Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 20

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.

March 20

Bomb shelters in France

I've already asked this question on the Science ref desk, but they referred me here. The question is: What types of structures (other than the Paris Metro) were used as bomb shelters in occupied France during World War 2? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not having much luck finding anything on the internet at the moment - I've posted a question on the Language Desk that might help with Google search terms in French. I suspect that, like the UK, there was an expectation in 1939 that there would be catastrophic bombing of civilian centres from the outset, so some thought would have been given to public air raid shelters during the months before and after war was declared. In Britain and Germany, the cellars or basements in people's own houses were the main form of shelter, and I imagine that the French fondness for large apartment buildings in towns would have meant that most people would have found shelter with their neighbours au sous-sol in their own immeuble d'appartements. Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The common word (for "sous-sol" was "les caves" (cellars) and more precisely "les caves-abris" and in general "les abris antiaériens (de la défense passive)". — AldoSyrt (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The search terms "abri anti-bombe France seconde guerre mondiale" return some good results [1], including links to purpose-built structures now turned into museums or memorials. --Xuxl (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"In Britain and Germany, the cellars or basements in people's own houses were the main form of shelter" - really? Our article Air-raid shelter says that 3.6 million Anderson shelters (capable of accommodating six people each), and 600,000 Morrison shelters were installed in the UK, in addition to the communal street shelters and the use of existing tunnels and other structures. The article specifically makes the point that the lack of cellars in UK houses was an obstacle to civil defence planning. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It was probably a sweeping statement, but a very substantial number would have sheltered in their own cellars. My grandparents certainly sheltered in the cellar of their Victorian terraced house in London. I've just been reading A Woman in Berlin which tells the story of a woman who lives in an apartment block in Berlin. All the residents abandoned their flats and took shelter in the basement of their building for several weeks while the city fell to the Russians. Stories were passed around about the goings-on in basements of surrounding buildings. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The French government declared Paris an open city (French: ville ouverte, German: offene Stadt) in 1940 when they couldn't defend it. Bomb shelters were not required in Paris proper but there were industrial targets in the suburbs of Paris requiring shelters in the suburbs.
Sleigh (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

So how do you explain the following passage from Helene Deschamps Adams's autobiography Spyglass: "With no apparent warning, sirens began to howl. The Allies were getting bold these days, bombing even in daylight. The cafe emptied rapidly, and I rushed to the nearest shelter, the Jasmin metro station. A wide black arrow on the wall indicated the entrance to the air-raid shelter, which was on the train tracks. The ramp going down was only dimly lit, and I moved cautiously. Others, more accustomed to this route of safety, rushed by me." If what you said was true, then how could this have happened at all? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can read French, some pieces of information here — AldoSyrt (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

More info about pre-war civil defence preparations in Civil Defence as a Harbinger of War in France and Britain during the Interwar Period. Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In the more hilly wine regions, Frenchmen often hid in wine caves. Blueboar (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! Perhaps I should have been more specific and said right away that I'm most interested in public bomb shelters in urban areas of occupied France from 1940-1944. Am I right in concluding from the info provided here that in large cities other than Paris (such as Lille, Rouen, Calais, etc.), these were usually in basements of large apartment buildings? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The first place I thought of was the Catacombs of Paris (Mines of Paris). It's not actually mentioned in the article or the external links on the page but Google does give some results including this. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Nazis controlling occupied France weren't so assiduous about air raid protection as were the British authorities during and after the Blitz. I dont think they had ARP wardens for example and it would be interesting to know what kind of air raid warnng systems they had. But when there were air raids the population ran for shelter, the cellar or the Metro, the catacombs, or just under the table. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In the same way that gas masks were not required even though everybody carried a gas mask with them. Mustard gas was never used in Word War II.
Sleigh (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Nantes was bombed numerous times, but there were no bomb shelters, and no Metro. People either hid in cellars, or they just fled the city entirely. We don't have an English article about this, but there is one on the French Wikipedia (which unfortunately doesn't mention anything about shelters). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

colors connected to World War II

I'm trying to find some paints. They should be colors used on the American home front during World War II. Olive drab was used on land vehicles. Battleship gray was used on ocean crossing vessels. What other colors were used at the time?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Patriotism would be at a high point, so red, white, and blue would abound. StuRat (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

