Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 1

"Critical context"?

Hey all. I'm studying for a standardized test's writing portion and in the holistic scoring rubric it says of an essay with a score of 6 (the highest) that "The essay takes a position on the issue and may offer a critical context for discussion." Here, what is meant by "offer a critical context for discussion"? (Note especially the "a" indefinite article) Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A critical context often refers to situating the text/evidence in the context of critical studies and perspectives by academics; and, evaluating different potential approaches to analysing the text in relation to the methods or theories propounded in the scholarly literature. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For the purposes of this sort of essay, what it means (most likely) is that your essay should indicate what the various stakes are for various positions that one might take on the given topic. So if the question is (as one of my GRE essay topics was, ages ago), "will the ease of access of photographic and video footage of foreign places make travel obsolete?", instead of just answering "no, because of X" or "yes, because of Y," you would indicate that at its heart, the question is, say, one about the authenticity of experience, a topic with much broader stakes than travel. That would be my interpretation of the sort of thing they are looking for in this sort of prompt, anyway. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And one might then discuss the Existentialist and the Post-modernists attitudes to authenticity, and the 19th and 20th century travel novels, in relation to the prompt's evidentiary or textual content—photos and videos of foreign places, and the experience of travel. My problem as an essayist when I was young was I'd want to debate authenticity itself, rather than situate the prompt's evidence and text in relation to authenticity. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't if it was only for the SATs or even GREs, unless you were trying to sound like a pretentious ass. Those kinds of tests aren't looking for engagement with high level scholarly discourse, they're looking for evidence of your ability to write and reason. They are not the same thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your matriculation may vary. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think some of these responses are making this seem harder than it really is. The rubric really just means that, while taking its own position on the issue, the essay criticizes various aspects of the issue, or points out various aspects of the issue that might be open to criticism or question. Marco polo (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Great Expectations

I know that Charles Dickens revised the ending of Great Expectations to provide a more conventional happy ending in which Pip and Estella end up together. The problem I have with it is that the dialogue seems to contradict this in the very preceding sentence:

"We are friends," said I, rising and bending over her, as she rose from the bench.

"And will continue friends apart," said Estella.

I took her hand in mine, and we went out of the ruined place; and, as the morning mists had risen long ago when I first left the forge, so the evening mists were rising now, and in all the broad expanse of tranquil light they showed to me, I saw no shadow of another parting from her.

Is it just a failure of my imagination that I find it hard to believe that Pip and Estella will never part again when Estella has just said that they "will continue friends apart"? Are there any commentaries that explain this in further detail? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Maybe that was left in from the earlier version.

2) Maybe the characters were supposed to change their minds.

3) Maybe they just meant that when they are kept apart, they will remain loyal. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Explanation number 1 can be ruled out; see Great Expectations#Original ending for the text of the original ending. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you read the whole conversation, she is expressing her desire for a relationship about as directly as a woman possibly could in the Victorian era without being immodest. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the contradiction you note does not appear in the original ending. You are quoting the revised ending. Some editions of Great Expectations contain a foreword with commentary about the circumstances of the original ending. Dickens appears to be more concerned with the revelation by Pip that social class is not relevant. A good paper could be written about Great Expectations and the Great Gatsby where a tragic or good ending is immaterial. Such a paper could add The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus as well as the Allegory of the Cave found in Plato's Republic to stand for the propositions that fantasy can have substance in reality and a journey with an impossible destination is actually a success. Camus' philosophy is particularly applicable to Dickens as both were concerned with the plight of the working class during the industrial revolution. Both Gatsby and Pip are heroes of absurdity. From this perspective, the ending is not very material as Pip understands the meaning of what he has endured. He is happy as the hero Sisyphus rolling the boulder to the top of a mountain in Hades for all eternity. Our need for a happy ending is irrelevant and maybe it didn't matter much to Dickens either. The Sparknotes seems to indicate that the ending didn't matter so much either, but on less sophisticated terms.[1] Gx872op (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Who said this

"Would you sleep with me for 5 million pounds?"

