text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Lights will Guide You Home: The Sociological and Environmental Impact of Light in Cities

Comments after Zoom meeting on 14th Dec
Should we remove the gender part altogether? Because it shows conflict of priorities even within sociology. But idk.

Also for the conclusion, I added a part about London's strategy, and as for the last sentence I think it should be the start of a paragraph where we talk about power, maybe in the decision making (overt) power of the people who actually implement the recommendations? Or also the latent power of education? Only 3% of people in a study by the city of london (found in the same strategy paper) considered that health was an important factor of urban lighting for example. https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/assets/Services-Environment/public-realm-city-lighting-strategy.pdf

Finally, if we were to find a solution to this urban lighting problem, it would resolve the power problem, and help us identify it more clearly. What do you think it is?

Comments after Zoom meeting on 13th Dec
First part: - Explaining what psychology is not necessary. - Still not sure what do you mean by “yields latent power over urban planning”. Most power is latent… I think we should be more specific here. What form does this latent power hold? - “and subsequently” — though “subsequently” is a nice words, saying “and” is enough - I would change “visceral” barrier to instinctive barrier. - “encourage a sociological perspective shift” - is it needed? Wouldn’t it be enough to just say “a catalyst to encourage a “collective efficacy” within a neighbourhood.” - “a sense of” is quite vague

The content of the psychology part is actually describing Sociology, except for the part on emotion. Therefore, we decided to link it together. This way we’re not boiling down psychology to feelings of safety, without discussing mental health and sleep deprivation.

I changed “Furthermore, this issue needs to be addressed by Psychology experts in an attempt to RECTIFY this sense of vulnerability and inability to recognise potential offenders and their facial expressions.” to “Furthermore, this issue needs to be addressed by psychology experts in an attempt to ABATE (could also be “mitigate”) this sense of vulnerability and inability to recognise potential offenders and their facial expressions. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Urban lighting and economic growth - This section is not referenced enough and I would paraphrase “intrinsically linked” since “intrinsically” implies strong correlation and “linked” very weak one.

Conclusion — needs more development. I’ll try working on it. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

General Discussion
I'm almost done with my contributions, I just have a few aspects to go over. For the moment, the general to-do list would be :

-put all the referencing in the right format
 * I agree. Could you have a look at the references I have done? I am using this format: . I am also, not sure how to use the same reference twice throughout the text. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

-make sure all the parts work collectively to demonstrate the role of power and are coherent with their disciplines
 * We should set up a Zoom call and read out loud what we have written. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 12:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

-improve the intro and conclusion

-reduce the word count

Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Morning, I have added a few resources and statements I have extracted from them to the wikichapter page. I hope that's alright, obviously it can be completely changed with and deleted! Just think it is good to get something down. I found a really great page for searching for articles and research papers actually from UCL so the link is here: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/. I found some great writing on lighting and the perceived safety of pedestrians. Have you found any really interesting articles or papers? oh and the title is a work in progress!!purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 24th of November 2020 (UTC) (UTC)
 * This is also an interesting page on "Cities at night": https://citiesatnight.org/index.php/light-pollution/ Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I really like the title! I think the previous one was good too: maybe we could look at 3 disciplines? I liked the idea of psychology as well. I've just found some links which I'll put here but haven't really looked into them yet: http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12610450/index.pdf (a thesis about ppls experience of urban lighting) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244016629708 ( a research paper about emotions and urban lighting) https://www.academia.edu/17306672/People_s_Perception_of_Urban_Lighting_in_Public_Space (another research paper abt ppl's perception) https://www.buildingsandcities.org/zh/insights/reviews/urban-lighting-for-people-evidence-based-lighting-design-review.html (review of a book about urban lighting) https://theestablishment.co/the-shocking-connection-between-street-harassment-and-street-lighting-5db8497ef653/index.html (an article abt harrassment and its links to lighting) https://womeninlighting.com/images/uploads/misc/Govil_Aditi_Paper.pdf (a paper about women's experience of cities) https://www.actionaid.org.uk/campaign/campaigning-works/ending-street-harassment-the-safe-cities-for-women-campaign#:~:text=ActionAid's%20Safe%20Cities%20for%20Women%20Campaign&text=We%20campaign%20in%2020%20countries,culture%20of%20violence%20against%20women. (Safe Cities for Women Campaign) https://theconversation.com/more-lighting-alone-does-not-create-safer-cities-look-at-what-research-with-young-women-tells-us-113359 (link between safety and lights)Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! That’s great – starting is the most important. Light in the Cities is an excellent example of a problem that has been approached from different disciplinary perspectives. Therefore, I agree that we could talk about it from 3 different angles: 1. Environmental Health and functioning of ecosystems, eg. disruption of wildlife breeding and migration patterns; decreased melatonin secretion and increased risk of some cancers (https://shibbolethsp.jstor.org/start?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fshib-idp.ucl.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&dest=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26327931&site=jstor) ecological and evolutionary implications for animal and plant populations (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268230 Birds grounded by lighting along roads is an increasing anthropogenic threat, light-induced mortality (https://shibbolethsp.jstor.org/start?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fshib-idp.ucl.ac.uk%2Fshibboleth&dest=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26607663&site=jstor) 2. Psychology and human well-being 3. Inter-related socio-economic consequences. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

After delving into this issue, I cannot believe how important light is for the environment and for humanity. Another discipline, which isn't entirely a named discipline which is taught but could be argued to be becoming one is light therapy. This could be another aspect of artificial lighting that we research as more and more people are using light therapy to cure Seasonal Affected Disorder, neonatal jaundice, skin disorders like psoriasis and vitiligo. So as to structuring our argument:

- I think the title should be a question e.g "Is Artificial Light Usage Negatively Affecting Us? The Power of Artificial Light over Society and Our Environment". Environment kind of encompasses both the ecological and the social environments we are planning to discuss?
 * I am afraid these titles are too broad to tackle in our Wikibook chapter. We need to specify the question more. For example, let's focus on artificial light only at night in cities. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

- the first section of our essay backing up the question for example: Yes this is true as seen in these research projects, scientific articles etc relating to BIOLOGICAL - CIRCADIAN RHYTHM, ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS, ecological and evolutionary implications for animal and plant populations (From Julia's suggestions!).

- the second section should be the counter argument SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACTS discussing potential safety improvements, blue lighting in public toilets reducing heroin use and in train station's reducing suicide rates, lower rates of road accidents. HOWEVER, I have found that quite a lot of the articles I have read do not note particularly large differences in safety or crime rates after adding lighting. Also, we could discuss lighting in the workplace and how that affects productivity levels and worker happiness.https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@americas/@ro-lima/@sro-port_of_spain/documents/presentation/wcms_250198.pdf

- ALSO, could talk about up and coming subdiscipline of light therapy, phototherapy and its positive and proven effects of improving Seasonal Affected Disorder, neonatal jaundice, skin disorders like psoriasis and vitiligo.

- then we conclude and summarise our agreed mutual middle ground for the disciplines in relation to artificial lighting usage.

What do you two think? This is just a suggestion. purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 19:04, 25th of November 2020 (UTC)

 * Whether artificial light has an impact on crime rates is actually a hot topic in criminology/urban planning, there doesn't seem to be a consensus. This thesis has a whole section on it (http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12610450/index.pdf) but I don't know if I agree with it. It would be interesting to study the literature on this, perhaps not all of it but the most recent findings? I think it's more relevant to the sociological issue rather than the psychological.

Darkness: Cons: crime, security, xenophobia (fear of the unknown), women in the city; Pros: sleep/health (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/), animals, no light pollution, less energy waste Light: Cons: light pollution, roadkill, change in animal's behaviour (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-48118-z), Pros: feeling of security, less crime, economics, emotions? (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244016629708)

A middle ground exists: motion sensors, different types of light... (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285056237_Urban_city_lights_Light_pollution_as_one_of_the_effects_of_incorrectly_designed_external_illumination_How_can_a_successful_lighting_masterplan_diminish_its_impact)

Related to Power: Government officials make choice? Lobbying? Coercion with light?