World War II: The American Home Front in Color has a series of photographs that might be helpful. As you say, olive drab was much in evidence, but a quick look through also shows a training aircraft in bright yellow. There is a website called Simmers Paint Shops that is full of technical details about US aircraft paint. A Google Image search for "US civil defence posters" gives a lot of interesting results, although there's a lot of post-war stuff too. You might also try searches for "US Home Front" or "US war bond posters". Good hunting! Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think "olive drab" and "battleship gray" don't actually match anything commonly referred to as the "US home front", which is civilian rather than military. The colors listed describe military equipment, but not civilian stuff outside of a combat zone (see, for example, the photo of a parking lot in the first slideshow linked by Alansplodge). Also linked from there is this Library of Congress collection of color photos from the 1930s and 1940s. Also, you mention "trying to find some paints" -- are you looking just for representative colors, or specifically for paints in those colors? If for actual paint, what sort of paint are you looking for? — Lomn 14:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The paint colors seen on the WW2 US home front would have been largely of pre-war activity, since most things do not need constant repainting. Popular Science, March 1942 recommended 2 coats of paint on the house exterior every 4 years, but the article was doubtless edited and slotted for publication before the US entered the war. It has no mention of what colors are popular. Paint was made largely of chemicals (solvents and pigments such as titanium) of strategic importance, but apparently paint was not strictly rationed.They worried more about the steel in the cans than the petroleum in the paint. In 1943, only bronze and aluminum paint were scarce: [2]. By 1945 there was "practically no paint for houses" because of a shortage of lead: In [http://books.google.com/books?id=3CEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA171&dq=paint&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SP1JUeOODcSxyQG-roBo&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=paint&f=false July 1944 they said good paint was still procurable. An Oct 1945 article discussed new pigments and formulations developed by war research, and said the country needed a "facelift" after wartime neglect. My public library has back issues of many magazine from the WW2 period, but I do not see in Google Book magazines such as Better Home and Gardens which had color sections showing then-trendy color choices for homes. A trip to a good-sized library might help more than what can be found online. Edison (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As I was watching the closing credits of My Dog Skip (film), I saw Sherwin Williams mentioned in them. The company was one of a few being acknowledged for their assistance and/or cooperation with the film's production. That's what prompted me to ask about colors used during WWII.142.255.103.121 (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Companies paying unsustainable dividends

Recently an article in the financial media called my attention to this fact: Many companies pay dividends so high that they actually have a negative retained earnings as a result. Sometimes, they are simply borrowing money (accumulating debt) to pay out as dividends.

1. Wherein lies the logic of such behaviour? Isn't it a clear form of self-cannibalization? Are they simply gambling that earnings will go up to cover the shortfall, or is there more to it? What's the endgame, so to speak?

2. In the latter case (accumulating debt whilst paying dividends), who would be stupid enough to lend money to a company for such a blatantly unsustainable and unprofitable purpose? 203.45.183.3 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

1) Might just be short-termed thinking, possibly combined with a conflict of interest. For example, many executives have their compensation tied to the stock price. Therefore, if you plan to leave the company in the next few years, this would be a good way to maximize your pay before you go, by puffing up the stock price by paying large dividends.

2) The banks may not know. For example, if the company had X dollars budgeted for building widgets, they could instead pay that out as dividends, while borrowing X dollars from banks, supposedly so they can use it to build and sell widgets. StuRat (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you give an example of such a company? It is quite common to pay out dividends that are larger than your profits (or even to pay them when making losses), but only in the short-term. Dividend policies are often intended to smooth out payments rather than leave investors exposed to fluctuting profits. That gives investors more confidence in the stock, so increases the stock price. Paying out dividends larger than your profits over a long enough period to end up with negative retained earnings would be quite extreme (most companies don't start paying dividends at all until retained earnings are fairly large, so even if they are making big losses and paying big dividends, it would take a few years to go negative). --Tango (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A company should pay the dividend which is in the best interest of shareholders. While there are other ways of returning value to shareholders (such as buying the companies own stock) dividends are a standrad mechanism for doing this. There are three reasons to pay an "unsustainable" dividend

1. If the company has cash which would be give a better return if invested by its shareholders than if invested by the company. (For example corporation tax is 33% personal tax is 20%.)
2. If the company can borrow at terms more favourable than the shareholders
3. If the company has traditionally paid a certain dividend they may wish to maintain it, as shareholders are budgeting on the income stream

These reasons will all depend on the nature of the shareholders. It was, I think, traditional British business practice to avoid cutting dividends unless absolutely essential for reason 3 - the thinking was that as the economy/company recovered the dividend would once again be "covered" (dividends were also traditionally a very low percentage of the share value).

Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

Perception of physical attractiveness

Is physical attractiveness subjective or objective? Does objective beauty exist? If so, why do different people from different cultures perceive beauty in different ways? For example, Kayan women artificially make their neck long and to Kayan men, this long neck serve as a sexual attractant. I don't think a New York City guy will find a Kayan woman sexually attractive. Foot binding was prevalent in Chinese culture and Chinese men considered the tiny narrow feet of women to be beautiful. But I don';t think a westerner at that time would have found those feet beautiful. According to this study, women from two different geographical regions, Britain and Malaysia, and from rural and urban areas, perceive male physical attractiveness in different ways. Is there really anything called objective human physical attractiveness? Or the concept of physical attractiveness is shaped by culture, a result of social conditioning? --PlanetEditor (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness is an uncalculable mixture of universal principles and cultural variability. Wikipedia has an article titled Physical attractiveness. There are some "universal" principles of attractiveness, which hold (statistically, though not in every single individual ever born, but rather on average across many cultures). These include certain things like symmetry of facial features, and some proportional relationships. However, there are also deep cultural distinctions between other measures of beauty and attractiveness. So the answer to your question is both yes and no: There are some "objective" standards of beauty in the sense that there are some principles that seem to hold across all cultural groups (though, again, allowing for some individual variation on the person-by-person level), while there are also many measures of beauty which vary greatly between cultures. --Jayron32 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Even in modern Western cultures, there have been notable changing trends and fads -- in the 1920's, small-breastedness was favored, while in the 1950s large breasts were "in", etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a fallacy that if some of a physical quality is good, then more of that quality is better.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It'd be a fallacy if many, many, many animal species didn't do the exact same thing. See sexual selection, i.e. peafowl, mandrill, etc. etc. That doesn't excuse the unrealistic models of beauty that mass media foists onto young women, for example. But at least don't pretend like it's some unnnatural thing; it's a fairly normal state of affairs. If one is going to correct for it, one needs to at least be honest with what it is... --Jayron32 22:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how the typical buzzard distinguishes between the pretty ones and the plain ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What is natural for a lower animal is not necessarily natural for a human. Humans do not need to imitate lower animals.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a basic test. Do you poop? If yes, you're an animal. Not higher or lower, just an animal. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

See What Is The Cognitive Rift Between Humans And Other Animals?

and Scientist postulates 4 aspects of 'humaniqueness' differentiating human and animal cognition.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

All of that is true regarding differences between human and other animal cognition. Also of note: Birds of all kinds can fly MUCH better than human animals, dogs smell orders of magnitude better than human animals, etc. All the links do is prove that humans are different from other animals in profound ways, but then again every kind of animal is profoundly different from other animals as well. It means nothing for the point of this discussion. The concept of sexual selection producing what is otherwise a disadvantageous trait (as you said earlier "if some of a physical quality is good, then more of that quality is better", is something which is pervasively common in the natural world. To deny that humans would be entirely immune from such biological principles is disingenuous in the extreme. Humans are absolutely subject to the exact same biological principles as all other forms of life. Now, let me make this clear: that does NOT make it morally correct or right for a culture, for example, to treat their women or men in an undignified or inhumane manner in the name of beauty (i.e. foot binding, for example). That is not an argument I have made. Instead, my point was more subtle (and as a subtle point, requires you to use that human intellect you cite!). The point is that we mustn't deny the existence of the biological pressures that lead to such behavior in humans, because such biological pressures are universal in the Animal kingdom. Instead, the first and most important thing we must do is to acknowledge and understand such biological principles, not because we accept them with resignation and allow the sort of injustices they cause, but because we cannot fix the problem if we don't understand its nature. --Jayron32 19:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Beauty is objectively measured in Helens. One Helen can launch a thousand ships, a milliHelen's worth of facial beauty will launch one ship. And perhaps set fire to a waste paper basket. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Mass media are guilty of misrepresenting abnormality as normality. Let us strive to avoid being misled.

• "The Influence of Media Marketing on Adolescent Girls"

—Wavelength (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some features are (almost) universally considered desirable while others vary by culture and time. However, even if there was a feature which was universally considered desirable by every human who ever lived, that would still be a subjective standard, not an objective one, since it's all opinion. Now, if you set some objective goal, like a woman being able to "bear children successfully", then you can come up with an objective physical form; in this case, wide hips. StuRat (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because you can find someone to disagree doesn't mean it's subjective. There are quite clearly objective standards of beauty, and more broadly attractiveness that have been written about time and time again. If you think something so intimately tied to evolution is somehow a cultural fabrication, then nothing isn't. Shadowjams (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary_aesthetics#Physical_attractiveness is an interesting read. --PlanetEditor (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think human sexual behavior is quite unique than that of other animals. For example which animal is attracted to inanimate objects resembling them or to members of their species with limbs missing? But Homo sapiens do. And this is a product of evolution too. [3]

