whaling. According to Melville, ships hunting sperm whales were often gone for 2 to 3 years at a stretch, sometimes even four. Assuming a successful voyage with a full cargo of oil and spermaceti, what kind of profit would a ship like that make back in those times? Was this a lucrative business for all involved? for just the ship financiers? The Masked Booby (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the days before kerosene, whale oil was the only lighting oil acceptable in a great number of upper-class and middle-class households; whalebone was the greatly preferred "boning" for women's corsets, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Whale oil stood between beeswax candles (for the rich) and beef tallow candles (for the poor) in the early 19th century, and the advent of kerosene or "coal oil" in the mid 19th century. Whale oil was highly desired. Considerations were the cost per unit of illumination, and the amount of soot produced. In the later 19th century, gaslight superseded various oil lights, and in turn was superseded by electric light. Edison (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Isolating on one particular ship, it would certainly not seem very efficient. But is it reasonable to assume that overall there were whaling ships frequently heading to sea while other whaling ships were coming back into port with their cargo? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a whole chapter about profit in this book about American whaling 1816-1906. It's a bit too much for me to make sense of just skimming (and surprisingly complicated—trying to determine true profits in a meaningful way). There's a sort of conclusion on page 457. Apparently profits were "persistently high" from 1817 to the late 1830s, after which "the market moved toward equilibrium" and "a more fundamental downward adjustment...in the late 1850s", then an uptick during the Civil War, followed by a "contraction" of the industry, but "profit rates held up". And finally, "Overall, profit rates seem to have been somewhat higher than returns in other comparable industries..." Of course all of this is about profits for the investors, not the crews. There's another chapter called "Labor" about crew wages. Again, it's complicated. Try starting around page 175 if you want to see how complicated. The book compares wages of various crew positions between whaling and the merchant marine. Apparently whaling officers earned on average "roughly twice as much as those on merchantmen", and captains about three times as much. Wages for ordinary seamen seem to have been lower in whaling than in the merchant service—about a third or a quarter less on average. Then again, the comparison might not be fair. Whaling crews were much more "ethnically diverse", with people of many nationalities, especially Polynesians. Many of these people would not have been able to get work in the US merchant marine. There would be differences in the reason why one would join a whaling crew in the first place, and different expectations and desired outcomes of a voyage. The chapter goes on to explore these kind of issues in great detail. ...Anyway, this book is dense with information on this topic. Very dense! Seems very well researched though. Pfly (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Two Years Before the Mast concerns a ship trading hides rather than sperm oil, but is also of interest. The conditions on board ship, as with those of the tea clippers, were very bad. 92.15.14.45 (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP has a great number of articles on whaling: history of whaling and whaling in the United States are particularly extensive; reference is made to economics and large profits, but no figure. Whale oil and baleen ("whalebone") were important commodities. Gwinva (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This Windjammer is about conditions on board other sailing ships. The Last Grain Race, a memoir by Eric Newby, shows that condition of the crew on sailing ships were still very bad even in the 1930s. Very bad conditions for the crew on sailing ships seems to have a long history: I recall that crews were delighted to join pirate ships because the conditions were so much better. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Privileges and Immunities Clause and Public Education
The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution states that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Texas state government, along with many other U.S. states, operates a public post-secondary education system, in Texas' case the University of Texas System. Admission to University of Texas schools for United States citizens who are not residents of Texas is very difficult; I believe I have read elsewhere that only 10% of students at UT Austin are not Texas residents, and that is a deliberate decision on the part of Texas' legislature. To me, post-secondary education is a "privilege" given to a citizen of the state of Texas, provided that the citizen can meet the normal entry requirements. Why is it that public universities can discriminate by state of residence in accepting students? NW ( Talk ) 06:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's two closely related P-I clauses: The Privileges and immunities clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause. If you find the text deviating from the Supreme Court's historic interpretation of it, welcome to Constitutional jurisprudence. I took a brief look at our P&I article and it references the Slaughter House Cases... and while I haven't looked into it beyond that brief glance, I worry that it may be confusing the 14th amendment clause and the article 4 one you're talking about.


