Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 9

= October 9 =

Yongle Encyclopedia online
Is there an online version of the Yongle Encyclopedia. I tried to find one to add, as an external link, to the article, but I couldn't find one. Is there one and if so where is it. Please respond at Talk:Yongle_Encyclopedia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Only about 4% of the Yongle Encyclopaedia is extant. The National Library of China has published a 164-volume facsimile re-print of the majority of the surviving volumes, priced at 250,000 yuan (around US$40,000 or £25,000). Some publishers have made electronic versions, but these come in multi-CD/DVD sets and are not avilable as an online version. Some websites claim to offer e-book versions, but if you inspect them closely, not only are these huge, they are also only about a quarter or so of the extant volumes. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Arveprins
When did the Danish heir stop being called Hereditary Prince and became Crown Prince?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They are two distinct titles. Arveprins ("hereditary prince") is the Danish equivalent of heir presumptive. Kronprins ("crown prince") is the Danish equivalent of heir apparent. Gabbe (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I totally forgot about Knud. Then how is Prince-Elect, the title of the heir before absolute hereditary monarchy, translated to in Danish.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Danish for Prince-Elect is udvalgt prins. Gabbe (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is Angela Merkel visiting Greece?
Isn't that too obvious that it will trigger anti-German protests? OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, yes... but according to this article the visit is intended, among other things, to show that, within limits, she is willing to help the Greek people out of the present position. No doubt the security situation has been taken into account.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a roman triumph, or germanic triumph, to celebrate their victory over Greece. Amazingly, she is even wearing the same jacket as when Germany won in soccer against Greece. From a diplomatic point of view, it is a faux-pas. Gorgeop (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (Bad joke time - and apologies in advance. Angela Merkel arrives at Greek immigration control - "Name?" "Angela Merkel." "Nationality?" "German." "Occupation?" "No, I'm just here for a visit...") AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Omggg I actually laughed! Nice one (seriously). -- Jethro  B  00:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The visit could be intended to show Merkel towards German domestic public as tough in negotiations with Greece. --Soman (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "It'll trigger protests" is hardly a reason to avoid diplomacy. In fact, if a simple visit would trigger protests, that's a good sign that diplomacy is needed.  --140.180.242.9 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Really folks, feel free to reopen if you have something to offer better than a joke. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ghmyrtle already did. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This article in the Guardian suggests that the main purpose is to show that Germany really does want Greece to stay in the Union. The protests are not going to shake her resolve. Bielle (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The 4 top dogs are ladies
As of an hour ago, Australia has females in all the following roles:
 * Queen of Australia – Elizabeth II
 * Governor-General of Australia – Quentin Bryce
 * Prime Minister of Australia – Julia Gillard
 * Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives – Anna Burke.

Is this a first for a Commonwealth realm?

I know New Zealand and Canada have both had female governors-general, prime ministers and lower house speakers, but I don't know if all the terms overlapped. Other realms may have pipped Australia if these 2 countries haven't. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * New Zealand beat you to it, I'm afraid - for around a year in 2005-6 Margaret Wilson was Speaker, Silvia Cartwright Governor-General, and Helen Clark PM. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and, come to think of it, Sian Elias was the Chief Justice of New Zealand throughout that period, so you had the judiciary led by a woman as well. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Theresa Gattung being the CEO of Telecom New Zealand, the largest (by market capitalisation) company on the NZX (by quite a big margin at the time). Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh and at one stage Jenny Shipley was opposition leader . Albeit with the speaker seat occupied by Jonathan Hunt at the time, so Australia simply has to kick out Tony Abbott and replace him with a woman (Julie Bishop perhaps?) and get a new female Chief Justice and Attorney-General and you can take a new arguably significant record. For added bonus (the ASX and NZX are quite different so perhaps it's not a fair comparison) get a female CEO of BHP Billiton too. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have checked (or thought carefully) about this earlier as I suspected it but wasn't sure. At the time of Silvia Cartwright's swearing in, Christine Fletcher was mayor of Auckland (NZ's most populous city but since this was pre supercity days, not really accurate to say 'by far')  so you can add another to the record I mentioned above (which just to re-emphasise does not include the speaker). The source also mentions Marie Shroff being Secretary of Cabinet and Clerk of the Executive Council. (If you're wondering Jenny Shipley losing the leader role to Bill English brought this record to the end, followed soon after by John Banks taking over as mayor. At least if my suspicions of the laters date are right.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good answers, folks. And NZ was the first nation to allow women to vote, too.  Must be something about the cool southern air.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A little off-topic, but NZ was the first nation to allow all women to vote in national elections. Other countries allowed some women to vote, or to vote in local elections only, earlier. See Timeline of women's suffrage for details. --Tango (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about Jack's wisdom(?) in describing those four ladies in his original question as dogs. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't describe the ladies as dogs. I described the top dogs as ladies.  That's what I call " a huge difference".
