Humanities desk
< January 17	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 19 >

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.

January 18

Is fiction a means of mental ventilation?

Resolved

– –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Harris writes creepily detailed books about murdering other people. Obviously there are other authors, but after reading his article, I almost wonder if he is an example of a murderer who never was? I know for a fact that if I wrote a book like he does, my parents would be extremely concerned about me lol. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are N number of authors in the world, there are at least N+1 possible motivations for their writing. In simpler terms, it's quite impossible to make a blanket statement that "writing fiction serves X purpose for the author" which is universal, or even widespread. Certainly, for some authors, writing fiction serves as catharsis (mental ventalation's actual scientific term), or a means to act out fantasies. But it could just as easily be any of a number of other reasons, including as simple as being a job; some people are good at it and it makes them money. It's tempting to psychoanalyze authors by what they write, but it's also futile. Take someone like Stephen King, whose writing often cause people to question what kind of person he is really like. Basically, he's a suburban middle-class dad who coaches little league and belongs to the local PTA and is a big Red Sox fan. There's nothing all that unusual about his life or personality. He'll sometimes play up some aspect of weirdness for marketing purposes, but on the balance, mostly he's an average American Joe. Not to say there is, or isn't, anything psychologically abnormal with Harris, just that you shouldn't try to judge whether there is solely on his writing. --Jayron32 04:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, any person is capable of most any act - be it evil, good, or neutral - given the proper self-justification and context. Most people try to do the right thing, and try to avoid bad acts, of course. Authors are not more prone to odd acts than others, they are just better at expressing that generic human internal turmoil. --Ludwigs2 04:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of something I read years ago, that J.D. Salinger griped about those who tried to equate him to the main character in The Catcher in the Rye. The quote was something like, "I am NOT Holden Caulfield. I created him from my imagination." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a short story about seppuku that goes into long, gruesome details on several pages by Yukio Mishima, a suicide that was. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Krystian Bala may be of interest. Ka renjc 09:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Bala was an interesting read! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article reminded me of If I Did It. Pais (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason people produce the art they do is complex. I for one quite enjoy making music that has a sinister somewhat death-loving edge, but by no means do i love things sinister or deathly--the reason is far more complex than that. For me, I get something positive out of emphasizing death, even if on a superficial level it may seem nihilistic. At at extremely simple level I might say it has something to do with Zen. The point being--artists, especially great artists, usually have extremely complex reasons for focusing on what they focus on. Don't take it too simplistically. Pfly (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting responses, thank you all! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are an infinite number of interpretations for any given set of facts (Pirsig's Law). So, "N+1" is not really even close to sufficient. Human beings are far to complex to speculate reliably about their motivations.Greg Bard (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thread reminds me of the quiz Programming Language Inventor or Serial Killer? (requires Flash). -- BenRG (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest democratic country with many parties

I'm not sure weather the Humanities desk is the best place for this question.

I'm wondering what is the largest (by inhabitants) democratic country with many parties. Specifically, there have to be so many parties that any party getting over 50% of the votes is extremely rare and coalition governments are the norm.

Belgium, the Netherlands, France , Germany, bigger then Germany?

Thanks in advance 213.49.109.166 (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India. They've had a multiparty system for pretty much their entire history, especially so after Jawaharlal Nehru died. More detail forthcoming, sometime later. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely India. World's second biggest population, after China (which nobody would claim is democratic). HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, I believe the legislature has been massively dominated by the Congress Party for most of the time, so coalition governments have not been the norm. Rojomoke (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Elections in India. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a List of parliamentary republics, from which it looks like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Germany are the four largest countries (by population), in that order. WikiDao ☯ 19:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP made no mention of republics, they asked about democracies. Democracies do not have to be republics, as our old friend the democracy/republic chart makes abundantly clear:

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Vatican City

In fact, out of the four countries the OP mentioned, two are monarchies – Belgium and the Netherlands. 87.112.177.117 (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the request was for the largest. Democratic monarchies tend to be on the smallish side. I think the biggest one is the UK, which if it were a US state, would be the biggest one by population, but not by a factor of two. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is the second-largest country in the world. Japan is a democratic monarchy, with a population slightly under half that of the US.