 * Specific to your question, there are two cases you should look at: Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper and Vlandis v. Kline (1973) 412 U.S. 441 (neither of which we apparently have articles for. P&I has a very narrow scope for 2 primary reasons: it only applies to a narrow subset of "fundamental" citizenship rights... and it is also restricted to "citizens", which is a much narrower subset than individuals, and much narrower still than persons. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at those two cases, thanks. NW ( Talk ) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I realize that my answer's pretty bad... I don't think Kline ever addresses Article 4 directly. However I know there's a line of cases on this. I just don't have the resources to find it at the moment. Perhaps someone else can point you to the case I'm thinking of but can't find. Shadowjams (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Privileges and Immunities Clause notwithstanding, I think the reason for this is driven by basic finance rather than trying to extend a "privilege" to Texas residents. Most (if not all?) state universities in the US are funded in large part by taxes paid by the residents of that state. Residents therefore typically pay one rate of tuition, while non-residents pay a higher rate to account for the fact that the non-residents have not contributed via taxes. In this situation, you're going to naturally find a higher percentage of in-state residents, since it is cheaper for them to attend their own state's university than it would be to attend a public university in another state (or to attend a private university). Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that where article 4 would come in, would be if a state university barred other states' citizens altogether. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @OSS: And that makes total sense to me. I was just wondering how that could be constitutionally justified. @BB: Actually, some schools do that, the University of Massachusetts School of Medicine for example. NW ( Talk ) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

See for an intro to the topic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As Shadowjams said, the Supreme Court's interpretation is that the Privliges or Immunities clause only applies to fundamental rights, so it probably wouldn't apply to higher education (It may be worth noting that the term privlige has a diferent sort of meaning in this context than its every day meaning.) It sounds to me like it would be better to look at the issue from the perspective of the Equal Protection clause, but under rational basis review, it seems like the policy would pass constitutional muster. Rabuve (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

help me to get information/contacts for my research based on old woollen trade of Kullu(H.P.)INDIA,especially in British period
Respected sir/mam i am presently working as a asstt. prof.in government college Banjar distt. Kullu and doing work on the origin of Kullu Handloom shawls and old time woollen trade of Himachal Pradesh with other provincial states especialy during British period.In this topic i find many new findings like how the world famous Kullu shawls came in to being,its connection with Kinnauri Handloom,wich was connected with British trade and interest,opening of new trade roots etc.

Sir,here i want to mention this is the first work ever made on handloom of Kullu shawls and i have compeleted my M.Phil from H P Uiversity Shimla (INDIA).Now i want to do some more hard work but i have no knowledge how to contact any university in England for grant and authentic (contemprary) information/evidence for my reseach.

kindly suggest me. I shall be highly thankful to you for your this act of kindness.

Your's Faithfuly J.C.Chauhan e mail add (removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.0.2 (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Question reformatted for readability, and email removed for privacy AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As you probably know, the records of the East India Company and the India Office (India's government under British rule) are housed at the British Library. Obtaining funding for a period of research in the UK will be difficult, but probably not impossible. Competition for funding is likely to be stiff.  My recommendation (and some years ago, I obtained funding from a foreign foundation for doctoral research in another country) would be to establish a relationship with a low- level or mid-level academic in the United Kingdom, such as a reader, senior lecturer, or lecturer.  (Academics of higher ranks will be too busy and/or important to be likely to take an interest in an unknown foreign student).  You should contact several British historians working on 19th-century Indian history, and preferably economic history, so that they share intellectual interests with you.  A good way to find such people would be to find British authors of recent publications on your area of history.  Your university librarian should be able to help you with this. Once you have a "sponsor", that person can help you identify funding opportunities.  One possible source of funding might be the Arts and Humanities Research Council.  See, for example, this article.  However, you will increase your chances of success by connecting with an insider.  Marco polo (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's useful advice, and I think you should definitely email the office of the UK Research Councils in India. You can find the address from their website. Explain that you have a project idea in economic history, relating to global links in textile production, and that the research will be much more effective if it is carried out from the Indian and the British directions, using archives in both countries. Ask them if they can help with partner search. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to add to the above, you may wish to contact universities in areas with historic links to Indian textiles: Paisley (shawls), Dundee (jute), Bradford and Manchester come to mind. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

British peerage
May I know what is the correct title for Charles Edward Stuart, Count Roehenstart?