Related to History: Environmental science is a relatively new discipline (or rather, its importance has been recognized only recently)Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Related to Evidence:

Related to Truth: Problem: what is more important? Your own experience feels more true: questionnaire for BAScers etc
 * It links to truth from humanities perspective and constructivism. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Street lighting such as streetlamps are not the only source of urban lights and light pollution, should we talk about private lights/advertisement lights/stores that are lit during the night? Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

There is also a potential cultural/historical perspective in terms of the night sky's cultural and historical significance (and stargazing), and the cultural/historical significance of city lights (like New York's Time Square or Paris being referred to as the "City of Lights"). Another cultural perspective is that of the illumination of important and historical buildings, which sometimes is even of artistic importance. Finally, there is the cultural association of light with progress/knowledge/technology/the future in our society. Are you guys interested in this? Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Some studies show there is a significant difference in feelings of safety related to urban lights between men and women, but others don't. I don't know if I should focus on the psychological influences of light on people's emotions in general or focus on a gendered perspective.

Also, @purplerain24 (I don't know how to mention ppl) you might be interested in some economic analysises of the Urban Lighting topic in the book I borrowed from the library, I'll pass it to you!Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also interested! It might be relevant to my discussion about increased energy consumption.Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I have started doing more specific research on the environmental impacts of light and although I have expected this, I am shocked by how much it is overlooked and not inluded in policy making. I plan on tackling 3 main negative effects: (1) Human health and sleep (2) Wildlife (3) Increased energy consumption. As for the "issue" between the disciplinary perspectives, I would argue it links to "Evidence" (as sociologists and policy-makers don't place enough value on scientific research?). Let me know what you think so we can move this chapter under the right heading on a main page. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that, while evidence is definitely linked to it, it's not the main tension. I would argue that it's either power or truth, because the psychological/sociological side builds upon people's perception, like feelings of safety, which everyone experiences and holds as true (darkness representing unsafety and the unknown). That vision therefore has more power and is considered more in policy making than the environmental side, which while it has a mirror view of reality, which is widely accepted nowadays, it is not very well-known.Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They're all linked in some way or another. I had a look at my notes from the lecture on truth and I believe we could argue how disciplines have their own ideas of understanding the type of knowledge they produce and what they VALUE. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

After meeting the other day and discussing whether it is related to power or evidence, I agree with Aveniform's conclusion on Power. Have you watched this week's upcoming power lecture? It reminded me a lot of the types of boundary-crossing we are addressing in our wikichapter! purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 18:38 5th of December (UTC)

Hi, after watching this week's upcoming lecture of the utility of Power within economic and ecologic disciplines it has made me more aware that our issue might be mainly associated with power. I think this struggle between sociological, psychological and ecological disciplines is who holds the most power, who holds it through ownership of resources and the ability to mastermind and control how those resources are used such as light. Therefore, the distinctive disregard for ecological impacts (as the rate of light pollution is ever increasing) is undermined due to a power imbalance between the disciplines. The economical, social and psychological aspects of this issue - I think we could argue that the psychological impact of light within cities for safety is actually to increase economic growth, culture and tourism due to more people coming out at all times of day, more consumption and circulation occur. This is why ecological affects are overlooked and there is this tension that remains unresolved. What do you think? purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 18:39 5th of December 2020 (UTC)
 * yess I completely agree, I think the economic part is super important because people in power tend to prioritize it (I feel like we should talk about lighting in stores overnight for instance) citing resource dependency. Also people feeling safer is good for politicians, even though we don't know how much of an actual impact it has on crime (latent dimension). A way to solve it might be for environmental scientists to use a more powerful language.  Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I would argue that power plays out through light pollution policies and discuss the priorities of decision-makers and their non-decision making power. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 07:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you guys know how to change the title without erasing the chapter? Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Introduction
I feel like the introduction is a bit biased towards environmental science. I think we should focus more on the tension between disciplines and how power influences that tension. Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 10:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

In the introduction, "Our deteriorating ecological environment is a pressing issue and there are three dominant disciplines: environmental science, sociology and psychology" I think it should be "environmental health science", since it's important to discuss its imapcts on human health. Also, as for conclusion, this paper calls out for the connection of research among different disciplines: https://www.jstor.org/stable/envirevi.23.1.14 and we could use it. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 10:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * great idea, I highly recommend you edit the intro and conclusion to reflect this! Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Previous intro:

Nighttime lighting is a defining feature of economic development within countries to improve safety and perhaps also consumption and tourism. However, the environmental health science impact is rife and there lies a clear tension between the overuse of lighting, the question of necessity and its quantitative and quantitative uses. Our deteriorating environment is a pressing issue and there are three dominant disciplines: Environmental Health Science, Sociology and Psychology who are disputing the significance and necessity of artificial lighting for society. The definition of light pollution is “the inappropriate or excessive use of artificial light”. In a 2003 journal, Cozens stated that the UK government had recently allocated £300 million to the improvement of street lighting in relation to lighting and the psychological and physical protection of societal wellbeing. Therefore, the concept of power is exercised in terms of who holds the authority to implement action and the competition and abrasion of disciplinary arguments. Overt power can be observed through the consequent action of those disputes. Although there is currently no consensus on how to measure light pollution, this study in 2017 estimated that light pollution increased by 2% per annum from 2012 to 2016 .The effect of urban lighting on the rate of crime, feeling of safety and the behavioural and physiological impacts on wildlife and ecosystems have been contentious issues across the disciplines.

Psychology section - AS OF 13TH OF DECEMBER THIS HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
What is interesting to notice is that the psychological perspective could easily argue for both sides of the tension between environmental health and sociology (effect on circadian rhythms vs safety in the city). We could try to bring it in as a 3rd discipline that could shed more light on both arguments. As for the title, in this article (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268230) they mentioned the significance of the night and how we should learn how to “manage darkness” which I believe nicely links all 3 approaches. Also, I don’t see yet how we attribute the tension between the disciplines to the issue of power, but I guess it’s just a matter of doing more research.Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Psychologically, warmer lights feel safer, colder lights feel more unsafe and less inviting. (just a note)
 * It's important to mention this since the majority of lights in cities are cold, which is quite contradictory to the fact that they are supposed to make us feel safe. On the other hand, from ecological perspective it doesn't seem to make much difference: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24432256?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Light%20pollution&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DLight%2Bpollution%26sd%3D2010%26refreqid%3Dexcelsior%253Ac636becdc3d851d77c075b19a5e75476&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_SYC-5187_SYC-5188%2F5187&refreqid=fastly-default%3A718557709c35589b9522fc6bf9b5a92b Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, however, blue light does decrease melatonin production more effectively compared to light at longer wavelengths (more yellow/orange/red), so it has both psychological and physiological effects on humans. I've just finished my contribution to it on the main page. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, this section in the Psychological part I think could be more valuable in the Sociological section:

"According to Matsui, over 85% of women 'always' fear being a victim of street crime.[13] This data conflicts with the concerns of ecology as lighting has strong negative effects on wildlife, migration and mating habits. Therefore, this rising tension exposes power polarities between societal and ecological debate. Hannah Arendt theorised that power can never be attributed to the act of a single individual, but of the group that implements, builds and stimulates the agency of the act within the community.[14] Therefore, power is created through the implementation of lighting’s influence, galvanisation and alteration of social dynamics at night." - the Arendt quotation I think is particularly resonant in terms of implementing policies and the power surrounding that authority.

I have been editing the Psychology section this evening and I am struggling to find evidence for society's qualms about night lighting. If you find any other resources or studies please post them below. I think a few more examples could help it flow better.purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 20:00 9th of December 2020 (UTC)

 * I think, in terms of the psychology section, you should mostly focus on the effect light has on individual behaviour, because the sociology section builds on that and talks more about the societal level. It would be interesting to talk more about emotions and their connection with light, and even with different types of light (because the question is also, how do we design urban lighting well so it improves quality of life and doesn't affect the environment too much)Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I completely agree with this. I think I have been branching out too far and I need to be a lot more precise about Psychology itself. I will from now on rewrite my section relating it specifically to the individual and the emotions and effects of urban lighting. purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 23:24 11th of December 2020 (UTC)

So should my comments on the improvement of light for the environment, since there are many studies that say safety isn't that largely affected by very high amounts of urban lighting, relate to how Psychology AS A DISCIPLINE can the positive psychological benefits of decreased lighting improving circadian rhythms and emotions through that? therefore, both disciplines can find a middle ground in relation to their tension? purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 23:25 11th of December 2020 (UTC)

Also, I changed the location of one of the pictures and added it to the environmental section which deals with light pollution. I think the pictures in the psychology section should perhaps focus more on pictures of streets that look scary vs pictures that don't and what their differences are. (If these can be found) Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree I will search for one today! purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 14:10 12th of December 2020 (UTC)

