Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 16

Marca Hispanica

I'm trying to improve the succession boxes of the Kings of Aragon by including all their recognized titles. So far I have included all their titles as King of Aragon, Valencia, Majorca, Sardinian and Corsica, Sicily and Naples and Count of Barcelona, but I can't seem to see find when they stop (if they did at all) using their titles as Count of Roussillon, Count of Cerdanya, Count of Girona, Count of Osona, Count of Besalú and Count of Empúries. I assume that Girona, Osona, Besalu, and Empúries were no longer used after the title Duchy of Girona was created from these four counties for the son of the King of Aragon, but Count of Empúries was later given to others princes and nobles as a title. It is the titles Count of Roussillon and Count of Cerdanya. If you look at the list of these counts on other language wikipedias, fr:Comté de Roussillon and es:Condado de Cerdaña, you see that the Kings of Aragon continued being Counts of Roussillon and Cerdanya after it became a part of the Kingdom of Aragon. But what happen in John II of Aragon's reign that caused him to stop being Count of Roussillon in 1461 and Count of Cerdanya on some unspecified date. I'm not sure about Cerdanya but Roussillon passed to Louis XI of France and then Charles VIII of France before returning to Aragon in Ferdinand II of Aragon's reign. I tried looking up the Treaty of Bayonne mentioned on es:Condado de Cerdaña but only found a later Treaty of the Pyrenees which has nothing to do with this 15th century treaty. Expert help would be appreciated. Thanks.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

May be these links could help: (French) Treaty of Bayonne (1462) and (English) Catalonian Civil War — AldoSyrt (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay but what made Charles VIII of France give the two counties back? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See Treaty of Barcelona (19 January 1493). More details in Spanish: Tratado de Barcelona — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Although i realize i am probably just making things worse - it is worth noting that the Kings of Naples were not always of the same branch of the House of Aragon that ruled Spain. For example, King Ferdinand I of Aragon of Naples is NOT the same person as King Ferdinand I of Aragon of Spain, known as Ferdinand the Catholic. This branch of the house of Aragon (which i believe is related through a paternal grandfather) plays an important role in the Italian War of 1494-1498. I've had a lot of difficulty pulling these two family trees apart and have yet to fix the wiki articles on the different historical characters. Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 03:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

charge nurses

The position of supervisor is sometimes very necessary. Even very easy going and mild mannered people find this to be true when raising a pet or offspring. Sometimes the authority over life and death decisions can sometimes go to people's heads and in the case of charge nurses stray outside of the facility in which they work and into the community, which can have the undesirable consequence of thinning out their work or adding too much water to the soup. Is it better for charge nurses who can not resist exercising their authority outside there work domain to exchange their current work domain for a work domain which represents the area in which they have otherwise chosen to exercise authority so that they do not end up spreading themselves too thin? 71.100.13.202 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is entirely a matter of opinion and therefore not appropriate for the reference desk. I don't see why this issue is in any way particular to charge nurses, though - it can happen with anyone in a position of authority. --Tango (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have the sneaking suspicion that this is an essay question on some sort of nursing or hospital admin. And this is the first time I've heard "work domain" which sounds rather corporate jargon-y to me. Dismas|^(talk) 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the precise way the instructor's question was worded, he should be arrested and charged with impersonating an English teacher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a special wing of the Penitentiary for "English major impersonation". A raid on the coffee shops is pending. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My head is spinning. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it this way... Suppose Nurse Ratchet lived on your block and tried to shut down your lawn party and when the police arrived had half your friends carted off to jail for being intoxicated or smoking pot instead of paying attention to what was going on back at the facility where she was employed? The question is whether Nurse Ratchet should be banned from supervision of community activity that does not include patients back in her work domain? 71.100.13.202 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the same question, so all the same answers apply. --Tango (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying the heck with patient care and nursing staff being spread too thin? That's just your opinion. I'm looking for references and not what you think. 71.100.13.202 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Where on Earth did you get that from? --Tango (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I know that's a bit harsh and I apologize. 71.100.0.224 (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not harsh, it's complete nonsense. I never said anything remotely like that. --Tango (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case I withdraw my apology and ask if you went to Princeton? That's where lame excuse was officially renamed plausible deniability. 71.100.0.224 (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made any excuses for anything. What on Earth are you talking about? --Tango (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) If this hypothetical 'Nurse Ratchet' was supposed to be at work when she complained about the party, etc, then she would have been absenting herself from duty, and her employer might well wish to take appropriate action, but it would be nobody else's business but theirs. Anyone in employment has a duty to their employer to attend and to perform adequately in their appointed working hours, which implicitly includes being sufficiently rested, fed, etc, to be able to do so, but provided that they do, and are, it's not in any way an employer's business what that employee does (legally) in their own time, unless it involves something directly contrary to that employer's interests.

