Humanities desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 27 >

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.

May 26

René Gillotin, Portrait of Marquesan chiefs

Does anyone know the original title of this portrait File:René Gillotin, Portrait of Marquesan chiefs.jpg? Also who are the people on it? Can anyone make out the names. If deciphered correctly they should show up in 19th century French sources. I know Temoana is on there and Pakoto (although oddly spelled, can anyone make out unusual spelling. And then the two mystery persons. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The portrait in aquarelle features printed in this book, the subject of which are the paintings and drawings of René Gillotin. Unfortunately it is not entirely described. It seems to be titled "Chiefs of tribes of ..? Nuku-Hiva ?", but there is no indication that this was the original title. René Gillotin was a ship captain in the French Navy (see last available page of the preview), which makes a simple descriptive title probable nonetheless. The fourth person on the drawing is high priest Veketou, described p.103. --Askedonty (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC) -- If p.104 is presented blank try gain, the scope of available display seems to be variable[reply]

what is the meaning of "fructus est fullonius"

what is the meaning of "fructus est fullonius" (Plautus Pseudolus 781). thanks, --84.108.213.48 (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Fruit of the washer"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some can explain it?--84.108.213.48 (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might have more luck on the Language Desk. Alansplodge (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis and Short seem to interpret "fructus fullonius" = "the fuller's fruit" as "ink" (though I don't follow the reasoning for that interpretation). The "est" is part of the gerundive phrase "potandus est" = "is to be drunk". --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a footnote further down the page that explains that "the fuller's fruit" is a euphemism for kicks and bruises, because fullers work by beating cloth. "Fruit" basically means "product" here. The full phrase is a slangy way of saying "I will have to absorb some kicks and bruises". Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Company debt collections

Why do many companies seem to use private debt collectors rather than just go directly to courts to get their debts back?Clover345 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely they have a better track record of success. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying the first thing that comes into your head, how about a reference or two? Collection agency may be helpful to the OP. --Viennese Waltz 14:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of attacking a fellow editor, as you love to do, how about you just provide the supporting evidence, and otherwise shut up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A key point in that article is that debt collectors are motivated to get the job done because they get a cut of the proceeds. That gives them an edge over the court system. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, many debt collectors are also "debt buyers". Why would you, for example, want to go directly through the lengthy court system to get your debt back from your original customer, when there is someone else instead willing to "purchase" that debt from you? Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The bottom line is that the company wants to get its money as soon as possible. And the court system ain't the way to do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debt collectors have higher collection rates, so if your business puts you in the position where you have a lot of indigent debtors, it makes sense to streamline the process. Attorneys are notoriously bad at that (although there are collections attorneys who make their living on being good at that... markets in everything). Many businesses simply sell off the debt and take the write-off. That said, court processes do work. Few people ultimately escape debts completely. They usually have wages or refunds garnished, or social security payments. But, somewhat surprisingly to some, many people pay their debts eventually, often at lower rates. In fact there's a growing industry in people paying debts that are (for whatever reason) no longer legally enforceable. Shadowjams (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it has to do with protecting the reputation of the company. The debt collectors often resort to harassment, and if a recognizable company was engaged in harassing some poor widowed grandmother, and the media found out about it, that would reflect badly on the company, especially if the debt isn't really owed. (I once had the phone company try to bill me $500 because I happened to inherit the phone number from a bankrupt company that bought a full page ad in the phone book.) If it's a debt collection agency doing the harassment, the original company has some level of protection for their public image. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did Elliot Rodger have a mental illness