Good evening, I have read through the proposed comments on the psychology section and I am very much absorbing them into my writing. I am rewriting my section after reanalysing the rubric and guidance for the wikichapter as I don't think my section is as concise and accurate as it needs to be for Psychology specifically. My writing blurred the boundaries between Sociological and Psychological studies. In order to discuss the precise arguments surrounding urban light I am going to focus on the emotions and feelings of safety conjured by different types of lighting. I will use more journal articles discussing emotion and feeling rather than physiological symptoms.

purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 23:18 11th of December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have rewritten my section, ssychology, and tried to link it more to the issue of power. I have taken evidence predominantly from sources which discuss very specific Psychological topics to ensure there is relatively no cross over between the Psychological and Sociological arguments. purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 14:11 12th of December 2020 (UTC)

In the introduction to psychology section I wouldn't begin it with: "Psychology focusses on the external setting's effect on a person's behaviour and emotions." as it doesn't really encapsulate what psychology does as there are many different schools of thought. Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Scratching the psychological perspective and including it within the sociological perspective works a lot more cohesively and can be easily transferred. This will help with decreasing the word count to get to 1200. Currently we are on 1400. After our Zoom call, we managed to gauged a more success and flowing argument and delete unnecessary sentences. purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 19:57 13th of December 2020 (UTC)

Socio-economic section
As for the "safety" argument, are we discussing nighttime driving in the end? Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 07:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not, because as of now I've talked more about gender and economic growth.

I think the first section on the Feminist protest group needs to either be removed or transferred to later in the second paragraph. Urban lighting isn't mentioned and it uses quite a lot of words without relating it back to the title! Very interesting but not as focussed for such a short word limit. I hope this is ok. purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 19:26 13th of December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the rest of the argument for gender inequality in the streets is very useful at heightening and strengthening the tensions between the environmental health discipline. This contributes to the diminished power of minorities, again showing power imbalances between society and policy makers.purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 20:02 13th of December 2020 (UTC)

I have changed "Urban lighting is at the core of many power struggles in society: feelings of safety, inequality, protection." to "Urban lighting is at the core of many power imbalances in society: feelings of safety, inequality, protection." but I am afraid this sentence should be rephrased or just deleted in full (since we're not really showing in-depth understanding of what we're saying). Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 10:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Environmental Health section
I have been reading through this section and there is a lack of discussion about power. I will have a look at it now and locate places I could add comments on power in but could you two also have a scan of it? Thank you. purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 13:15 13th of December 2020 (UTC)

This reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4112959/

"Nighttime lighting and wealth are so intrinsically linked that it is used to measure GDP and compare countries according to their wealth." Nighttime lighting didn't use to measure GDP, this article only proposes such solution. They mention "a variety of applications at the sub-national level focused on sub-Saharan Africa." Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 08:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I just changed the first sentence because sociology doesn't just pursue safety in cities :) Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion
I changed the conclusion and proposed a shorter intro, trying to be more clear about the role of power in our work (I didn't delete the previous one though). What do you think? Also, I finished my part pretty much (haven't managed to speak about effects on crime prevention though). Our word count is now at about 1600 (with the new intro) so we need to reduce/cut some parts. As it stands, the socio-economic section is at around 550 words, psychology at around 500 and environmental science at around 350 I think. Aveniform (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I found an interesting article discussing how citizen science might help in monitoring light pollution, which we can indicate as one of the possible solutions to the problem. Here's the link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv550cf2.31 Whygrowup (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Instead of stating "urban lighting aspects" maybe we should label these as disciplinary viewpoints or standpoints to really drive the focus of disciplinary tension. purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 23:18 11th of December 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted 2 sentences from the conclusion as they required citation to back up the claims. We do not need to resolve these tensions within this essay so I think the maximum amount of words will be put to better use when this section is deleted. Thanks! purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 10:11 14th of December 2020 (UTC)

CONCLUSION - too focussed on the ecological side of the argument rather than balanced ending.

The perspectives of Sociology and Ecology have highlighted the conflicts within the existing power dynamic of urban lighting in cities. While activists argue light pollution is the most straightforward issue to minimise[37], it is a much more complex problem. From an ecological perspective, the conclusion is clear: governments should introduce laws limiting illumination from the cities[38]. However, the final decision often disproportionately reflects the fear of forgoing commercial gains rather than preserving human health and the ecosystem. London's urban lighting strategy which prioritises sustainability is more akin to a set of recommendations than an urban lighting policy.[39]

Some attribute this tension to the lack of well-developed connections between "research, policy and practice".

purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 12:49 14th of December 2020 (UTC)

REDONE Conclusion - PURPLERAIN24
The perspectives of Sociology and Ecology have highlighted the conflicts within the existing power dynamic of urban lighting in cities. While activists argue light pollution is the most straightforward issue to minimise, it is a much more complex problem. From an ecological perspective, the conclusion is clear: governments should introduce laws limiting illumination from the cities. However, the final decision often disproportionately reflects the fear of forgoing commercial gains rather than preserving human health and the ecosystem. London's urban lighting strategy which prioritises sustainability is more akin to a set of recommendations than an urban lighting policy.

Some attribute this tension to the lack of well-developed connections between "research, policy and practice". However, there is strong evidence to demonstrate lighting's positive emotional and reassuring impact on societal mental wellbeing. Perhaps, a "collective efficacy" can be achieved towards improving awareness of urban lighting's positive and negative effects. This could instigate more improved discussions between the disciplines to create the most suitable middle ground urban lighting designs.

Useful Links and Resources
- good article! http://cescos.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-environ.html starting point?purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 13:12 29th of November 2020 (UTC)

- https://www.jstor.org/stable/24432256 Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Light%20pollution&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DLight%2Bpollution%26sd%3D2010%26refreqid%3Dexcelsior%253Ac636becdc3d851d77c075b19a5e75476&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_SYC-5187_SYC-5188%2F5187&refreqid=fastly-default%3A718557709c35589b9522fc6bf9b5a92b

-http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12610450/index.pdf (thesis about urban lighting)

- how to add a photo: thumb|Write your caption in this last section. purplerain24 (discuss • contribs) 12:22 10th of December 2020 (UTC)

- Especially for @purplerain24 : https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244016629708 On emotions and urban lighting!


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Personality

Today we have started discussing possible topics for our wikibooks chapter for the UCL module BASC0001. We decided that we will focus on Truth but we will carry out some more research before finalising our topic.

Our ideas are:

•	Truth in reality/Truth in consciousness

•	Truth in the bystander effect

•	Truth in the Nature nurture debate, understanding of personality.

•	Truth in abnormality: Autism, MDD, another specific disorder, general mental health

The disciplines we may focus on are:

•	Psychology

•	Philosophy

•	Anthropology

•	Biology

MM.Mar 08 (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

We have decided to focus on Truth in Personality: Nature/Nurture debate Today we discussed the potential structure of our wikichapter.

Introduction

Psychology: Discuss how psychology presents support both for the nature side of the debate and the nurture side of the debate.

Main Body

Biology: Present the view of Genetic Determinism in Biology

Anthropology/Sociology: Present the view for Nurture in personality.

Philosophy: As a subcategory to provide support for one argument (either to support the biological viewpoint or the anthropological/sociological)

Highlight interdisciplinary tensions

Where are there issues with the ways in which truth is obtained in these disciplines?

Conclusion

Epigenetics: A possible way to solve these interdisciplinary tensions. MM.Mar 08 (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Explanations for the Rise of Human Monogamy

Introduction
Historically, human relationship have taken various forms, but monogamy, the practice of having only one sexual, romantic relationship at once, has emerged as starkly dominant. Several disciplines have offered different explanations for the factors driving its pervasiveness, tensions which can be attributed to their approaches to truth. Biology subscribes to scientific realism, adopting a positivist, empirical correspondence theory of truth, in which the truth they seek to generate mirrors the natural world. In viewing the foundations of social life as biological, they posit that the current prevalence of monogamy is natural and driven by deterministic factors such as the genetic makeup of humans and evolutionary forces. Conversely, sociological approaches based on social theory assume a more constructivist approach to truth, recognising that monogamy arises from, and is constituted in, social and historical contexts, as a social norm and institution rather than an essentialist biological fact.

In this chapter, we will be exploring further exploring how these frictions between perspectives on truth lead the disciplines to conflicting conclusions.

Evolutionary Biology
As only 3-5% of the mammalian species are socially monogamous, evolutionary biologists deem the prevalence of human monogamy an anomaly. In seeking an explanation, academics have extrapolated ethological work to humans.