If 'Nurse Ratchet' was not on duty, then she would have been exercising her entitlement as a private citizen to complain to the proper authorities about perceived and/or alleged unsociable and/or illegal activities; the former might be considered a social duty and the latter arguably a legal one, even ignoring any possible quasi-official standing she might have as a Neighborhood watch volunteer or similar. Those authorities would have acted on any actual offenses they discovered on investigation - police do not generally arrest people purely on a private citizen's say-so, regardless of whether that citizen happens to have a supervisory position in their job.

People often achieve supervisory roles in their professional lives because they have appropriately authoritative characters: it would be natural for such people to also take the lead in community affairs and disputes, such as dealing with disruptive and unsociable behaviour by, for example, thoughtless youths.

I am at a loss to understand who might be thought to have the authority to ban someone from engaging in legal and community-supportive activities in their own time. Perhaps "your friends" in this supposed situation need to learn how to behave with due respect for the rights of their neighbors and the laws of their community. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be at a loss so I'll explain it better. First the people the police carted off to jail were neither drunk, smoking pot or rowdy. This was not sorted out until after they got to jail and were tested. The police acted on Nurse Ratchet's authority alone. Although she was on her own time such extracurricular involvement in the neighborhood did not stop there. People were afraid to walk past her property because her dogs had escaped many times and when paired were a threat to anyone, especially children, they happened upon. Her entire life presence in the neighborhood was devoted to ruling it as if it where her charge when instead her charge stopped at the door of the floor she was assigned at her work domain.

Bottom line is that because she had spread herself too thin she was not able to fulfill all of her duties at work and blamed this instead on her employer not hiring sufficient help. It was not until she was replaced by a nurse who devoted herself only to her job and family that the work domain became a normal and not a neglected place without need for additional employees to make up for the work she left undone. 71.100.0.224 (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The police did not act on her authority. How could they, when she has no relevant authority? --Tango (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

NO. They took her word over everyone else's at the scene on the grounds that she was a nurse. 71.100.0.224 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I find that very unlikely. The police don't arrest people just because a nurse tells them too. It doesn't work like that. --Tango (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in England where constables have to politely show their authority and ask the offending party if they can arrest them. In small town America it is different. Especially if nurse Ratchet is holding the school marm's son who was caught masturbating while looking a pictures of the police chief's wife. I digress. 71.100.0.224 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