I have two references. This [2] says it was Churchill, this [3] says it is Bernard Shaw. Which one is correct? --999Zot (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Most likely none of them did, and it is just an apocryphal story. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquote lists the anecdote under GBS, but says "This dialogue is also attributed to Winston Churchill, to Groucho Marx and to Mark Twain". Gandalf61 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would Marx and Twain offer anyone pounds instead of dollars? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Marx? Why wouldn't he use pounds? He lived for much of his life, died and was buried in London. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Just ignore me, I'm crap some days. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, not Groucho... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's semi-worth pointing out that Richard Armour once described Karl as "the funniest of the Marx Brothers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the Groucho Marx and Mark Twain versions of the anecdote use dollars rather than pounds, just as the GBS version has one million pounds rather than five million pounds. Trivial variants. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The specific units and amounts are not important to the point of the joke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said. It was 216.93.212.245 who thought the currency was important. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Give me 5 million and I will sleep with ANYbody.85.211.169.124 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

4,999,999? 4,999,998? 4,999,997? Just say when. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Helen Keller The_Frost_King

Is The_Frost_King available in print or online anywhere? -- SGBailey (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears in an appendix to her autobiography The Story of My Life. An online version is here (the story text ends at "can you?").--Cam (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- SGBailey (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Shabia (Eritrea)

Hi,
Does "Shabia" refers to the People's Front for Democracy and Justice, and/or to the Eritrean government, or something else? Shabia should be a redirect. Apokrif (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen a reliable source saying it is the same as PDFJ, have you? WikiDao ☯ 17:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this related to Sheba? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Shabia" = PFDJ. It is also used, perhaps with different transliteration to Latin script, for the PFLP. --Soman (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Shabia" (or in Palestine more like shaabiye) is short for jabhat ash-shaabiya ('People's Front'). Likewise the DFLP is nicknamed dimoqratiya, etc.. --Soman (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Fruit Jar Company Enters Aerospace Industry. Huh?

From the article on Ball Corp.: "Ball remained a family-owned business for more than 90 years, manufacturing fruit jars, lids, and related products. In the 1950s, Ball entered the aerospace industry." That's a pretty big unexplained leap from the first sentence to the second. Obviously, being a big company with money, they were able to easily overcome barriers to entry by buying equipment and buying lots of smart people, but does anyone have more information how a jar company got interested in the aerospace industry? You don't hear much of Cadbury-Schweppes suddenly jumping into the satellite business, for instance. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

They're not the only ones to make such a transition - Thiokol got started making glue and rubber sealants; now they mostly make solid rocket boosters (and for a long time made salt and ski-lifts). Nintendo got started making playing cards. Nokia made rubber boots. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And on the Cadbury-Schweppes theme, running the leading Formula One racing team as well as a second string F1 team and a NASCAR team is pretty cutting edge for an Austrian soft drink firm. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195 90.201.110.164 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks friends for never failing to correct me. I'm going to continue to look for the historical footnote on how the ones at Ball with control over the purse strings in the 50s got interested in aerospace. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And Diamond Match Company made the first launcher for the Pershing missile. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Aperture Science started out making shower curtains before switching to quantum tunneling devices. ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:09, 28 Iyar 5771 / 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I found the answer myself and will post it for anyone who happens to be interested. I found contact information here and emailed Scott McCarty of Ball Corporation and got an email back within an hour. The contents of that email: "There are slightly different versions of exactly how it came together, but the general story is that in the 1950s, our company sought to increase its technical base. Ed Ball found a Boulder company called Control Cells. It had a vehicle-weighing device that Ed, the son of one of the five founding Ball brothers, thought might work for weighing large amounts of raw materials used for making glass. Turned out it was too complicated for that, but it did – along with the help of some scientists from the U of Colorado – function very well as pointing control technology for rockets. Control Cells and this new staff became part of Ball Brothers Research Corporation in Colorado in 1956, the forerunner to Ball Aerospace." 20.137.18.50 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That would make a valuable addition to the article, if we could get them to publish it in a verifiable way. Perhaps you could prevail on Mr. McCarty to add that info to the "history" section of their website? The scenario you describe (humdrum thing turns out to have exciting unexpected application) is much the same trajectory as in Thiokol and EG&G. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The obvious route to me would have been if they had gone from making O-rings for mason jars to giant O-rings for rockets. After all, the failure of one of those O-rings caused a Space Shuttle to explode, so perhaps a company with a century of experience in making them might have prevented that. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"upside down" and "right side up"