Research suggests that ecologically imposed monogamy may originate in early monogamous couples when population levels were low and scarce resources could only provide well for a couple and their offspring. Male and female partnerships thus emerged as the most effective way to utilise resources. This explanation is well-documented amongst biologists; Benshoof and Thornhill indicate that monogamy is mutually beneficial, citing the example of marmoset Callimico goeldii. The female’s reproductive success heavily depends on "the food and protection provided by the hunting male", while the male invests in his relationship to ensure "the survival of his young and thus his own reproductive success".

Whilst this explanation has been contested, the general consensus is that a monogamous mating system is more likely to survive within a population. Cooperative breeding details the differences in kin-based benefits between non-monogamous and monogamous mating systems. As kin-based benefits are diminished under female multiple mating, biologists predict that monogamy is key to increase relatedness within a system and receive the subsequent evolutionary advantages.

Neuroscience
Neuroscience treats social behaviour, such as monogamy, as a stable, scientifically explainable phenomena, which can be understood through manipulating neural circuits in the brain and observing their behavioural outcomes. Consequently, neuroscientists posit that monogamy in humans is the inevitable outcome of a linear chain of neurochemical reactions.

Neurological processes have been connected to genetic make-ups as modes of explanation. Research carried out by Larry Young in 1998 claims to have found a "monogamy gene", using vole species displaying diverging social behaviours, from those associated with promiscuity (Microtus montanus) to monogamy (Microtus ochragaster). The results were then used as a proxy for examining the human neural model for monogamy. A longer strand of a section of microsatellite DNA, changing the neuroanatomical distribution of the neuropeptides oxytocin and vasopressin receptors, has a positive causal relationship with monogamous social behaviours, such as "pair bonding, parental care and mate guarding." The distribution of these receptors triggers a neurochemical event with behavioural outcomes, ultimately determining whether the individual is monogamous or nonmonogamous.

Another neuroscientific study linked heightened brain activity in areas associated with social pain during conditions of jealousy, suggesting monogamy is maintained through neural negative reinforcement.

Marxist perspective
Marxism views societies as constructed in the historical materialist sense, in which social realities and truths about them are products of their material contexts. Consequently, Marxism recognises that family organisation is dynamic and susceptible to modification by material and social changes. Engels propagated that the shift from community to the monogamous nuclear family structure was driven by the move from "primitive" communism to capitalism.

Before "structured conjugal relations", society was organised in "primitive" community, characterised by unregulated sexual relations, matrilineality, and matriarchy. The introduction of husbandry and improvement in agricultural techniques created a newfound material surplus. As "[p]roduction of exchange eclipsed production for use", private property emerged. Men controlled private property due to the sexual division of labour, and it was therefore in their interests to ensure patriarchal hereditary rights. The institution of monogamy emerged as an enabler of patrilineality, as it ensured certainty in paternal relations.

As summed up by Engels, the monogamous family model emerged "not on natural but on economic conditions", systems of both exchange and power relations embedded in capitalism. Although this is not deterministic, ownership and control over means of production provide resources used to shape the reproduction of ideas; social institutions like monogamy are dependent on both.

Feminist perspective
The feminist perspective explains the rise of monogamy by similar factors as Engels, also considering the phenomenon as a social norm and institution built on capitalist notions of possession. However, as the field primarily emerged in the context of the 1960’s sexual revolution in the United States, a greater focus is placed on the emotional and personal sphere of sexual relationships, and the application of critical feminist analysis to previously deterministic psychological theories.

Feminists are generally critical of the essentialist explanations for emotions of jealousy that neuroscientific study offers; Toril Moi argues that “psychology becomes relevant only when jealousy has occurred; when and why somebody becomes jealous…are socially determined”. In seeking to explain the origins of jealousy, several feminists have theorised it as a socially constructed, rather than natural, emotion, framed as evidence for love in order to maintain the institution of monogamy. Some have also questioned why it is that jealousy, and the possessiveness it endorses, has come to be considered a desirable element in romantic and sexual relationships, when it is largely undesired in platonic relationships. Thus, they recognise that whilst certain phenomena may be natural, the arbitrary meanings attached to them are social, political and cultural.

Conclusion
The different ways in which biologists and sociologists perceive truth influences not only the nature of the explanations they offer to the rise of monogamy, but also the extent to which they are able to separate those causal explanations from justifications for its dominance. Biological explanations rely on human nature, and therefore become prescriptive and deterministic, insofar as what is natural must also be considered inevitable and true. Thus, explanations for why monogamy is pervasive become justifications for why it should be pervasive. Meanwhile, sociological explanations take on a more descriptive approach, recognising critically that the causal relationships between capitalist or patriarchal forces and the rise of monogamy are arbitrary and unessential. Aided by the rise of new materialism, which repositions the human within material matter, interdisciplinarity can help bridge these seemingly discrete explanations for monogamy. For example, the refutation of the nature-culture binary, claiming “monogamy’s normalised status cannot be disentangled from its scientific naturalisation”, exposes scientific truth as reliant upon sociopolitical “conceptualisations”. Moreover, tension between realism and social constructivism is eased by the concept of “agential realism”, where scientific study interacts with and influences the object, demanding the conception of science as a "material-discursive" practice.

Whilst an interdisciplinary approach may not directly determine which is the single true explanation for the rise of human monogamy, it facilitates a more holistic understanding of the phenomenon by illuminating the limitations of each discipline’s epistemological approaches and conceptions of truth.


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Explanations for the Rise of Human Monogamy

Checklist
[x]Draft [x]Final [X]Draft [x]Final [x]Draft [x]Final [x]Draft []Final
 * [x] Decide topic
 * [x] Decide disciplines and create outline
 * [x] Introduction
 * [x] Biology section
 * [x] Sociology section
 * [] Tensions/conclusion
 * [x] References
 * [x] Add links to wiki-pages
 * [x] Add images, graphs etc. where suitable
 * [] Double-check with marking criterion

Assessment info
Word count: 1,200 words (references and image captions are not included) Deadline: each member of the group should download a copy of the Wikibook chapter as a .pdf file and submit it via Moodle by 5pm on Monday 14 December.

Marking rubric:

Content	50%: An excellent discussion of an issue in an example of interdisciplinary work. Of clear interest for stakeholders or students thinking of entering the field. (how can we can show this... maybe bring up some real-life examples?)

Guidance: Identifying tension between disciplinary perspectives means identifying where people working in one discipline fail to agree with people working in another discipline. This need not mean that they disagree; it may also be that they are unaware of each others’ work.

Writing	10%: Excellent writing, with few to no grammatical errors or moments of awkward phrasing. (this shouldn't be hard – run through Grammarly and check each others' writing)

Guidance: Note also that good interdisciplinary writing is, by definition, able to communicate effectively to a non-specialist. The best pieces are likely to feature short, clear sentences comprised of simple words and phrases. In particular, make sure you explain any specialist terminology.

Research and referencing 10%: Flawless or nearly flawless referencing, with an appropriate range, number and quality of works cited. (let's make it clear for each other in the google docs notes which are our own words and what is copy-pasted from sources (put in quotation marks) so we don't accidentally plagiarise)

Guidance: the key is for you to establish whether a source is trustworthy and to justify your usage in cases where its trustworthiness may not be obvious to a non-specialist reader.

Contribution 30% (Individual) Regular, thoughtful, precise and relevant contributions, which play an important role in the development of the project. A courteous and professional tone throughout. (it's a lot easier to write on WhatsApp but just remember to add the discussions to here as well so it is recorded)

Guidance: your marker will be evaluating your contribution to the chapter based on the edit history of the chapter and on the comments on the Discussion page. Where any contributions are not obvious from those sources, you may want to document them on the Discussion page.

Initial meeting (Zoom) 20/11/20
Attendance: Selma, Alina, Vivianne

 * All members enjoyed topics of Truth, Evidence, and Power; not too keen on History as it easily becomes descriptive
 * Brainstormed issues of interest: truth in our reality/simulation theory (do we live in a simulation? computer science, physics/mathematics, philosophy, religion), truth/power & the British Royal Family (what is legitimate power? political, cultural, economic, psychological etc.), music therapy, polygamy (evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, religion)
 * Polygamy seems to have the most potential for interdisciplinary tension: research more until next meeting

Second meeting (in-person after ATK seminar) 23/11/20
Attendance: Selma, Alina, Vivianne

 * Agreed on the topic of human relationship structure – but the suggestion was made to focus on the current norm of monogamy rather than polygamy to enable wider discussion about norms and truth (still the same debate)
 * Identified central conflict between the disciplines' ideas of truth: Biology, as a natural science, adopts a positivist, empirical correspondence perspective on truth, in which the truth they seek to generate mirrors reality/the natural world; sociology, situated in the social sciences, assumes a constructivist approach to truth
 * To resolve: Only using the two disciplines of biology and sociology and presenting them as radical opposites risks creating false binaries – perhaps a third discipline such as psychology could help bridge them and add more nuance? However, that also means we cannot go into as much depth into each discipline. Arguments in psychology may also be too similar to those in biology. The suggestion was made to instead subsections to disciplines, e.g. communist and feminist perspectives in sociology, for added nuance.

