Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 August 9

= August 9 =

Why does McDonalds use cardboard boxes to store its sandwiches?
Why do the sandwiches come in cardboard boxes instead of a wrapper? Is there a reason for this corporate decision that is strikingly different from its competitor Wendy's? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it has to do with the amount of grease in their respective sandwiches. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My WWW search for ask mcdonalds a question found several useful websites.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It may boil down to some group at the company thinking that a box is better than just a wrapper. After all, a box makes it harder to crush the sandwich contained within. I would not be surprised if the corrugated cardboard that they use retains heat better than a paper wrapper and thus keeps food warmer for longer. Cardboard boxes are also better/easier for stacking in the bag. At least they don't use Styrofoam (polystyrene) anymore. Dismas |(talk) 03:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Back a few decades, McDonalds used Styrofoam boxes, but changed to more eco-friendly card in 1987 after a protest campaign by environmental groups in the US. See The McToxics Victory. Alansplodge (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First, not all McDonald's sandwiches come in a box (smaller sandwiches, such as a simple cheeseburger, are sold in just a wrapper). That said, I am willing to bet that MacDonald's packaging is consumer driven.  The company has likely conducted lots of surveys to see what packaging it's consumers prefer.  I won't speak for others, but I know that I like the box packaging when I order a "meal" that I will sit down to eat in the restaurant (as opposed to when I order just a sandwich to eat on the run).  The reason I like it is that the box doubles as a plate... one side of the box can hold the sandwich between bites... while the other can be used to hold the fries and catchup. Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Catchup"? Never seen that one before. Was that a typo for 'catsup' or 'ketchup' or a neologism I was unaware of? 99.235.223.170 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sandwiches from McDonalds? I thought they sold burgers. DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hamburgers are a type of sandwich -- food that comes placed between two pieces of bread. Our article notes that the hamburger are also sometimes called a "hamburger sandwich," to differentiate it from the hamburger steak. Our sandwich article also lists hamburgers in its examples.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Burgers come in a bun, not two slices of bread. Both the burger, and the burger-in-a-bun, are called burgers, not sandwiches, or steaks. A steak is a proper cut of meat. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hamburger and hot dog buns are bread. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet Sandwich lists hamburgers, and if you order a hamburger in some parts of the world you'll get just a Salisbury steak, and if you want to order a Salisbury steak without gravy in many restaurants you order a hamburger steak. Defining sandwiches as two sliced pieces of bread is incomplete: it omits Submarine sandwiches, Mexican tortas, paninis, and many deli sandwiches. Really, my earlier statement "two pieces" is incomplete as it omits many open-faced sandwiches and flatbread sandwiches. Food placed between two slices of bread, or halves of a bun or roll, or sides of flat bread -- food placed in bread that was cut or torn open to hold it -- is a sandwich. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: "Catchup"... sorry... auto correct malfunction. Re: Sandwich... that's what MacDonald's itself calls anything that comes in a bun. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, Blueboar. Catchup is a legitimate spelling variant. Deor (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlike this recent case. The original (unintended but should-have-been-noticed-before-it-was-too-late) error was compounded by a (since deleted) joke on Twitter, then an apology of sorts, which referred to a "regretful error", which ought to have said "regrettable error".  Ah, the joys of culinary (mis-)communication. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in British English, a hamburger is never a sandwich which requires sliced bread. Other bread concoctions are named after the type of bread involved: eg a cheese roll, a ham bap, a bacon stottie or a salad baguette. However, it's clear that a hamburger definitely IS a sandwich in American English. ""Two nations divided by a common language". Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My experience is the reverse: many fast food restaurants in the UK call burgers "sandwiches", e.g. they would contrast "meal" vs "sandwich only". Which is very strange to speakers of some other varieties of English, for whom hamburgers are not sandwiches! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Renaissance models
Have there been much study done on the identity or human models behind Renaissance sculptures? Were there any stigma of being portray in the nude that would have made most of lower class such as prostitutes or courtesans and whatever the equivalent in male subjects.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Female models were generally either itinerant traders, poor immigrants or prostitutes, and were regarded with suspicion and stereotyped as promiscuous. Male models were generally soldiers or sportsmen, as they were more likely to have the desired physique and also had the discipline to hold poses for the necessary long times. In Renaissance and post-Renaissance Europe, male nudity had very little stigma in art, as the Greek sculptures (which were considered the ideal) were generally nude. Male models came from the lower classes but their bodies were frequently compared to the classical heroes, in contrast to female models, whose low social status was seen to conflict with the high cultural status of the mythological figures they were required to emulate ( The Victorian Nude, Alison Smith (1996) p.25 ), if you want chapter-and-verse; that's talking about the early 19th century, but little changed between the Renaissance and the 1830s. Female nudes are actually very rare in Renaissance art outside of Venice (and non-existent in England and those countries following the English tradition until William Etty in the 1820s–30s), owing to assorted anti-pornography laws.


