Humanities desk
< January 6	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 8 >

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.

January 7[edit]

Office clothings and skin problems[edit]

Some people have the skin problems and cannot wear normal office clothings so what they wear so the boss not scold them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk • contribs) 08:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although most formal wear is basically cotton, polyester or wool, there are a great many alternative fabrics (we have a list at List of fabrics), and many of these are used to craft all kinds of clothing. I'm not going to link to any specific sites, so as not to bias you towards one. But you can basically do an online search for "alternatives to cotton", "alternatives to wool", or whathaveyou, to find out what can replace whatever specific fabric you have in mind that could cause someone a skin condition. Bamboo clothing is allegedly quite comfortable, and the clothing looks just like it was made of cotton, though I haven't found anyone selling a bamboo business suit or dress. Business casual bamboo clothing looks available. Some sites sell linen and hemp business attire. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, you get a letter from your doctor to confirm that there is a genuine medical reason why you cannot wear certain types of clothing - which might be about the materials used, or sometimes about styles (you may not be able to wear a tight collar, or high heels). Then you go and discuss this with your boss to see what sort of compromise can be worked out. Wymspen (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I...really wonder sometimes why this place exists. TimothyJosephWood 14:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because what may seem blindingly obvious to some of us can saeem like an insurmountable problem to others, Wymspen (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should first determine the source of the problem. Is it the material of the clothes, or were they treated with some chemical you are allergic to?Hofhof (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act may provide protection for those told to wear clothing that a medical condition counterindicates. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking literature[edit]

How much efforts does literary science put on ranking literature? For example, discovering the 100 best English novels of the XIX century, ordered from 1 to 100. Does literary science care about this at all? Is there interest in ranking works further after deciding what belongs to the literary canon? --Llaanngg (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost none. Ask 10 people for a ranking, and you'll probably get 11 different answers. People can't agree with each other, and some can't even agree with themselves. Also, it's not a very important question. The only time things like this come up in any impactful way is when considering what books kids should be required to read in schools. Even then, you are usually choosing a few books per year and not restricted to 19th century novels, so lists of reading recommendations are unlikely to be that long. You do sometimes see lists in newspapers or magazines, e.g. [1], but those are there mostly to attract reader interest / sell magazines. They are unlikely to represent a serious act of scholarship. Dragons flight (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really scientific but some years ago the UK had the Big Read surveyto try and identify the nations favourite book. The Lord of the Rings came out on top, for reasons that escape me. --86.31.99.241 (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting access to contraception and abortion[edit]

Will restricting access to contraception and abortion help to significantly raise the birth rate in United States and other western countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.34.100.210 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can we know what "will" happen in the future? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Know? No. But maybe it could be predicted based on event studies of past changes in policy in some states or countries. Loraof (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A complicating factor might be a possible rise in maternal deaths resulting from increased numbers of illegal and less safe abortions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually huge impact. The death rate from illegal abortions in the years before Roe v. Wade was estimated between about 2.5% and 0.5% [2]. It was likely much higher in the more distant past, as the commonest deadly complication of such abortions was infection. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell, because the proper controlled experiments have not been done. We can conclude from limited epidemiological data and clinical trials that: It's complicated. From a rather raw standpoint, reducing access to abortion or increasing its cost is associated with decreased rates of pregnancy, especially among the poor [3]. However, assessing these results is rather complicated because nothing tends to happen in isolation. Making it entirely harder to obtain obstetric services is associated with an increase in birth rates [4]. This had led to a model where it is assumed that women avoid getting pregnant the more difficult or expensive it is to obtain an abortion, but only if they have access to contraceptive services, which if they do not, drives the trend in the other direction. Some researchers have attempted randomized clinical trials to address these issues, such as offering women who already had access to contraceptive services, even better access to contraceptive services, but this resulted in no significant change in the rate of unintended pregnancy [5], which may indicate there is some plateauing of the influence of access to contraception. The overall trend in the United States over time is for unintended pregnancies to become less common amongst the wealthy and more common amongst the poor [6]. But again, there are so many things going on at once that you can't parse out with certainty what are the causes and effects. For instance, increased financial security seems to increase the rate of deliberate pregnancies. If any offering of access to abortion or contraceptive services, or restrictions thereof, is part of a larger change to welfare policy, the outcome can be unpredictable. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E. Linde[edit]

Who was "E. Linde"? He is listed as a creator of this image File:Kalakaua in Berlin (ca. 1881).jpg. Thanks!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a reference to a "Kunstverlag E. Linde", which existed in Berlin in those years, although the actual photographer who ran it at that time wasn't called Linde but de:Sophus Williams. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another image of that person seemingly taken by the same photographer names Bradley & Rulofson, San Francisco. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]