Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 27

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.

July 27

Good French Revolution movie?

I'm looking for good fictional films on the French Revolution — films that might be appropriate for showing to students at the high school level (say, 14-15 years old). (So no Marquis de Sade flicks, please.)

Preferably I'm interested in something that gives a sense of Reign of Terror, Robespierre, and all that. Much any period of the Revolution would be fine. Things that give a palpable sense for being there at the time, even if they take some liberties with the literal history. (Sade wouldn't be the worst film, if it weren't for the age-inappropriateness...)

I'm posting this here, and not in Entertainment, because I'm more interested in something that conjures up a sense of History than something that entertains. (Though it would be nice if it did also entertain.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen it, but A Tale of Two Cities (1958 film) seems like it might be the sort of thing you are looking for. The book certainly gives a sense of the Reign of Terror. There is also The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982 film), which I also haven't seen, but if the novel is any indication it wouldn't be a good place to look for realism. Looie496 (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think both A Tale of Two Cities and Scarlet Pimpernel would be be great, even if not always realistic. Personally I think the 1930's versions of both are still wonderful, and remember watching them as a teenager and being totally involved - but I don't have any idea if modern kids in general would go for black and white movies that old. Cataobh (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, Mr.98. You ask for fictional films, yet three things tell me you're really after non-fiction films:

• you want the balance of history vs. entertainment to be in the history direction
• you allow only "some liberties with literal history" (that could apply to most films that purport to present what actually happened, not just to fictional films)
• you ask it on the Humanities desk rather than the Entertainment desk.

So, is it only fictional films you want? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm looking for fictional films. I don't want a documentary. Another way to put it is that I'm looking for something good in the genre of historical fiction. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, re: the non-fiction version, I asked my parents to bring me back documentaries on the Revolution from a trip to France. They told me there weren't any. When they asked why, they were told "We don't want another one" :). They brought back Danton, and La Nuit des Varennes, both mentioned below. So if it helps the OP, these were the two films that were rated as closest to a documentary, by French people. Or just the ones they thought an Australian dilettante might appreciate. IBE (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

How about Reign of Terror (1949)? Dealing with the downfall of Robespierre, it gives a reasonable feel of the period and it's mildly entertaining. Other possibilities are listed in Category:French Revolution films. Danton (1983) and That Night in Varennes (1982) look promising. I found Ridicule interesting, but it's a bit off-topic for your stated aim. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No Marquis de Sade pics? I dispute your claim. Peter Weiss' Marat/Sade as filmed by the British is great for high school students. It involves sex, but not too much (the nyphomanic is physically restrained). The worst bit for high schoolers, the Priest's discussion and meditation on identity in modernity is elided from the film version (but not from the play of course). And Sade argues for man's animality as opposed to Marat's argument of man as cogito. Worse—Roux, the only individual who could blow the whole thing wide open is systematically gagged by the bourgeois elite. "Marat we're poor, and the poor stay poor, Marat we're scared but we don't care anymore, we want Marat, and we don't care how! We want a revolution, now Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of referring a colleague to a text, this is a sample of the work on youtube. Did I mention, it is a musical? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Lady and the Duke (2001) by Eric Rohmer is a bit wordy, but it gives a good sense of how Aristocrats perceived the mounting terror.[1]. Vent de galerne (1989) is about the Revolt in the Vendée from a counter-revolutionary point of view [2]. Sade (2000) [3] with Daniel Auteuil has little or none of the sex and a lot about the Marquis being imprisoned while the Revolution is raging outside. Les adieux à la reine (2012) is another Marie-Antoinette centered flick [4]. This list has more titles worth checking out, including some that are more pro-Revolution. --Xuxl (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The TV series Les nuits révolutionnaires [5] was set against the backdrop of the Revolution, and if you can find it, is a definite must (IMO). I'm lucky to have in on VHS but I wish it would be released on DVD. --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't Lose Your Head FiggyBee (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Scarlet Pimpernel for sure. We watched it in my high school European history class, and we all loved it. Nothing inappropriate. Ruby 2010/2013 02:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, enjoyable movie though it may be, I'd tend to disagree that The Scarlet Pimpernel is a "Good French Revolution" story; rather, it's a British-upper-class-centric ripping yarn which uses a few corny French stereotypes as backdrop. For an additional British-upper-class-centric ripping yarn which uses a few corny French stereotypes as backdrop, but which nevertheless makes a great movie, see A Tale of Two Cities. FiggyBee (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. While they may be entertaining, they would certainly be inappropriate as educational materials about the revolution. It seems strange that the French Revolution, this major event in modern Western history, has generated such precious few good movies. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Big Mac Index and the Euro