 * Just to add to the outcomes of this meeting: After some research, we found that there was actually not as much interdisciplinary tension on the question of whether monogamy in humans was ‘natural’ as we expected. This is because arguments within biology were indefinite and conflicting – there was substantial biological evidence for both polygamy and monogamy in humans. To overcome this, we resolved to shifting the discussion of reasons why monogamy is so prevalent and dominant over polygamy today, allowing us to identify a clearer interdisciplinary tension in terms of truth.--Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Third meeting (WhatsApp group call) 7/12/20
Attendance: Selma, Alina, Vivianne
 * Finalised title: Truth in Explanations for the Rise of Monogamy in Humans
 * Finalised sections: Introduction, Biology (Evolutionary Biology, Neuroscience), Sociology (Marxist perspective, Feminist perspective), Conclusion/Tensions
 * Divided up work based on which areas we were most interested in researching more about
 * Following our ATK seminar about Truth in Kat's lecture we were prompted to think about how the different perception of Truth as objective/subjective in our chosen disciplines contributes to tensions. E.g. if scientific truths must be universal for all humans and societies – how do scientists explain the existence of cultures/communities where monogamy is not the norm?
 * Deadline to finish individual sections: Friday 11th; use the weekend to edit, polish, add references and visuals

Fourth meeting (WhatsApp group call) 10/12/20
Attendance: Selma, Alina, Vivianne

 * Agreed all drafts to be finished by tomorrow – on track!
 * Images/graphics? Couldn't find much relevant stuff on Wikimedia Commons, will look further but agreed it might be unnecessary if it doesn't add any value to the article
 * Discussed how we can allude to tensions throughout the whole article and not just in the conclusion: decided we can do this by discussing jealousy in both neuroscience & feminist sections
 * Discussed truth tensions we've identified so far to consider addressing in the conclusion: essentialist vs constructivist truths, causal explanation vs justification, objective vs subjective truth, material vs the immaterial world
 * Discussed... writer's block – it's so frustrating!!! Shared some tips on how to overcome: turning off phone, taking a break, trusting that it'll go away eventually :')

Fifth meeting (Whatsapp group call) 13/12/20
Attendance: Selma, Alina, Vivianne
 * All drafts completed - worked towards reducing our word count and rewrote some sentences which were unclear in explanation. Only minor edits were made as the bulk of the work was done
 * Discussed how to upload pictures from Wikimedia commons - decided there weren't many relevant pictures we could add that related to our topic so we decided to leave it with the marmoset
 * Aimed to have a final to submit by the end of the day, referencing still needs to be done for some parts of the conclusion

Neuroscience
Alina: have a look at p. 148 in this: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09589236.1997.9960678?needAccess=true It is written by a feminist scholar but she raises an interesting tension between the biological essentialism vs social construction of feelings of jealousy – whether it is natural or learned. Maybe you can address the neuroscientific explanations in your section and I discuss the sociological explanations in the feminist section? Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you, looks very relevant. This seems appropriate for neuroscience (instead of Alina's section on evolutionary biology.) I have found a neuroscientific study on the connection between jealousy and monogamy, here https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2017.00119/full, and will try to include a brief mention of it in my section, so that we have an even more direct disciplinary tension. --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Vivianne, here's an insightful piece on jealousy from a sociological perspective, if needed, to contrast with the neuroscientific take. It's in the 'The Western Romance Tradition' section. https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=841115116081095113017023088123092119104072028038038067092083096030020083011087002104028060057106119006096107008019084080089104007055040087041066069006027093126027017029007125083028068025120028066090121087118114086125066118071014015030123123026089081&EXT=pdf --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Selma – had a read and it was super-useful!! Incorporated the ideas about jealousy in romantic vs platonic love into my draft on the google doc if you want to have a look.Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great!--Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Evolutionary Biology
1. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full#h5

2. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mmperry/fgp_rev10_jet.pdf

3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0140175079900010

4. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/205770.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A1919abcf6f7440a939a12eeeee7ffc2d

5. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep32472

Initial Ideas
1. a) Cooperative breeding

b) Paternal care

c) Kin discrimination

2.

a) Survivorship in the monogamous convention is always greater than survivorship in the serially monogamous convention (Page 12)

b) Important to not generalise completely to contemporary family (Page 18)

3.

a) Survivorship in the monogamous convention is always greater than survivorship in the serially monogamous convention (Page 4)

b) Paternal care (Page 6)

4. Ecologically imposed monogamy (Page 5)

5. Doubts notion of paternal investment as a cause for monogamy - growing evidence suggests that paternal care evolves only after monogamy becomes established in a population (Page 1)

Final Thoughts
According to evolutionary biologists, monogamy is favoured over polygamy for the following reasons:

1. Survival is greater in monogamous relationships, ecologically imposed monogamy

2. Paternal care (counter argument = paternal care evolves only after monogamy becomes established in a population)

3. Cooperative breeding Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 19:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

General
Biologists adopt a correspondence theory of truth, where they produce knowledge mirroring the reality that exists. To do this, they use empirical and 'objective' evidence, to argue that monogamy is the natural form of sexual relationships in humans. Contrarily, sociologists take on a constructivist theory of truth, in which they recognise that truths are constructed by humans' forms of representation, language, social forces, norms and values, specific to different societies and cultures. They use this version of truth to argue that human forms of sexual relations are flexible - can be both monogamous and polygamous-, and monogamy being the present dominant form across the majority of cultures is a social construction: not essential or fixed, rather subject to change.
 * The question of whether monogamy is an inherent or natural trait in humans could be framed in terms of truth, roughly along these lines:

What are your thoughts on this outline, and which discipline do you think we could incorporate as a potential intermediary or for an added tension? --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Intuitively, psychology feels like a potential bridge between the two disciplines (e.g. discussion whether feelings of jealousy etc. is natural or learned behaviour) but I wonder if it might be too similar to arguments in biology? There has also been research about mononormativity in some more obcsure discipline such as feminist studies; have a look at this one: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/684238. Some interesting quotes from it...

“I define biopossibility as a species- and context-specific capacity to embody socially meaningful traits or desires...I intend biopossibility as a tool for naturecultural thinking”

“so ... is there a monogamy gene?” As they say in the lab, there is always a “quick and dirty” answer. Mine is that it depends on how you define both gene and monogamy.”

“Biopossibility allows us to apprehend behaviors intelligible as monogamous and nonmonogamous, and the processes we understand as their molecular substrates, as one set of culturally and historically mediated expressions of our creaturely capacities in a naturecultural world.” Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 01:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * The concepts of the ’naturecultural’ and ‘biopossibility’ in the paper you sent are very interesting, and could potentially be used as a means of synthesising our two conflicting disciplines at the end? Or, it could be an added nuance to the sociological section, as it is an active criticism of scientific production of truth.
 * Wiley implies that science and sociology/arts are not two, independent, irreconcilable oppositions, but rather connected and dependent, a function of each other. She states that, ‘while feminists have theorized monogamy as a powerful social norm, scientists study monogamy as a mating system or strategy. Monogamy’s normalized status cannot be disentangled from its scientific naturalization.’ Here, she presents the correspondence truth sought by the discipline of biology as culturally embedded, itself a means of socially constructing monogamy as a norm.

 * Wiley explains that ‘scientific knowledge is based on the scientific method and is objective, that is, value neutral and therefore universal and reproducible.’ She then states that this approach to truth allows only for the scientific study of what already is, that which can be measured, thereby ‘excluding from the realm of scientific inquiry phenomena that cannot readily be understood in terms of their component parts. Science as such thus demands conceptualizations of natural phenomena that minimize the complexity of its objects: here, monogamy.’ Here, she presents scientific truth as limited, necessitating reliance upon political and social ‘conceptualisations’ - she presents scientific knowledge production as politicised.