 * If the occupants of these four positions were all males, nobody would have objected to them being called "top dogs". It would be sexist to raise an objection to the use of that expression only when they're all females.
 * Some may see connections (female dog = bitch) that were never there and never intended. That's for them to resolve.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell and malaria
How did the first catch malaria? Gorgeop (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're asking how he caught malaria — the banal answer is "from a mosquito." Malaria was still extent in 17th century England, though if I recall correctly, it was significantly less than in 16th century England on account of marsh drainage projects. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Cromwell suffered from, but may not have died from, what was called "ague" - a rather general term for febrile diseases and similar ailments. It's a modern interpretation that this was, in fact, malaria; "malaria" is an Italian term which didn't come into use in English for centuries after that. A (generally non-fatal) strain of malaria was endemic to coastal England, marshy and boggy places, and fenland areas like East Anglia and Cambridgeshire, from the 1400s or earlier. Cromwell had every opportunity to be bitten by an infected mosquito during his many visits to these places. In some patients malaria can be recrudescent, in that it comes back periodically, sometimes decades after infection. Refs for this: The Death of Oliver Cromwell By H.F. McMain, pp 85-90  ISBN 0813121337, and the Wellcome Trust's The history of malaria in England.  The former ref says malaria remained endemic until the 19th century when modern drainage removed much of the mosquito breeding habitat. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are credible claims that not only did Oliver Cromwell die of malaria - but that he refused the "Jesuit bark" medicine, quinine, which might have saved him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It may be worth noting that it was not until shortly before 1900 that the association between malaria and mosquitoes was demonstrated. Before that, people knew that it was associated with swamps and marshes, but they didn't know why.  The most common belief was that it was caused by some sort of gas or vapor that effused from swamps. Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hence "mal-aria" or "bad air" -- Jayron  32  16:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See Cromwell's health & death which suggests that Cromwell (like many of his soldiers) contracted malaria in Ireland in 1649. Alansplodge (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Recognize a track
moved to Reference desk/Entertainment

How did Charles Darwin earn a living?
What did he do? How did he earn a living? Nothing much is said about his professional life, other than the fact he discovered the foundation of modern biology. What did he do BEFORE he published his famous theory and AFTER he sailed on the HMS Beagle? Become a public speaker of science? Write science books? Work as an Anglican country clergyman in a small parish? 140.254.226.212 (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Read our article Charles Darwin and come back to us if you have any further questions. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I did. It mainly describes what he contributed to science, not what he did for a living. 140.254.226.212 (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this site, Darwin was independently wealthy - his father was a successful doctor and inventor, and his wife was a member of the Wedgewood crockery family - so he didn't need to earn a living, which gave him plenty of time to do his research. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I see. I suppose being a wealthy person or an aristocrat or nobleman/woman may mean higher education, and that means more time for intellectual and academic pursuits back in those days. Another example would be Lady Ada Lovelace. 140.254.226.212 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Members of the upper classes definitely had the inner track on becoming scientists in those days. Regarding Darwin, he must have made some money on The Voyage of the Beagle, which was a bestseller, and of course a few of his later books were huge bestsellers; but that income probably wasn't all that significant to him. Looie496 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The term "Idle rich" is a common English idiom to refer to people who have enough money that they never have to earn another cent for the rest of their lives.  The modern, vulgar idiom for this is "fuck you money", i.e. so much money that you can tell any person in the world "fuck you" without consequences.  Many people who are that wealthy still continue to work, because you have to do something with your time.  Darwin had "fuck you money", he used it to fund his intellectual pursuits.  Lots of intellectuals prior to the twentieth century were independently wealthy, many probably because they were independently wealthy.  There was also the "Royal Society" and other similar agencies available at the time: it pooled resources and distributed it to fund various scientific pursuits, so even people who weren't financially independent could do science with a grant.  The same system exists today, via government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health or independent agencies like the National Geographic Society.  -- Jayron  32  20:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Lots of intellectuals prior to the twentieth century were independently wealthy, many probably because they were independently wealthy. - What does this mean, Jayron?