Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 December 9
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < December 8 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 10 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 9
[edit]I don’t understand why you lot consider this to be a Christian symbol. I have never seen any biblic mentions or uses of this. Are you just classifying it as such simply because it was used by Christians? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- See the section: Fleur-de-lis#Symbolism in religion and art. Rmhermen (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Damn, I missed the lily mention in the Song of Solomon. Still, it’s ambiguous and not in the New Testament. At the very least, the symbol is not biblic in origin, surely. --66.190.69.246 (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Christianity has accumulated a great mass of symbols over the last two millennia, and not all of them are directly Biblical in origin. The Ichthys symbol was used from the very earliest days of the Church, but the mentions of fish in the Gospels don't really support it's use as a personal emblem of Christ, unless you accept that Jonah prefigures the Resurrection. Alansplodge (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Damn, I missed the lily mention in the Song of Solomon. Still, it’s ambiguous and not in the New Testament. At the very least, the symbol is not biblic in origin, surely. --66.190.69.246 (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. --66.190.69.246 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
"You lot"? Is GWB lurking here? μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why would George Bush use a Britishism? --66.190.69.246 (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe he picked it up from our Tone? Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Verifying if two images taken by Edward S. Curtis the same person and Nampeyo on Wiki?
[edit]Viewing a biography of Edward S. Curtis on television which showed a variety of pictures of his work, being instantly attracted to one in particular. On searching the internet, found a handful of pictures I'm interested in, one from the show and another looking like it's the same person, but differently posed, sitting, painting pottery. The head shot showed on TV had been edited. I found 'that one' plus the original, where she's carrying pottery on her head. They've edited the pottery out, apparently for sales purposes because it's not looking very flattering? All his pictures are up for sale. So, I've discovered 'four' so far! In the effort of finding more, finding Nampeyo on Wiki, saw an old Nampeyo. Although it's probably the same person, but she doesn't quite have the same facial features as the younger pictures present, especially in the mouth? Zooming in doesn't help recognition? Finding another with a different hair a style that maybe of the same person taken at a later date, but unable to verify? After fruitless efforts trying to find email contact address or links to establish such, and finding nearly all in the Wiki article are either dead or sectioned off as a copywrite issue, I need to ask if you can help find the pictures of the same person to verify these two pictures as being the same person or not including Nampeyo in Wiki? Can't give you copies of the pictures I have, because I don't seem to be able to paste or upload them? They're not on Wiki to reference to? Names related to any of these pictures from sites are ambiguous? Best of luck!Priboi2011 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- We have articles on Edward S. Curtis and many of his pictures at [1]. We also have articles on Nampeyo (which does not use a Curtis picture) and her descendants, also potters. This non-Wikipedia link shows a couple of non-Curtis pictures of her at different ages. There appear to be at least 3 or 4 Curtis images. Curtis visited the Hopi in 1900, 1902, 1904, 1906, 1911, 1912, and 1919. At least one image of Nampeyo is dated 1900[2]. There are about a dozen non-Curtis images of Nampeyo on that net, several which are sourced to museums, who you could also ask questions of. I don't see any copyright problems listed on these Wikipedia pages. Do you know which pages had that notice? Rmhermen (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
A question about black light
[edit]A strange one this, but I'm wondering if the term "black light" (as in ultraviolet light) is predominantly an American expression. I live in the UK and am currently writing a story in which UV plays a small role. I remember the term from series such as Quincy, but when I read my piece to an audience this evening they queried my use of it, and it got me thinking. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance. 86.140.105.29 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- When writing, one has to consider one's audience and how they will receive/perceive it – think that's what your asking. From a technical point of view, I live in the UK also and have always understood 'black light'. But I am of a technical background and your readers may not be. To dispel all doubt, it might be better to spell it out that it is ultra-violet 'A' that is your subject (or object or whatever)(gosh I can't believe I just got that all so mangled up). A good author does a little bit of research (as you're doing now). Your novel may carry more conviction (credibility) if you define (simply) that 'black-light' has a wave length of … OH, some one has just called at the door – I will try and come back later and give you a reference.--Aspro (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Back! As always Wikipedia has an article on it. Black light (Ultraviolet A) has a wave length of 400 – 315 nm.--Aspro (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Interestingly, on the US Amazon.com there are many products described as simply a "Blacklight", but on Amazon.co.uk the same products usually described as a "UV Blacklight" or a "Blacklight UV torch" or some other similar construction that gets both search terms in the title.