But all this is muddying the waters. The OP wants to know what is the largest country that tends to have coalition governments more often than not, and all this talk of republics is irrelevant. 87.112.177.117 (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP specifically said largest by population. Canada, spacious but unpopulous, certainly is not the world's second largest by that criterion. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the OP's criterion of multiple parties, none of which tends to have an outright majority, so that coalitions are "the norm", makes the question more specifically about the "Parliamentary system" form of Democracy, so I answered the question in terms of the largest Parliamentary republics. The US, for example, is a large democracy but has only two main political parties, so would not count as an answer to the question. WikiDao ☯ 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire bottom 2/3rds of this discussion is irrelevent, as the OP's question was clearly answered already, without any regards for monarchy or republicanism, since the obvious answer is India, which as the second most populous country in the entire world, and a democratic one, meets the OPs requirement splendidly, without need for even worrying about the definitions of monarchies and republics, and trying to figure out if one or the other was required. --Jayron32 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<points at 87.112.177.117> "S/He started it!" ;) WikiDao ☯ 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of westerners tend to overlook India as a big player in a lot of categories, perhaps because of its historical third world status. I've seen it argued that it may be the country with the largest number of English speakers (albeit not all as a first language and not all very well), and the largest middle class (that one is highly debatable no matter who you suggest because of the difficulty of definition). HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a minute. 87.112.* is right, the question has not been answered in full already. Everyone keeps saying India is the answer, but there has been little attention paid to the point of the OP's question, which was specifically about the incidence of coalition governments in populous countries. Only Rojomoke has addressed this in his/her post mentioning that coalitions are indeed not the norm in India, which if true would mean that India was not the right answer. Ghmyrtle linked to the article on elections in India, which might shed some light on the matter, but I am disinclined to trawl through the article looking for information on the prevalence of coalitions. --Viennese Waltz 08:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. My suspicion is that the OP is probably correct in thinking that Germany is the largest country in which coalitions routinely occur. The question of which democracy is the largest per se doesn't address this. 87.112.177.117 (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany certainly had coalition governments more often than not. I think the same is true of several other European countries (Italy comes to mind), though none I can think of is as large as Germany. Switzerland seems to have institutionalized a permanent coalition government. Israel is famous for coalition governments including some very "interesting" parties. But to move this along: Does India have coalition governments below the national level? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition governments are the norm in India, so the question has been answered. In recent years, it has been governed by the United Progressive Alliance and the National Democratic Alliance, both of which are coalitions. Warofdreams talk 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not static. National coalition governments were unheard of in India for decades, but now non-coalition governments are unthinkable. The political culture is everchanging. Now UK has a coalition gov't (for the first time), maybe thats a pattern that will follow for many year to come? Maybe we will see coalition gov't in the US in 10-20 years (if either of the two big parties suffer a major split)? To Schulz, most Indian state gov'ts are coalitions. It is definately the norm. --Soman (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Search of Giovanni Antonio da Brescia

Does anyone have any knowledge of any oil paintings in existence from the artist Giovanni Antonio da Brescia?

Did he create any artwork in this medium? Is there anyone with enough knowledge to confirm or deny?

I have an oil painting with a few identifiable printed letters. The letters that I can discern are Anton--- da--- Bres--- are in the right place to complete his full name. The name is followed by the numbers 99. There is no indication of Giovanni anywhere. It appears to be very old, quite damaged. It is a an equestrian piece with pretty good details of the horses structure, standing in a field with trees behind. It looks quite good to me. I can send pictures if there is any interest or questions.

Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukinpups (talk • contribs) 08:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I deleted the telephone number to save you possible unwanted attention. If we can answer your question, it will be done so here.) If you can post the photo to an off-wiki site, and link it to here, that would helpful. Please do not post the photo here. (It slows down the loading of the page and creates problems for a lot of users.). Someone here may be able to give you some ideas about the painting, especially if it is a (copy or print of a) known work. However, you will need to see experts for true authentication. Our article on Brescia is not very helpful. Bielle (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, I will find a site to link for pictures. With the age and condition of the canvas and the clear reference to the year 99, it was only natural for me to then question the century, 19th, 18th earlier????? The quality of the painting as to certain anatomical details and attention to detail, in my opinion, is very good and what are the odds of an 1899 landscape/equestrian painter having the same or similar name of the aforementioned? Even a crude joke, as was once mentioned, seems far fetched. If there is a known specimen that has survived from that era, attributed to him, with his signature and style, I could put this quest to rest. In the meantime, I am buoyed by the fact that this forum exists and may lead to a conclusion. Thanks, Mike PS, I also knew when I hit the send button, that putting my # down was probably a mistake. Thank you for the quick catch and fix!

Well Giovanni Antonio da Brescia was born in in the 15th century so should we assume it is 1499?--Lgriot (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was where my mind eventually ended up. As you can imagine, I was at first incredulous and then quite skeptical. I am wondering if I could get the canvas carbon tested for age. Does anyone know the procedure and cost of such testing??? Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukinpups (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, da Brescia was an engraver, not a painter. Any of the images for sale are all, while valuable, engravings. Here is a site with a brief bio of the man and a description of his signature, as follows: "usually IO.AN.B or IO.AN.BX". It doesn't sound much like what you have. I could find no discussion of, or images of, oil paintings by this artist. ArtPrice.com shows a lot of activity in his engravings, but I no longer have a subscription, so I cannot check further for you. As for authenticating the painting or finding the painter, any good auction house (Bonham, Sotheby's, Christie's) would tell you, usually for free, if the matter is worth pursuing, and what that pursuit might cost. Bielle (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other cities surrounded by water

Is there a name for a city like San Francisco, CA that is surrounded by water? What other cities are surrounded by water like San Francisco, CA? Nedsgal (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venice, Italy is situated on a lagoon and is surrounded by water.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "mostly surrounded", right, Nedsgal? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did Nedsgal (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for terminology... San Francisco would be called a peninsula. But that term is more geographical, and does not really imply that the land is urban in character. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest in the UK is Portsmouth on Portsea Island. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Singapore count as a single city? If so, it's entirely surrounded by water. Macau is as nearly surrounded by water as San Francisco is. Pais (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stockholm. Corvus cornix_talk 19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boston, Massachusetts used to be this way. See Shawmut Peninsula. 19th century land-reclamation projects all but eliminated the peninsula. Once upon a time, the Back Bay was, like, an actual bay. --Jayron32 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Isle of Ely, only not really. Marnanel (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Hong Kong Island" part of Hong Kong is surrounded by water. And the Manhattan Island part of New York City, too... WikiDao ☯ 21:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Istambul springs to my mind. Flamarande (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's more your city divided by water than surrounded by water. That map in the Cityscape section highlights the absurdity of the artificial divide between Europe and Asia. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my city and proving that I was merely considering the old city (which was formerly restricted to the European side). "the absurdity of the artificial divide between Europe and Asia" is your own opinion. In the opinion of many (including my own) it's a diffrence of history, religions, cultures, languages, wealth, mutual suspicion and similar things. There is a tangible division between the two regions (and I'm not interrested in expanding this subject). Flamarande (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: correct me if I am wrong, but Jack may have been using the word 'your' in one of its colloquial senses, to mean 'an example of', and I don't think he was using it to mean specifically the city you yourself live in, Flamarande. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Historically, Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul was surrounded by water on three sides, Marmara to the south, the Bosporus to the east, and the Golden Horn to the north. Of course, there were suburbs across the Horn and the Bosporus even in the Middle Ages, and now the city is enormous, but the core is still on the little peninsula. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the first part of the OP's questions has been answered. I'm thinking "port city" or maybe "maritime city" or something that indicates water.