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is, lots of people were employed as intellectuals because they otherwise didn't have to work 18 hours a day, seven days a week digging coal out of the ground or dragging a plow across the earth. That is, it is likely that many (not 100%, so go ahead and present counterexamples, because it won't disprove this point) people involved in intellectual pursuits were only able to do so because they had the means to provide themselves with enough leisure time to devote to studying a topic in detail.  I agree, my phrasing was awkward, but what I meant to say was something along the lines of "Most intellectuals were employed as intellectuals because they had the wealth to do so".  -- Jayron  32  21:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thanks.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with above)Compare Darwin to Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently theorized natural selection as a mechanism by which evolution could occur. Wallace supported himself by selling specimens from his explorations (and his writings), but was for a period during his middle-age pretty financially insecure, and never wealthy like Darwin was. It's hard to generalize too much, but the mid 19th century can perhaps be seen as the transitional period from the gentleman scientist to the professional scientist. Buddy431 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's still a distinction to be made, however, here because (with apologies to Fifelfoo who usually brings these things up), Wallace wasn't strictly "working class". He's middle class; the same class broadly that Darwin was: Darwin's family was more successful at being middle class, but as Wallace's biography notes, his father had "received a law degree" and Wallace himself " inherited some income-generating property".  Neither was a member of the inherited Aristocratic class (i.e. neither was of the Nobility).  Being the son of a Lawyer (even a non-practicing one) and being involved in land ownership and investment are hallmarks of a middle-class lifestyle and upbringing and outlook on life.  The actual amount of wealth is important, but cannot be overstated here: Wallace and Darwin probably shared a lot more in value because they were both part of the Middle Class than either would have with a member of either the aristocracy or of the working or peasant classes.  That is, Darwin has more in common with Wallace than he would a titled Duke of similar means has himself, and Wallace has more in common with Darwin than he would with someone from a long line of unskilled, uneducated laborers.  Class standing (not just wealth) comes with inherent training and skills and worldview that open up certain types of lifestyle, regardless of wealth.  It cannot be looked at solely as a function of cash in hand.  Take a look from a different socioeconomic system: The early U.S.:  Thomas Jefferson spent his whole adult life essentially broke, all the time.  He was never not in debt, and severely, and yet (what would seem paradoxical) he lived the life of a landed aristocrat, spent money like it was in infinite supply, and generally lived like an aristocrat despite never having any actual money.  How?  Because he knew how to live like an aristocrat, and had access to the sort of networks and skills that made the money issue irrelevent.  Looking at his balance sheet, he should have been living in the gutter begging for hand-outs.  Why wasn't he?  Because he came from a certain class that lived a certain lifestyle, and he knew how to work the system (inherently) to maintain that lifestyle without cash.  Likewise, with Wallace and Darwin, it isn't the difference in actual cash-on-hand at any one time that defines and explains their shared pursuit of intellectualism: it's their status as belonging to the middle class, and not the working class.  I think I may have overstated the wealth issue above a bit too strongly, wealth is certainly a factor, but it is also important to look at a person's entire social situation, which includes the values and worldview imparted by one's standing in a specific social class. -- Jayron  32  22:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayron32 for the coverage, I agree with your class analysis on this point. History of Science does go into the difference between an era of scientists whose profession was leisure, and scientists for whom it was "just a job" even if it was a feted and well paid job that consumed years and required the liquidation of the meagre advances on rent or mortgages that labour aristocrats accumulate.  David Philip Miller does a fair bit of work here ('The Paradoxes of Patenting at General Electric: Isador Ladoff's Journey from Siberian Exile to the Heart of Corporate Capitalism', Isis 102 (2011): 634–658. ; 'Was Matthew Boulton a Scientist? Operating between the Abstract and the Entrepreneurial', in Malcolm Dick, Kenneth Quickenden and Sally Baggott (eds), Matthew Boulton: Enterprising Industrialist of the Enlightenment (Ashgate, forthcoming, 2012)).  By the time you get to thoroughly 20th century science, the majority of employees are either workers or some new and undiscovered class; both reliant upon the capitalist firm and payment for exertion for their subsistence.  In fact, you may enjoy DP Miller & P.H. Reill (eds), Visions of Empire: Voyages, Botany and Representations of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).  The current term for the mechanisation of scientific inquiry under wage labour is technoscience last time I checked, but I'm not an expert here. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Technoscience is an imprecisely used term usually to just mean "I don't think science and technology are separate things." I've never seen it used in a specifically labor context by practitioners of the history of science or science studies. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugger, I thought I was reading the vague research programme thingies I've seen right; bugger all academic fads. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I took it to mean "they became intellectuals because they could afford to be". A look at 19th-century censuses shows "Living on own means" in the Occupation column against a surprising number of names.  Estate taxes did exist but did not really begin to bite until the late 19th and early 20th century; before this, invested capital or property that yielded a reliable income was passed down from to generation to generation without seriously aggressive depletion on each transfer.  If it did get depleted, or if the eldest son got the lion's share, you could always enter the Church, use your social connections to secure a parish or parishes that yielded a healthy annual sum, pay a pittance to a poor curate for doing the actual work, and shazam! You're a respectable gentleman with enough leisure for intellectual pursuits and enough money to pay for them. -  Ka renjc 22:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And on that point, a substantial number of British scientists, naturalists, archaeologists, historians etc etc in the 18th and 19th centuries, were indeed Anglican clergymen. Alansplodge (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ordination as a minister was the normal condition of residency for a lecturer in English universities and I'd guess elsewhere. Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that in the late 19th century, when Darwin was really came into his scientific greatness, was when science was actually becoming a profession more broadly in England. Prior to the period, science was still primarily an endeavor to be pursued by classes that could afford not to have "real" jobs. By the end of the 19th century, you could have middle class and even working class scientists (and they called themselves "scientists," not "natural philosophers"). Darwin was a member of the older guard; his class situation was considerably different than Wallace's or Huxley's. (And it was mentioned once, earlier, but Darwin's multi/inbred-membership in the Darwin–Wedgwood family was responsible for most of his income.)
 * One point that Janet Browne makes in her biographies of Darwin is that the vast majority of the "data" that Darwin used in formulating and defending his theories was obtained by sending letters to correspondents all over the world. His postage bills were, by mid-19th standards, a veritable fortune. The money matters not just for the idle time it gave him. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where to put this snippet, so I'll put it here. As our article says, "Darwin's father organised investments, enabling his son to be a self-funded gentleman scientist". The answer was, as I implied, there in our article. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

latch-hooking
A search in Wikipedia.org for "latch-hooking" information will only bring the user to information about "rug hooking". I was hoping to find information about how the yarn strips are precut for the latch-hook kits for making bath rugs, (though I am not personally interested in bath rugs), which can be purchased in craft supply stores. I am hoping to be able to purchase a home version electric machine for cutting yarn into strips the length I want, so I can stop cutting them by hand. Other types of INTERNET SEARCHES elsewhere bring me to various types of machines with little information, leaving me without confidence that it is what I need, if it even exists. If it does not exist, I will request a local university have an engineering student invent it.173.216.80.111 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm certain that such a machine must exist, the question is whether there's a version for home use. In theory it sounds fairly simple: a device to pull yarn a set distance, cut it, push the cut yarn into a collection basket, then grab the new end, pull it the set distance again, and repeat until the set number is reached or the yarn is exhausted.  An industrial version might be designed to do 100 pieces of yarn at a time, though. StuRat (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Searching Google under pre cut lengths of yarn, I found the following: 1) a homemade tool at www.ehow.com/how_5576880_cut-latch-hook-yarn.html (that's a blacklisted site, but I don't know why) for cutting multiple strands at a time; and 2) a U.S. Patent application (with drawings) for a hand-held device that seems to load and cut from a continuous length of yarn. Bielle (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That blacklisted site just says to wrap it around a piece of cardboard to get the length right, then cut it manually. That probably is the most sensible method for home use, unless you intend to sell the electric device to others.  It's similar to the "Cricut", which cuts pieces of paper following patterns, and apparently there's a market for that. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The point of the home-made cardboard is that you can cut multiple pieces at once and they are all of equal length. It's the "multiple" that the OP seemed most interested to find. Bielle (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how good that cardboard would be at guaranteeing a common length. The cardboard can bend, and the yarn can stretch.  A piece of wood should solve the bending issue.  As for stretching, you just have to be careful to apply the same amount of force to each piece of yarn. StuRat (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've used ehow and a number of similar sites like associated content before, I don't think I ever actually looked in to the reasons for the blocklist, but it isn't surprising. These are sites which accept content from random people and pay them a small percentage of the advertising revenue, therefore there's strong incentive for people who don't care much about being considered spammers, to spam their content which is almost definitely not WP:RS so unsuitable for references and generally not suitable for external links either anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)