Humanities desk
< December 15	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 17 >

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.

December 16[edit]

Camila[edit]

The life and execution of Camila O'Gorman are recounted in a film, Camila. Apparently the firing squad was reluctant to shoot her and did not do so at the first command. At the end of the film, there is a note in French claiming that the members of the squad were themselves shot (passés pour les armes) for indiscipline.

Does anyone know whether that really happened? Our articles have no reference to it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This well-referenced article makes no mention of the firing squad refusing to obey or being shot for it. It does say they "in spite of the terror of punishment for disobedience, looked away from the corpse of the brave woman." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe the film took that tidbit and exaggerated it just a tiny bit. Thanks.

I'm having trouble reconstructing why the note was in French. The film was in Spanish and the subtitles were English, so it's weird. But I'm almost sure it was French. --Trovatore (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bank and Credit Union[edit]

What are the similarities and differences between them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Credit union article explains what it is and how it is different from other financial institutions. After you check there, feel free to come back with any specific questions. Bielle (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bank rips you off to enrich it's executives and shareholders, while a credit union only rips you off to enrich it's execs. StuRat (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside that Sturat's comment is without references, in Canada, at least, to the extent that there are profits in a credit union, they are shared with the membership (a.k.a. "account holders"). That's what a co-operative is all about. (The rules vary from country to country.) Bielle (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the need to give all the execs lavish bonuses, to ensure that there are no profits they would need to share. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK there are no execs in a credit union. It is a voluntary group run entirely by its members. It is run as a non-profit organisation, which means that no profits are distributed to any execs: they are all put back into the organisation and distributed to members. There are quite strict laws governing their operation. You (and StuRat) may like to investigate this site. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, at least, profit isn't determined until after employees get paid, including exec bonuses. Do employees not get paid in the UK ? StuRat (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The senior managers are all volunteers. I have been looking and just seeing jobs like office manager at £8 per hour, which is hardly excessive. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most reliable info I can find is here. Average salary for "Credit Union Manager" is £19,500. But then if I've read it right, it says that is based on less than five people. But then, it seems that credit unions don't employ many people anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, the Members and Education Credit Union was recently recognised as a bank. St Anselm (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Jessica A Bruno 19:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Thank you for all of your responses to my question here. All of this is interesting and will look into this further when I have a chance to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs)

Converting from musical notation to SI units[edit]

I was looking at the article on the Westminster Quarters for the tune. When I found it, I realized that it was in a form unsuitable for my purpose (programming a microcontroller to signal the time by sound). I looked at the E major article for more information, but it was equally unhelpful.

Instead of sharps and flats, minims and crotchets, I require hertz and milliseconds. Please point me to a conversion table. If none exists, one certainly ouget to be created and placed on Wikipedia. 75.35.96.138 (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out "Piano key frequencies"? Gabbe (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should help you with the frequencies. As to the timing: musical notation is about ratios, not absolute timings. Depending on how fast you want the piece to go, pick a length in milliseconds to be 'crochet'. All minims should be twice as long as this. All quavers (if you had any) should be half as long as the crochet length. All semibreves should twice as long as the minim length, so four times as long as the crochet length. If you decide the speed is wrong, you can adjust accordingly, keeping the ratios the same.

Of course, tuning is also really about ratios, not absolute pitch, but you can just stick in the standard modern piano frequencies. 86.164.79.174 (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to add: in this case, you need to know that a dotted minim is worth three crochets, so it will be three times your crochet length. 86.164.79.174 (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest getting the music in MIDI format. Each note tone is an integer. The duration of each note is set by a start and end time (also an integer). So, it helps normalize the music into something easier to use in research. You can read how I used it here. -- kainaw ™ 13:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This probably won't help in this particular case, but musical scores frequently have a metronome mark, which gives the tempo in beats per minute - the number of a stated length of note (typically a crotchet) that fit into a minute - this is generally meant as a rough guide, though. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be crotchety about it, but please note that crochet (kro-shay) is a technique for making fabrics, and crotchet is the musical note. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zju-27, Zu-27 or Sic-27[edit]

I'm looking subject called sic-27, Zu-27 or Zju-27. Thank you in advance. Странник27 (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us any clue as to what those subjects are ? StuRat (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Sukhoi Su-27? — Kpalion^(talk) 19:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create an article with this name, so am looking for a subject about which i can write in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Странник27 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've picked a title before you have a topic? Interesting. Best I can find is SIC 27 (the ever catchy "Evaluating the Substance of Transactions Involving the Legal Form of a Lease") in List of International Financial Reporting Standards#List of Interpretations. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Сan and Zu-27.

If you do this, the article will likely be deleted in short order as a non-notable topic. just so you know… --Ludwigs2 20:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that we need an object with this or a similar name. For example military equipment to such abreavvituroy. Странник27 (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for an existing article, the one Kpalion pointed to would seem to be a good fit. If you are intending to create an article having only the name in mind and not a subject, it is very unlikely that you would be able to create an acceptable article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that I want to create an article in Russian Wikipedia called Зю-27. We test the significance - the object reference in press. That is, this standard should be a separate article in the press. Write an article quoting party that satisfies the rules of the specific standard or, say, a specific article of cosmic rays Code - a very complicated matter. Only if the subject discussed in the press articles / scientific papers. (straight from the tin-type scandal law en: SOPA) Странник27 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found, more or less, what OP is referring to. Russian Wikipedia has an article, ru:Буква зю, about the letter Zyu, a joke name for the Latin letter Z. But the only online reference I could find for "Зю-27" is an article in Russian Absurdopedia, which says that Zyu-27 is the 27th, divine, variant of the letter Zyu. It may be some kind of Internet meme, but I can't tell whether it's notable enough to start a Wikipedia article about it. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are my own work. The second in a joking wikipedia, it has no authoritative sources for the normal Wikipedia. And I want to create an article with this name in this wiki. A second article about the letter phraseologism sic, it's not the name. But to translate the English Wikipedia it's worth. Странник27 (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing a tartan[edit]

