Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 15

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 15

The "Doom Book"

I'm not sure how I stumbled across it, but I was checking out our article at Doom Book and was thinking of expanding it, perhaps including the list of names it supposedly contained. After some admittedly quick Googling, I am starting to worry that the article is a hoax - every return I see looks uncomfortably like a mirror or near mirror of our article or else is about something else entirely. I don't doubt that our editors acted in good faith (that's not AGF or anything, you can preview Russo's book at Amazon and he does indeed mention it once in passing), but I'm starting to wonder how real this Doom Book actually was. Did it actually exist or is it a kind of metaphor for what was undoubtedly going on in Hollywood at the time? Was it like McCarthy's supposed "list" (i.e. just a scare tactic)? Can anyone find a reference independent of the Russo book? Perhaps even the list itself? Apart from my concern about the article, I'd like to learn more about the list. Matt Deres (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you search Google Books (not just Google Web) for "Doom Book" Will Hays you will get three pages of books that talk about it, many of which you can preview. Looie496 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's something at least (I was searching under "doom book" list and just doom book and got nothing) in that it gives me a few references that predate the Russo book, but there doesn't seem to be anything substantive at all, just variations of "a list of 117 (or 130) names...". The name Wallace Reid shows up a lot, but he died in 1923 and the list was supposedly put together in the 1930s (at least according to our article). Considering that these were supposedly bound books delivered to studio heads there's very little out there. Matt Deres (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I found basically no hard references about a "Doom Book," but if you search for "Will Hays" and "blacklist" you find considerably more. It would be nice if there were better references. The names on the Hays organization blacklist don't seem to be publicly posted anywhere. Searching through LA Times and NY Times archives about Hays and the early MPPA turns up a lot of somewhat conflicting information, and no discussions of explicit blacklisting. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wives of Vasili IV of Russia

Does anyone have any information on the wives of Vasili IV of Russia. This site list Maria Pss Repnina and Maria Ekaterina Bugnosova-Rostovskaia as his wives. But who were they and were they Tsaritsa consorts of Russia? What is the Pss in the first woman's name.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't access that site, but I suggest Pss is short for Princess. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now accessed it, and I'd still say it means Princess. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If this source[1] is reliable, then you're right. Additional abbreviations (which I've seen elsewhere when googling this question) are Css = Countess, Dss = Duchess, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but now, who are these women and were they tsarina or tsaritsa?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Brockhaus and Efron disagrees with fmg.ac. The 17 Jan 1608 date applies to the second marriage, to Maria Petrovna (Buynosova-Rostovskaya). B&E calls her a tsaritsa. The name of the first wife is sometimes given as Elena (the Russian wikipedia says she died 1592, before Vasili's reign).--Cam (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Measuring a civilization by the lowliest members

Beloved Refdeskians, please help where my Google skills are lacking! I've seen this quote about judging a society by how the lowest members are treated attributed to Dostoevsky, Churchill, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, the Statue of Liberty, and pretty much everyone who's ever been quoted, except for Oscar Wilde. Is there an actual, factual source? Foofish (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky at least wrote "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." (In The House of the Dead.) And the ubiquitous "Gandhi" quote you are talking about seems not to be reliably traceable to Gandhi, neither the "weakest members" nor the "animals" version. That's about as much as I can tell you.--Rallette (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This question was debated at some length on Wikiquote's Reference Desk a few years ago. Jeffq contributed three quotations, taken from The Columbia World of Quotations and Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, which show the thought evolving. Here they are:

• A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.
  • Samuel Johnson, 1770; quoted by the Rev. Dr. Maxwell in Life of Samuel Johnson by James Boswell (1791)
• If a test of civilization be sought, none can be so sure as the condition of that half of society over which the other half has power.
  • Harriet Martineau, Women, Vol. 3, Society in America (1837)
• Yet somehow our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is in the way that it cares for its helpless members.
  • Pearl Buck, My Several Worlds (1954), p. 337

