Humanities desk
< October 3	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 5 >

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.

October 4[edit]

jocasta[edit]

what kind of person is jocasta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.166.184 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on her at Jocasta. You could also read any number of classic Greek plays that feature her as a character, including Oedipus Rex and Phoenician Women. Good luck! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Liked Dickens[edit]

Hi. The article on A Handful of Dust states that the novel was an extrapolation of the author's short story The Man Who Liked Dickens. Does anyone know how I might be able to get hold of a copy of this short story, preferably online? Thanks! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story has been anthologized frequently. In a hasty search, I'm not seeing it in any in-print anthologies, but copies of The Penguin Book of Horror Stories and The Book of Fantasy should be readily available in libraries and in the used-book market. The Complete Short Stories of Evelyn Waugh seems to be in print in both the United States and Britain. Since the story is still in copyright, I wouldn't expect to find it online. Deor (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - think I might have tracked down a copy of Horror Stories in the library! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, Waugh made only a few trivial changes when he used the story as Chapter VI of the novel, so don't expect any startling revelations. Deor (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it anything like "The woman who enjoyed kipling?" Edison (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly boy, I've never met a woman who'd ever admit to having kippled. Deor (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affair of the Diamond Necklace question[edit]

What happened to the titular diamond necklace that so ruined Marie Antoinette? I can't seem to find any answers or pictures, just a single drawing of it that appears undated. (Image:Diamond Necklace Marie Antoinette.jpeg) Thanks! Zidel333 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken apart and the constituent gems sold in London and Paris by the Count & Countess de La Motte. Probably some of these have been reused in other settings. - Nunh-huh 19:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The London Times, in January 1959, covering the "Ageless Diamond" exhibition at Christie's, stated that the Duchess of Sutherland's sautoir displayed there was "part of the famous, or rather, notorious necklace" that brought about Marie Antoinette's downfall. The necklace stolen by the La Mottes had 629 diamonds. Among the sales mentioned by La Motte in his deposition were 22 stones from the "scallops" sold by him to Gray's, a jewel store in Bond Street, London. It is thought that the stones that were used in the Duchess of Sutherland's sautoir came from among those 22 stones. (We don't seem to have an article on sautoirs: these are rope necklaces, longer than opera length, falling below the waist, and often having a tassel or pendant.) - Nunh-huh 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This definitely helps explain what happened. Seems a shame what happened to the necklace though, it would be a fabulous sight today. Any chance of pictures of some of the subsequent jewelry? Zidel333 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Gisser[edit]

Can you please create a page on a man named David Gisser, he has engineering importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.98.14 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reference desk. I believe you're looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sistine chapel ceiling - classification requested[edit]

I'm wondering if there is any internationally standardized system to define parts of the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? --Scriberius (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure I understand the question, but the "religious and public buildings of papal Rome" are all on the Unesco list of World Heritage Sites [1], using the following criteria:

"(1) to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; (2) to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design; (3) to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; (4) to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; and (6) to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria)".

Some of these criteria apply specifically to the ceiling. DAVID ŠENEK 09:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I just need a classification system for locating parts the ceiling. --Scriberius (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just use the system used by the Vatican Museum? I doubt this is going to be standardized by ISO! Dmcq (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCain as Maverick[edit]

When and by whom was the term "Maverick" first used to describe John McCain? 76.103.138.164 (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This profile mentions a 1993 Washington Post article that described McCain as "a conservative with maverick instincts." Not sure that was the first, though, it was soon afterwards that he got that reputation due to his efforts to towards campaign finance reform. Rockpocket 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was his gunner, "Goose", who first called him that. But then Goose died when he ejected into the canopy. And Meg Ryan cried a lot. But its OK, cuz Kelly McGillis was WAY hotter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Garner was well known as a maverick way back in 1957, long before McCain. Perhaps he should run for president. Edison (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did and with Jack Lemmon no less! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside...Mel Gibson, another maverick, despite most people thinking of him as Australian, is eligible to be President himself, being born in the U.S. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think his drunken anti-Semitic comments probably tanked any actual eligibility. --140.247.11.44 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't do this guy too much harm. Rockpocket 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson is an Australian by association, if not by citizenship. He was certainly claimed as one of us when he made Mad Max etc, but when he makes drunken anti-semitic comments he morphs into "the American actor Mel Gibson". He was named an honorary Officer of the Order of Australia back in 1997 for his services to Australian cinema. As well as being a U.S. citizen, he's also an Irish citizen, so I guess he could stand for President of Ireland some day. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Nick Cave, Jack? I'm interested to know whether he gets claimed as one of your own. He was born in Australia but hardly seems to live there much these days. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Nick's indisputably an Australian, Richard. We have a long history of performers, actors etc making their careers overseas, and then choosing to live o/s more or less permanently. They don't cease being Aussies just because of that. Unless they abandon their Australian citizenship, which various people have done. Others become dual citizens. I guess it all comes down to definition: a person could be simultaneously an Australian by birth, an American by citizenship, a Greek by residence, and a Briton by long association. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it all comes down to whether they were born here, or were born Australian citizens overseas. Nick Cave was born here - end of story. Mel Gibson and Russell Crowe weren't, which enables us to claim them as Australians when they do good things but refer to them as foreigners when they do bad things. If Nicole Kidman ever did a bad thing, we'd probably remember only the fact that she was born in Hawaii as a U.S. citizen and conveniently ignore the fact that she also had Australian citizenship from birth through her parents, who just happened to be visiting Hawaii at the time. I'm not kidding, many people really do argue along these ridiculous lines when it suits their purpose, and the relevant talk pages are full of such debates. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]