Humanities desk
< December 28	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 30 >

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.

December 29

Declining an Honorary Degree

Clearly a question prompted by the above exchange... I think honorary degrees are ridiculous, and if I am ever so esteemed to be offered one, I plan to decline it. I feel that universities handing these out willy-nilly cheapens the value of their real degrees and that a "We Really Like This Dude" award purpose-made would be more appropriate. I suspect these views are the minority opinion, however. Question: has anyone notable ever turned down the awarding of an honorary degree? Question 2: are there prestigious educational institutions with principles similar to mine which do not award them and bestow something else instead? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary degree claims that Billy Graham has turned down many honorary degrees, but doesn't provide a reference. Many people have turned down honorary degrees, but usually because they have an objection to the institution that is honoring them, rather than to the degree in principle. Here are some links to those who have turned them down. [1] [2] [3]

Most people don't feel that handing out honorary degrees 'cheapens' the regular kind. Honorary degrees are almost always clearly differentiated from earned degrees, and don't make any pretense of being equivalent. Hardly anyone tries to pass off an honorary degree as the real thing (Maya Angelou is an exception - Stephen Colbert makes a joke of it). DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're objecting to an honorary, say, M.Sc. cheapening real M.Sc.s (rather than the fact of honorary degrees being called degrees at all), then there are several universities which have a set of degrees which are only honorary and a set of degrees which are only earned. Notable among the honorary-only set is DUniv, Doctor of the University. Furthermore, I believe that in the United States it is in general impossible to earn a higher doctorate: all higher doctorates are honorary, leading to a similar division. You should probably also direct your ire against the Oxbridge MA, which is never earned (as most people would understand earning an MA). Marnanel (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in Honorary degree some universities in the US at least ", like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology[19], Cornell University[20], Stanford University, the California Institute of Technology, and the University of Virginia[21]" don't aware honorary degrees. MIT does award honorary professorships and the Stanford Alumni Association awards a Degree of Uncommon Man/Woman. UCLA also has a moratorium and awards an UCLA medal. Whether this is because any of them feel it 'cheapens' a real degree I don't know. As has been mentioned above and also in more detail in the article, some universities are making changes to the name to make it clearer the degrees are honorary. As also mentioned in the article, this isn't exactly a clear cut issue. Some universities award degrees to recognise "achievements of intellectual rigor that are comparable to an earned degree" (e.g. Higher doctorate, some of which require a formal application process but others I believe are awarded without any application when a committee studies the persons work and decides it's worthy, often this is for alumnis and current staff) and for some it may be somewhat in between Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II has not accepted any honorary degrees since her ascension to the throne, since this would place her under the jurisdiction of the university, which is not appropriate for a monarch. Gwinva (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

serial killer

where can i find the text of serial killer Wesley Dodds diary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiller35789 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently parts of his journal were released in a book called: When the monster comes out of the closet: Westley Allan Dodd in his own words. This link contains a summary of his life as well as further sources. I was not able to find anything else. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what did a typical Tongmenghui / Chinese republican revolutionary look like?

I'm using February 12 as an excuse to dress up as a revolutionary of the Xinhai Revolution. I don't plan on being too hardcore, like I could totally use an appropriately-coloured coat, stitch together some cheap cloth, use cardboard rolls to vaguely look like what firearms they carried then (but not too authentic, cuz I don't want to be arrested for brandishing a fake firearm and such). Any suggestions? John Riemann Soong (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you have is that the Tongmenghui did not have a uniform. I searched for a good example and found this. They were tradesmen. They wore the clothing of their trade. Instead of looking like a revolutionary, you will just look like a poor Chinese worker. -- kainaw ™ 16:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Dr. Sun holding up three fingers in the painting? Is that some sort of revolutionary salute? TomorrowTime (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it refers to Three Principles of the People. But I expect the revolutionaries came from many sources -- what did the rebels of the Wuchang Uprising look like? John Riemann Soong (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three finger salute drew my attention because if the hand were turned towards us, it would be identical to a Serbian nationalist salute. Not sure what the three Serbian fingers are supposed to mean, though. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph from Algiers 1899

The File:Algiers cafe 1899.jpg is showing a group of people sitting in front of or walking into an open entrance. The description at the Library of Congress database doesn't give more details about the scene. Let us believe that the photograph has been taken at Algiers in 1899. Although the title says that it is a cafe, you don't see anyone actually drinking, and no tables with or for cups. I wonder if this really is a cafe, perhaps where you drink inside, and perhaps have to wait outside because of the high attendance. Or: is it a mosque, where people sit and talk before or after a prayer? --Schwalker (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Café" is a term which has been used in western writings for traditional establishments in some Arab countries where males only congregated to smoke water pipes, drink heavy sweetened coffee, and discuss things at length. Not sure what the Arabic word for it is, but there's no particular reason why there should be a strong resemblance to the cafés of Paris... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fellow fifth from the left definite has a small glass in his hand. I suspect the fellow third from the left does as well. I love the bird cages over the door! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hints. Indeed, on a second thought there is some evidence that the depicted location is a secular inn of some kind and not a mosque: First, the building on the photograph looks like a larger, then modern western-colonial-style building, not like the mauretanian-style mosque depicted for example on the painting File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir 149.jpg from 1883.

Then there are some details on the photograph: I now also believe that what I first thought where three gaslights are in fact bird-cages, perhaps to entertain the guests. And at least one of the guests is holding a glass (which by form an dimension resembles a coca-cola bottle, but these didn't exist yet in 1899 ;-) Above the entrance, there seem to be an inscript in large Romain capital letters, of which only the lower part of the left, first letter is visible on our picture. So the location probably has an European name. Also there is a small picture of a sitting man in oriental outfit right above the entrance, probalby a part of a larger picture with a second person or a water-pipe, which may advertise that you can purchase coffee or tobacco inside.

I'm also not entirely sure that all of the depicted people are male, since the two persons just entering the room could also well be a larger male and a smaller female, Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do animals have nationality / citizenship?

Such a doubt ... --190.50.124.148 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to your IP address, you're from Argentina, and I just plain don't know the law there. For the USA, though, the Supreme Court decision that you'd want to read would be Missouri v. Holland. Basically, migratory birds are protected from harm without regard to their national origin. The implication is that a wild animal is not the property of any nation. For domesticated animals, I would assume that most nations (including the USA) deem them chattel. --M @r ē ino 17:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the EU, pets need to get a pet passport if you travel abroad. It's not so much about nationality as it is a convenient piece of paper that has data on the various inoculations the pet has had, but they are defined by country of origin on the passports... TomorrowTime (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great ape personhood may be of interest. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purchasing music: profit breakdown

This question could be on /Entertainment, but I'm placing here because it's more about economics.

I often purchase my music in physical album form or online as single mp3s. What is the breakdown on profit of for vendor/artist/record company/other? Just a rough idea... I have a friend that asserts I'm insane for buying those because all the money goes to the record companies, and none to the artists. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably depends a lot on the individual record companies and their contracts with the performers. But in general, the rule of thumb has long been that record companies make most of the money from the physical sales of records, while performers make the money from touring. This is one of the reasons performers tour so much—it's the source of much of their profits. I am not sure how much that changed with electronic distribution—I recall reading some articles awhile back that implied that this was a contested battleground between performers and companies at the moment, a site for re-negotiation of contracts and etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link may be of interest to you. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 23:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]