 * Sarah Harding adds to this, stating science’s employment of ‘weak objectivity’ is a result of it ‘starting, inevitably, from the questions, concerns, and interests of scientists (people) and the institutions of which they are a part.’

 * Haraway describes a ‘naturecultural’ world in which nature and culture have coevolved. She, too, seeks to falsify the nature/culture binary which distinguishes between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ as discrete spheres.

 * Barad – ‘agiental realism’ resolving tension between ‘realism’ and ‘social constructivism.’ Depicts science as a ‘material-discursive’ practice. Scientific study, producing knowledge, interacts with the world by studying it.

--> Naturalising claims about monogamy makes them ‘real.’

 * Perhaps this is something for us to discuss in our next meeting. --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

So I'm wondering whether a limitation in a particular explanation from evolutionary biology is a good transition to the sociological explanations. Should I indicate another discipline's pov might be helpful (and in that case which one) or just carry on with another explanation from evolutionary biology? Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Whilst I think we should focus on outlining where the disciplinary tensions lie clearly, it's definitely relevant to mention the potential weaknesses of the explanations if there is substantial contention around them. So maybe briefly adding something like 'Whilst there is some contention, the main consensus within evolutionary biology is...' Hope that helps a little. --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. After reading through the last explanation, I've found it links pretty well with the general consensus anyway. Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 00:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it's coming together well. I've made some comments on the Google Doc about shortening the length of sentences esp. conclusion to better convey what we're trying to say.

Update - I'm happy with the changes, definitely think it's easier to understand now. We're so close to having the perfect word count, I've made some more suggestions for where we could cut down. A couple of things to think about:

- are we planning to add any more pictures? not sure there are any relevant ones on commons

- we should make sure all our referencing is consistent, I think there is still some we have to do for the conclusion

- we should link any key terms and have species' names in italics Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Had another look for images on Wikimedia Commons and couldn't find anything suitable so don't think we need to bother with any more – the cute marmoset should be enough :) had a look at references and since we all used the same generator the style is consistent! added links to some key terms throughout the article & all species are in italics now. Selma will upload the final conclusion from the google doc with references and then we are good to go! If we end up having words to spare I might use it to add a concluding sentence to the feminist section linking their critical approach to jealousy back to their constructivist approaches to truth, as it ends kind of abruptly now... but no worries if not.Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Title ideas
Truth in monogamy in humans Truth in the normalisation of monogamy in humans Truth in the normalisation of monogamous human relationships Truth in explanations for monogamy in humans Truth in mononormativity Truth in explanations for mononormativity Truth in foundations to mononormativity

Which one do you guys most naturally incorporates the issue of truth? I think I prefer "Truth in explanations for mononormativity" – highlights what Selma said earlier that we should focus on the different disciplines' appeals to Truth in their explanations for why monogamy has come to be naturalised, as opposed to a discussion about whether monogamy is natural or not. Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 01:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I definitely agree that our title should reflect our emphasis on discussion of reasons why monogamy has become so prevalent across human societies, instead of its ‘naturalness.’ However, I think the use of ‘normalisation’ or ‘mononormativity’ presume that monogamy is a function of norms/are socially constructed, already lending it to the sociological perspective more so than the biological. In a project depicting differing perspectives, it may be better to use more impartial terms in the title. An example could maybe be ‘Truth in the Rise of Monogamy’? --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 02:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I agree – the term mononormativity was coined in gender studies so is loaded with certain assumptions and we might something more "disciplinarily neutral"... Maybe ‘Truth in Explanations for the Rise of Monogamy’ then? It might be a bit lengthy but does keep the focus on appeals to truth in the discussion about monogamy, rather than truth in the phenomenon of monogamy itself. Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I think in our next meeting it would be useful to define which specific form of monogamy we will discuss. In my research so far I have come across 'sexual monogamy', which demands both sexual and romantic exclusivity, 'social monogamy', which includes only romantic exclusivity, taking into account extracouple sexual experience. There is also 'serial monogamy', which demands both sexual and romantic exclusivity, but recognises that people may have more than one monogamous relationship in their lifetime. Whilst sexual monogamy is the societal expectation, social monogamy is also common. According to Wiley, in the paper Vivianne posted previously, 'extrapair copulations are increasingly assimilated within scientific definitions of monogamy.' In this way, it could be more relevant to our inquiry. Which one do you think is most appropriate?--Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 02:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Referencing
Here's the citation generator I used for the sandbox – worked really well! Think it would be good if we do all references using the same tool so that they are consistent: https://www.citethisforme.com/vancouver/source-type Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Drafts
Hi guys! I've added the feminist section & a draft conclusion to the article page so you can go ahead and edit.Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 23:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do! I've added my drafts of the introduction and sections on neuroscience and Marxism, too. Feel free to make any suggestions. Looking forward to seeing it all come together. --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 23:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Put my draft up with the referencing! Let me know if there's anything that needs changing. Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All looks great!!! See edited versions on the google doc – I didn't change anything in the content, only cut down on words. Also, each section is now under the allocated word count so that means we can afford a slightly longer conclusion!Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we all feel satisfied with how it's looking at this point? Are we ready to submit? --Banksy2020 (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep I'm happy with it! Good job guys ;) Vkwzw (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Let's submit it :) Jigamaree (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


text:
User:Varadaraya Shenoy/sandbox

sedxfcvbkljhikgfydhgsfb

title: User:Varadaraya Shenoy/sandbox


text:
History of video games/Platforms/Shinra Technologies

Development
In November of 2013 Square Enix announced Project Flare, an initiative to develop cloud centric gaming infrastructure. Project Flare would later spin off into Shinra Technologies as a subsidiary of Square Enix in September of 2014. The company was based in New York City with satellite offices in Tokyo and Montreal. In 2014 the company had ambitious technology development goals, with 2016 being seen as a key year for cloud gaming growth.

The namesake of Shinra Technologies was the fictional Shinra Corporation in the game Final Fantasy VII, which was opposed by a fictional group called Avalanche. In real life Shinra Technologies and Avalanche studios worked closely together on the Shinra Technologies platform.

Japan
Japanese beta testing of the service began recruitment of subscribers of NTT East fiber internet service from January 26th, 2015 to February 10th, 2015. The beta test began just two days later on February 17th, 2015 with a projected end date of May 16th, 2015.

United States of America
At SXSW at Austin Texas in March of 2015 The Living World was shown at the Google Fiber Space as a demo. American Beta testing of the service began in Kansas City on August 11th, 2015, with only gigabit speed Google Fiber subscribers being eligible to test the service.

Legacy
In January 2016 it was announced that Square Enix would close Shinra Technologies, costing them 2.2 billion Japanese yen. Some saw Shinra's strife as a sign that cloud game streaming would never work.

A number of former Shinra Technologies employees would form the livestreaming technology company Genvid shortly after Shinra folded, also based in New York. Work on Genvid started as early as February 2016, with the establishment of a Twitter account, and was formally established by March 2016. In December of 2020 Genvid debuted Rival Peak, among the first Massive Interactive Live Events accessible to the public, finally realizing a product category somewhat similar to one Shinra Technologies was unable to fully launch before closure.

Hardware
A demo instance of the technology shown at E3 2015 was powered by two computers. The compute computer uses an Intel Xeon CPU and Nvidia GTX Titan Black GPU. The render computer uses an Intel Xeon CPU and four Nvidia GTX 980 graphics cards.

During the Japanese beta test the company Techorus handled server hosting.

Software
Much of Shinra Technologies product was focused on making easier and better netcode for developers.

Software for Shinra instances could use the DirectX graphics API.

Games

 * Space Sweeper - Cooperative MMO 2D twin stick shooter with crafting mechanics and massive numbers of enemies, designed to render the entire game world for all players simultaneously. Indie title by Kengo Nakajima. Exclusive game for Shinra Technologies streaming.
 * The Living World - Tech Demo rendering 16,000 dragons at once. Exclusive for Shinra Technologies streaming.
 * Agni's Philosophy - Tech Demo and port.
 * Tomb Raider - Port of the 2013 game.
 * Hitman: Absolution- Port
 * Deus Ex: Human Revolution - Port
 * Final Fantasy VII - Port

Read more

 * Japanese beta test sign up page (Archived)


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Conspiracy Theories: Flat Earth

Introduction
Flat Earth theory is a pseudoscientific model in which the Earth is not spherical, but a flat disk. While this has been a view held by some societies in history, the notion that the Earth is round has such overwhelming scientific support that it is no longer a subject of debate in the mainstream scientific community, and is the generally accepted view in modern society. However, in the last two decades, the theory gained popularity again. Flat Earthers are sometimes driven by religious convictions. Flat Earthism acts as a conspiracy theory, with the idea that mainstream media, government and academia are deceitful. Often, this can be contextualised within these individuals' broader ideas of the world and political outlook, wherein instead of using the scientific method to arrive at an empirical truth, an approach more common to politics and reminiscent of social constructionism is used. The attempt to approach astrophysics in the way one would approach politics can play a part in explaining the prevalence of this conspiracy theory.