It is customary for a tartan to be worn when a grandparent had the name. Not a great grandparent. So Mr Jones can wear the Robinson tartan when his grandmother was a Robinson, but his children may not. Clearly his wife can also wear the Robinson tartan. What is the rule when she divorces him? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference to such a custom in Tartan#The 'right' or 'entitlement' to tartan. Perhaps wherever you heard it would have the answer? --ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During the original period of tartan use, they had a specific meaning regarding your clan affiliation, and, as such, there were specific rules about who could wear which tartans. However, the modern revival of the tartan custom is a lot more flexible, you can really wear any tartan you please. It's something like the level of flexibility in medieval clothing you could wear to a Renaissance Faire. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just got myself a tartan based on where I was born as the one associated with the name just looked uninteresting and faded. And I only got the location one to be randomly different from other people. I prefer a bit of colour. :) I guess it's probably best to avoid ones for different families in case someone actually can tell the difference but The people I go out with don't particularly care that I know of. Dmcq (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a formal set of rules in the "original period" is a bit dubious - most of the rules first appeared in the nineteenth century, "rediscovered" by antiquarians who were romanticising a vanished past. Pre-1800 sources are very light on the idea of clan "ownership" of tartans; it's possible the idea arose out of the government tartans issued to specific Highland regiments and not from any general tradition. For a good survey of the subject, Hugh Trevor-Roper's The Invention of Scotland is well worth reading. Shimgray | talk | 19:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of different interpretations, as the section referenced above indicates. The US approach identified in the preceding contributions would be very uncommon in the UK.

Generally the patrilineal entitlement would be the primary, with matrilineal opportunities being secondary, but not liable to challenge. In your example that would be unusual if there was another tartan that could be used.

With respect to a divorced partner there is no reason to suggest that the "entitlement", such as it is, would be withdrawn.

ALR (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vestiarium Scoticum is worth a read. Not just the rules, but also many of the tartans themselves are relatively recent inventions. Apart from the deliberate forgeries, plenty of tartans originated simply because a mill wanted to produce a new pattern. (I wear an Irish county tartan which is, let's be honest, a complete fiction; but given Ireland's history of exporting millions of people to other countries it's probably a common route to "entitlement" in some other parts of the world)
The inventions were all part of nation-building. It's fun to play along with that, but taking it too seriously would be missing the point. If somebody really wants to find a tartan which they're "entitled" to, it shouldn't be too hard, considering that entitlement is not strictly enforced and of course there's the more recent invention of tartans for modern organisations and for entire countries. Worth browsing the nearest we have to an official register. bobrayner (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European monarchs relating to Queen Elizabeth II of UK[edit]

Which European monarchs are related to Queen Elizabeth II and how meaning first cousin, second cousin or third cousin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.107 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to common descent, everyone is related to everyone if you look back a sufficient number of generations. For more recent family trees the article "Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX" probably has what you're looking for. Gabbe (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting article is Royal descendants of John William Friso, Prince of Orange since he's the most recent common ancestor of all European Royal Houses. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal intermarriage#Grandchildren of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX shows greece, Spain and Denmark. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Based on the cousin chart, Harald V of Norway is a great-grandson (through his mother) of Edward VII, so he is Elizabeth's second cousin. Margrethe II of Denmark is Victoria's great-great-grandaughter, making her Elizabeth's third cousin. And Beatrix of the Netherlands is, I think, the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter of George II of Great Britain, making her - I think - eighth cousins once removed with Elizabeth. St Anselm (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, just to be clear, the answer is all six of them. St Anselm (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert, which go forward for about four or five generations in the case of royal families. If you open up the ancestry tables (ahnentafeln) under each "Ancestors" heading, you can also go back about seven or eight generations. Victoria's descendants or relatives also married or were born into the no-longer-reigning royal or imperial houses of Russia, Germany, Greece, Yugoslavia and Romania, as well as the restored royal house of Spain. One grandson served in the Nazi Reichstag and a son-in-law served in the British House of Commons as well as as Governor-General of Canada. One son of Victoria's had earlier served as Governor-General of Canada, a grandson was Governor-General of South Africa, and a grandson-in-law was Governor-General of both. I'd give details if I had more time at the moment. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A great-grandson, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was Governor-General of Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My original reply said Victoria's relatives had been Govs-Gen of Canada and Australia, but when I checked Grandchildren of Victoria and Albert (which I didn't create, but upon which I've spent dozens if not hundreds of hours), I could only find Canada and S.A. (South Africa, that is, not South Australia, which only gets a Guv). And I think I may even own this stamp: —— Shakescene (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say he only got onto a stamp because of his royal status. The only other governor-general we've ever had on our stamps was the first native-born one, Sir Isaac Isaacs, and that was in 1973, 37 years after he left the post and 25 years after he died. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for the various degrees of cousin, see Cousin Rojomoke (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]