Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 November 28

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.

November 28

Manhattan highrise mixed zoning?

In Manhattan, are there any highrise buildings that are mixed-zoned as partially commercial and partially residential (for example, perhaps the bottom floors are commercial, and the upper ones residential), or are Manhattan highrise buildings necessarily entirely zoned as only one type from bottom floor to top floor? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 02:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I googled the subject "new york high rises with stores and apartments" and this is one item that turned up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

For greater clarity as to what the answer is: the word "stores" does not appear on that page, but 8 of the listings mention "retail" space, mostly just one or two floors, but in one case as much as 300,000 square feet. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Why did you think those skyscrapers might be single-use by necessity? The ground floor is most valuable for retailers as people couldn't walk right in to an upper floor and their window ads would need people to look up to be noticed and huge letters to be read. Store(s) in the bottom is almost the norm in Manhattan. Even the tallest and most landmark-y high-rises can do this. Like the Empire State Building, Chrysler Building and One Times Square (where the New Years ball falls at the focal point of Times Square). All have storefronts on the sidewalk. Obligatory reference that's not my memory: [1] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Why did you think those skyscrapers might be single-use by necessity?" Actually, all three of your examples show exactly why I was asking: the Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, and One Times Square are all purely non-residential. I don't know of any famous Manhattan skyscrapers that are mixed commercial/residential. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 17:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't read the thread carefully enough. My mistake. Michael J gave the great example of the Central Park Tower (it'll be the tallest apartment building on Earth) but you asked about the present didn't you? Well Trump Tower is fairly famous. The boardroom where Donald Trump was always choosing new apprentices on his show the Apprentice was in the tower, and though decades old it's his favorite of the apartment towers he built. Showing Trump's taste (by definition), the lobby has a 6 floor mall, the decor of a casino, and a 60 foot waterfall. [2]

If you fire up Google StreetView you should see lots of high-rise apartment balconies with commercial things at the base in the region sandwiched by the central business district and the ghetto. These are residential neighborhoods but they have so much acreage (over half of Manhattanites don't even have drivers licenses remember) that they need a rather full line of commerce and it has to go somewhere. They're so mixed-use that you can even get the best cancer treatment in the US under peoples' apartments. Residential buildings in the richest sub-neighborhoods might not have stores but people that pay ~$100 million (borrowed funds not allowed) for a condo demand nothing less. They demand 24-hour doormen and doormen in the elevators and red carpets on the sidewalk and stuff. If you want to see a higher percentage of mixed-use then choose further from the water and not those rich avenues, there should be plenty there (wall-to-wall mixed-use even). Park and Fifth Avenues are ultra-rich, as is Central Park South and (a bit less) Central Park West. I'm not sure if Madison in the UES is more like wall-to-wall mixed use or ivory towers but otherwise the other avenues should be fair game. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Central Park Tower has a seven-story department store on the bottom, a hotel in the middle, and residences above.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

WWII Germans wearing enemy uniforms

My Google skills aren't good enough to find references for this: I believe that during WWII a German unit donned American uniforms in order to sneak in behind enemy lines. There they intended to remove the American uniforms and fight in their own which they wore underneath. They were discovered and had to fight while still wearing American uniforms. They were tried and acquitted due to military necessity and that wearing enemy uniforms to avoid detection as a ruse of war is permitted (as long as you don't fight in them). I'm not talking about Operation Greif which is the closest I've found so far, and what I can find on Wikipedia about Otto Skorzeny's trial and acquittal doesn't really fit with what I remember. Sjö (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This tactic was the stock-in-trade of the Brandenburg Regiment, the German special forces unit, who regularly donned civilian clothes or enemy uniforms for missions. Further details here. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn't be thinking of the movie The Eagle Has Landed, would you? They were discovered and fought, though they wore Polish uniforms and weren't tried, much less acquitted. (There's also Cross of Iron, but that was on the Eastern Front.) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it must be Skorzeny. A law of war handbook mentions that in December 1944, some of his units did battle in US uniforms. However, I can't find anything about that in the sources in the Wikipedia articles. Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding by the author of the handbook. Sjö (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Sjö, you may find some answers in International Law on Use of Enemy Uniforms As a Stratagem and the Acquittal in the Skorzeny Case by Maximilian Koessler. Sorry, I haven't had time to read it myself. Alansplodge (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a good source. I skimmed it and it looks really well researched and sourced. From what I gathered it's unclear whether the Germans actually fought in US uniforms, and unfortunately the verdict didn't give any reasons for acquitting Skorzeny. Sjö (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of military infoboxes