Someone mentioned Manhattan. Actually 4 of the 5 boroughs of New York are on islands, the exception being the Bronx, and even the Bronx has water as 2/3 or 3/4 of its border. Cities that are actually on islands are numerous in the US, especially along the east coast where there is a chain of barrier islands. We've already covered New York City, which is part of that chain. Other examples would be the towns on Cape Cod, which is now an island thanks to the canal. Nantucket, Atlantic City, Kitty Hawk, Miami Beach, Key West, Galveston, come to mind offhand. Internationally, Mumbai would seem to be a fair approximation of the San Francisco layout. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Italian school geography books Venice is referred to as a maritime republic, so I have to agree that maritime city is an accurate description of a city mostly surrounded by water.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But "maritime" implies the sea; it wouldn't apply to a city mostly surrounded by freshwater. (Not that we've found any examples of that yet, I think.) I thought of the term peninsular city; when I googled it, I couldn't find any indication that it's a common term for the phenomenon, but it did lead me to two more examples: Halifax, Nova Scotia, and South Perth, Western Australia. Pais (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any significant freshwater American cities that are largely surrounded by water. Duluth, Minnesota is not surrounded, but is referred to as a "port city". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, ooh, Madison, Wisconsin, is built on an isthmus between two freshwater lakes. Pais (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And the city of Montreal seems to be surrounded by water, or at least a good portion of it is. That's assuming the river at that point is considered to be fresh water. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it is on a bunch of islands, yeah...and the St. Lawrence doesn't enter the ocean for at least another 200 km after that, past Quebec City, so it's definitely freshwater in Montreal. (Actually, the Gulf of St. Lawrence is largely freshwater too, because of the enormous discharge from the river). And although not totally surrounded, Vancouver and Victoria in British Columbia have water on three sides (although I don't know if the Strait of Georgia and the other straits are freshwater). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are cities like Seattle, which was built on a kind of isthmus, but with marine salt water on one side and fresh lake water on the other. My off the cuff term for cities of all these sorts is "transporationally challenged". Pfly (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least places like Seattle and Vancouver have bridges. Last I heard, Juneau, Alaska was only reachable by water or by air. That's a more serious "transportation challenge". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, Tenochtitlan. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Île de la Cité, Paris? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan would be the prototype city surrounded by water, along with Staten Island, and The Bronx is a peninsula. Acroterion _(talk) 21:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for a term; Waterlocked is considered an option, as is Island City. Nanonic (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula cities were sort of a standard in colonial Africa, as forts constructed on islands or peninsulas could be easily defended. See Dakar and Conakry om google maps. Also, one of the early French cities in Senegal was Gorée Island, built on an island (now not much of a city, but still has some population). --Soman (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senegal) Saint Louis (I bet the early city began on the peninsula). Banjul, the capital of The Gambia, is built on an island. --Soman (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slashed zero

Resolved

– It's a display problem...the first character I mentioned (the one that doesn't work in some browsers) looks exactly like what I wanted in Safari. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the slashed zero that amateur radio operators use in callsigns with a 0? It doesn't look like 0̸ (won't work with IE) because the slash is perfectly through the 0 rather than offset to the side, it's not Ø or ∅ or ⌀ because it appears oblong like a 0 rather than like a circle. According to my amateur radio license textbook, it can be represented by an ALT code, but I couldn't get this to work the last time I tried it (and I no longer remember what it is), so knowing what the character is so that I can copy-paste it would be useful. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a zero, 0. It means exactly the same as 0. The fact that you don't see a slash through your 0 is a property of the font. Marnanel (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the Slashed zero, but I'm not sure I see what I think you are looking for there, either. WikiDao ☯ 20:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I render this as text?