 * Incidentally, a lot of Renaissance "female nudes", including well-known ones like The Birth of Venus, are actually painted from male models with breasts added and genitalia removed. Raphael is generally considered the first significant European artist to use female models for nude studies. (There's some evidence the Rokeby Venus was painted from life, but nobody is quite sure.)


 * Outside of portraits, there are very few records of individual models, other than occasional jottings in artists' notebooks or letters about a particular favourite model. The practice of treating the model as important in his/her own right, rather than as interchangeable props, only really began with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (1848 onwards) in England, and gradually rippled out (which is why there are so many pictures, even by very well-documented artists, with labels like "Two Women" or "Standing Male Nude"). Even with modern paintings, it's not uncommon for there to be little or no documentation for who the model in a particular picture is.


 * Regarding sculpture, bear in mind that a lot of renaissance sculpture was a combination of elements from Greek or Roman originals, rather than being depicted from sketches drawn from life. Michelangelo's male bodies, for instance, were generally copied from the Belvedere Torso. &#8209; iridescent 18:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"Flat Earth" conspiracy theories
Since NASA released their video of the moon crossing earth I've been encountering a lot of people spouting crazy conspiracy theories relating to it. Not just "the moonlandings were faked", which I've seen before, but a surprising number of people claiming that not only that, but that the earth is actually flat, and the idea of a round world is the result of a conspiracy. Can anyone explain what these conspiracy theories are actually about? In particular, 1) how/why they think the earth is flat, and 2) who they think is trying to cover this up and why? I've checked our flat earth and Flat-earth society pages, and they don't give much information about the actual "justification" for their beliefs, and I have more important things to do with my life than watching the three hours of youtube videos they pointed me to that would supposedly convince anyone with an "open mind". Iapetus (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * RationalWiki has more information about this. Of course I can't know what your particular conspiracy theorists are on about, but for some flat earthers it's a case of extreme biblical literalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It depends on what other conspiracy theories the flat earther believes, but "no, (fact) is the conspiracy!" is a pretty common retort by conspiracy theorists. Basically, whoever they think is behind the New World Order, be it the Masons, Catholics, Satanists, Jews, white people, black people, lizard people... would be faking the evidence to hide the "truth" of the Bible ( I thought the truths of the Bible were things like "Love your neighbor," and the Beatitudes, but whatever ) and control our lives (either out of a belief that cosmological knowledge trumps faith, or to prevent global uprisings, or enable alien invasions, depending on who the NWO has and what motive they have). This article describes their views some. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I bet that for every one who really believes it there are a dozen who are just trolling us, but how would you measure? I mean, is there anything more sensible about pretending fealty to some corporate ball team in order to make conversation than espousing some nutty conspiracy theory? Wnt (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that New Horizons has passed Pluto, I have to admit that there is a perverse part of me that secretly wants it to suddenly crash into a crystal sphere. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Would the Oort Cloud suffice? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "why they think the earth is flat" Mental illness is a hell of a drug. --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

VE Day and VJ Day
A few years ago, VE Day and VJ Day were merged, but just once. Now they are separate again. Why? KägeTorä - (影虎) ( もしもし！ ) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe because they are different days? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I know Bugs, but why were they merged - just for one year - and then separated again? We all thought the merger was going to be permanent. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 07:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you asked the editors who did the merging? Was there talk page discussion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this on 10 July 2005?&mdash;eric 21:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

KägeTorä - (影虎) ( もしもし！ ) 07:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As EricR noted above, the British government merged the two into a National Commemoration day in 2005 for the 60th anniversary. Choosing that date as it was equidistant between VE and VJ days in the calendar. With the United Kingdom general election, 2005 also going ahead on the 5th May, it was seen by some that this would overshadow VE day on the 8th. See also, , , . The merging wasn't popular and services were still held on the anniversary days. Some events on the 10th July were disrupted because of the recent 7 July 2005 London bombings. Nanonic (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)