Humanities desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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 28[edit]

Matching point sizes of different typefaces for visual size equivalence[edit]

At the same "point size", different typefaces generally don't look the same size. Is there a standard approach to determining what point size in one typeface will visually have the same size as another typeface at a given point size? Is the x-height the correct measure to use for determining visual size equivalence? Thanks. --173.49.79.20 (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There could be many ways to compare. For example, bold text might seem bigger, in that it's darker and easier to read, just as larger text is. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

173.49.79.2 -- There's a long and complex typographic history, but basically point size is supposed to represent the recommended minimum line height. I.e. if a given size of a given typeface is supposed to take up six lines of type per inch, then the point size is 12 points (or very close to 12 points, depending on the exact definition used). If one typeface has very short ascenders and descenders relative to x-height, while another typeface has very long ascenders and descenders, or one is "compressed" while the other is "extended", there may not be any meaningful "visual size equivalence"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Point size" refers to hand typesetting -- there are 72 points to an inch (6 picas), and the person setting the type had to know how many inches of type he was setting - to fill out the space one used slivers of "lead" (metal pronunciation) and the term for this was "leading" (pronounced "ledding"). Thus a font was sized so that when no leading was used, that was the space taken up by the type. Careless typesetters would have the "descenders" break off if they gave no leading under the final line. To prevent casual breakage of ascenders, ligatures were used ("ffi" etc.) "Point size" did not refer to "recommended minimum line height" at all, and a great many schoolbooks were printed with 10/12 type - 10 point type with 2 point leading. Six lines per inch - but the type was not "12 point type." Unleaded typesetting was avoided for legibility reasons. There is a subjective "weight" to fonts, which varies even depending on the language being set. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the definition of a point as 1/72 of an inch is just one among several definitions (and a relatively modern one). In the U.S., a definition of 1/72.27 of an inch prevailed before the introduction of modern computerized typesetting. In any case, your discussion boils down to something exactly equivalent to what I called "minimum line height": i.e. the overall vertical space that a line of type naturally occupies in the context of other lines of type in the same font which are set above and below it. The "recommended" comes in because with computer typesetting it's possible for lines of type to be set more closely than that (i.e. more than 6 lines of type per inch for a 12 point font), which wouldn't be possible in traditional typesetting without shaving metal... AnonMoos (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fear your 72.27 cavil is not of any importance. The 1866 statute defines a printer's foot to be 864 points or 72 picas. Thus the "72 points per inch" goes back to 1866 at least. The "Johnson pica" is more recent. And the use of leading was essential in typesetting as a rule - which I fear you seem to elide. Collect (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- it was 72 points to a printer's inch, but the long-prevailing definition of a printer's inch was not exactly the same as a 25.4mm inch (and there were a number of additional definitions of a "point" besides). And the definition of a 12-point font was one that would naturally be set as six lines of type to the inch without further intervention (as I've been saying all along)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 25.4 mm = 1 inch was created by treaty in the late 1950s -- and has essentially nothing to do with "printer's inch" at all. The "change" was by 2 parts in a million. And I suggest you ask anyone who has actually set type by hand whether anyone would use cold type for 12/0 spacing <g>. It was not done. Collect (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Adams[edit]

For a man known for his travels how come I can't seem to find any photograph of Henry Adams abroad in Europe, Japan or the Hawaii or Tahiti?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, photography was a pretty arduous process in those days. Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends which days you have in mind. The first small, easily portable, and indeed inexpensive cameras date from the 1880s and 1890s. Even then, most travellers failed to see the possibilities of them until the early 20th century. Moonraker (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Term for a fellow disabled person[edit]