- I don't know if that indicates an English Language variation, or just that the UK copy editor is more thorough. APL (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I could swear I remember hearing an engvar term for this just recently, not just the term UV light, but something colloquial. Of course I cannot remember what that was.... μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Many moons ago I had a blacklight in my bedroom, so it's been known in the UK for at least 35 years! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- In many cases, we Brits understand American use of the language - mostly because we watch a good number of US TV shows and movies - but we often do not use the Americanisms ourselves. So when an American talks about (say) putting something into the "trunk" of their car, we know they are referring to what we call "the boot" - but we wouldn't ever use the word "trunk" to describe it. So it comes as no surprise that we understand "blacklight" to mean "UV" - but use "UV" ourselves. The idea of light who's color is black because you can't see it is an interesting description of UV - but sadly, the exact same reasoning would lead you to describe infrared light the same way. SteveBaker (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you actually watch those shows on the TV? Or on the telly? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- In many cases, we Brits understand American use of the language - mostly because we watch a good number of US TV shows and movies - but we often do not use the Americanisms ourselves. So when an American talks about (say) putting something into the "trunk" of their car, we know they are referring to what we call "the boot" - but we wouldn't ever use the word "trunk" to describe it. So it comes as no surprise that we understand "blacklight" to mean "UV" - but use "UV" ourselves. The idea of light who's color is black because you can't see it is an interesting description of UV - but sadly, the exact same reasoning would lead you to describe infrared light the same way. SteveBaker (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- TV is the normal BritEng term. "Telly" is a very informal - and somewhat old-fashioned - colloquialism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aha! Old-fashioned. As in, in my youth it was often called a "TV set", short for "television set". I don't often hear it said that way nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- TV is the normal BritEng term. "Telly" is a very informal - and somewhat old-fashioned - colloquialism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I live in Texas...so I'm somewhat immersed in the American dialect. But yes, we Brits gather around our Telephonoscopes each evening to watch dim, flickering black and white images from our ex-colonies. SteveBaker (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- When I (here in the UK) first read the heading, I thought for a moment "what do they mean by black light -- oh, they probably mean ultra-violet". The term was coined by Gustave Le Bon in 1896 for radiation that passes through opaque objects, but soon afterwards it began to be used for UV light (C S Page in 1913). The term appears in the revised 14th (1957) edition of Encyclopædia Britannica, so it is clearly British as well as American, but I haven't seen it used here for a long time. From the 1960s, ultra-violet became well-known, and this seems to be the preferred term here in the UK. Dbfirs 22:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think "ultraviolet" is the normal US term for the radiation itself, what you block with sunscreen. No one would say "don't stay out too long in the sun, kids, or you'll get too much black light!" That would just be silly.
- But the gadget that you buy specifically for your haunted house at Halloween, or to show to best effect your black-velvet painting of some reclining pinup model, that's a black light. --Trovatore (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- So, is there no other colloquial British term? I thought I remembered reading of something around Halloween, and then realizing what was meant was a black light. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nope; we say "ultraviolet" or "UV" - see [3] or [4]. Unlike some of the other British editors here, I have never heard of "black light" before - I initially thought this thread might be something to do with black holes... Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- It occurred to me that you may be thinking of a "nightlight", now called a tealight by manufacturers, although nobody uses them to make tea with. Their main use nowadays is to light up pumpkins at Hallowe'en. Alansplodge (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Black light was certainly a very common term in the UK during the decade of the 1970's and 80's. Discothèques, the Marquee Club, 100 Club etc, and other music venues all had 'black light' tubes. They were definitely not tea light nor night lights. Neither of which can penetrate woman's outer garments to make their synthetic brassieres and knickers beneath - glow in the dark! I had synthetic fur covered boots that shone brilliant blue. My girl friend (who had to have a lot of dental work done, after she went over the handle bars of her Triumph Rocket – we were all, very much into motor bikes in those times) had a mouthful of glowing mosaic nashers under black light. In my attic, I still have some tubes sold to me as 'black light' that I bought in Acton, London W5 in the early 2000's. Colloquially, when someone here, talks of a UV lamps, they usually mean a sun beds – different spectrum. One's usable vocabulary often depends on which circles one circulates in.--Aspro (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- You mistake my purpose - in my second post I was trying to identify User:Medeis's "other colloquial British term" - apologies for not making myself clearer. I defer to your greater knowledge, however it does seem to be (in UK usage) entirely confined to the field of disco lighting, about which I know very little. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Even this British company [[5]] and this one [[6]] differentiates black light from other UV lights.--Aspro (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I surrender. Fact remains, I'd never heard of it. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Black light was certainly a very common term in the UK during the decade of the 1970's and 80's. Discothèques, the Marquee Club, 100 Club etc, and other music venues all had 'black light' tubes. They were definitely not tea light nor night lights. Neither of which can penetrate woman's outer garments to make their synthetic brassieres and knickers beneath - glow in the dark! I had synthetic fur covered boots that shone brilliant blue. My girl friend (who had to have a lot of dental work done, after she went over the handle bars of her Triumph Rocket – we were all, very much into motor bikes in those times) had a mouthful of glowing mosaic nashers under black light. In my attic, I still have some tubes sold to me as 'black light' that I bought in Acton, London W5 in the early 2000's. Colloquially, when someone here, talks of a UV lamps, they usually mean a sun beds – different spectrum. One's usable vocabulary often depends on which circles one circulates in.--Aspro (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- It occurred to me that you may be thinking of a "nightlight", now called a tealight by manufacturers, although nobody uses them to make tea with. Their main use nowadays is to light up pumpkins at Hallowe'en. Alansplodge (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nope; we say "ultraviolet" or "UV" - see [3] or [4]. Unlike some of the other British editors here, I have never heard of "black light" before - I initially thought this thread might be something to do with black holes... Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)