Burke's Peerage says "...more commonly known as Charles Edward Stuart, Count de Roehenstart"; The Complete Peerage says "Charles Edward Stuart was styled as Count Roehenstart, self-styled" and then, there is a book entitled, "The pedigree of Charles Edward Stuart, Count of Roehenstart".

Please advise on what the correct way to write his name is. Thanks, Bejinhan   talks   10:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, he doesn't appear to have had any titles in the peerages of England, Scotland or Great Britain, and there does not seem to be any reliable source for him actually being a count in anything other than his own estimation. As a bastard son of a bastard daughter it's unlikely he would have inherited any titles, and nobody seems to know who is meant to have created him a count. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no such title as "count" in the British peerage. Marnanel (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Was he a musician or entertainer? Maybe his nobility was like that of King Oliver, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Lady Day, and The Duke of Paducah i.e. a title bestowed by his admirers which he was proud to use for promotional purposes. Edison (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merely clicking on the link that the OP helpfully provided, Edison, would have revealed to you exactly who he was and why he styled himself with a title. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the useful tip, 90. (Or should I call you 87?). Edison (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can call me what you like, as long as you don't call me late for dinner :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the replies. I have amended the DYK hook about Charles Edward Stuart. Bejinhan   talks   10:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Abused abuser?
Is there a general rule of abused persons turning into abusers? Popular wisdom do points to the direction that sexual abusers were sexually abused. Is there any study about this? And what about other types of abuse, like workplace mobber being a mobbing victim? Wikiweek (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What's a "mobber" ? As for childhood abuse, this is just a special case of people growing up to treat people as they were treated as children.  If children are treated well, they tend to to do the same to others later.  There are, of course, many exceptions, in both directions.  StuRat (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mobbing is (essentially) another word for bullying. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought a mobber was a bully (like in Danish, see: ). Although, in English a mobber seems to be an uncommon word for someone engaged in mobbing. Wikiweek (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In American English, "mobbing" has a very different connotation, apparently, than British English (?), or languages which use it as a loan word. In American English, anything relating to "mob" in any form is associated with crowds and rioting, whereas bullying is a much more one-on-one sort of affair. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also see Psychological resilience. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is surely a large body of research on this topic. For starters, see the references for domestic violence here: Domestic_violence. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I went to a lecture about this at the Centre for Child Mental Health in London a few years ago. The lecture was primarily about sexually abused children going on to become sexual abusers. There had only been one significant study, and that only on boys. While boys who had been sexually abused were more likely than the general population to go on to become sexual abusers, the large majority did not go on to commit abuse. Unfortunatley I do not still have the notes I took at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Might it be a case of skewed or anecdotal perception (I forget the technical term) in the news; where an abuser's past is mentioned only when they were an abuse victim also? And that those who were abused and don't commit crimes, don't get into the news? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and it's very easy for an abuser to try to elicit some sympathy (or a lighter sentence) by claiming to be a victim themself. The study in the lecture had followed a cohort of abused boys through their lives over about twenty years, pulling together social services, medical, and police reports. DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. If I stop and think about it, I can recall a number of folks who had abusive childhoods, and some of them turned out well and some didn't. Is it the "nature vs. nurture" situation? Is it maybe more a matter of "the stuff you're made of", as to whether you can overcome childhood traumas of one kind or another? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's extremely complex. A person may have had a mainly positive childhood, with one or two incidents of abuse, or at the other end of the scale may have been raised in a profoundly negative environment, where abusive behaviours were normalised - and there's every combination in between. There's also the question of what support the person had once abuse was disclosed, did they have a network of friends and supportive positive adults, or were they ignored, disbelieved, or indeed had they been removed from one abusive setting and placed in another by those supposed to protect them? Was the sexual abuse combined with other forms of abuse and neglect? The environmental side of the question is infinitely complex. Nature and nurture are in an ever-changing, never-ending embrace, each playing off the other. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I've looked at this research, but if I remember right the whole 'cycle of violence' theory is very weak. There's some evidence that violent people are more likely to have suffered abuse as children, but there's no real evidence that people who suffer abuse as children are more likely to be violent as adults.  It's also really a misapplication of the original theoretical position, which was that people exposed to violent social environments as children tended to adopt violent ways (e.g. someone who grew up in Gaza or the Sudan or Somalia is much more likely to have a worldview in which acts of violence against others are considered normal and acceptable than someone who grows up in a US suburb). -- Ludwigs 2  02:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