I know much about the Big Mac Index, PPP and international economics. I know that prices are fairly rigid in comparison with exchange rates and interest rates and I know that PPP usually does not work well and I know that comparing Big Macs' prices is not a good test of PPP.

I just wonder if Euro, as a currency for the Eurozone and many other countries, really work as advertised. If so, then I expect to see that pre-tax Big Mac prices within the Eurozone to converge. I mean beef hamburgers shall be about the same price whether you're in Paris, Frankfurt or Madrid (certainly not).

The Economists does not provide individual Big Mac Index entries for each Eurozone countries. I can understand this because this index is used to measure the over- or under-valuation of each currency and Euro is ONE currency.

I just want to know if Big Mac prices are widely varied with Eurozone and if the adoption of Euro for the past decade really helped to reduce the spread. -- Toytoy (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

According to [[6]] the price of a "combo meal, mcdonalds or similar" is 7.44 € in Paris and 4.77 € in Tallinn. I would assume that the variance can be explained by differences in wages and real estate costs. According to [[7]] convergence is nevertheless happening. 130.188.8.27 (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The price of a Big Mac is only very tangentially influenced by the price for the bread and the patty. A much higher percentage of the price covers the physical restaurant, the employee wages, and marketing and branding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Which makes the function of the Economist as the home of the political economy movement (cf: Thompson on the Moral Economy) interesting, as the Big Mac index appears to be constructed to discipline labour and the propensity of national capital to pay social wages. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that the price of a Big Mac is not the same as the cost to make a Big Mac. There will be a profit margin in there as well. It may well be that the profit margins vary from place to place based on what optimises total profits. If people are wealthier in Paris than Tallinn they may be willing to pay more, so McDonalds can include a larger profit margin and without it damaging their sales. Competition will also affect that - if there is more competition in one city than the other there will be less room for profit since people can more easily switch to a substitute good. It is only when there is perfect competition that prices are driven down to cost (plus the minimal necessary profit to make it worth running the business at all), and no market is perfectly competive. --Tango (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the main factors in setting Big Mac prices in Europe are (1) local income levels; and (2) local competition. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How Much of a Role Did 9/11 and the Iraq War (separately) Play in Gaddafi's Decision to Give up his WMDs and Nuclear Program in 2003?

Does anyone have any reliable sources on this, even it these sources are speculative? Futurist110 (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Our Iraq War article says, "After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted", and gives references. So the answer is, no role at all, because the programs had ended over a decade earlier. Looie496 (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe Looie misunderstood the question. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Be patient with Looie, he has to answer many questions here, he's probably tired or stressed out. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Argh, I was thinking the question was about Saddam Hussein. Brain fart. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See Gaddafi#Western_acceptance for some ideas. But, of course, only Gaddafi knows, and he hasn't been saying much for a while now, for some reason. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In an interview in December 2003, Gaddafi did suggest that the impending invasion of Iraq may have played a role in his thinking on this point. Remember that the WMD program was somewhat indisputably discovered just before he decided to come clean on it, too. I suspect there were numerous factors involved, plus a lot of back-room dealing with the US. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Average cost vs. Average Total cost

Are Average Total Cost and Average Cost same in definition?

