Humanities desk
< June 18	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 19

Articles on JD Slater?

Hi! I’m trying to save JD Slater from deletion. He is most identified with gay porn as an actor, director, producer, and music composer. I know there were articles written about him but so many LGBTQ and gay porn entities are simply out of publication. He was in NYC area until the mid-1980’s when he moved to LA, then SF. Any help appreciated! Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saliva and sperm

If you ask Google web (as opposed to Assistant which I haven't tried yet) whether saliva is a spermicide, it points you to https://www.thebump.com/a/saliva-and-sperm-count which mentions a study. What is that study and which WP:MEDRS review is a good authority on the topic at present, please? 2601:647:5E00:C5A0:E1AE:B587:2AA0:1FCC (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found this study:

Tulandi, T.; Plouffe, L.; McInnes, R. A. (December 1982). "Effect of saliva on sperm motility and activity". Fertility and Sterility. 38 (6): 721–723. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)46700-2. ISSN 0015-0282.

Kalimi (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25883438/ the controlling WP:MEDRS source? 98.33.89.17 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Church of Rome", eighth century

John VI was Patriarch of Constantinople in the eighth century. As his article notes,

The religious policy of the new patriarch and his emperor caused the temporary rupture of relations with the Church of Rome.

"Church of Rome" is linked to Papacy. Since Papacy is merely a redirect to Pope, and since this link and passage (although originally "Roman Church") dates back to the original form of the article, I'm inclined to change the link to something more directly related to the Church of Rome, rather than the individual at its head. Is Holy See a good link for something 1300 years ago? The article's history section goes back to the apostolic era, but it's primarily focused on how things have been since 1929, and the emphasis (both pre- and post-1929) is on the Holy See as a subject of international law and the entity that governs the Vatican, not on the church under the government of the Bishop of Rome. Conversely, I can't think of anything better: the Papal States didn't exist in John's era (and he wouldn't have been disputing with the Pope as a temporal sovereign anyway), Roman Catholic Church doesn't make much sense for something predating the Great Schism by three centuries, the Diocese of Rome isn't relevant because it's just one small part of the Pope's jurisdiction (it's not like John was another Italian bishop with a small territorial dispute), and Patriarchate of Rome redirects to the Holy See. I guess I'm looking for something analogous to the Patriarchate of Constantinople: all of the church under the government of the position that's currently occupied by Francis, but in a strictly or largely ecclesiastical sense.

Nyttend backup (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, note that I've sent both Patriarchate of Rome and Patriarch of Rome to RFD. If you know enough to answer my question here, you can probably contribute well to the RFD. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No easy answer, but my thought would be a link to History of the Catholic Church#Early Middle Ages, but I suppose that runs contrary to the spirit of WP:EASTEREGG. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered Latin Church? --Amble (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I hadn't. Now changed. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated sex manuals from antiquity

I've read about sex manuals from the ancient world, such as the "Ars Amatoria" and the "Kamasutra". I am curious if there have been illustrated works about the topic which still exist.--85.4.154.29 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turin Erotic Papyrus. This is also worth of reading, though whether they were illustrated is not always specified. Brandmeister^talk 18:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly works about sexual practices in the ancient world

Are there scholarly works which deal in-depth with sex practices and views of the ancient world? I've read about Cleopatra's bee vibrator and other stuff, but it was always very vague. Are there scholarly works which deal in-depth with this subject? I've read the article about the history of sex, but I didn't find any useful literature, most works are seemingly more focused about the ritualistic and cultural views instead of the techniques themselves.--85.4.154.29 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the ancient world, they didn't practice so much as wing it. 98.33.89.17 (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party switching and crossing the floor

Having read the leads of party switching and crossing the floor, I didn't understand the difference. The articles claim they're similar. Should one of them be merged into the other actually? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Crossing the floor may mean changing to a second party after being elected as a member of a first party, or voting against the approved party lines". Party switching is the act of changing to a second party. So basically, party switching is a kind of crossing the floor, but not all floor-crossing entails party-switching. Example — in a parliamentary system, a legislator is expected to vote for his party's leader when a choice is made for prime minister. There's generally no legal requirement so to do, so it's possible for a legislator to vote for another party's leader while remaining a member of his party; in this case, he's crossing the floor but not switching parties. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Canada, I've never seen "crossing the floor" used to mean anything but switching parties. And in our Parliament, as in Britain, the MPs do not vote for who will be prime minister; that choice is made by the governor-general (or in Britain the monarch) and Parliament votes to approve it (a "vote of confidence") or not. Of course the GG or monarch is expected to pick whoever Parliament will approve. --76.71.5.208 (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this recent news item Australian senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells is said to have "crossed the floor" just by dint of her supporting an opposition motion without changing party allegiance. I suppose the origin of the phrase is the theatrical act of literally crossing to the other side of the hall, as can be seen here being enacted last year by British MP Phillip Lee. --Lambiam 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it "theatrical". It's a parliamentary requirement, when a division is called, for those voting for the motion to physically move to (or stay on) one side of the Speaker, and those voting against to move to (or stay on) the other side of the Speaker. It's a cumbersome and apparently time-wasting procedure, but it serves to have a permanent record of exactly who voted for and against a particular motion, whereas a normal vote is decided on the voices, by members calling out "Aye" or "Nay" in turn when asked to do so, and the Speaker deciding which of those groups "has it". In that case, no record is possible of who called Aye or Nay.