All kinds of perception of physical attractiveness in "modern societies" or in "tribal societies" are some kinds of fetish behavior whether it is tightlacing during the Victorian era, fashion fads such as whale tail, use of jewellery, tattooing, use of cosmetics such as lipsticks or nail polish, foot binding, neck ring, stretching etc.. None of these is natural, but act differently as sexual attractants to different humans. Human sexuality is lot more complicated than the sexuality of other animals. I think this complexity applies in the perception physical attractiveness too. You can clearly observe the objective criteria for physical attractiveness among mandrills or peafowls. Because they have a homogenous perception of physical attractiveness. Human perception of attractiveness is heterogeneous, not homogenous. And in this sense, human physical attractiveness is always subjective and is always shaped by social conditioning through exposure to different cultures, and by the unique human psychology. What do you guys think? --PlanetEditor (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You can add piercing to the list, and Vietnamese people until he early 20th century used to lacquer their teeth black. I agree with Jayron. Plus our evolved nature as human animals and our culture are not opposites. We evolved to a state where we can have culture. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that animals are not attracted to inanimate objects resembling them or members of their species with limbs missing? Have you asked them? This type of attraction is rare in humans, and presumably in animals as well. Humans have the ability to make their fetishes known worldwide; animals do not. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Not unique e.g. [4], the real difference is people can produce things which don't naturally occur and haven't been evolved against. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Which cities gave the most votes to which party in 2013 Israeli elections

Which cities or places of Israel gave the most votes to which parties?--Donmust90 (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90

You might try the Israeli Central Elections Committee website at [5], or, more specifically, the results by city. Not sure how much info the English version provides. Can you read Hebrew? Otherwise, you may need to use google translate. 58.111.228.223 (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Just fascinating. If you want to understand just how diverse and politically complex a place Israel is you can, to give just one example, compare the results for the United Torah Judaism party in Jerusalem (1st place, 22% of the vote) and Tel Aviv (15th, 1% of the vote). Overall, the party came sixth, with just over 5%, giving it seven seats in the 120 seat 19th Knesset. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hardly surprising, considering the historical charedi exodus from Tel Aviv and the modern charedi attitude to the same. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday, the votes-19.gov.il/cityresults website was working fine and today the loading process for the website is slow. Does anybody know? Is it for security reasons?--Donmust90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

A response from Winston Churchill made at a dinner party to an affronted dame.

The affronted dame said 'sir, you are drunk'. Winston's response was; 'Madam, you are ugly: tomorrow, I shall be sober! My question is: Who was the woman? If the date and social context were known; that would be excellent. Thank you86.137.130.213 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Susie Bloomfield

Usually supposed to be Bessie Braddock, but possibly apocryphal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Apocryphally, Bessie Braddock (1899-1970), a Liverpool MP - there's a statue of her on the main concourse of Liverpool Lime Street railway station and you can judge her ugliness for yourself from this photo. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

W.C. Fields made a somewhat similar comment in his 1934 film, It's a Gift. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The statue does not do her justice. Photos: [6] [7]. Paul B (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Just bear that in mind, when you think of us scousers having to look at that when we get off the train every morning on our way to work....! :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd. I always thought it was Nancy Astor - a woman with numerous notable quotes attributed to her and a number of (alleged) exchanges between her and Winston Churchill. Astronaut (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The joke wouldn't have worked, because Lady Astor was insufficiently ugly (click the link to our article and you'll see the evidence). Alansplodge (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

She might have been what some would call a "battleaxe" (funnily enough she look a bit like Les Dawson in this image), but the Bessie Braddock article says "She is often erroneously credited ..." with the quote. The source used in the article (that paragon of journalistic integrity, the Daily Mail) says it was "It was an old gag, even then". I don't know who to believe now. Astronaut (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Artist who did hot air balloon print entitled AT&T THUNDERBIRD BALLOON CLASSIC 1988

Thanks to everyone who answered my questions regarding id this artist. I did upload a pic of the print in TinEye Reverse but I'm having trouble figuring out how to use their service & maneuver in TinEye so I will try here again. I bought this print many years ago at an estate sale in Phx., Az but I was never able to know the last name of the artist because she scribbled her last name so badly, it is not legible. I don't know if the experts at Wikipedia are able to see pics on TinEye but if you are it is tagged as PRINTBALLOON6.JPG & the info on the screen where it was uploaded shows it will be there for 72 hours & then deleted. I also don't know if there is a zoom feature to see the artist's signature. I can take another pic of just the sig & upload that if it will help. It is alson being shown on eBay where there is a zoom feature. Use the title of the print to see pic. I think the 1st name of the artist is Gloria? or Diana, but it looks more like a Gloria. The last name may end in islew? I hope you can help me. I have googled till I'm blind. I'm grateful for any help. Thanks Barb Greer (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you give a direct link to the URL address for the webpage of the image? Paul B (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)