According to Average Total cost, Total cost is divided by quantity of output.
ATC = TC/Q

So what happens to the Average cost? So, can the equation be written like:
AC = TC/Q (by following the same definition).

Thanks--180.234.246.231 (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be synonymous. Our article is at Average cost, with Average total cost redirecting. FiggyBee (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, synonymous on the most common definitions. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Colonial east Africa

What was the colonial situation in the Horn of Africa in 1860 (before Italy united)? I tried finding maps but I was unsuccessful. Were modern-Somalia and Eritrea part of the Ottoman Empire, under Ethiopian control, or something else? Thanks. 64.229.5.242 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Geledi sultanate, in the case of Somalia, while Eritrea was mostly under Ottoman influence. The Horn of Africa was not of particular interest to Europeans until the Suez Canal opened in 1869 - Italian Eritrea came into being in 1882. FiggyBee (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Displaying the Flag of England

I understand that the English Flag has some political connotations, typically associated with far-right movements. On my trip to the United Kingdom, I took some walks in the fens, and on a number of farmhouses, I saw the English flag being displayed (sometimes with the Union Flag as well, but more often not). Is it likely that these homeowners were associating themselves with the political connotations of the flag? Or is this likely just an apolitical display because they're in England? Buddy431 (talk)

Most likely because the England football team was playing. Not really about politics, or at least not directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The flag had political connotations of the far-right. It has been reclaimed by the general population and is now commonly used to show patriotism, particularly support of English sports teams (especially football, as Andy says). --Tango (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The article you linked to does have a section on this: Flag of England#Perceived association with the far right. --Tango (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Context is everything. If it was on a farmhouse, they're probably patriotic with gentle to less-gentle xenophobia at the back of their heads. If it was on a council house, there was probably a football game on. If they were in a crowd in town, you've found an extremist march. (Stereotyping for simplicity, but the context point is genuine) --Saalstin (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC) (Edit to add: Anecdote: years back, I was showing a boyfriend from London my home in the rural south west. He was genuinely astonished to see all the churches (Church of England) flying English flags - this was apparently not something he was used to. It's probably the least contentious use they'll ever have. --Saalstin (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

The big change is often said to have come about due to Euro 96, which made the St George's Cross acceptable again. Not to mention that some groups always flew the flag (OR: I have a Church of England church opposite my house which has flown it for at least 20 years)--iamajpeg (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Euro 96 was as much about using the correct flag for England (i.e. not the British flag) than about "reclaiming". The Cross of St George as far right symbol was always overplayed, the Union Jack was much more common. 90.214.166.145 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do they call it "Women's Gymnastics"

When they're obviously girls? ScienceApe (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting they should call it "Girls' Gymnastics"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is a serious question here that can be answered with wikipedia resources please mention that on the talk page and we'll gladly entertain it. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting your closure. ScienceApe's can absolutely be answered without opinion or predictions or whatever it is you're accusing him of wanting. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Many sports will have a mix of adolescents and adults, and the adults might resent being called girls (or boys), so they just call them all adults. StuRat (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Women's gymnastics has been a part of the modern Olympics since its inception in 1896. It's worth noting that while women aged under 18 are "girls" in most countries today (see age of majority), ages of majority tended to be far lower back then. In Scotland, at least, a woman reached the age of majority at 14 until 1969 I believe. By that standard, every "girl" competing in the original Olympic games would be an adult woman. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

cite needed for women's gymnastics in 1896, as only [[one woman competed. I think 1908 had a demonstration event, and 1928 was the first official competition.—eric 03:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I was looking at Artistic gymnastics at the Summer Olympics and in my brain fart thought that 1896 was its first appearance because it was on the table of women's results. I see now that all the entries for that column are marked with an X. I maintain the rest of my point still stands :) Thank you for correcting me. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the early female competitors were generally adults. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