Rephrase: How do I render the character at right on my computer in text? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By typing a zero while using a font whose zero looks like a O with a slash through it. Sorry, there's no special character for this other than the number zero. In some fonts, the zero has a slash, and in other fonts, it doesn't. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the picture in the Slashed zero article, the font used for the top line is called Consolas. If you can find that font and install it, you'll have your slashed zero. I think it's included with many versions of Windows (it's on my machine at work, for example), so you may already have it - it's not exactly like the picture you posted, but it's a slashed zero. Matt Deres (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try "<math>\not 0</math>" which renders

\not 0

. I believe that there are some government entities which require it's use so as to distinguish from the letter "O." Greg Bard (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Way back with the old MS-DOS the zero was automatically slashed, as can be seen here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "It doesn't look like 0̸ because the slash is perfectly through the 0 rather than offset to the side"; but that slash is supposed to bisect the 0. Unicode renderers just do a bad job with it (or perhaps it's the font's fault). The MS-DOS photo linked by Saddhiyama has dotted zeroes, not slashed zeroes. I think it may be a screenshot of a Windows DOS box. The IBM PC's built-in text font did slash its zeroes (photo). MS-DOS has nothing to do with this; it just writes zeroes and doesn't choose the font. In LaTeX I would write a slashed zero as \emptyset (

\emptyset

) because it looks right, though it's technically wrong. -- BenRG (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a "hack", you could always use Ø, which is not a circle but formed like an O (and hence will be oblong in some fonts). Or use the font Terminal_(typeface). Jørgen (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC) (used to type in my name in old ascii-only computer games as J0RGEN - the zero would be slashed)[reply]

Of course I also meant the original MS-DOS on the IBM PC. I remember them from personal experience, but my Google search turned up various examples, including DOS-boxes from various versions of Windows, some which did not have either dotted or slashed zeros, obviously because at the time of Windows 95 the screen resolution was so high that the program could make 0's that was visually differentiated from O's without resorting to such methods.

The Terminal font still displays 0's this way (0) but it is surprisingly rare nowadays, considering not so distant history. And I'm not sure why - the need to distinguish O from 0 is no less than it was before. Wnt (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's showing up without a slash for me, because Terminal looks completely different at different sizes. Here it is big: 0. 81.131.61.245 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction by schoolteachers

How do schoolteachers nowadays correct their students without embarrassing them?
—Wavelength (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the question correctly, I used to have an English teacher who would ask a (general) question, pick someone to answer and listen to their answer. He would then agree with whatever point the student had made, before giving his own opinion. If the opinion was close to yours, you could feel like you'd given the right answer; if not, you were essentially corrected, but it was never that embarrassing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which teacher? Which student? What was the question- something with a factual right/wrong answer, or something that asks for analysis? Was the wrong answer something the student ought to have known from recent instruction, or a failure to make connections appropriately, or the inability to analyze fully, or an intentional wrong answer for a laugh? There are many different ways to correct a child, and they vary based on the personalities of the individual people involved, and also on the nature of the question and the answer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the question to be somewhat flawed... it assumes that embarrassment is a "bad thing". Sure, we don't want to traumatize a student, but a little bit of embarrassment can be a great motivator to do better next time. Sure, everyone wants to get the right answer all the time... but in reality we all make mistakes, and we all fail to achieve goals. Students need to learn that lesson, and they need to be taught how to overcome a mistake or a failure. The teacher who taught me the most was my 8th grade math teacher... he purposely designed his first test of the year to be so difficult, even his best students failed... just so everyone in the class had the experience of failure and could learn what to do when we fail. His lesson plan when the test was handed back centered on dealing with, and learning from failure. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What it's more likely to motivate a student to do is to give up. Why try something if you're going to be put down for it? If you give up, then they at least have a reason to show you up, and then things are in balance. Then it's just a matter of being tough and persevering through the school year and then moving on to something else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's "more likely," given that people do fail on a regular basis without giving up. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, what did your eighth-grade mathematics teacher teach you and your classmates about dealing with failure and learning from it?