What are the rules for hyphen use for the words "upside down" and "right side up"? --CGPGrey (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This question really belongs on the Language Reference Desk, but I will offer that these expressions should be hyphenated only when they are used as non-predicative adjectives. (That is, when they directly modify a noun and are not separated from the noun by a form of the verb to be.) So, for example, "The can was upside down." OR "I turned the can upside down." BUT "I saw the upside-down can." Marco polo (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Stalin

Did Stalin do anything good? I know that he was evil and we all hear about the Purges and how he killed millions but did he do anything good that was good for the people (I also know he increased industrial production which was good for the Soviet economy but he made his people slaves in the process). I know Lenin was evil too but at least he did some good things like gave women more rights. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

He did manage to make an atomic bomb pretty quickly, which probably did improve the USSR's security situation with regard to the United States. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"First we got the Bomb, and that was good / 'Cause we love peace and motherhood / Then Russia got the Bomb, but that's OK / 'Cause the Balance of Power's maintained that way / Who's Next?..." -- Tom Lehrer, 1965. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[4]

Prior to 1941 the increase in Soviet productivity resulted in a massive increase in the standards of living and workplace freedom experienced by industrial workers. (This needs to be balanced against the fact that Stalin did not personally cause this; and, the massive decline in standards of living, and life, amongst rural proletarians and peasants). [Andrle, Workers in Stalin's Russia]. Additionally the standards of living growth plateauxed after 1941 under Stalin; and, that workplace freedoms won in 1917, or 1929 (movement between workplaces during growth), dried up in 1941 never to return. In many ways Stalin's policies were lead (up to the 1940s) by what both the majority of the party and the majority of industrial workers wanted. [Again, Andrle, but see Simon Pirani for how this worked in practice]. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

How about holding down the eastern front during World War II? I don't think letting Hitler win would have been good for the Soviet people or anyone else.

Also I'd like to see a cite for the OP's assertion that "Lenin was evil too". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt if the adjective "evil" is helpful at all in these discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Soviet People and the Soviet General Staff held down the eastern front during World War II. I think it is highly suspect to ascribe this to Stalin, particularly if you've read of Stalin's behaviour in the military sphere. It is possible to assign to Stalin a unique capacity to bully the West over a second front and supplies; but, debate is out over the centrality of Western supplies to the Soviet war effort (yes, even the Trains, telephony and Trucks, even over those). Stalin may have provided a unique contribution in terms of being able to enforce industrial discipline in war on the lower levels of the party and the workers. Regarding Lenin—Lenin was central to the sectarian nature of the Bolshevik Party including the forced subordination of non-Bolshevik pro-Soviet forces, and, in particular, in the massaged emasculation of the factory councils' power over politics. Whether you find this evil or not depends on your position on the party and workers democracy. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