funding of professional sports facilities
Here in the US, whenever a professional sports team wants a new stadium, they get the city and state to pony up a significant portion of the funds (despite the fact that the team is privately owned). Is the same true in other nations? Googlemeister (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sometimes in the UK - Ricoh Arena, Coventry is one such, but then there's the Emirates Stadium home of Arsenal Football Club which took no public money. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Matt Deres (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In most European countries, the municipality also indirectly contributes large amounts of money by expanding the infrastructure and improving the area, as part of their duty to provide public services. And because they do profit from a successful sporting arena, of course. I don't know whether that's what you meant by "ponying up", but to give you one example, the City of Munich spent  €210 million, almost as much as the entire construction costs, on improving the surroundings of the Allianz Arena. ---Sluzzelin  talk  20:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that Wembley Stadium is privately owned, but its funding appears to have come from a mixture of private and public funds. That seems to be the trend in American sports. Is Wembley a good example for Europe, or is it a poor example? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't want to quote Wembley as an example of anything other than public ineptitude! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently after a fair bit of research, the team itself does not often own their stadium. Googlemeister (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the US, at least, stadium construction seems to be a common scam. That is, they get the taxpayers to foot the bill and take the risk (of the sports team leaving, for example), while private owners get to keep all the profits (say from charging more for tickets to this shiny new stadium).  So, essentially, those private owners just take the taxpayers' money and keep it.  How can such a scam work ?  Well, the owners often give contributions to the politicians, to get them on their side, and promise the public huge benefits in increased tourism, etc.  However, those benefits rarely develop.  People just switch from the now abandoned, old, nearby stadium to the new one, without there being much, if any, net increase in the tax base.  If all else fails, the private owners can threaten to move the sports team away, if they don't get what they want (yet they rarely sign a legally binding contract to keep them there for long, if they do get their new stadium).  So, is this scam also used elsewhere ? StuRat (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also note that this scam applies to other major construction projects, too. In Detroit, they are trying to convince taxpayers to build a new bridge to Canada, despite a falling population and an existing bridge and tunnel.  (The justification appears to be the delays in crossing the border, but these are due to insufficient customs workers and increased security, and a new bridge won't address those.)  StuRat (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A difference between American and Europe is that European sports are kind of set up differently. There are more than 90 pro soccer teams in England alone, so every English city of any size already has one. Franchise relocation is therefore very uncommon. When the soccer team in Wimbledon, London moved 50 miles away to Milton Keynes, it caused a huge uproar not only in London but throughout the country. That said, it seems strange that European sports teams can get any kind of government support at all for stadium projects, as they can't threaten to leave town if they don't get a new building. It's interesting to me that there are so many stadiums in Europe. London has 13 pro soccer teams, each with its own stadium. Plus it has Wembley, the rugby stadium in Twickenham and two major cricket stadiums. The New York area has only one football stadium of any size, two baseball stadiums (not including little minor league parks) and a new soccer stadium out in Jersey. If something happened to the Meadowlands like with the Metrodome last year, the Giants and Jets would have to play in another city or try to cram a football field into Yankee Stadium like they did for a couple of college games last year. When the Giants lost their stadium in the 70s, they had to play two years at the Yale Bowl 66 miles away in Connecticut. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I always come back to the same question: If a new stadium is as good of an investment as the proponents claim, then why can't they find private investors to foot the entire bill ? StuRat (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the perceived benifits to a local community are a greater incentive than actual cash return on investment. Just a guess though. Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