I've noticed many infoboxes being populated with template:Infobox military person for non-military notables, especially actors. See for instance Telly Savalas and Karl Malden. The template description is vague about when to use it. Most are being macro-added by an IP, with some ruining the TOC formatting, as for James Earl Jones. --Light show (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't really a question for the Reference Desk, but I'm not really sure where the best place for it might be; probably the Help Desk is a better starting point. That being said, WP:AIV is the place to request a block, but the IP hasn't been warned yet, and it might be a good idea to do so before making it official. It's OK for you, or anyone else, to revert the template additions in the meantime - see WP:BRD - and the individual talk pages are the place to discuss whether or not the addition is appropriate. Tevildo (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

AIV is decidedly the wrong venue for dealing with this. This kind of behavior is absolutely, totally, and unambiguously NOT vandalism. Please do not contribute to clogging that overworked board with yet another bad report. Vandalism is not a synonym for "editing I do not agree with". This person may need to stop, but not because they are vandalizing. --Jayron32 01:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Peglike objects from the Old Kingdom

Old Kingdom

The cylinders in the hands of the Pharaohs. What is this? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

All three sculptures in your group have them, and many others that are not showing pharaohs, e.g.here or here. Are you certain this is not something having to do with sculptural technique? Is this restricted to the old kingdom? Contact Basemetal here 21:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The web is awash with new-age drivel calling these "the Wands of Horus" which have reputed mystical powers. However the truth seems to be that nobody knows. You can download an article from the Metropolitan Museum of Art website called "An Elusive Shape within the Fisted Hands of Egyptian Statues" by Henry G Fischer, Curator in Egyptology, which says that the traditional views were that they either represented ceremonial staves that could not easily be represented in stone or that they stood for the empty space within an open fist; however the suggestion advanced by the article is that is that they represent rolls of cloth, rather like a handkerchief. Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

New Kingdom

Well, it does look like they're holding the stylized corners of cloth they're wearing on their backs, particularly in the case of of the left hand of Menkaure in the middle. If you look at what's between the figures' torso and arms, it appears closer to the viewer than the background wall, suggesting something they're wearing (or maybe I'm completely off, and it's just for stability, no broken arms unlike poor Venus de Milo, apologies for not providing any references whatsoever). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The "cloth" theory explains a total lack of archaeological evidence for this type of thing. But it does not look like cloth in the picture to the right. And why should pharaohs for several thousand years be so attached to some pieces of linen? Anyway, the subject warrants a separate article in Wikipedia. I could not find the barest mention of the subject on this website. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the download linked above, it shows a sort of round-ended stick extending a short way out of the fist and pretty much the same at the front as the at the back. Fischer, the Egyptologist who wrote it, supports his theory with hieroglyphs - it's a bit too complicated for me to précis - you'll have to read it for yourself. Alansplodge (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do know a person who carries a smallish roll of toilet paper in their handbag for unexpected but urgent performances in a paperless cubical office. These generally have the size of an upright sarcophagus. Egyptologists may consider this hypothesis. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ghirlandajo: In the case of The Bowman and The Spearman, the weapons were left out on purpose. Maybe this was the case for the Egyptian statues as well. Dismas|^(talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

What American states allow abortions to be performed in hospitals?

Some states in the U.S. require abortions to be performed in specialized Abortion clinics, instead of hospitals (as is the case I think for most of the countries in the developed world where abortion is legal), which makes a mockery of medical confidentiality and privacy and subjects medical staff and patients to bullying and even physical violence. My question is: In what states is this not the case? Contact Basemetal here 20:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems likely that certain types of abortions, such as those needed to save the life of the mother, could be done in hospitals under a doctor's care. That's relatively rare, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This provides some general insight, though it doesn't specifically answer the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Could it be perhaps that the OP is not familiar with the fact that most hospitals in the US are privately run facilities, and that they might not want the issue of elective abortions to complicate their mission?