For a description of just how bad Lenin was, see Orlando Figes' A People's Tragedy. Lenin was one mean sonofabitch, although Stalin certainly surpassed him in evil. As far as WWII goes, the USSR would have defeated Germany much more quickly had Stalin not "purged" many of his officers and given Hitler a head start with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Russian literacy rates increase under Stalin ? StuRat (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Stalin managed to suppress all the small ethnic and national rivalries in nations he conquered, so that there weren't wars between Warsaw Pact nations (or whatever they were called before the pact), and also managed to prevent a war with NATO, so there was a period of relative peace following WW2. StuRat (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the planned invasion of Yugoslavia had reached the field exercise and prepositioning of major structural assets phase before the DPRK went rogue forestalling the capacity of the USSR to discipline Yugoslavia. Many on the revolutionary left condemn the reigning in of the PCF, PCI and Greeks; rather than celebrating this. In addition, the Stalinist leadership of the USSR were unilaterally opposed to adventurism and war, from hard to softline, from party, to government, to industry bloc, to military—whether Stalin appeased the imperialist powers more successfully than Molotov could have is an issue to ponder; but, the Soviet policy was one of appeasement (to build a defensive space, for the next imperialist war, which they believed was coming, which the imperialists would start). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And either there were faults in the Warsaw Pact structure, or Stalin was central to the peaceful nature of the Warsaw Pact, because Berlin '53, Hungary '56, Poland '56 (adverted by a successful Polish military manoeuvre), Czechoslovakia '68; and of course the planned Yugoslavia '51. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The theory of the Warsaw Pact was as peaceful as NATO. Both sides were simply afraid of each other. But did NATO suppress internal popular rebellions? Did NATO fire against civilians? The armies of the Warsaw Pact certainly did when needed. Flamarande (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the countries involved in NATO were certainly involved in policing Europe. Greece, Turkey, France and the United Kingdom suppressed internal popular rebellions. Spain. Turkey and Portugal were abhorrent Police states for much of the period, and Portugal suppressed many internal popular rebellions in overseas territories, as did France. Italy's survival and one party government was linked to direct intervention by the NATO power, including the repression of internal rebellion. The major NATO power also directly supplied the military equipment and economic support for Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey. Outside of Greece, Turkey and the non-European France and non-European Portugal wars, these incidents look much more like Berlin '53 or Czechoslovakia '68 than they look like Hungary '56 or the plans for Yugoslavia '51. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Granted that Spain, Turkey and Portugal (and Greece) were dictatorships with secret police, censorship, etc. They used the exact same means as all the countries of the Warsaw Pact. Now count how many countries of the Warsaw Pact had democracy with multiple parties, free elections, free press, right to travel, etc? Most of the NATO countries had these features. And even Spain, Turkey, Portugal and Greece became free democracies in the late 1970's while the Warsaw pact members had to wait for Gorbachow. I'm not arguing that NATO was "good" and that the Warsaw Pact was "bad" but fact is that a member of the Warsaw pact had to be careful or its own allies would invade it with tanks and suppress it with blood. Purely to "maintain order", of course. Flamarande (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not arguing that the Warsaw Pact countries were superior to the NATO countries (A plague on both their bosses is more my line). However, the situation in France in 1968 and in Italy in the 70s ought to be compared broadly with the Czechoslovak and Berlin incidents respectively. The issues surrounding the quality of democracy and industrial relations in the respective states are worth dealing with, though, it is also worth noting the success of the Czechoslovakian Communist Party in its own terms prior to the 1949 anti-Titoist clamp down; and, of course, to the widespread support for parties supporting socialisation in Hungary, both prior to 1949, and also during the late Autumn in 1956. In terms of industrial relations the levels of worker freedom were broadly comparable with the exceptions of militant British unions, areas where German industrial democracy worked, and of course, the disproportionately higher percent of GDP return to Eastern workers generally, but the absolutely higher volume of product consumed by North Western workers. One factor worth noting is that the interventions in the Warsaw Pact were primarily external in nature and seeking to discipline states moving towards heightened party democracy, workers democracy, parliamentary democracy and worker control of production; generally, with the support of the majority of the population and prior to the 1970s in Poland, much of the elite. In comparison, in the West, interventions tended to be internal and much more explicitly by one class against others. The only example I can think of a unified internal elite supporting intervention is Poland in the 1970s and 1980s. In the East Class War happened, overwhelmingly, between the elite of the Soviet Union and entire cross-class populations. In the West it primarily happened between the elite and mass of a society, though often with elite support from the United States in economic and covert forms. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

We're getting way off topic here, but I have to point out that there was not really "widespread support for parties supporting socialization" in Hungary after WWII, at least not the kind of socialization they got under the Communists. In the Hungarian parliamentary election, 1945, the Independent Smallholders Party won an absolute majority of the vote and the Communists 17%. Under Soviet pressure, the ISP allowed the Communists to hold some cabinet seats, including the Interior Ministry, which oversaw the police. The Communists used that power to engage in "salami tactics," harassing or arresting opponents until they gained control of the country. The situation in Czechoslovakia was similar; the Communists won 40% of the seats in the first postwar election and used their control of the Interior Ministry to eliminate their opponents. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not the form of socialisation experienced under high Stalinism (though even then, it was the elimination of small workshop production and the reversal of the post-War landreforms which irritated people). In 1945 the ISP was behind government ownership and capitalisation in industry and transport, the expansion of the public sector, and quite obviously, massive land reform. The ISP was even further left in Hungary in 1956, even those sections calling for complete neutralisation in terms of international politics supported maintaining the levels of public (ie: by this time workers rather than state) control of the economy except in Agriculture. The social democratic party in Hungary contained sections that were by far and away further left wing that the Hungarian Communist party in 1944 (supporting the workers councils on the ground), and the factory level membership of the SDP in 1956 vied only with the communist leadership of the budapest students union in terms of supporting a Hungary actually lead by workers. Very very different to the situation in Czechoslovakia where the Communist party was genuinely popular, but, at the same time, the Hungarian Communist Party well and truly cocked up what measure of democratic influence they had, and the support of three other parties very willing to expand the government and public sectors. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