--Antiquary (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You, Antiquary, are made of awesome. Thank you so much! Foofish (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A similar sentiment:

The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. Hubert Humphrey, Remarks at the dedication of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, November 1, 1977, Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, vol. 123, p. 37287. Neutrality^talk 09:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarianism revisited

Take this example. 20 people are stranded in an isolated island with no transport possible with the outside world for many days (due to any reason). The people are feeling hungry and some have started to fell ill. Then one of them opines that one among us must have to die, then we will practice cannibalism, and this will save most of us. Otherwise we all will die in hunger. Utilitarianism will argue since the killing of one individual in this particularly situation saves the lives of 19 people, so this act is ethically justified. So we can see utilitarianism has disregard for individuality and human rights. Then why do such an inhumane approach to ethics called utilitarianism is accepted so widely? --999Zot (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because you're killing a person who is doomed to death soon enough anyway? 75.40.137.154 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The obvious solution to that moral dilemma is to just wait until somebody dies on their own, then eat them. This avoids the risk of the rescue party arriving right after they are killed. There's enough variation in people that someone is likely to die while others are still able to make arrangements for him (table arrangements, that is :-) ). StuRat (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to laugh about it... Mitch Ames (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A better what-if scenario might be that you don't have enough air to last until the rescue party is scheduled to arrive, so have to kill off people to save oxygen. StuRat (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the example above, a utilitarian might argue that a single person decapitated in his sleep (or otherwise killed in some manner not involving pain or suffering) is less inhumane than 20 people starving to death in agony. But this depends, utilitarianism comes in many forms, and they don't all agree even in extreme cases like this. The classical argument against utilitarianism is that it could justify gang rape as long as the happiness of the perpetrators sufficiently outweighed the suffering of the victim. The utilitarian rebuttal to this is something along the lines of "true, but only in a very naïve definition of utilitarianism", and this leads to all sorts of different clarifications of what utilitarianism "really" means. If you're interested in this—you've been asking quite a few questions here lately—I can recommend the book Practical Ethics by Peter Singer. It contains many provocative arguments on various ethical issues from a rule utilitarian perspective, and I think it's a good introduction to that line of thinking. You're bound to disagree with much of it, but that only makes it all the more intriguing. Gabbe (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the need to kill someone sooner (rather than waiting for them to die), the "not enough air" scenario above has different "ethics" - the lack of cannibalism. If we're all starving we may commit two crimes - cannibalism and (possibly) murder, to survive. Whereas in the "not enough air" scenario, we commit only the one crime of murder. Some people may consider cannibalism (of someone who was already dead, ie you did not kill) more taboo and thus more morally reprehensible than murder. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the case of the example actually happened in real life, see R v Dudley and Stephens.--85.55.200.141 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A related case was Alexander Pearce. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Bite the bullet. In trying to figure out what is morally right we have to weigh the relevant ethical principles against each other. Each principle all by itself is obvious and seemingly universal. They call them "prima facie absolute moral values," you know: "Peace," "Justice," "Respect for the choices of rational beings," "Do no harm," "Fidelity," "Love," "Sanctity of life," etcetera. However, they are only prima facie absolute. Life rarely hands us situations where only one moral value is relevant. We usually have to choose. So you ask "Then why do such an inhumane approach to ethics called utilitarianism is accepted so widely?" however it only looks that way in certain situations where we have to make that hard choice (Don't get me wrong, I'm no utilitarian. I don't consider "utility" to be one of those values, but some people do.).Greg Bard (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Typefaces with monospaced digits?

I am working on a print project that is full of numbers, and I need a typeface with monospaced digits.

Please do not tell me to just go with a font that is monospaced for all characters. It seems to me that those typefaces are not really designed for figures-only, as they give each digit too much width for my purpose.

