Humanities desk
< September 4	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 6 >

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.

September 5

Proportional economic loss vs total economic loss

1. What's the difference between "proportional economic loss"[1] and "total economic loss"[2]?

2. How does the "risk deciles" scale work on these maps? Does it go from blue, yellow, red in the worst-risk-to-least-risk order or the least-risk-to-worst-risk order?

3. Let's say someone wants to find out how safe their house is from natural disasters. Which of the two maps would be more helpful? Pizza Margherita (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. The definitions seem to be here and here. Basically, proportional loss looks at how many % of economic activity could be lost, while total loss looks at what the total dollar value of the lost activity would be. Naturally, the latter is higher for richer (higher GDP) areas.

2. Blue or green generally means lower risk, while red means higher risk. That seems to be the case here.

3. This doesn't really measure risk to houses, instead it measures likely economic losses. There are plenty of disasters (like drought) that gravely threaten economic activity and prosperity but not real estate and we don't know from the map how the risks that do threaten houses are distributed. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Pizza Margherita (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

St. Nicholas' Day

According to Saint Nicholas#Santa Claus, the saint's feast day is "6 December in the Gregorian calendar, in Western Christianity; 19 December in the Julian calendar, in Eastern Christianity". In other words, the Orthodox Church celebrates St. Nicholas' Day circa New Year's Day on the Gregorian calendar. Why the difference, i.e. why don't they both celebrate it on 6 December on their respective calendars? The source for this statement is print, so I'm unable to check it. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be incorrect. St Nicholas' Day is 6th December in both traditions - 6th December O.S. is 19th December N.S. The OS/NS distinction in Saint Nicholas Day#Central Europe is the wrong way round (or, at least, the brackets are positioned incorrectly), although the Holy Land section has the correct dates. Tevildo (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests that it's remained at 6 December in the OS calendar, but in the NS it moved to 16 December in 1582 (following the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar in October of that year), then to 17 December in 1700, 18 December in 1800, and 19 December in 1900. I don't know of any analogous case.

For example, Christmas has long been on 25 December. It remained on that date in the NS calendar, but the adherents of the OS calendar were originally 10 days behind, and they didn't consider that 25 December had arrived until 10 days after then, i.e. what the NS-ers were calling 4 January the next year. Then the OS date of Christmas went to 5, 6 and finally 7 January NS. In 2100 it will go to 8 January. But they still call that date "25 December". The date that moves forward (from the NS perspective) is the OS date, while the NS date remains constant. But in St Nicholas's case, the reverse seems to apply. Why would that be?

It seems to me that the traditional date was 6 December, and that is the date that should continue to apply in the NS calendar. The OS date is the one that moves forward: in 1582 it would be have been 16 December, then 17, 18 and now 19 December. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong. but I think our article is trying to say is that 6 December in the Julian (OS) calendar now falls on 19 December in the Gregorian (NS) calendar. Am I right? If so, our article needs to be clarified... Alansplodge (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. From the New Style perspective the Old Style date is moving back, because at the end of most centuries their February is longer. I've fixed the article. 86.151.51.82 (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that works. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crown prince

When was the first documented usage of the title "Crown prince" in Europe (this could be rendered in another European language but not equivalents such as Dauphin or Prince of Wales)? The article does not say. Also knowing the first English language usage of this term to refer to an individual would be nice as well, --96.41.155.253 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary says the English term was modelled on the Danish and German words. It gives these dates for the earlest attestations in print:

German Kronprinz - 1669
Dutch kroonprins - 1692
Danish kronprins - 1693
Swedish kronprins - 1703
English crown prince - 1699

Also interesting: "German Kronprinz was perhaps formed on the model of Kronerbe , lit. ‘crown heir’ (1627 or earlier) and Kurprinz heir apparent of an elector of Germany, lit. ‘electoral prince’ (1640)."

And this is the 1699 attestation in English: "London Post 8 Sept. The Danish Secretary residing here, will suddenly notify to the States, the Death of the King his Master, and the Elevation of the Crown Prince to the Throne." 184.147.125.97 (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. for completion's sake, the individual referred to in the first English attestation is Frederick IV of Denmark. 184.147.125.97 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three individuals were referred to in the first English attestation, to wit the Danish Secretary, the dead King, and the Crown Prince. DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How much Vermont produce goes to Canada?