Do people with disabilities use the term "cousin" to refer to other people with disabilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.162 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic and inappropriate behavior for the Reference Desk --Bowlhover (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Haven't heard that one. A retarded man I know calls the other retarded men in his group home his "brothers", so brothers and sisters seems more common. StuRat (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, StuRat, the term "retarded" is now considered to be offensive. --Viennese Waltz 12:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since we stopped calling them by that kind of name, their situation in life has gotten much better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks sarcastic, but I for one would rather have my disability and not be abused for it, than still have the disability and also be abused for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a "RE-tard" is offensive. The term "retarded" is basically old-fashioned or out of date. So tell us, please, what the current politically correct term or terms would be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, "retarded" is offensive. As for the term to use if (unlike you and Stu, it seems) you are sensitive to the need to avoid giving offence, see the original post. --Viennese Waltz 13:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Person with disabilities" is too general. Do you have an actual answer to my question, or are you just here for harassment purposes, as per usual? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask me, you ask them (see below). That's kind of the point. --Viennese Waltz 13:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have an answer, and your visit here was solely for harassment. Nice going, Viennerschitzel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice now you've baselessly accused Viennese Waltz of harassment. At the very least you could get the username right. I'd urge you to reconsider your position in this thread, which you joined in order to defend discriminatory language. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually his idea of a joke. --Viennese Waltz 15:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say. I'm not laughing, and I'd guess you aren't either. And now there's the new thread below. At what point does behaviour become so hostile that someone actually takes action? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. At what point does VW's hostility become too much to take? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, the correct term is Wienerschnitzel. "Viennerschitzel" is deeply incorrect and may cause profound distress. Moonraker (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may never have heard of the Tom Lehrer song.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mystified by this, Baseball Bugs. What Tom Lehrer sings is Wienerschnitzel. Moonraker (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something like a pun, and a twist on how W's can sound like V's in places. Lowbrow, but I chuckled. Reminded me of the Hansel issue in Bewitched Bunny. Not nice to pick on people, though according to Maclean's, "Bugs can come off as a jerk if you write him the way he was written in most films, but if you make him a loser, he just doesn’t seem like the character." InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When was the euphemism retarded coined, and when was it superseded by the next euphemism? —Tamfang (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Retarded" replaced "mental defective" when "mental defective" became tainted by eugenics associations after WW2. Already by the late 1960s, "retard" was the favorite insult of ten-year-old boys in some areas... AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, maybe you should address this: How does your friend feel about the term "retarded"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't call him that, but then I don't call him "mentally disabled", "special", or any other euphemism, either. I just call him "Jimmy". It's the condition itself that is embarrassing, not the factually correct term "mentally retarded". No matter what PC name you come up with for it, it's never going to be a good thing. I also know people who are ugly, and rather than come up with euphemisms for that when I talk with them, I just avoid referring to their level of attractiveness, just as I avoid referring to Jimmy's IQ. Now, if I had to describe their looks, say to somebody who only knew them online and was interested in dating them, that's when I'd have to be honest, but would also try to be diplomatic. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of the term "cousin" used in this context, at least in the western world. But yes, people with specific disabilities do tend to have terms they use to describe their "group". For example, many individuals with aspergers syndrome often refer to themselves as "aspies". I wouldn't be surprised if other groups of disabled people had similar slang terms for their collective conditions, but I would have no clue what those terms would be. 124.181.239.69 (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European peoples who attend school in America[edit]

In history, I learned that Americans initially attended school in Great Britain and other European countries. Nowadays, there is Emma Watson, an English girl, who attends university in America. Since when did this shift happen? When did Europeans start seeing educational value in America? 69.174.58.108 (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One example hardly constitutes a "shift". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that for obvious economic reasons, the proportion of people who are residents/nationals of one country but receive an education in another country on another continent will always be an insignificant minority, right? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were schools in Virginia and New England from their very beginnings. And long before anyone was called an American (and indeed before there were Thirteen Colonies) Harvard was founded in New England precisely because of the trouble and expense of travelling to Europe for a higher education. You also need to bear in mind that in the 17th century transatlantic migration was far from irreversible: it was surprisingly common for English migrants to North America and the West Indies to return to England, especially after the English Civil War changed so much there. Moonraker (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Watson notwithstanding, the flow of students is probably still from America to Britain rather than the other way around. "The number of US students attending universities in the UK was 16,233 last year (2013)", but "the Fulbright Commission said a record 9,186 British students took university courses in the US in 2011/12". Sorry I couldn't find any more recent source for the US statistics, but it's unlikely that the UK->US numbers will have increased >70% in the last two years. 123.121.222.250 (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of note is that the population of the two nations is significantly different. Given that the U.S. is 5 times as populous as the U.K., that means an equivalent cross-pond exchange should feature 5 times as many Americans going to British schools. That there are less than twice as many U.S. students studying in the U.K. means that roughly, the average U.K. students is 2.5 times more likely to study in America than the other way around (very rough approximation). So, it is MORE likely that any individual British student will come to the US than the other way around. --Jayron32 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thought exactly. The gigantic continent has more people on it right now than the British Isles. Shadowjams (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went to college with a few British kids. They were kind of jerks, so my theory on the whole thing is that England kicked them out. But I'm not seeing any sort of real trend here. Bali88 (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you weren't majoring in statistics. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers are so low that it looks like studying abroad in each other's countries isn't something Yanks and Brits much do at all. As mentioned above, studying abroad is typically only done by the affluent. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 2011-12, a lot more students came to America to study (764,495 vs. 283,332), but no European country is in top 10, while 44% or more of Americans studied in Europe. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One may note that a large percentage of foreign students attend a small minority of American institutions (more than 10% attend 10 schools), just as the large majority of Americans studying abroad head to a small number of specific institutions. At a certain point, an institution becomes an "international" one in that sense, and frequently is chosen for quite specialized reasons. [2] gives the US as attracting 819,644 foreign students in 2012-13. Collect (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the source cited by Clarityfiend does not state that 44% of Americans studied in Europe. The percentage is much lower than that. 67.17.193.162 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bias against people with disabilities?[edit]