So, since you seem already to have a complete grasp of the situation, what was your question again? And what was the point of soliciting answers from people with no possible knowledge of the 'case' while withholding much of the relevant information? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Is it better for charge nurses who can not resist exercising their authority outside there work domain to exchange their current work domain for a work domain which represents the area in which they have otherwise chosen to exercise authority so that they do not end up spreading themselves too thin?" In other words should Nurse Ratchet run for elected office, become a police officer, start her own neighborhood free clinic, etc. instead of obtaining employment at an institution that requires all of her attention? 71.100.0.224 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nurses, as with anyone else, are allowed to do whatever they like (within the law) in their spare time. Being a nurse is not a 24 hours job. --Tango (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No but when you can not handle your job because you have spread yourself too thin on extracurricular activities then you have no right to start complaining that its your employers fault for not hiring more people to do the job you were supposed to do and that others without spreading themselves too then have no problem doing. 71.100.0.224 (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I detect a WP:SOAPBOX here and recommend that this discussion be removed. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I knew if we stuck it out long enough the Nurse Ratchet would get word and show up. Also I think you will find that nurses being spread too thin is an ongoing current event searching for a serious solution rather than being swept under the table as you propose. 71.100.0.224 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Geography/GK question

I am looking for a city

1. Which is the capital and the largest of a nation 2. About 75% national population reside in the city 3. the city is commercial center of the nation 4. it's been occupied over the centuries by a handful of factions.

I would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.249.183 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Americas? My first thought was Dacca in Bangladesh.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How about Singapore ? Perhaps 75% of the population is in either the Downtown Core or Central Area ? StuRat (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If we give you the answer, will you share the prize with us? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.249.183 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is almost certainly Luxembourg Googlemeister (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Or it could be Kuwait City for that matter. Its most recent occupation was quite a big deal. It's the problem with these quizzes: they're poorly worded and often there is a lot more than one correct answer. --Xuxl (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously just about any city with 75% of the population is going to be the commercial center, and has a pretty good chance of being the capital as well. Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not in Palau, though. Their major city is Koror, but their capital, Melekeok, has 300 people. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Like many others before him/her, the OP is trying to win this online quiz which offers a cash prize. To cut out the middle man, why not test your answers on the Worldatlas site before posting them here? Wikipedia can always use a handy $100. Karenjc 07:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the answer they wanted was Nassau - what may have thrown editors here is that the population is around 80% that of the nation, so only "about 75%" in the loosest sense. Warofdreams talk 11:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"it's been occupied over the centuries by a handful of factions." It was occupied by the Spanish for 11 months and the Americans for two weeks. Unless you count being ruled by pirates as a faction that doesn't seem much of a "handful of factions." Rmhermen (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the Arawaks used to live there? Googlemeister (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

_{Maybe we should create a template to add to these questions: "This question seems to come from worldatlas.com. Their quiz questions are almost always to ambiguous for us to be able to answer, sometimes even right out incorrect. Please don't learn geography from worldatlas.com, they're doing it wrong" /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)}

• Look at Category:City-states]. They pretty much all meet all of your criteria. Basically, your question is too vague to have a single answer. --M@rēino 23:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Help me figure out what this song was....

This request is probably impossible, but it's worth a shot.... Wikipedians are pretty impressive sometimes. :) I went to a taping of the Colbert Report yesterday and during short break between segments they were playing a bouncy hip-hop song in a foreign language in the studio. It sounded kind of like French, but I couldn't identify any of the words and didn't sound like typical French hip hop. So probably not French - maybe a French-based creole? Or maybe it could have been Portuguese or an African language and I was totally wrong? Really happy sounding and danceable. I imagine it must be a song with at least some popularity among Western listeners or it wouldn't have made it onto their playlist. Any thoughts about what it could be? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

When will the episode you watched air? Did it air last night? If so, which night is last night? June 15th? Often, bits of the break songs are heard as it goes to commercial and returns. -- kainaw™ 19:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It would have been last night - not sure if this would be audible on the online version or not... I can check.... I'm not sure if it was ever the song right as the camera came on or went off... Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC) And last night was the 15th. I can check the online version later, when I'm not at work! Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also I should note that I would have shazaamed the song, except cell phones were banned and I was sitting right next to a security guy. :( Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cesária Évora? Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a male rapper, so no.... It also sounded like something that was probably released semi-recently. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't We Don't Speak Americano? [1] It's been pretty popular recently, even though it's not really hip-hop, it might have worked. Steewi (talk)