Truth in Physics
Physics is a science that "deals with the structure of matter and the interactions between fundamental constituents of the observable universe". Therefore, by using this definition, we can say that there exists an absolute truth, otherwise known as reality, which physics strives to help us understand. Through the use of the scientific method, physicists have been able to draw conclusions derived from rigorous testing and scepticism, making these conclusions empirical and reliable. As a result, the “truth” in a scientific context can be seen as the most accurate representation of reality that has been achieved. Furthermore, the “truth” within physics also has a social aspect to it. Physics as a discipline is constructed by the society of physicists and the “truth” can also be seen as the model which is most widely accepted in that community. Every advancement suggests that physics is getting closer and closer to the truth in its purest form and the exhaustive lengths physicists take to make the data as accurate as possible reflects this.

The pseudoscience behind the flat earth theory is based on rudimentary pieces of evidence that display a limited knowledge of physics and have been easily debunked by the scientific community. This can be seen in one of the main supporting arguments of the flat earth theory. Pictures that show skylines beyond the horizon line are consistently used by flat earthers to justify their reasoning. However, these images are mirages, explained by the refraction of light. The air directly above the surface of the water has a higher refractive index than the warmer air above it, causing the rays of light to bend downwards towards our eyes. Meanwhile, we assume that the rays of light have travelled in a straight line, creating a superior mirage where the object appears higher than it actually is.

On the other hand, the proof that the earth is indeed round is overwhelming. Basic mathematical principles such as that of Newton’s law and the angle of incidence allow us to deduce the curvature of the earth. Moreover, Foucault’s Pendulum, which is attached to a motionless point, changes its direction of oscillation over the course of a day, as the earth rotates beneath it, proving that the earth is a rotating sphere rather than a flat disc.

Truth in Politics
Political science is subjective and the concept of truth lies in its relativism. There is no guaranteed correct answer, rather Politics hinges on people's perceptions. Zerilli questioned if there even is truth in politics. It is impossible to find the truth via experimental means to the highest standards due to ethical and practical constraints. Therefore, the data derived from these experiments are less conclusive. Often, the political frame of mind fails to appreciate the depth of rigorous testing of truth physics allows and requires, leading to false conclusions such as flat Earth.

Politics as a discipline aims to scrutinise power structures. Flat Earthers’ radical rejection of mainstream academia is often a political act. Often, flat Earthers disagree with many outcomes of academic research. Any political system or belief is a compromise in which one must decide which outcomes are more or less important: for instance, one might argue safety is more important than personal freedom to support their gun control stance. Flat Earthism becomes a part of such a compromise, whereby the parts of academia which do not fit into the individual’s political system are important enough that entirely rejecting the institution of academia becomes necessary. This rejection results in a denial of academia’s findings, such as basic astrophysics.

Conflicts About Truth
Physics, ideally, looks at data with an impartial eye and values negative and positive outcomes equally, thus drawing a conclusion as a logical extension of the data. On the other hand, Politics often deals with parties of opposing views, so the author often uses evidence to convince rather than to investigate, affecting how truth is perceived. The work often has a clear bias. Therefore, a lot of "amateur science" fall into the trap of conducting studies to convince. Flat Earthers' experiments often attempt to prove that their theory is correct rather than to investigate the question at hand. The experiment becomes a rhetorical tool rather than one of inquiry.

Physics as a field has a clearer progression of truth than Politics and this creates tension between the disciplines. In Physics, the shape of the Earth was derived from empirical and numerical proof, so the topic is no longer contested within mainstream academia. The field of astrophysics can move on to other issues. In Politics, according to its subjective nature, an idea can never be truly proven right. Even if a theory has developed in great detail, its roots can still be challenged and debated, for instance, the current Western system of capitalism is still often disputed. Additionally, the field of Politics is adaptive to its surroundings, such as levels of technology, which are liable to change, causing a shift in what the “optimal” political system is at the time. Thus, nothing in Politics is ever as certain as the curvature of the Earth is in Physics (where the sort of research that would be required to put the shape of the earth in question is improbable). By looking at the work in astrophysics from a political lens, this means that the certainty in the Earth's curvature seems like the result of whoever must be in charge rather than of the scientific consensus.

Conclusion
Using flat Earth as an example, we can acknowledge the objective and subjective views about truth within Physics and Politics. The misapplication of a discipline such as Politics to astrophysics results in tension, and leads many to form incorrect conclusions. Understanding this can be useful in finding approaches to dispelling conspiracy theories.


text:
User:Mosmith3/sandbox

The System
Consider the continous-time LTI system, $$G:L_{2e}->L_{2e}$$ with state-space realization (A,B,C,0)

\begin{align} \dot x(t)&=Ax(t)+Bu(t),\\ y(t)&=Cx(t), \end{align}$$

where $$A\in \R^{nxn}$$, $$B\in \R^{nxm}$$, $$C\in \R^{pxn}$$, and it and it is assumed that (A, B) is stabilizable, (A, C) is detectable, and the transfer matrix $$G(s)=C(s1-A^{-1})B$$ has no poles on the imaginary axis.

The Data
The matrices $$ A,B,C $$.

The Optimization Problem
The system G is strongly stabilizable if there exist $$P \in \S^n$$, $$Z\in \R^{nxp}$$, and $$\gamma\in \R_{>0}$$, where $$P > 0$$, such that

\begin{align} PA+A^T+ZC+C^TZ^T<0\\ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\begin{bmatrix}-P(A+BF)+(A+BF)^TP+ZC+C^T Z^T&&-Z&&XB\\ \end{align}$$
 * &&-\gamma I && 0\\
 * && * && -\gamma I \end{bmatrix}}<0\end{aligned}}}\\

Conclusion:
where $$F=-B^TX$$ and $$X \in S_n$$, $$X \geq 0$$ is the solution to the Lyapunov equation given by

\begin{align} XA+A^TX-XBB^TX=0 \end{align}$$ Moreover, a controller that strongly stabilizes G is given by the state-space realization

\begin{align} \dot x_c = (A+BF+P^{-1}ZC)x(t)-P^{-1}Zu(t)\\ y_C=-B^TXx(t) \end{align}$$

Implementation
(Link created but denied access)
 * https://github.com/mosmith3asu/WikibooksLMIs/blob/main/ContinousTimeStrongStabilizability.m- Example Code

Related LMIs
Future Link - Discrete-Time Strong Stabilizability

title: User:Mosmith3/sandbox


text:
LMIs in Control/Stability Analysis/Continuous Time/StrongStabilizability

The System
Consider the continous-time LTI system, $$G:L_{2e}->L_{2e}$$ with state-space realization (A,B,C,0)

\begin{align} \dot x(t)&=Ax(t)+Bu(t),\\ y(t)&=Cx(t), \end{align}$$

where $$A\in \R^{n\times n}$$, $$B\in \R^{n\times m}$$, $$C\in \R^{p\times n}$$, and it and it is assumed that (A, B) is stabilizable, (A, C) is detectable, and the transfer matrix $$G(s)=C(s1-A^{-1})B$$ has no poles on the imaginary axis.

The Data
The matrices $$ A,B,C $$.

The Optimization Problem
The system G is strongly stabilizable if there exist $$P \in \S^n$$, $$Z\in \R^{n\times p}$$, and $$\gamma\in \R_{>0}$$, where $$P > 0$$, such that

\begin{align} PA+A^T+ZC+C^TZ^T<0\\ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\begin{bmatrix}-P(A+BF)+(A+BF)^TP+ZC+C^T Z^T&&-Z&&XB\\ \end{align}$$
 * &&-\gamma I && 0\\
 * && * && -\gamma I \end{bmatrix}}<0\end{aligned}}}\\

Conclusion:
where $$F=-B^TX$$ and $$X \in S_n$$, $$X \geq 0$$ is the solution to the Lyapunov equation given by

\begin{align} XA+A^TX-XBB^TX=0 \end{align}$$ Moreover, a controller that strongly stabilizes G is given by the state-space realization

\begin{align} \dot x_c = (A+BF+P^{-1}ZC)x(t)-P^{-1}Zu(t)\\ y_C=-B^TXx(t) \end{align}$$

Implementation
(Link created but denied access)

Related LMIs
Future Link - Discrete-Time Strong Stabilizability


text:
Adventist Adventurer Awards and Answers/Colors

Listen to a book about colors.
Up Mix It Up a colorful story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbGioTNs4M

Sing a song about colors.
Chant about colors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhOTU8_1Af4

Both text and visual images are repeated 4 times making it perfect for learning or review.

red, blue, yellow, green, orange, pink, purple, brown, black, white, gray

Rainbow Colors song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLZcWGQQsmg

Lyrics:

Verse 1:

Tell me, tell me, what do you see? I see an apple, and it's red!