Is the Wikipedia community biased against people with disabilities? I just asked a simple question about a term in disability communities. Why do you give such insulting responses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.149 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep the bickering off this page. --Jayron32 22:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not exactly. There's this nannyistic user named Vienna-something who often comes waltzing in here for the sole purpose of harassing other users. In this case, he went after StuRat (the only user who actually tried to answer your question), and things went downhill from there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And since no one would answer the question I raised (maybe because they don't know the answer themselves), according to the U.S. Supreme Court it's "intellectually disabled".[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court? Who on earth made them the arbiter of language?--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody. They choose that term now because it squares with what doctors use nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I can assure you that Wikipedia as a whole, and the vast majority of our members will have no bias against people with disabilities. You just had the misfortune of having a user come to your question that had a personal axe to grind (the esteemed member above me), and used your question to do it. Unfortunately it happens on here sometimes. Do not worry, it is currently the subject of an ongoing possible disciplinary action. Please don't let this put you off the Refdesk or Wikipedia in general. Fgf10 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is VW that has the axe to grind. I never did anything to him except to stand up to his harassment and nannying from time to time. Regardless, I think most users here can safely be regarded as being sensitive to the plights of those less fortunate than themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, can we leave this to talk pages please, and not pollute the refdesk with such nonsense? Fgf10 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You began the pollution. Delete your comments, and I'll delete mine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI WikiProject Disability happens to have a current initiative to develop a style guide for Wikipedians writing about disability and related topics. Editors with a good faith interest in the topic are invited to contribute. The initial proposal and discussion is at WT:WikiProject Disability#Developing a style guide and the draft (complete with it's own Talk page) is at WP:WikiProject Disability/Style guide (draft). You don't need to be a language, style, or disability expert to participate - even posing questions that you would like the guide to answer would be a valued contribution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 24 year old son with moderate learning disabilities who has many friends and associates with a variety of such conditions. I have never heard him or his friends use the term "cousin" in this way. We live in Northern California. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is no term I've ever come across in widespread usage. Also, and this is just my perception, but except for the mildly mentally disabled, I've never noticed anyone even recognizing or noticing that there is any distinction between themselves and other people. My own brother is verbal and can read and do moderately complex tasks. I'm not sure he has ever recognized that he is different or knows who else is different. Perhaps on the very mild disability end of things there is some recognition, but it wouldn't think it would be something they'd spend too much time discussing. And typically those with mild disabilities socialize with people of normal intelligence too, so I'm not sure there would be much use for a term. But that's just my opinion. Bali88 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a comment above before seeing your follow-up. I will paste it here instead. Stalwart111 01:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Occasionally, but I can only provide anecdotal accounts from personal experience (having worked with disabled young people) rather than anything reliably sourced or referenced. In Australia, group homes and supported accommodation have become more popular in the last decade or so (as opposed to institutionalisation). In those instances, young people with disabilities often refer to their housemates in familial terms (my brother, my cousin, my family) as a means of explaining the platonic relationships they have with housemates. There may also be instances where disabled people refer to disabled strangers as "cousins" simply because of the circumstances they share but that's not something I'm particularly familiar with. Stalwart111 01:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]