In countries with socialized medicine, of course the government may as a matter of economy and policy mandate that state owned hospitals perform elective abortions. Is the premise that states in the US should also require hospitalization for elective abortions? Given most such procedures are outpatient, is there some non-ideological reason that private entities should be forced to hospitalize a woman against need? My experience does not match the premise of there being any mockery of anyone's rights, any more than the case that HIV testing is often done at a known gay men's health clinic. Are there statistics that show abortions in America are more dangerous than those in other countries due to their being performed in facilities specifically designed to handle them? We've been given a bait and switch here, an equivocation on elective procedures (which are normally schedule for outpatient clinics when possible) and medically necessary abortions done in inpatient-specialized facilities. μηδείς (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't use this page for engaging in exchange of personal political opinions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please keep in mind that hospital's mission is health. Please keep in mind that by "health", a civilized, developped country is supposed to mean general health of the entire country/society, not only particular health of the only specific individuals who can afford medicine as a business instead of medicine as a general health system. Akseli9 (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC) A country that's truly "civilized" shouldn't even need to do abortions, except as a medical necessity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Indeed a civilized, developped country does everything to promote contraception in order to avoid abortion as much as possible. However, because Perfection doesn't exist, a civilized, developped country which promotes health for all and a high standard of health to be content and proud of, keeps ready to any imperfection that might occur and stands firmly and confidently ready to cope with any problems and imperfections when they occur. Akseli9 (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC) How does killing an embryo for no medical reason improve the overall health of the society? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC) The killing itself is a heartbreaking shock and a real trauma that will last the entire life of a woman's psychology. It is a sad and terrible choice that should be avoided as much as possible (by choosing rather contraception) but that should still be allowed as an exceptional last resource, for overall health of the society is about not growing unwanted children, and about women's freedom and responsibility in this matter of wanted/unwanted children. Akseli9 (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Who says? --Trovatore (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Just to clarify:

1. I didn't mean to imply that medically the quality of the procedure is lower in abortion clinics. The only issue I was concerned with is the fact that the existence of specialized abortion clinics turns them into targets. And my question was: Where in the U.S. is this not the case? It seems Medeis's answer is "nowhere" but I'm not sure.
2. The problems with medical confidentiality I was referring to is that if a patient walks into an abortion clinic everyone knows what they've come there for. If they had the procedure in a hospital (either on an inpatient or outpatient basis) only they and the medical staff would know.
3. There seems to be some confusion as to what universal health care (called "socialized medicine" in the U.S.) implies. It does not imply that all hospitals are public. In many countries with universal health care many if not most hospitals belong to universities' medical schools, charities, churches, municipalities, health insurance "cooperative" organizations, etc. or simply a private individual or group of individuals, or a corporate entity either for profit or non profit. Of course they have to be licensed and government issues guidelines, but I'm sure that's also true in the U.S. So the issue is probably not guidelines vs no guidelines, but what kind of guidelines.
4. Performing a procedure in a hospital does not necessarily imply hospitalization. Outpatient procedures can be and are also performed in hospitals, so I'm confused about that whole bit.
5. I'm not sure there is a necessary link between universal health care and the non existence of abortion clinics, since in Canada, a country with universal health care there are nevertheless abortion clinics. Someone more familiar with the Canadian situation could maybe explain that oddity.
6. Finally "socialized medicine" is a phrase used, as far as I can tell, mostly in the U.S. In most other places it is called universal health care. Most people outside the U.S. would think that calling universal health care "socialized medicine" makes as much sense as calling universal primary education "socialized primary education".

Contact Basemetal here 16:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

2) That assumes that an "abortion clinic" exclusively performs abortions, which is not usually the case. Women may also visit such a clinic for information, contraception or (pregnancy) tests.

5) I don't know about the Canadian situation, but I question whether it really is that unusual. There are abortion clinics separate from hospitals in the UK and here in the Netherlands too, regardless of universal health care. - Lindert (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Some explanation of 5), the Canadian oddity - a 1988 landmark:

R v Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

Henry Morgentaler had been providing abortions in his private clinics, and fighting court battles, for many years. The 1988 decision was much wider than had been expected; it meant that women no longer had to persuade doctors that they "deserved" an abortion. Here are some "key readings" brought together on the 25th anniversary website. The CBC also provides a timeline. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There's some discussion about the widespread use of such clinics here [3]. That source also discusses something else that's worth remembering namely that some states in the US controversially require abortion clinics to be ambulatory surgical centres, and that doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals, standards which are hard to meet and generally accepted to significantly limit the availability of abortions in those states. Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)