To occupy other countries and suppress their internal rivalries is not a solution on the long term (and to conquer foreign countries is not usually conspired a good thing). Only they themselves can find a solution (one way or the other). The war against NATO was prevented by efforts of both sides and the main reason for peace was Mutual assured destruction, not Stalin. All of this largely depends upon how your own POV. Flamarande (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, many of the suppressed rivalries boiled back to the surface with the fall of the Soviet Union, although not as badly as they did with the fall of the communist government in Yugoslavia. However, I do feel that a massive military intervention (or threat of one), to prevent such wars, can be useful, if then accompanied by long-term efforts to resolve the rivalries without violence. To allow smaller nations to settle disputes on their own "one way or the other", results in situations like the Rwanda genocide. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In theory I agree with you. The practical problem is that massive military interventions (full-fledged invasions) are terribly expensive. Any country who gets the habit to invade other ones (be it for the best possible reasons or not) will also lose the trust of others and gain the hatred of many. Flamarande (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at the mess Chechnya is now, because they've been rather viciously repressed to maintain stability. Now I'm not saying the Chechens have helped themselves in some of this, but there are still tensions burning there from Stalin's World War II policies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And not forgetting, he opposed the abstract art of Tatlin, Melnikov and others because he knew that people didn't have the slightest idea what it was supposed to be about, and made the Constructivists design some actually sensible and buildable projects for once, before abandoning them too for less idealistic architects. I knew all that revision would prove useful some time. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The effect is not likely to be just to the invading country themselves. If other countries feel they are always at threat of massive military invasion particularly unilateral invasions not widely supported by other countries, they are likely to see the need to better arm themselves, possibly including with nuclear weapons, for defense to discourage such invasions, which leads to their neighbours and rivals seeing the need to do the same leading Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the best things Stalin did was terrorizing period Russian composers. In a possibly apochryphal story heard on National Public Radio, Stalin heard the first half of an opera and commented to the composer that there were too many minor key passages, causing instant revisions for the second half. This of course assumes one does not like some 20th century Russian music. Edison (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexander the Great's conquests

Why did Alexander the Great aim all of his conquests towards the East? Was there nothing north and west worth bothering with? Did he have no concerns about the Roman Republic? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexander's main target when he began his military career was the Persian Achaemenid Empire, which lay to the east. This was the obvious target because the Persians had threatened the Greek world and Alexander's home country, Macedon, for over a hundred years and were the main rival of the Greek-speaking world for domination of the eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea basins at the time of Alexander. Also, the Achaemenids controlled a very rich empire, whose spoils were very attractive to Alexander and his army. To the north were the Thracians, a tribal people without major cities or much wealth. Alexander's father, Philip, had already conquered much of the land of the Thracians. Farther north were equally poor tribes of Getae and Dacians. To the west were small Greek and Italian states that could not rival the Achaemenid Empire in glamor or wealth. Conceivably, Alexander might have wanted to extend his conquests to the west if he had lived longer, but he had only just finished conquering the Achaemenid Empire at the time of his death. The Roman Republic is unlikely to have been of much interest to Alexander, since during his lifetime it was just a minor state controlling a relatively small area on the west coast of Italy. Marco polo (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the invasion against the Persian empire had been planned and organized by Philip the Great (the father of Alexander). It was meant as a political means to unite most of Greece under Macedonian control by giving them a common ancient enemy (they sold this to the mob as "these evil Persians who in the times of our glorious ancestors invaded and ravaged Greece. Now we will avenge this terrible invasion."). Alexander the Great#Last years in Persia mentions that he planned new campaigns. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that new campaigns were planned to go westwards and specifically against Rome - which a the time was an expanding but minor power. Flamarande (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I read that the western campaign was supposed to be against Carthage—and if this map is correct, Carthage would have been a much more significant opponent. If Rome was on Alexander's to-do list, I would expect it to come after Carthage and the Greek colonies in Italy. A. Parrot (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Before Carthage, Alexander planned to conquor Arabia.
Sleigh (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2

Source and artist of painting of Alexander, Bucephalus and Diogenes?