King's Speech Wave
In the final scene of The King's Speech where the royals are waving, is there a proper name for the type of wave they are doing, if any at all? - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Urban Dictionary calls it a "parade wave", well known for use by the Royals, but used by anyone in a parade (such as a homecoming king or queen, or a grand marshall) who have to wave at the crowd for a long stretch of time. Presumably it's less tiring than the "standard" wave, which involves more of the arm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen the scene, but it's probably the "royal wave", Gwinva (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the real King and Queen on VE Day. The Queen does the "royal wave" but the King does an altogether more elaborate affair. Is this how it is done in the film? It may be based on the Royal Navy's "three cheers" when caps are flourished in circles (the Canadians do it too!). Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

wedding cake impression
I need help on something. I want to do a handmade stuffed wedding cake. Here are the dimensions; Tier #1 is 10 1/4" diameter, 42" circumference, 4" height. Tier #2 is 7 1/2" diameter, 34" circumference, 4" height. Tier #3 is 5 3/4" diameter, 19" circumference, 4" height. How many yards of fabric should be used?24.90.204.234 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh? Fabric?  Why would you need fabric? Looie496 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It being handmade, he must be fabricating it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OP, what do you mean by; "handmade stuffed wedding cake"? And the fabric? Does "impression" mean it is a prop for a stage? MacOfJesus (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is a prop, then go to a Jumble Sale and buy all the old clauth you can find and cut off what is not needed. If you make it too well you will have trouble with people trying to eat it!  MacOfJesus (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy that! The "wedding cake" won't be real. Yes, it's an impression. It's bound to be a part of the permanent collection of a museum I'm trying to establish. I'm trying to figure out how many yards of fabric I should purchase. I already gave the dimensions.24.90.204.234 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your diameters and circumferii (sp?) don't seem to match. C = πD can be used, with π approximated as 3.14:

10.25 × 3.14 = 32.185 (not 42) 7.5 × 3.14 = 23.55  (not 34) 5.75 × 3.14 = 18.055 (not 19)


 * So, which is correct, the diameters or the circumferii? StuRat (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We also need to know the construction details. I assume that fabric is needed on the top and sides of each tier, but not on the bottom. Where one tier sits on another, should there be fabric there? Also, do you want to know the actual amount of fabric used in the final product, or the amount you must buy, considering that some will be wasted. We also need to know the width of a bolt of fabric to do that last calculation. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the Math Desk would have been a better place for this Q. StuRat (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Circumferences? --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see how StuRat got there. Radii is the plural of radius, circumferii is the plural of circumferius. 81.131.38.181 (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Now we know that this is meant as a high quality prop, then the thickness of the fabric you have in mind is also a necessary ingredient. You will get better responses on the Mathematical Reference Desk. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why ? We only need the surface area, not the volume. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Using StuRat's figures, by my rough calculations, you need around 21.25" of 44" cloth assuming you need only the top surface of each tier; you need roughly 28" of 44" cloth if you need top & bottom surfaces. (Assume you need a 0.5" extra border on all cloths to sew together. You can get your three circles of 11.25", 8.5" & 6.75" comfortably out of a 44" bolt using just 11.25" of it. Your sides are rectangles of about 32", 23" & 18" by 5" ... you need two 5" lengths to get this out of a 44" bolt. You have a reasonable amount of left-over cloth. Doubtless there's a configuration of shapes which needs slightly less than I've indicated. but we're looking at trivial amounts of cloth. -Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I presume that the material/fabric will be used as a laired stuffing/filler for the "cake", not just to cover the outside of each cake? Hence, the volume of the inside of each cake is needed? MacOfJesus (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Surely easier to stuff with foam, possibly with cardboard top & bottom surfaces to prevent bulging. By my calcs that would be 610 cubic inches of stuffing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggested this earlier, but a high quality, permanent structure is envisaged. So the thickness of the material to be used is needed. Will a different material be used to cover the outside? MacOfJesus (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I just now realized I made some mistakes. The handmade stuffed wedding cake impression will have a dish. Here the correct dimensions; The dish is 13" diameter, 42" circumference, 3" height. Tier #1 is 10 1/4" diameter, 34" diameter, 4" height. Tier #2 is 7 1/2" diameter, 23" circumference, 4" height. Tier 3# is 5 3/4" diameter, 19" circumference, 4" height. I already know I'm going to purchase one yard of a different fabric for the dish. But I'm still trying to figure out how many yards I should purchase for all three tiers.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, but we still need to know the construction details:


 * 1) Do we only need fabric on the top and outside surfaces of each tier?