Tell me, tell me, what do you see? I see a carrot, and it's orange!

Tell me, tell me, what do you see? I see a lemon, and it's yellow!

Tell me, tell me, what do you see? I see a frog, and it's green!

Rainbow colors everywhere Red, orange, yellow, green Rainbow colors everywhere Blue, purple, pink!

Chorus: Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, pink (kids repeat)

Verse 2:

Tell me, tell me, what do you see? I see a fish, and it's blue!

Tell me, tell me, what do you see? I see a flower, and it's purple!

Tell me, tell me, what do you see? I see a flamingo, and it's pink!

Rainbow colors everywhere Red, orange, yellow, green Rainbow colors everywhere Blue, purple, pink!

Chorus: Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, pink (kids repeat)

Play a game about colors.
Colors Board Games

You can download this free game here

https://h8y4w3m9.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/Colors-Flashcards.pdf

Make a colors craft.
https://www.firstpalette.com/craft/bubble-wrap-prints.html

SUPPLIES NEEDED Bubble wrap Tempera or poster paint Paint brushes or roller brushes Scissors Paper

Direction Cut bubble wrap. Cut a sheet of bubble wrap into approximately the same size as your paper.

Prepare the paint. Cover your work area with a mat or with newspapers. Put the bubble wrap at the center, bubbly side-up. Place different colors of tempera or poster paint on your palette. Water the paint down so that it is quite spreadable but not too runny.

Paint the bubble wrap. Paint the bubble wrap sheet using paint brushes or roller brushes. You can do stripes or paint random splotches. Remember to clean your paint brush when changing colors or use a different brush for each color.

Place the paper on top. Once you've filled the bubble wrap with colors, place your paper over it. Press firmly down with your hands to transfer the print from the bubble wrap to the paper.

Lift the paper. Carefully lift the paper from the bubble wrap sheet.

Let the paper dry. Check out the colorful bubble wrap prints on the paper! Once dry, you can frame your bubble wrap printed paper or use it for other craft projects. Check out more crafting ideas below.

https://www.firstpalette.com/craft/circles-lollipop.html

SUPPLIES NEEDED Craft foam or construction paper Drinking straws Glue stick Transparent tape Scissors Compass or any object to draw circles Colored markers, glitter glue or puffy paint

Direction

Draw three circles. Draw three circles, from small to big, on various colors of craft foam or construction paper. Use a compass to draw the circles or any round-mouthed object like a bowl or plate as a guide for making the circles.

Cut out. Cut out the circles.

Glue two circles together. Glue the middle-sized circle at the center of the big circle.

Glue the third circle. Glue the small circle at the center of the middle-sized circle.

Make a handle. Tape a drinking straw at the back to make the lollipop's handle.

Decorate the lollipop. Decorate your lollipop with stripes and swirls using glitter glue, puffy paint or colored markers. You can make your own puffy paint or use commercial ones.

Let dry. When you're happy with the lollipop looks, allow it to dry completely.

https://www.firstpalette.com/craft/car-track-painting.html


text:
Adventist Adventurer Awards and Answers/Numbers

Listen to a book about numbers 1-20.
The Crayon Book of Numbers is a very apppropiate counting book for preschoolers

Here is another one for you

The Crayon Counting Book

Sing a song about numbers 1-20.
This video by the Singing Walrus is perfect to learn to count until 20: Number Song 1-20

Another option is this song by Jack Hartmann Count and Workout Count to 20

Play a game about numbers 1-20.
Interactive game to learn to count until 20 Counting Game

Make a numbers 1-20 craft.
https://www.learning4kids.net/2015/09/15/create-a-number-line-1-to-20/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byr_Cmyf5_RyeTVmREhDcmozRzA/view?resourcekey=0-HC6JQrDvUS9JXHHqiQJWCA


text:
Adventist Adventurer Awards and Answers/ABC's

Listen to a book on alphabet

==https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vineOu-TOl4

Sing a song about the alphabet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vineOu-TOl4

Play a game about the alphabet.
Scrabble Matching Game Print some simple photos that begin with different letters of the alphabet. Using a set of scrabble tiles, ask your child to match the tile of the first letter to each image. For a more advanced version, ask them to spell out the name of the image using the scrabble tiles.

Alphabet Soup Playing Alphabet Soup is a really fun way to expose your little one to letters. There are tons of great variations on this game, but for the original version you'll just need toy alphabet letters and a large kitchen pot. Simply dump the letters into the pot and let your child play around, stirring the “soup” with a spatula or practice scooping up the letters with measuring cups, asking them to name each letter. You can also try this in the bath with waterproof letters and some small bowls. With so many variations, it's easy to switch up this alphabet game to keep it fresh for your kiddos.

Make an alphabet craft.
Tell all the letter of the Alphabet in order

https://premeditatedleftovers.com/naturally-frugal-mom/string-letters-a-fun-alphabet-craft-for-kids/

String Letters Craft and Game Ideas

Materials Needed:

 * Yarn
 * Scissors
 * Wax paper
 * Glue
 * Container
 * Sturdy rope
 * 26 clothespins

Directions to Make:

Cut yarn into pieces of various lengths.

Lay out wax paper on a smooth surface for letters to dry on.

Have children dip yarn pieces into glue container:

Then shape wet yarn into letter formations on the wax paper.

Repeat until the letter has been filled with string:

Allow yarn to dry before playing the game.

String a long and sturdy rope up in the room and attach clothespins onto it.

Game Ideas Using String Letters

 * 1) Players work together to place letters in alphabetic order by attaching them to the rope with the clothespins.

 * 1) As they place the letters, encourage them to name the letters they are attaching to the rope.

String Letter Game Variations
Use letters to create a child’s name on the rope.

Use letters to create sight words.

Create a timed challenge to see how fast they can put letters up in alphabetical order.


text:
Adventist Adventurer Awards and Answers/Trikes & Bikes

Listen to a book about trike & bike riding.
you can find the book Hello Bicycle in You tube"

Sing a song about trike & bike riding.
Ride a Bike song in YouTube

Another Bike song

Play a game about trike & bike riding.
Ask each child to bring his or her favorite set of wheels.To create the course, arrange orange cones or other soft items in your yard or a nearby park. Include curves, turns, and small hills. Fuel the kids' excitement by timing each racer as he or she pedals to the finish line.
 * Obstacle Course --

Make a trike & bike craft.
Have your children decorate their wheeled toys and then have a parade.
 * Bike Parade --

https://someonesmum.co.uk/2018/06/14/easy-bicycle-craft-kids/

Lolly Stick Bicycle Craft – You will need

Cardboard hoops (craft shop wreath templates work well) or paper plates Lolly sticks. We used two sizes – the usual smaller ones and some large lolly sticks Paint Glue Any other decorations or embellishments you would like to use


text:
Adventist Adventurer Awards and Answers/Jesus’s Special Supper

Tell the story of the Last Supper.
Go to this link to listen to the story: The Last Supper

Explain why Jesus washed the disciples’ feet as a servant.
We wash each other’s feet to show we are humble and no better than anyone else. We should be servants like Jesus was.

Explain what the bread and the juice represents.
The bread represents the body of Jesus

The Juice represents the blood of Jesus

Have a prayer thanking Jesus for HIS love.
Read Matthew 26:30 and sing a hymn.

Matthew 26:30

30 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEYz4i2SL2k

Make a craft to illustrate the Last Supper.
http://sabbathschoolcrafts.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/the-last-supper-craft.pdf

 * Color and cut out.
 * Fold tabs on side of table up. Fold elbows over hanging up. Fold vertical folds following fold marks either side of Jesus.
 * Glue together.
 * Fold tabs under food and glue anywhere on table.

External Resources
PDF