Asking on behalf of someone else.

[5], from Harkavy, Michael D., ed. (1991). "Diogenes article". The American Spectrum Encyclopedia. p. 311.. The publisher doesn't have archives from that project.

Asked Sem Presser and the Encyclopedia's editor, the J. Getty Research Institute, The British Museum, The Italian National Museum, an art expert, two Alexander experts, a local library; looked on the net and WM gallery.

Opinions received conclude that it's an unusual treatment with Alexander as an old man with a beard, it's truncated to the right, likely from an illuminated or northern manuscript, possibly from a 15th century manuscript, not from any version of the Alexander Romance/Historia de proeliis, nor in Quintus Curtius's history.

-- Jeandré, 2011-06-02t17:35z

Your image is truncated on both sides. Here is a version that shows the complete left side (but is still truncated on the right). I got it from this blog which labels it "15th Century French manuscript". It seems to be from the Philip Hofer Collection at Harvard College Library, "MS. Typ. 207H". The only google book reference I found (with the help of the truncated caption "Diogenes has a snug wooden barrel") is from Horizon, Volume 5, Issue 4, Horizon Publishers, 1963 [6]. I cannot view the text, however. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but that really looks to me like a tapestry rather than a painting. Looie496 (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is in fact an illuminated manuscript: Les diz moraulx des philosophes : translattez de lattin en francois par noble homme Messire Guillemme de Tignonville : manuscript, [ca. 1418-ca. 1420] with "16 oblong miniatures in tempera and gold, by the workshop of the Master of the Harvard Hannibal". It can be viewed here, at the Houghton Library. More information on the work can be found on this page. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Muslims vs. Quebec Referendum

Is there any documentary film or books talk about how Muslims, both Anglophone and Francophone, faced the issue of Quebec Referendum in 1980 and 1995 and in Montreal especially? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.194 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This study of the 1995 referendum indicates that non-Francophone immigrants overwhelmingly opposed sovereignty for Québec, whereas a substantial portion of immigrants from countries with a French-language legacy (including those from North and West Africa, many of them Muslim) supported sovereignty. This book probably also addresses this question. Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any other articles that are in English? because I don't read French nor understand it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.117 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Help identify a poem

Does anybody know the pome that contains these lines?

And the men Two fragile bodies Flesh and blood and brittle bones Carbon and water, nerves and dreams

Thanks/ 87.194.239.235 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

when you had the exact quote... see John Axon --Saalstin (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify Saalstin's answer a little, the poem is The Ballad of John Axon by Ewan MacColl. Tevildo (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What Are The Branches

[7]

Is it oak and holly?Curb Chain (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

According to this site, it's oak and olive. Tevildo (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I really hate to say this, but clearly what we are seeing there is poison oak. Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be thick, Looie496, but can you unpack that joke for me? (I presume you were not serious in suggesting a plant native to the Pacific coast of North America would be depicted on an antique flag of Hungary.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.199 (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The oak is specifically Pedunculate oak - you can see the acorns on their peduncles (ie stalks). This species of oak is used in the national arms and emblems of a number of European countries including England. Not sure about olives, they don't grow in the UK - rather like poison oak ;-) Relating to these arms, there's an interesting read at Holy Crown of Hungary, Alansplodge (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't serious. But to somebody familiar with California coastal forests that leaf shape immediately shouts "Poison oak!". Anyway, I understand now how poison-oak got its name, something that had always puzzled me since none of the true oaks around here have leaves that resemble it. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

June 3

Number of Buddhists in the world?