 * 2) Do we need fabric on the portion of the top of a tier which is covered by the bottom of the next tier up? StuRat (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, only fabric is needed. I intend to do both the top, bottom, and outside surfaces of each tier.24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Are the tiers all resting on one another, or are they pillered from one another? Is each cake hollow? MacOfJesus (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the tiers are resting on one another. Each cake will be stuffed.24.90.204.234 (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. One more thing; by yards of material, I presume you mean a square yard/s of material, or is the depth by meter? MacOfJesus (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The fabric I plan to purchase is 43" wide.24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)




 * OK, now I have enough info to do some preliminary calcs:

Tier #1 is 10 1/4" diameter, 34" circumference, 4" height. Tier #2 is 7 1/2" diameter, 23" circumference, 4" height. Tier 3# is 5 3/4" diameter, 19" circumference, 4" height.


 * First, laying them out across the width of the bolt from the end, you can cut out both (large) tier 1 circles, both (medium) tier 2 circles, and one (small) tier 3 circle, for a width of 41.25 inches. Placing the other (small) tier 3 circle next to the first will give us a length, so far, of 11.5 inches. That covers the tops and bottoms.


 * Next we must address the sides. We can cut the (long) tier 1 side next to the largest circle, for a width of 34, stopping short of the second small circle. This gives us a width, so far, of 10.25 + 4 or 14.25 inches.


 * We can cut the (medium) tier 2 and (short) tier 3 sides, end to end, for a width of 42 inches. This adds 4 inches to 14.25 for a length of 18.25 inches. So, allowing a bit for margins, let's make that 20 inches. You might also want to allow extra for mistakes, though, that's up to you. And, how do you intend to make the seams? If you need overlapping fabric, then we need to account for that. (How much overlap do you need? 1/4 inch on both sides ?) StuRat (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)




 * Here's an alternate template that allows greater margins (for seam overlap). It should be 22.25 inches long, without the seam allowance, or 24 inches (2 yards), with a fairly tight seam allowance of just under a quarter inch. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to be using overlap fabric.24.90.204.234 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you plan to do the seams, then? Using a backing fabric? In either case, 2 yards should be enough. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to make the cut circles face the diameter strip, turn the cakes right side out, then stuff them.24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, but how do you intend to attach the circles to the side strips? StuRat (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll sew them together.24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but how do you do that without overlapping fabric?

Seam with dual-overlapping fabric: _________     |\\                   | \\                   | | Seam with single overlapping fabric: _________  ||           ||            |            |


 * They only other way I know of is by using a separate backing fabric. StuRat (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you not need a seam allowance (i.e. additional cloth) to enable the sewing? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll sew the tiers on top of one another. The "wedding cake" will then be sewn to the dish. Then I'll use sequin trim to hide the stitches.24.90.204.234 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That still doesn't quite answer the question, unless you intend to sew the sides and circles from each tier to the sequin trim, instead of each other. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, I don't need overlapping fabric. The sequin trim won't be sewn to the sides or the circles.24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So you intend to sew the edge of the circle directly to the edge of the side, with no overlapping fabric? You do realize that this will just lead to the fabric unraveling, don't you? StuRat (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to sew the edge of the circle directly to the edge of the side, with no overlapping fabric. But don't worry, I have my sewing skills strategy to prevent unraveling.24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it a secret? Because I'd love to know how. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I taught myself how to do it. When you put the needle in, make certain to go a tiny bit below a point where unraveling could happen. Now, let's get back to the fabric yardage. How many yards of fabric should I purchase?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, 2 yards should do it. StuRat (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much.24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'm going to mark this question resolved. You can unmark it, if you have follow-up questions. StuRat (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)