What proportion of the agricultural produce of Vermont is exported to Canada? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

56%, according to this 2014 Agriculture Canada report. 184.147.125.97 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we trade a lot of chocolate back and forth... Matt Deres (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the bastard?

Where do we get the name of the font Bastarda (lettre bâtarde) from? I assume it's nothing to do with William since the dates are wrong, but then which bastard is it honouring? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another meaning of bastard [3] -"derogatory term for a variation that is not genuine; something irregular or inferior or of dubious origin", for which "mongrel" is given as a synonym, so possibly a hybrid of earlier typefaces. Mikenorton (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The script is earlier than typefaces. —Tamfang (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source (linked from our article), "the term 'bastard hand' implies a union between an informal or 'base' script and a formal or 'noble' script" - that is, it's an intermediate between two recognized forms, as Mikenorton suggests. Compare bastard file, bastard sword. Tevildo (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. Thank you. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy in brothels

Prior to the easy availability of cheap and effective contraception, how did prostitutes and brothel-keepers deal with the risk and consequences of pregnancy? I imagine that pregnancy would be considered highly negative for sex workers. Were herbal abortifacients widely used? Did prostitutes tend to "retire" after having becoming pregnant, or would they return to the same work after giving birth? I realize the answer probably varies by time period and culture, just as attitudes towards prostitution in general have varied; however, any historical examples of how the issue was considered would be fine. Dragons flight (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some material here and here. More targeted stuff here. Try typing birth control prostitute into Google and see what comes up (I'm not being snarky; as you type that in, there are many many options available to narrow down your search). Matt Deres (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)We have many "Prostitution in..." articles that touch on this. Both Prostitution in ancient Greece and Prostitution in ancient Rome have some relevant info. Prostitution#History and History of prostitution also have some good overviews and further wikilinks.

From the other angle,Birth_control#Early_history is a good read, and recall that the condom is quite old, see History_of_condoms. Coitus_interruptus was also always an option. If you didn't read it Abortifacient#History discusses some medieval products available in some places, as well as the famous silphium, which was such popular product that the source plant was harvested to extinction! SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that though early condoms existed, they were still fairly rare / expensive until at least the late 19th century. It would seem difficult to convince clients to use one if they weren't already common and cheap. Were they common? Condoms and coitus interruptus also have the general problem that they depend on the willingness of the client to protect the woman, which they might not be willing to do, unless the brothel and/or society provided strong incentives to do so. I am mostly curious what the common practice was, rather than techniques that might have occasionally been used. The articles on the history of birth control don't really do a good job distinguishing between occasionally used techniques rather than what was common (or common for sex workers). Dragons flight (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "pregnancy would be considered highly negative for sex workers." In present day Germany, the price to have sex with a heavily pregnant women goes up. According to | Newsweek In Germany "there is a specific market for pregnant sex workers, for which men are often willing to pay extra". Some women are even induced to get pregnant to increase their market value. The children are placed in adoption after birth.

You could find repulsive to know what certain people find attractive: They are offered in Germany (were pimping is legal) as " “Teenie Tina, Six Months Pregnant,” “The Big Grub,” or “Sloshing Party” (where women are plied with alcohol so they’ll be more compliant). The company publishes pictures of the aftermath, which always show women with glazed eyes and irritated bodies." [4] Llaanngg (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common Name for USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand (angloshpere?)

Duplicate - see language desk

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey, I'm a non-native speaker and currently working on a scientific thesis which will contain several comparisons between continental Europe and the coutries mentioned above. The thing is...these contries obviosly have a lot in common, but I'm not sure how to call them. 'English-Speaking coutries' is surely wrong, and 'Anglo-Saxon' somehow feels not right. I found the term Anglosphere but I have never heard that before, and it doesn't seem to be used that often (the article itself cites one book and some newpaper articles). I searched google, the ref-desk archives and found examples, but it's rare.

Is anglosphere really an established term for these 6 countries? Or are others more common?

ps: I'm posting the same question in reference desk/language. ~~Hope it's ok.~~ if you like, please answer there

--134.61.96.240 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answer given on Language Desk – we prefer that questions only be posted on one desk to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. I'm sure that most of the (entirely) volunteer editors who patrol the Reference desks look at both Languages and Humanities, but someone might answer on one before realising others had answered on the other. Kudos for mentioning the duplication. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and agree. I didn't intend to spam; just wasn't sure, where to put it. For erveryone who is interested in the question here's the link.--134.61.96.240 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]