I would like help determining the number of Buddhists in the world based on the best sources available. Some sources (like Religioustolerance.org) claim there are as many as 1.5 billion, but these numbers don't seem to be based on any hard data except for press releases from Christian missionary groups. More sources estimate the number from between 350-500 million, and calculate folk religion that may include elements of Buddhist beliefs and practices as a separate figure. Ideally, there should be a way to do a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation and compare it to the best data. The problem is trying to find that data. Who has the best, most reliable numbers here? Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Buddhism#Demographics has some data, but its really fuzzy (some source have a spread of "500 million to 1 billion" which seems to me to be REALLY approximate). The problems are with doing the census and trusting the numbers. Plus, you run into the "No true Scotsman" problem when you attempt to define religious adherants other than how they define themselves. These things are very hard to determine, and there really are not good numbers. --Jayron32 04:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources that claim 1 billion or more tend to count Chinese folk religion as Buddhists. Shouldn't we be able to get a rough figure by looking at the major Buddhist congregations and comparing them to the population figures? Buddhism is a difficult religion to practice, and I think the 1 billion figure is not just absurd, but impossible. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The same difficulties exist for counting the adherents of all religions. National censuses dramatically overstate the numbers because of the nature of the questions they ask. Counting heads at sessions of worship will miss some who choose to not attend, and include those who do it for social compliance purposes rather than genuine belief. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the difficulty involved, it has been done, and the number is always below 500 million. (Encyclopædia Britannica: Worldwide Adherents of Buddhism by Six Continental Areas, Mid–2009) This ~1.3 billion figure appears to come from less than scholarly sources who combine Buddhists with folk religions, and these sources seem to be coming from Christian evangelical groups who don't differentiate between Buddhism and syncretic religions. This is because they classify all non-Christians in certain areas as Buddhists, which is not accurate. We can estimate the number of Buddhist sects, groups, temples and adherents with good data. This is not an insurmountable problem. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am unlikely to alter my opinion that it actually cannot be done. Every method used involves far too many assumptions which introduce inevitable biases. But I know my position will be seen by some as just troublesome. HiLo48 (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I haven't been clear. The figure of 1 billion and up has been added to this encyclopedia by editors citing less than reliable sources, sources that don't differentiate between Chinese folk religionists (CFR) and Buddhists. Encyclopædia Britannica (EB) estimates the number of CFR as 454,404,000 for 2010, which combined with the current estimate of Buddhists (462,625,000) gives us a 917,029,000. Unlike the missionary sources that lump all these non-Christians together, EB categorizes them separately and defines Chinese folk-religionists as

Followers of a unique complex of beliefs and practices that may include universism (yin/yang cosmology with dualities earth/heaven, evil/good, darkness/light), ancestor cult, Confucian ethics, divination, festivals, folk religion, goddess worship, household gods, local deities, mediums, metaphysics, monasteries, neo-Confucianism, popular religion, sacrifices, shamans, spirit-writing, and Daoist (Taoist) and Buddhist elements.

Here are the 2010 estimates for Buddhist adherents from EB:

Encyclopædia Britannica: Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2010

Africa	Asia	Europe	Latin America	North America	Oceania	Total	%	Change Rate (%)	Countries	Branches
258,000	455,412,000	1,777,000	760,000	3,845,000	573,000	462,625,000	6.7	0.86	150	56% Mahayana, 38% Theravada (Hinayana), 6% Tantrayana (Lamaism).

These estimates are also reflected by scholars of religion, such as Stephen Prothero (2010) at Boston University:

Today roughly 445 million people, or 7 percent of the world's population are Buddhists, making Buddhism the world's fourth largest religion after Christianity, Islam, and Hindusim. The world's Buddhists are concentrated in South and East Asia and are only minimally represented in Africa and Latin America. There are, at a minimum, 175 million Buddhists in China, and Buddhists form majorities in Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Japan, and Laos.[8]

I'm uncertain, but it appears that Prothero and EB both cite the World Religion Database and/or the World Christian Encyclopedia/World Christian Database. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