They probably don't call it girl's gymnastics for the same reason they don't call "Miss Ebony USA" the "unmarried black girl sex-appeal show off" even though that is what it is. (Maybe they called it that back when you could auction such girls off?) And of course we don't have anyone checking whether these girls are menstruating yet, or if the have popped cherries, which would entitle us to call them women in most cultures. μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

---

ScienceApe -- many sports have a preferred body type (i.e. possessing such a body type gives an athlete an advantage for that particular sport), and the preferred body type for women's gymnnastics appears to be rather short and compact and slim. Also, they start incessantly practicing at a very young age, and the longer they're in the sport, the more their bodies get banged up. It's not all that different from ballerinas... AnonMoos (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Girls' Gymnastics" would suggest Olympic competition has a maximum age limit, which it does not. FiggyBee (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking the careers of icons such as Cathy Rigby and Nadia Comenici, they competed in the Olympics both under and over age 18. The typical age has crept downward over time (as with female skaters, leading some waggish sportswriters to refer to these kids as "The Young and the Breastless") but as Figgy notes above, changing the name would imply there's an age limit. It could be changed to "Women and Girls Gymnastics", but why bother? If you're going to get technical with the words, "Gymnastics" should be performed nude, but that's not generally done, at least not on purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no maximum age limit as FiggyBee says so it's obviously called women. I don't know any sport where it's called girls. Lots of elite gymnasts are above 18. I looked at the 2008 Olympic champions and Yelena Posevina was 22 when she won in Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's rhythmic group all-around. A more relevant question would be why the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics for 14–18 year olds said men and women about the events, for example in Category:Gymnastics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

One aspect of this is that groups of women (not just sportswomen) often refer to themselves collectively as "the girls", and men talk about "the boys", whether it be their sports team or their close friends or whatever. But anyone outside these groups who dares to refer them as "girls" or "boys" had better be prepared for some strong criticism, for having dared to use what is generally considered grossly offensive and demeaning terminology. Playing fields in the area of human communications are not always level. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

When you are competing at the most senior level available in your sport, being called "men" and "women" doesn't seem to be much of a stretch, especially when the minimum age for woman is to be 16 in the year of the Games in which you participate. Most females will have reached menarche by 16, if that is a possible standard. Bielle (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Most women, yes, but athletic women may have a delayed onset of puberty due to low body fat. Also, those chosen to go to the Olympics in gymnastics might be preferentially picked due to their late onset of puberty, as being prepubescent generally involves greater flexibility, lower weight, etc., which are important in winning gymnastics medals. StuRat (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with age whatsoever, it is defined by the equipment and how that is used. The rings for example are a part of men's gymnastics, and the beam is for the ladies. If a boy gets onto the beam he is doing women's gymnastics, and a lady using rings is doing men's gymnastics. Penyulap ☏ 15:05, 29 Jul 2012 (UTC)

It could very well be labeled as female gymnastics as an all-encompassing term.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Beth Tweddle is 27. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oksana Chusovitina is 37, a mother, and a finalist in the vault this year. There is a minimum age of 16 - see age requirements in gymnastics

Passport References

Greetings from Canada. Why are references required for passport applications? "References may be contacted to confirm my identity." But isn't that what the guarantor is for? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Government of Canada's "Passport Canada" site says of the two roles:

Your guarantor and your references must be people who have known you personally for at least two years. They may be contacted to confirm your identity.

You must provide information with respect to references in the section "References" of your passport application. They cannot be members of your family. To avoid delays, it is preferable that your references reside in the same country as you.

There are specific eligibility criteria for guarantors and their duties are slightly more complex, including completing the "Declaration of Guarantor" section of the application and signing the back of one of your photos according to Passport Canada's instructions.

Please note that you cannot use your guarantor as a reference.

Essentially, the right to contact anyone you name on your passport application arises in order to confirm your identity. One person may not be enough. References don't sign your passport, so you could have made them up. Contacting them is a way to cut down on the possibility that you (or they) are making fraudulent representations. Bielle (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)