What I mean is, I want "11" to be the same width as "10" or "12", so a column with numbers in sequence will not look funny. 75.40.137.154 (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried the usual, meaning most commonly used, fonts? I find that the majority of the fonts installed on this computer actually have monospaced digits, from Times to Garamond to Baskerville to Century. Though I suppose it may depend on what software you are using and all that.--Rallette (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Times doesn't. Try this test with the fonts:

   111111111111
   222222222222
   121212121212

Oh, and I forgot to say: I want a font with strokes that do not vary so much in width. This is for a calendar. I am trying to make something useful, not beautiful. 75.40.137.154 (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Then it could be just a question of settings. See for example this. In MS Word, which I used to test this, most fonts have monospaced digits by default (but then it is software for lawyers, basically). Whatever design software you are using, I suppose you should be able to specify monospaced digits, for any font that has that option.--Rallette (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I do a lot of graphics work, and I have several thousand fonts on my computer. For me, the most practical looking font for something like this would be Bell Gothic. I've also used Eurostile on calendars with much success. News Gothic, Gill Sans or Franklin Gothic are other options. — Michael J 08:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're on windows and don't mind the terminal look, fixedsys is a font that only has one official size, and all characters are the exact same width and height, and don't stray out of their box at all. i kan reed (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"the usual coffee maker business" -- Belle Epoque prostitution

I am reading E. Nesbit's The Incomplete Amorist. Two English men-about-town have settled in the artistic sub-culture Paris, with full access to its demi-monde. They are discussing an English young woman they know there, who has fallen into prostitution:

"She used to live with de Villermay," said Temple steadily; "he was the first--the usual coffee maker business, you know, though God knows how an English girl got into it. When he went home to be married--It was rather beastly. The father came up--offered her a present. She threw it at him. Then Schauermacher wanted her to live with him. No. She'd go to the devil her own way. And she's gone."

