Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 October 26

= October 26 =

Has a newspaper ever come chiseled on a stone tablet? (real use, not a stunt)
Even the Romans had reusable wax tablets so maybe not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean besides in The Flintstones? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I really don't see what the point of this question is. Carving in stone has never been a short-term medium, for what is meant to be quickly read soon after writing, in any human culture.  In many societies, pot-sherds or "ostraca" were used for such.  In any case, newspapers in the modern sense didn't really exist until the 17th century... AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Acta Diurna was a Roman newspaper of sorts. You seem to know more anthropology than me so perhaps human impracticality is not infinite and this was only done in fiction like the Flintstones. (reference many might not get: the newspaper of the 5th most populous Catholic diocese in America is The Tablet. It's made of paper.) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If it was only available in one copy, and everybody had to go to one place to consult it, then it's not much like a "newspaper in the modern sense", is it now? AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * How many copies of USAToday.com are there? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The law would say a copy is made every time someone accesses it on a web browser. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Citation needed for that assertion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There was a 1995 proposal (notorious in certain circles) to completely reorganize copyright law on that basis (see https://www.wired.com/1996/01/white-paper/ ), but it didn't really happen. Our Bruce Lehman article seems to be somewhat inadequate and platitudinous... AnonMoos (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

cameras behind images
I understand Getty Images sponsors lots of organizations. One includes the U.S. Olympic Committee. But what brands of cameras do the photographers use? Anyone know?2604:2000:7113:9D00:4117:ACE4:EB23:1A45 (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In the vast majority of cases, the photographers are not employees of Getty Images, and certainly don't use cameras issued to them by Getty Images, so I assume that they use whatever they want and can afford... AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And in sports photography, it's all about the lenses, which cost thousands of dollars. The cameras themselves are derisively referred to as "lens caps" by those in the profession, as they're so much cheaper and easily replaceable. --Xuxl (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. You might like to check the current price of a top range body.  A Canon EOS 1D currently lists at around £4000.  Slightly more than the average lens cap. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Not only do the photographers not work for Getty Images. They may not know that Getty Images is claiming ownership of their work. Example: Carol Highsmith was billed by Getty Images for use of her own photography, which she never licensed to Getty Images in any way. Getty Images apparently pulls images from the Internet, claims ownership, and demands licensing until someone proves that they don't own the image. Getty's defense (which held up in court) is that they can legally demand licensing for public domain photographs. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Carol M. Highsmith, the issue with Getty was settled. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was settled because the judge sided with Getty's claim that they can take public domain photographs and charge people to license them. To be more precise... Because the photographs are in the public domain, nobody owns them. So, if Getty charges licensing, there is no owner who is authorized to tell Getty to stop doing that. Highsmith tried to sue Getty, but the case was tossed out because Highsmith puts her photographs in the public domain. Therefore, she doesn't have the right to tell Getty what they can and cannot do with the images. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

When did tan women become more fashionable than non-tan women?
Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Everything you ever wanted to know on this subject is here: [ http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/tanning/tale-of-tanning ]


 * Key quotes:


 * "Historically, pale skin has indicated high status. A tan signified that you had to work outdoors as a manual laborer, while pale skin announced that you could afford to stay out of the sun and spend time and money cultivating your appearance."


 * "Just as in the past pale skin had been a mark of privilege, from the 1960s on, a tan announced that you had the leisure to bronze your skin and the money to travel to places where one could be acquired."


