Humanities desk
< May 24	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 26 >

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 25[edit]

How to list instruments by range using wolfram alpha?[edit]

I am trying to use wolfram alpha to find instruments by their sounding range, the problem is that I need to look instrument by instrument by searching "random instrument sounding range". I could try to find that list using other places, the thing is that they are way smaller than wolfram alpha one.

Any way I could list down the instruments by their sounding range? I know wolfram list other stuff by one of their characteristics. 201.78.181.175 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xin Zhui[edit]

Isn't the general consensus that the near perfect preservation of the mummies of Xin Zhui and Ling Huiping was the result of coincidence and the vacuum seal (not intentional on part of the tomb builders) of their tombs? If this is coincidence are there similiar ancient mummies around the world with perfectly preserved body parts and organs. Don't mention bodies that can't be examine like incorruptible saints. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was always under the impression that it was Xin Zhui's uniqueness that made it special, so I'm not understanding if you are asking could there be others we don't know of yet or for a listing of only the ones known. There are always the ice-men discoveries, I remember one in Europe about a decade or so ago, technically unintentional but by a glacier or sudden ice age, nothing man made.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd number of police officers or detectives?[edit]

Every police procedural on television depicts both uniformed police and non-uniformed detectives having partners. So what happens if there's an odd number of officers or detectives in a unit/precinct, so that assigning each officer/detective exactly one partner is mathematically impossible? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 14:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In real life, not all cops have partners. In fiction, the writers will write it so they do, or not; it's fiction. They'll find a way. Mingmingla (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if a cop doesn't have a partner, isn't he at a serious disadvantage (more danger while apprehending suspects, more difficulty solving cases, etc.) compared to the ones that do? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 15:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might depend on the community and its normal level of expected criminal activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine most detectives would work in pairs to solve the major crimes (homicide, robbery, rape, etc.) often shown on TV shows like Law and Order. Hot Stop 16:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And trios and large groups, and solo. It's all about resource allocation. There are plenty of cases where a single officer or detective pursues a case, sometimes over years. Mingmingla (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason cops have partners in nearly all works of fiction is because it sets up an important character dynamic. You always have two partners who have some difference that presents a conflict. You can pair old/young, by-the-book/maverick, male/female, timid/wild, etc. Doing so sets up dramatic tension and makes the story interesting for the audience. It's a deliberate choice on the part of the writers to do exactly that. Actual police organizations are not bound by the conventions of fiction writing, and so are quite free to organize themselves using whatever method gets the job done. --Jayron32 18:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! If NOW could see us now! ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a television show or movie, it also makes it easier to tell the story to the audience if there's a second person. They can set up a dialog along the lines of "Hey, Harry. What if Mrs. Adams really did kill her husband?" If there were just a solo detective, they would have to record some sort of voice over about what's going through the solo detective's head or write in to the character some quirk where he discusses cases with his dog or goldfish in order to let the audience in on what's going on. Dismas|^(talk) 20:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"NOW"? If you mean the National Organization for Women, I'm not sure what that has to do with this topic...? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 20:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "difference that presents a conflict". It may assist by reading the messages in order ;-). ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily (re. voice-over/goldfish). Columbo almost always worked alone. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing. I too am puzzled by the meaning of NOW (and the response). Can you explain your explanation? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do so. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 19:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Market St. has replied in detail in lawyerese on my talk page. Proceed at your own peril. You've been warned. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes . . . proceeeed.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my medium-length experience, in real life I have only ever seen cops and detectives in pairs, so the question does sort of make sense. I don't know if they are always assigned to the same pairs, and someone would be spending some time at the office, and so on. On my favourite cop drama City Homicide, they often went around in pairs, but always had all 6 detectives on one case, which of course got solved in one episode - now that bit is unrealistic. IBE (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, same here. It's not just in TV shows; in real life, every time I see a cop, there's two of them. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 21:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy varies by jurisdiction. In London, beat cops with the Met have apparently been patrolling solo since 2009: [1]. That article notes, "Although there will be concerns over safety, [Police Commissioner Stephenson] has insisted that officers should not patrol alone in any situation thought too risky....one study has suggested that lone officers are less likely to be assaulted, as they will tend to call for back-up rather than be confrontational."