In Australian parliamentary parlance, crossing the floor means a member of Party X decides he cannot support his party's position on a certain motion, and instead of just abstaining, he moves to the opposite side during a division, which usually means voting with the opposing party. But only on that motion. He remains a member of Party X, and party rules will dictate whether any action is taken about this public display of dissent. If a Party X member resigns from his party and joins Party Y, that's called "switching sides", or "defecting". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Physically crossing the floor will only provide a permanent record of who voted how if there is a permanent record of everyone's location at the time the vote was called. Is there a place to move to for abstainers? --Lambiam 09:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jack has confused two different things there, Lambiam. When a division is called, all members leave the chamber and pass through one or other of the voting lobbies (or, apparently, both if they wish to abstain theatrically). Physically "crossing the floor" would not be noticeably in such a case - though of course this is all in open view, so it's very obvious if a member votes against their party's position. When Phillip Lee crossed the floor, there was no division called: he moved from the Government benches, and sat down in the Lib Dem benches. --ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he could have sat on the government side and still voted against them, but by pointedly going to sit with the opposition he was making sure that everyone knew his position on the matter. Alansplodge (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I'm describing the procedure in the Australian federal parliament. When a division is called, bells are rung for 4 minutes to summon any absent members to the chamber. Members are free to leave during that time, but generally they stay put. Then the doors are locked. Those voting for the motion are directed to assemble on one side of the Speaker, those voting against on the other side. This is where a member who wishes to vote against his party has the opportunity to do so and have his name recorded as having done so, for posterity. This is what we call "crossing the floor".Then tellers are appointed for each side, and they record the names of all members on each side, and tally up the numbers. This is given to the Speaker, who announces the result of the division. Our parliamentary procedures, practices and protocols have been modelled strongly on Westminster, but our paths have obviously diverged in some ways. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, of course the legislature doesn't elect the PM. I guess I was conflating prime ministers with US legislative speakers, whose relationship with their houses has some similarities to that of a PM (although they're only legislative, not executive), and whose choice is made by a vote that's conducted strictly along party lines. A good example of crossing the floor in US federal politics was James Traficant, a Democrat who voted for a Republican to be speaker, and who consequently got basically disowned by his party. (Unlike in many countries, where you can't be a party nominee in such circumstances, he could get returned to office because of the primary election system.) He was eventually expelled from Congress — not because of his crossing the floor, but because he'd been tried and convicted of a number of corruption-related felonies. Nyttend backup (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In New Zealand, switching parties is called Waka-jumping, which has been the subject of legislation to discourage it in the past, and there is currently a bill concerning it under consideration.-gadfium 23:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "cross the floor" means different things in different countries. In Canada, it refers to a member of a legislative body ceasing to be a member of their previous party and joining (permanently) a new one. It also has this meaning in the UK, as evidenced by the example sentences at this link from lexico.com: [1] In Australia, the term is used like the American term "cross the aisle", referring to a member voting against their own party on a single item, though remaining a member of the party. The article crossing the floor sets this out, but the lede could be altered to clarify that the term means something different in some countries (e.g. Australia) then its original meaning as used in the UK and Canada. Mathew5000 (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popular illustration history

Could anyone recommend a good book that deals with the history of popular (book, magazine, poster) illustrators and historical trends? I guess what I'm looking for is something that placed people like Rackham, Beardsley, Mucha, and Frazetta, etc. into context. Who influenced who, what "schools" are there, that kind of thing. Our article at Art Nouveau posters and graphic arts is actually pretty close to what I want, but I'd like it to cover more ground. Matt Deres (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read it, so I can't recommend it as such, and, as it popped up very early and prominently while searching, I'm sure you've seen it too ... yet History of Illustration edited by Susan Doyle, Jaleen Grove, and Whitney Sherman (Fairchild Books, 2018), got some good reviews, pointing out how such a book had been missing. Here is an interview with the authors by Design Observer. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This book discusses each artist mentioned in the original question, with separate sections on each except Frazetta, who is discussed (not merely mentioned) in a section on "New Directions in Sci-Fi and Fantasy". --Lambiam 09:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does sound ideal. I was hoping to find something slightly cheaper than hiring an art history professor to come to my house and talk to me, but that seems to be the way of it. Any other contenders? Matt Deres (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, only now did I notice the price tag. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought: You could look up some of the authors of the various chapters (particularly in sections 2 - 5, I guess), as listed in my first link ([2]). Often you will find separate articles on similar topics available for free (or certainly at a lower price) via their home pages or university pages. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]