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe a bit earlier than that, Sun worship - attitudes to the sun in the 20s and 30s says sunbathing started in the late 1920s in the French Riviera. There was also a popular movement, perhaps inspired by the German Freikörperkultur, which associated sunbathing with good health. In June 1930, members of the Sun-Ray Club caused a minor riot at the Welsh Harp Reservoir in suburban London when they were spotted sunbathing "in various states of semi-nudity" by angry local residents who thought their children might be corrupted. See SUN-BATHING WAR Riotous Scenes on the Banks of the Welsh Harp. Coppertone (sunscreen) was devised in the USA in 1944, suggesting that sunbathing was already widespread there too. Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That's very interesting! A quick scan through the google newspaper archive produced results that back this up, with the first stories popping up 1929-30.
 * Pennsylvania USA, the Reading Eagle, 9 July 1929: "Sun-Tan is, of course, all the rage just now"
 * Pennsylvania USA, Gazette and Bulletin, 20 August 1930: "Get the most there is to get out of summertime...rest...play...swim...sun-tan..."
 * Melbourne, Australia, The Age, 31 October 1930: "Sun-tan is the rage. In smart New York as in London and Paris, pallid make-up is giving way to richer, sunnier tones"
 * Within a decade, there was this story about tanning strategies: Michigan, USA, the Ludingon Daily News, 24 June 1938: "A 'Good Tan', like everything else in nature, seems to come to some people without effort, to others by careful strategy..."
 * And by the mid-'50s, this story about a woman who developed a health condition after years of tanning: Texas, USA, The Victoria Advocate, 9 September 1956: "One mature woman, just entering her fifties...had been working too hard at getting a suntan, year after year". 70.67.222.124 (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Wikipedia has one or ore articles which could be improved with info fro these references. Edison (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no one in this thread has mentioned Sun tanning yet. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which at least partially mentions that one answer to this question is "they never really did", or at least not in recent memory. (Partially because it only mentions China.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This gender difference goes way back. Pale skin - or the depiction of pale skin - has implications beyond the obvious. Bronze Age Crete (the so-called Minoan civilization) colour-coded their illustrations, men reddish-brown, women pale. See Tan Men/Pale Women: Color and Gender in Archaic Greece and Egypt, a Comparative Approach (2013) by Mary Ann Eaverly. "One of the most obvious stylistic features of Athenian black-figure vase painting is the use of color to differentiate women from men. By comparing ancient art in Egypt and Greece, Tan Men/Pale Women uncovers the complex history behind the use of color to distinguish between genders, without focusing on race." Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Whore of Babylon
When does this skin peeled physical and spiritual prostitute perishes with the rest (those who behave like her, starting with the irritators and the influencers)? The article does not have the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.82 (talk • contribs)
 * The Book of Revelation itself does not contain any dates or context clues do indicate time periods in any meaningful way. It's a dense, confusing text whose meaning and purpose has confounded theologians for centuries, and there are many many different ways to interpret its arcane text.  The Wikipedia article titled Book of Revelation captures some of the various interpretations of the text, though you will unlikely find any definitive answer to your question which has anything resembling widespread agreement.  It's not merely unknown, its unknowable, given the lack of agreement or understanding about what Revelation means.   Even those in Christianity, even those who share the same nominal Christian sect, cannot come to any meaningful agreement on it.  -- Jayron 32 13:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing's unknowable, depending on whether angels can divulge great mysteries. But that, too, is merely unknown. The text certainly suggests it's possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * One curious thing is that although it's called "Revelation", many people call it "Revelations". So, the question is, how many actual revelations are there in Revelation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends where you draw the lines. If you're looking crazy close (as some do), every word is a twist in the exposition of a new sentence. Events of Revelation cuts the main points into 24. I only count the opening of the seals as "news to me", so I say seven. The Book's article's Outline goes with twelve (and then some). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your question, Bugs, is answered definitively and without ambiguity at Book of Revelation The title is a direct translation from the Greek first word of the work, ἀποκάλυψις, which is singular. The first verse, here in the King James Version, is translated into English as "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John."  -- Jayron 32 13:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So it's being used as a collective noun, kind of like "information"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In all the Bibles I've seen the book is entitled "The Revelation of St John the Divine". 92.8.218.38 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's being used as a true singlar, like "event" or "occurance". In this case, there is only one thing refered to by the Revelation, all else is describing the events surrounding the Revelation of a single thing.  If you read the text I quoted above, the thing being revealed is actually named, and if follows the word "of" and comes before a comma.  I think you can find it.  -- Jayron 32 14:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that "occurance" isn't even a true word, let alone a true singular. It's "occurrence".  See Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 November 30. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that "pedantry" is a word, and it is never a useful one. -- Jayron 32 15:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that pedantry is irrelevant here. Helpful assistance is not pedantry.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Helpful assistance becomes pedantry when it is presented in a haughty tone. -- Jayron 32 19:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly sorry ... that you feel that way. But I forgive you.  Go and sin no more.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Matthew 24 doesn't give hard dates on the general trumpet event (and may be talking about another one), but "verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled." Note that one of those things is "great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." If a thing even the likes of which cannot exist must precede the whore's arrival, the whore will not arrive.
 * Unless Jesus is lying, misinformed, misquoted, speaking in riddles, overlooking the possibility of chronological order failing entirely by then, assuming the listener has already accounted for that possibility, using false prophecy to fulfill/illustrate his prophecy about deception or talking about the other thing, we should be fine, forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not clear that Matthew and Revelation necessarily refer to the same things, Matthew itself directly references the Book of Daniel, see Matthew 24:15. He, of course, could not be referencing Revelation, which would have been written long after Matthew, at least several decades.  We could presume that Daniel and Revelation, both being works of apocalyptic writing, and presuming that there is a coherent chronology (known to God) and a choherent plan (known to God) and that there is but one end of days, then possibly, maybe, we could put that together.  The question, of course, is within what belief system we are answering the question, and also what interpretation of Revelation we are working under.  Many, but not all (and probably not even most, but certainly a significant number) of Christian theologians and Christian sects hold the notion that Revelation is forward looking to the end of days, but there is another significant viewpoint that Revelation (and Daniel too for that matter) is describing events that for the writer were in the present or even the near past.  The events could be allegorical, symbolic, metaphorical, or poetic.  If anything like a sizable majority of scholars agreed on this matter, we could lean more heavily on one or another interpretation.  What we have, however, is a total lack of agreement.  It's just not settled.  Certainly, there is a right answer; the author had some intent or some purpose.  The issue is that, with the tools of modern scholarship, is it possible to get into that author's mind and find their intent or purpose?  -- Jayron 32 14:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)