—Wavelength (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was over thirty years ago, so I don't remember the details of his lesson plan, but... what sticks in my mind after all this time is the lesson that life isn't always fair and sometimes, no matter what you do, you will fail. Suck it up and move on (I don't think he used those exact words... but that's what I got out of it). I remember him saying "Failure isn't bad... giving up because you failed is". Failure is not something to be ashamed of, it happens to everyone. He taught us to learn from failure... to examine what went wrong so that you reduce the likelihood that it will happen again. When you fail, you must get up, dust yourself off and keep at it until you succeed. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how he handled it. If he put you down and then lectured you about how "life isn't fair", then his primary (and unintended) lesson was that he himself was an abusive jerk, plain and simple. If he was gentler about it, then his lesson could be more positive and useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I've heard is "Praise twice, criticize once." In otherwise, emphasize what the pupil did correctly, then point out where he or she can improve. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines, one teacher shared with us a technique they learned in a workshop one time. It was called the "compliment sandwich;" give praise, give correction, then find a secondary on which to give praise. schyler (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should be asking why are teenagers almost always "embarrassed" nowadays by anything adults say or do (whether teacher or parent)? I don't recall being constantly embarrassed when I was a teenager. Astronaut (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a new phenomenon. Read Portnoy's Complaint, for example. However, there are ways to soften criticism and minimize "showing up" an incorrect responder. Something that comes to mind is Alex Trebek, who often says, "You're right", but always says, "That's wrong" rather than "You're wrong". Some teachers, then and now, take the time to consider their students' feelings. Others don't. That's just how things are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. Various methods are discussed in the article "Corrective feedback".
—Wavelength (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this article relies on only one source... I encourage you to find others. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who became a teacher not too long ago, I was taught that a great teacher has a constantly growing toolbox of approaches to students' behaviour, effort and levels of achievement. Obviously there's a lot of overlap between those three characteristics. I use very different approaches for the kid trying his hardest and the kid who has been wasting his time or finding ways to disrupt the class. And of course it's pointless using the same approach every time too. Kids see through every teacher strategy eventually. And every kid is different. Some work best with gentle persuasion. Some respond best to kicks up the butt. Some actually respond quite well to being briefly embarrassed, despite our questioner ruling it out. And every day is different. Answer to the question? Whatever is going to work best at the time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If parents (and spiritual counselors, as the case may be) would correct the behavioral problems of school students, then schoolteachers would be able to concentrate on correcting their academic problems.

—Wavelength (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But in practice, the parents (and spiritual counselors, as the case may be) may be responsible for the "behavioural" problems, which the teachers then have to deal with. A lot of people don't really know how to deal appropriately with children: many teachers do. And in any case, even the best-behaved children won't do what you want if you're incompetent enough. But we're getting off topic. 86.164.164.183 (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany at least: you get the teacher rolling his eyes, interrupting you if the answer is wrong, saying 'argh, not again', ... You won't see this "correcting without embarrassing" thing. 212.169.188.187 (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

baby doc

I was under the impression that "papa doc" got his name from a mispronunciation. The real "doc" was actually the French word spelled as "duc' which is believed to mean Duke. Whereas when the French ruled, the leader of Haiti was referred to as a Duke, but was translated as "duc," not doc. Is my source correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.236.222 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the first and second paragraphs of our François Duvalier article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) According to our François Duvalier article, "Duvalier first won acclaim in fighting diseases, earning him the nickname "Papa Doc" ("Daddy Doc[tor]" in French)." However, I believe the French for doctor is "médecin" so that's somewhat strange, unless perhaps the word "doctor" or at least the shortened form "doc" is commonly used in Haitian creole... WikiDao ☯ 00:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French for doctor is indeed médecin, but docteur can sometimes be used. One would not say "je vais au docteur" because the correct meaning of docteur in French is simply someone who holds a doctorat. Like in English however, docteur does imply medical doctor to some extent (as this is the only kind of doctor most people are in even relatively frequent interation with), though not so much as in English (i.e., the example above).24.92.70.160 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In France when we say docteur or docteur X with no other information, this word means médecin (physician). Il is very, very usual. What's wrong with "je vais au docteur"? This sentence is not grammatically correct, however it is used by "less educated" people. Instead you should say: je vais chez le docteur. You can refer to the French dictionnary Le Petit Robert, where this latter is used as an example. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Haitian creole indicates that the word for doctor is doktè. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]