What the heck is "the usual coffee maker business"? Free espresso for whoever comes up with the most convincing explanation. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is a well-worn idea relating to a wife making coffee for her husband in the morning, taken out of the context of domesticity, placed instead in the context of the prostitution business, the idea becomes referred to as "the usual coffee maker business." Just a guess. Bus stop (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This website of Victorian sexual slang has the following the entry on the word "Coffe house": "A necessary house.[toilet] To make a coffee-house of a woman's ****; to go in and out and spend nothing.". Though I have no idea if it is related to the above use of the word. (Probably not) --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a conversation we are not meant to understand fully, but only to guess at. Other points are equally unclear, but suggestive: "The father came up--offered her a present. She threw it at him." Is this the father of "de Villermay"? Unlikely, though possible. Another father? And the next sentence: "Then Schauermacher wanted her to live with him. No. She'd go to the devil her own way. And she's gone." Who is "Schauermacher"? If we are only overhearing a conversation, we may not understand all the references overheard. Even "the usual coffee maker business" could be virtually meaningless. Bus stop (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Oh, I have no problem with the rest of the overheard conversation. "The father" is certainly that of de Villermay, come to Paris to tidy up his son's scrapes before the marriage to a nice girl back home. Schauermacher is just another young man about town -- notice the German name, emphasising the cosmopolitanism of their circle. It's the coffee maker that has me puzzled, and I see no reason why E. Nesbit wouldn't expect her audience to understand. The word "prostitute" never appears, for example, but the allusions are clear. -- I like the Mookychick reference to Victorian sexual slang, but "coffee house" is a place and "coffee maker" a machine. We are not quite there yet. Anyone got access to the OED? BrainyBabe (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Coffee maker business" here seems to refer to living together unmarried. Bus stop (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"When he went home to be married--It was rather beastly. The father came up--offered her a present. She threw it at him." So she had lived with this bachelor de Villermay, who had then left her to marry a respectable woman. (I think it was de Villermay's father - de V. himself would not come and see her again so his father did.) An arrangement where she was not quite a prostitute but not quite a kept woman: sex plus making him coffee in the morning. "It was rather beastly" suggests they had entertained somewhat divergent ideas about the nature and significance of their relationship (not that this necessarily means she had naïvely believed in a future together, or something). Does she reappear later in the novel?--Rallette (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she does reappear, falling further. After six months she is irredeemble. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reached the bit where she bounces back. But I won't spoil it for the rest of you. no coffee involved. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note—"coffee" is mentioned several times in The Incomplete Amorist. Bus stop (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What was her employment at the time that they met? Did she possibly work in a coffee house? The statement, "God knows how an English girl got into it", could be a reference to the likelihood that a French girl would be employed in a Parisian cafe—not an English girl. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawyers, Guns And Money by Warren Zevon, begins: "Well, I went home with the waitress, The way I always do ". Documentation for that can be found here. Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Rallette has the most convincing explanation. She lived with him, had sex with him, and made him coffee in the morning. She was the coffee maker. There were no mechanical coffee makers (that I'm aware of) when this book was written in 1906. She got up, ground (probably pre-roasted) coffee beans with a hand grinder, then boiled water and brewed the coffee. There is no reason to assume that she worked as a waitress or in a café. What is surprising is that an English woman at that time (when English women were brought up to be prudent and proper) would get into such a relationship with a Frenchman whose intentions were unclear. Marco polo (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The status of "kept woman" is often discussed in literature of the period. It was assumed that it would be a constant temptation for women without inherited wealth or education. In real life probably many women probably did life happily for years in such a manner. But in literature there must always be the warning that it is a slippery slope to actual prostitution. And when a woman has fallen so far, there is no way up again. Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman has digressions on this topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BrainyBabe that it is not clear what "the usual coffee maker business" refers to. If "coffee maker business" refers to "a kept woman" shouldn't we find other instances of this use or related usages? I kind of doubt that E. Nesbit is having her characters invent references, or assigning significance to turns of phrases—unless there was already some precedent in actual language usage. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There is at least one related usage, but American rather than British. Apparently there's a Coffee Grindin' Blues, dating from 1929, which includes the line 'I'm a coffee-grindin' mama, won't you let me grind you some?'. In his Barrelhouse Words: A Blues Dialect Dictionary Stephen Calt explains this as being 'From coffee-grinder, a conventional slang term for prostitute (DAS). The expression probably derives from coffee-house, an 18th- to 19th-century term for vagina (F&H, 1891; Partridge).' The abbreviations refer to Wentworth and Flexner's Dictionary of American Slang, Farmer and Henley's Slang and its Analogues, and Eric Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. I wish Calt were citing coffee-grinder from a dictionary of British slang though, since Nesbit's characters were apparently English. --Antiquary (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the explaination is similar to Rallette but not quite? Coffee maker might effectively be an euphemism for a woman who is living with (and having sex with) a man. Officially she is his 'coffee maker' and that's why she lives with him (I presume making it more than once a day). Whether she makes many coffees is not really relevant (perhaps for guests to keep up appearances). Since 'English girls' aren't supposed to be doing that sort of thing, you won't find it much in novels set in England. It's supposedly more common in France (and I guess other countries were coffee is popular and their girls aren't so 'nice'), whether or not that's true, so if it was common you'll primarily find it in novels by English authors set in such locations of that era. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Coffeemaker" as a euphemism for "common-law wife" is plausible. In the US, newspapers would refer to a woman as a "housekeeper" when she was murdered by the man she lived with in a tumbledown tarpaper shack with a dirt floor. Edison (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

question on Yugoslav republics

In the former Yugoslavia there is say a town. And, then there is a municipality with the same name, which includes the town and many surrounding settlements. So it could have anywhere between 10 and 200 settlements. Well, the problem is that many wikipedia pages treat municipalities and these towns as the same. I would like to start separating municipalities from towns. Would that be okay? I am not sure. Sometimes I think it would be good, at other times I think it wouldn't be. :/ (LAz17 (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)).

It would be best to try to get some consensus on this on a relevant page, for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia. My inclination would be to separate out the distinct topics, but there may have been a reason for combining articles on the two - for example, in the UK, parishes often contain a single village and, in these cases, there has been a move to have just one article describing both the parish and the village. Warofdreams talk 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)