No, but that's an entertaining song. :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Challenging predjudice

I realize this will be a very controversial question that some may seek to delete because it challenges their dearly held views and biases or their sense of political correctness. On the scale of deviations from the norm of human sexual activity, how do homosexuality and pedophilia compare? ie is one more outlandish than the other? If so, why do we think that? --MasterOfTools (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In most of the open-minded west today homosexuality is not a big deal and while some people may disagree or be disconfited very few would speak out against it or protest it. Pedophilia in the other hand is a big deal, and illegal, and is far more "outlandish" as you say 68.76.146.159 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In the west, that is correct. There are, however, countries were homosexuality is punishable by death and marriage (with consummation) of girls aged 12 is legal. In other words, moral norms vary from society to society, so this question is unanswerable. --Tango (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unanswerable in general, but as you point out, quite answerable if confined to specific societal moral frameworks. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As for why we consider one more "outlandish" than the other, one involves consenting adults (generally speaking), while the other involves an adult and a minor, the latter of which our societies today generally consider to be unable to give sexual consent, and thus exploited. This is not a transhistorical attitude—as Ancient Greece makes clear—but one that is held pretty strongly today in Western countries. In that sense they are apples and oranges; one is, at worst, an immoral personal choice (if one believes that), the other is a predatory offense on an innocent.

As for trying to place these on a scale of "normal" activity, under a strict sense of the term, it is not possible, because we do not have numbers on the prevalence of pedophiles (see Pedophile#Prevalence_and_child_molestation). Approximately 10% or so of the population identifies as homosexual, maybe as high as 20% (or even 40%!) if you have a "spectrum" model of sexuality (see the article on Homosexuality#Demographics). That would put it pretty squarely in a quantitative definition of "normal," I would expect—that's roughly the same number of African-Americans in the United States, for example. It's considerably more than the number of Jews in the United States. (Or, put another way, picking Americans at random, the odds of them being a homosexual is pretty high—probably higher than them being African-American or Jewish, but probably not as high as them being Catholics.) Whether this kind of definition of "normal" is a good one is highly subjective, of course, but in terms of numbers, it is pretty common.

Both of these categories (homosexual and pedophile) are somewhat "fuzzy"—who falls into them and out of them depends on social definitions, not strict biology (like many categories), so there is always going to be difficulty in the numbers. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if pedophilia is defined as anyone over 18 who is attracted to anyone under 18, that would include just about everyone at some point in their life. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As hesitant as I am to point this out, you may be interested to know that nambla used to be a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association. The argument against gays is, normal sex involves the opposite gender, therefore gay isn't normal. One way to put the argument against pedophilia is; normal sex involves adults, therefore pedophilia isn't normal. Gay rights activists often point to the normalisation of gay relationships in various cultures historically and that the massive anti-gay movement is a fairly modern phenomenon. Similarly, there are quite a few cultures in which pederasty was accepted and even considerd a positive part of development. The point is, there are many ways to construct the LGB rights argument as applying equally to pedophillia. Of course in modern society consent is a very big part of our understanding of acceptable sexuality and I think this is why pedophilia is currently considered completely abnormal. Modern western ideas of acceptable sexual behaviour have consent as the starting point. Of course this hasn't always been the case. It is only in the last 100 years that marital rape has become part of this area of thought. We also think that children cannot really consent to a relationship in which the power is so different is the modern answer (and I think it is a very good answer, none of this should be taken to mean that i think pedophilia is ok or at all like being queer). Just my 2c of somewhat referenced spew203.217.37.99 (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As for Biblical times, I'm aware of Biblical prohibitions on homosexuality, such as "thous shall not lay with a man as thy would lay with a woman", but I'm not aware of any prohibitions on pedophilia. Are there any ? (Note that I don't use the Bible as a moral guide anyway, as it seems to condone animal sacrifice, slavery, genocide, marital beating and rape, etc., all of which I find repulsive.) StuRat (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)