On the social media, everyone is saying that Elliot Rodger is "mentally ill" but I could not find any official text on the media that actually says that Elliot Rodger is suffering from a mental illness. It was said that he had Asperger Syndrome but I don't think that is classified as a mental illness. 220.239.51.150 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen that he was ever formally diagnosed. It does seem that various warning signs were there, and as too often happens, insufficient attention was paid. As to whether he was merely grossly narcissistic or something more than that, read and judge for yourself.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger Syndrome is a form of autism, which is a neurological difference rather than a mental illness. However, it's emerged that Elliot Rodger had never been diagnosed with that, either. I think we need to take seriously the idea that he committed this massacre on the basis of views that he had arrived at without the distracting factor of any clearly specified mental or neurological condition. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As often (and understandably) occurs in these cases, the distinction between those two concepts -- the confused actions of a "diseased" mind and the cognizant, but evil, actions of a healthy one -- are becoming blurred. As much personal philosophy goes into such distinctions as does clinical psychopathology, and it's not entirely hard to see why, given the ambiguity of such assessments (even in cases where the facts are relatively well known, as they aren't here); after-all, there are those, including no shortage amongst practitioners of psychology, who would say that the mere fact that he committed such violent acts defines him as having some form of mental pathology in the form of an antisocial personality disorder even if aware of his actions. That's an important distinction as the dichotomy you've referenced here (and the one I think the OP was inquiring upon) is the one most commonly seen in the context of whether one is responsible for their actions (typically in the context of psychological assessment for legal purposes) based upon clear understanding of the nature and consequences of their actions and a mental state that would qualify them as possessing diminished capacity as a result of not being able to appreciate those factors. But that's a purely pragmatic distinction and it's entirely possible for a person to be found culpable, or to borrow upon your wording, non-distracted and still be suffering from any number of mental or neurological disorders. Snow talk 23:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the CBS Evening News tonight, they reported that he had been medicated for medical problems when he was young, but that stopped eventually. And since he was never committed, he was legaly allowed to purchase guns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, they're not called "illnesses" anymore, but "disorders". Not something you physically have, but a label you get from a shrink when you meet certain behavioural criteria. For instance, if your perfectly healthy child throws tantrums, he may now get "Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder", but that's not what's causing the tantrums. So no, not technically.

But colloquially, anyone who kills random people because he's lonely is naturally going to be called some form of "crazy". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if Elliot Rodger was alive today, he would dispute the characterization of his victims as "random". He clearly wrote that (in his twisted worldview) he was after specific people - sexually successful men, and women whom he saw responsible for as depriving him of sex (in this case, sorority girls). Of course, that's not to suggest either of those categories of people bore any responsibility for his mental state.

Also, I, personally, would characterize Aspergers syndrome as a mental disorder, inasmuch as it can potentially cause significant distress and dysfunction to its' "sufferers". Until recently it was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Few people with aspergers become mass killers, but my understanding is that levels of depression and mental distress can be quite high. Ironically, whilst people with the more severe forms of autism can be blissfully oblivious of their disorder, those with mild forms like aspergers can be painfully aware of their differences (such as the lack of partners). That said, I'm sure many would disagree.

And I would be cautious about jumping to conclusions that Elliot Rodger had aspergers, or even if he did, what other things were going on in his brain. 60.230.121.215 (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No murder's totally random, and that word does get tossed around too much. But narrowing the focus to Calfornia girls a 22-year-old virgin wants to touch and the men who've kissed a girl isn't exactly narrowing, either.