Solo patrols (on foot or bicycle, or in-car) can give the impression of heightened police presence—given an equal number of officers on patrol, a person will encounter a patrol twice as often. From a budget standpoint, of course, going from pairs to solo patrollers means that one can get away with a little more than half as many officers to cover the same amount of ground. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the TV police detective Columbo never really had a regular partner. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is there a disability that...[edit]

makes one very sensitive to touch such that one would feel extreme pain and cry from minor injuries that would only feel a bit pain for most people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.88.28 (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a medical condition, not a disability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it might be disabling. See Facts about Allodynia and Filing for Disability Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Words like disability have very different meanings and connotations in different places. It's currently the politically correct term where I come from, but not everywhere. Not a safe path to go down unless you clarify place and time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Increased sensitivity to pain is hyperalgesia, and decreased sensitivity to pain is hypoalgesia. Pain from stimuli that would normally not be painful is allodynia. Other related terms would be hyperesthesia and dysesthesia. From my quick search, I couldn't find any more-specific condition (from a specific, known cause) that results in increased sensitivity to pain, like Congenital insensitivity to pain is a specific genetic disorder which results in inability to feel pain. That doesn't mean there isn't one, though. -- 67.40.209.204 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a wikipedia article on Sensory defensiveness that may be helpful on this topic.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Middle names[edit]

I know the Social Security Administration in the U.S. (where I'm from) keeps a list of most popular first names, but is there any such database for middle names, either in the U.S. or anywhere in the anglosphere? Just a curiosity of mine. Hot Stop 17:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The SSA website indicates that their database is for all given names, per this description. AFAIK, both first and middle names are "given" names, so the SSA does not differentiate between the two, but I could be wrong about that. --Jayron32 18:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for define given name indicates it usually means first name. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, middle names are "given" by the parents rather than being pre-determined. There is often a link between first and middle names. I have quite a few relatives with names like John Adam Smith Sr., who has a son named for him, obviously; and then the son goes by Adam in order to distinguish himself from his father. So, in cases like this, which is the true "given name"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Conflict As well as our Middle name Wikipedia article referencing only the first name as "given". ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first name seems to be often presumed to have greater importance, even when the person always goes by his middle name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they are a political assassin, in which case all 3 names seem to be equally important, the lone exception being Brute as in Et tu?^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that middle names are not given, I am mentioning that by usage they are not often what is meant by given name. I would be surprised if they have many cautious scholars at the SSA who would be worried one way or the other about clarifying the distinction. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the first name/middle thing right can sometimes matter a fair bit. Australia had a Prime Minister back in the 1970s and 80s whose full name was John Malcolm Fraser. However, he was universally known as Malcolm. When visiting the US President of the time, the President, in one of those gestures meant to show that they are the best of friends, managed to call him John. Much embarrassment all round. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant first names are also often a mark of a certain cricketing prowess: see IVA (Viv) Richards, MC (Colin) Cowdrey, and my absolute favourite, WPUJC (Chaminda) Vaas. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a cricketer, but what about Louis Antoine Jullien, whose full name was - wait for it - Louis George Maurice Adolphe Roche Albert Abel Antonio Alexandre Noë Jean Lucien Daniel Eugène Joseph-le-brun Joseph-Barême Thomas Thomas Thomas-Thomas Pierre Arbon Pierre-Maurel Barthélemi Artus Alphonse Bertrand Dieudonné Emanuel Josué Vincent Luc Michel Jules-de-la-plane Jules-Bazin Julio César Jullien. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, "Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian D'Anconia sat on the floor playing marbles" is the second best sentence ever written in an English novel. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the children of Tollemache... AnonMoos (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, the US Social Security database does not say anything more specific than it provides "given names". (Interestingly, it lets you download all names (ie beyond the top 1,000), but peeking in those files the names are listed singly.

I took a look at the methods academics have used. It seems they have obtained public records, from school boards, US State birth records or the authors listed in scientific paper indexes.

If you're not an academic and would not be able to have such data released to you, another option is older birth record data, which is free and available on geneology websites such as ancestry.com or for a single state. Of course, you'd have to figure out a way to extract the middle names. Apparently, this is quite the database/programming headache! (Interesting discussion in that link of many factors discussed above, such as Spanish names, multiple middle names, and the millions of people with a single name.)

Other than than, I'm not finding any lists/databases with significant numbers. An Australian website offers short lists of the top 20 most popular middle names in a year. Name Nerds did a middle name survey of (about 9,000) readers. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]