Whatever they would (or did) call him and prescribe him, there are millions out there who meet the same criteria and don't kill anyone. Even those we used to call "pyschopaths" are a generally peaceful lot. It's the exceptions to the rule that get attention, same as with "mentally healthy" people who kill. Best to not jump to conclusions at all, rather than with caution. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say psychopaths tend to be a very damaging if not destructive lot - it's just that the destruction they wreak doesn't necessarily involve physical violence. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that sweeping generalisation? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only meant "peaceful" in a "live and let live" way, not "loving harmony". It stands to reason that trying to build an emotional relationship with an emotionally detached person will be rockier than with someone who cares. But even then, aren't the emotions the painful things? Aren't those what get projected, expected and rejected? It's like someone banging their head on a wall. The wall doesn't feel it, but that doesn't mean it wants to hurt the other. It just has no incentives to ever stop being a wall, least of all love or hate. Sometimes, it's fair to blame the victim. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we have, in this case, is a guy who decided it was the rest of the world's fault that he couldn't get laid; that somehow the women of the world owed it to him. What kind of label do you put on that mentality? Narcissism? Entitlementism? Terms like that seem inadequate. It's not necessarily a new idea, though. I'm reminded of this bit of dialogue from the first Dragnet episode of the 1960s: Serial killer (Vic Perrin): "I killed those girls because they asked me to." Sgt. Joe Friday (Jack Webb): "They asked you to?" Killer: "Yes. They said they'd rather be dead than be with me." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a handy guide to pinning down a somewhat authoritative disorder label. By that chart and the few minutes of his life I know about, I'd call him (and probably Perrin's guy) "covetous antisocial". Doesn't mean he didn't have a lot of of other ingredients in his brain stew. "Spineless sadist", "elitist narcissist" and "discontented negativist" seem to fit, too. Depends how you look at it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While this is largely just my own opinion (based on my own experiences as someone with Asperger's), I'd be surprised if he didn't have Asperger's. From what I've read online, it was suggested several times by various sources that he was diagnosed with it, but whether that is just a parallel some reporters drew to the Sandy Hook massacre where the perpetrator was confirmed to have Asperger's or not, I am uncertain.

But by watching his videos and reading his autobiography, I feel like I have a pretty good idea of his mental process. While he seemed intelligent, he also seemed very awkward and incapable of completely controlling his thoughts and actions, which is typical of people on the autistic spectrum.

Admittedly, the connection made to him and the Sandy Hook killer are somewhat unsettling because I am concerned people will think that Asperger's equates to violent tendencies, which is completely baseless.

While I couldn't tell you precisely how he settled upon the idea that "retribution" was the final solution to his problems, I can tell you that having Asperger's makes social interactions with other people challenging. I think Elliot's was mild enough that he could have overcome them if he had had the right help at the right time. I think it was a combination of factors that caused him to snap and Asperger's was just one piece which contributed towards it (Asperger's doesn't give one any preconceived notions about the inherent inferiority/superiority between race and gender which plagued his thinking...I wonder where he picked up that idea).

Furthermore, I'd like to add that people with Asperger's also have a higher incidence of other mental problems. Schizophrenia is more common in people with Asperger's than in "normal" people, for instance, and something along these lines could have been a contributing factor as well--we may never know.

But as with all mental illness, I don't believe it's binary. I think everyone has some shade of mental issues and "normalcy" is probably best defined as the set of mental issues that most other people have and can identify with. Even among people with Asperger's, there are many varying grades of it. Adam Lanza's was probably much more severe than Elliot's was. I felt like I could identify to some degree with Elliot's frustrations. Adam Lanza just seemed alien to me.

I fear Elliot just became hyper-focused upon the idea that to qualify his life, he needed a girl on his arm and since he found such trouble making this happen, he decided he wasn't going to let himself be beaten and go quietly. And this obsession was a combination of many factors which led to an eventual breaking point. Given time to mature and the right kind of therapy, I strongly believe that Elliot could have lived a normal, productive, and healthy life and could have found happiness and I think he even could have found a nice girl once he got his priorities straight.

It's a damn sad story. -Amordea (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that according to some sources, Elliot's mother who as I guess most here know, were out looking for him at the time, contacted one of? Elliot's therapists after hearing about the shootings, and the therapist said it probably? wasn't him because he's said he planned to do it tomorrow [2] and he tended to stick to such details. It's difficult to say how much of this is genuine professional opinion and how much of it may be recognition that if it wasn't him, it was still vitally important Elliot's mother remains calm (and probably even if it was). Also also that most therapists are probably going to hope a mass shooter is not their patient. Still, it's likely it's at least partially the therapists professional opinion. Point being, even someone who has potentially been treating them for a long while likely still has trouble understanding parts of their psyche and rationality and there's a fair chance it doesn't have that much to do with competence. (Okay the fact that he killed a lot of people is another sign, but that's more complicated.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimous consent vs. 100-0

I still don't understand the difference, if someone is voted by unanimous consent or voted by a vote margin of 100-0 by US Senate. 112.198.90.178 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, a vote of 95-0 could be unanimous, by merit of members abstaining or being absent. Unanimous consent merely means that no one present objects, not that everyone said yes. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing to keep in mind is that there are different types of voting procedures used in the US Senate, and different terms are used in describing them. For example, on some matters a voice vote is used, and the general sense of the "ayes" and "no" are recorded. In this case you're not actually counting individual votes, so you don't know exactly how many people voted "aye", just that no one voted "no". Contrast this with a recorded vote, where they actually tally the number in favor and against. Our article says that a roll call vote (where each member is called by name to give their response) is the only type of recorded vote in the US Senate, but other bodies have different procedures, which may be submitting their votes electronically, or by some sort of anonymous ballot where you get a number of people voting on each side, but not information on how each member voted.-- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just at this point of time I can't remember the exact terms, but there are differing forms of unanimity in voting: one is where everyone votes one way or the other, and another is where nobody dissents, either by voting or by abstention. One is technically declared "unanimous" and the other is technically declared "nem con", which is sort for the Latin for "nobody against". --TammyMoet (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largest bank

What is the largest bank in every state, and in each US territory (excepting territories without a civilian population)? I want to make a map and put it on Commons. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a list here: User:Magog the Ogre/largest bank by state. Feel free to update. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I answered my own question. The data is here: http://www2.fdic.gov/sod/. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the growth of Wikipedia

I wasn't sure where to place this question; I settled on this Reference Desk. Is there any sense (or statistics) on the growth of Wikipedia? For example, Wikipedia grows at a rate of x % per day. Or, x % per year. I am not referring to the number of active editors; I am referring to the amount of information contained within the encyclopedia. I assume that each day, thousands upon thousands of new edits are made; thousands and thousands of new facts and pieces of information are added. So, is there any statistical description of this constant growth? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Statistics and Category:Wikipedia statistics might be pertinent as might be File:Entwicklung der Artikelanzahlen der acht größten Wikipedias.png. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hesse-Philippsthal and Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld

Why were Hesse-Philippsthal and Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld annexed by Prussia in 1866? Did they side with Austria in the Austro-Prussian War like Hesse-Kassel? Or were they merely caught between the crossfire?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hesse-Philippsthal and Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld were not sovereign states, but dependencies of the Electorate of Hesse. The annexation of the Electorate of Hessse brought only a change of the sovereign for the princes and no financial loss, for they continued to receive their appanages and kept their possessions Rotenburg castle and Schönfeld castle. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They refused, however, the Elector's request to be recognized as "King of the Chatti" (Koenig der Katten), a request which was again rejected in 1818 at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle.

I can't find anything about Elector William I's attempt to make his nation a kingdom except on wikiepdia and Encyclopædia Britannica. Is there anything other source discussing this? Even searching "Koenig der Katten" gets me nothing. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This under Wonderful Copenhagen!, even though yet one other and different story. --Askedonty (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"King of the Chatti" would mean ″king of the Hessians″, i.e. "König der Hessen". --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand well the reference in EB, although restored in his title of Elector and with the reenactment of his country's constitution, there is an opinion that the statute of Elector had become meaningless following the Great Powers' arrangements. --Askedonty (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is mention of William's claim in A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, Volume 1, by Ernest Satow; it is refered when searching for Congress of Vienna. --Askedonty (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism it seems to be colloquially called a kingdom. From a principalty become electorate, when several electorates had been made to kingdoms by Napoleon, or does the author mean Prussia? That's not clear. --Askedonty (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text is incoherent presumably due to the author's copy-pasting the sentence from somewhere. It should be read as "By now (1850) the kingdom (of Prussia) was following a policy of its own with the aim of a German union (see Erfurt Union) under Prussian leadership. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]