One issue that always arises in discussions of how many adherents a religion has is "What is a Buddhist/Christian/Jew, etc.?" Do those "reliable sources" provide definitions? An example that demonstrates the problem is that of trying to define how many Christians there are in my country, Australia. At the last national census 64% declared themselves to be Christian, but only around 10% regularly attend church. So my question to anyone claiming certainty on this issue is "What is a Christian, and what percentage of Australians are Christian?" HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Many Christians, or at least many who say they are or aspire to be Christians, would say that only God knows who is actually a Christian. Could even include some who have no idea that they are. So could be anywhere from 0% to 100%. --Trovatore (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that Buddhists don't have an equivalent omnipotent being, who can decide for them? Encyclopædia Britannica? HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I already pointed out that the EB stats are based on database estimates accepted by scholars. This has nothing to do with EB. EB was only offered as an example showing that the 1 billion figure continually being added by missionaries is not supported. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So what precise, unarguable definition of a Buddhist do these scholars use? HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a precise, unarguable definition when we are discussing adherents. Most definitions are arbitrary. I believe EB and others rely on the methodology used by the World Christian Encyclopedia, the World Christian Database, and the World Religion Database. This continued appeal to uncertainty is a red herring. There is uncertainty in every definition we use. Just because biologists have a difficult time defining life, doesn't mean we can't define it. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me make my example about Christians in Australia a little clearer. The two "estimates" of the number of Christians in Australia are around 2 million and around 15 million. That is too much uncertainty. Is there really any more certainty about the number of Buddhists? HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not on the same page. In 2006, there were 26% Catholic; 19% Anglican; 19% other Christian denominations; and 6% non-Christian religions, with 31% saying they had no religion, or did not provide a reasonable answer to the question.[9] What the heck does attending church have to do with this? Is there any doubt those numbers are close to accurate? I think not. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

They're a perfectly accurate report of what the census recorded. But without knowing the question that was asked, and wondering why the number who go to church is so much smaller, you are learning only one narrow thing about religion, what people said on the census. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We can guess at what the question was by looking at the current census. Question number 19 of the 2011 Australian census says, "What is the person's religion?" It then offers 10 choices in the following order: Catholic, Anglican (Church of England), Uniting Church, Presbyterian, Buddhism, Greek Orthodox, Islam, Baptist, Lutheran, and Other - please specify.[10] Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Book of logical fallacies?

I seem to remember reading about a recently published book illustrating logical fallacies, paradoxes etc. by means of simple stories. Can anyone refresh my memory? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 12:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Honorary doctorate

What is the criteria for an honorary doctorate? --999Zot (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any. An honorary doctorate isn't a real degree. It is a fake degree given as an award - kind of like giving out tiny plastic Oscar statues to everyone who works at the Academy Awards. Some people use an honorary doctorate as justification to be called "doctor." That isn't truly justified. When it comes up, they will usually concede that they don't have a real doctorate. -- kainaw™ 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

See Honorary degree. If I were in a position to award honorary degrees, one criterion I would impose would be that the recipient knew that "criteria" is plural. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that some 'academic' institutions will award one to anyone capable of writing a large cheque. 'Honour' is a flexible concept... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we are going off-topic. Many influential people like Bill Gates (7 honorary doctorates), Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Salman Rushdie have received honorary doctorates. Kainaw is saying it is fake degree. If it is fake degree, why do prestigious institutes like University of Oxford, Notre Dame etc award honorary doctorates. I just want to know on what basis these famous people received the honor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 999Zot (talk • contribs) 13:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like most of them are awarded to famous people who are famous for making social contributions. I don't see people like Lady Gaga getting honorary degrees (though I could be wrong on that). Mostly, the university seems to want to associate themselves to that person to gain prestige. I wonder if they can be withdrawn if thier honoree goes bad? Googlemeister (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

An honorary doctorate does two things. First, it allows the University to say "Bill Gates has a degree from here" - which everyone knows is a dubious claim because Bill Gates dropped out of college. Second, it allows the recipient to say "I have a degree from XXXX university." A large number of honorary degrees are given when the celebrity gives a commencement speech or donates money to the university. -- kainaw™ 13:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have often seen graduation speakers at colleges get honorary degrees. Sometimes the degrees are awarded for contributions to scientific and technical progress, like the ones given to Thomas Edison [11], although one such degree was actually said by the college to be an "earned" one: [12]. Nikola Tesla also got numerous honorary degrees, though he did not complete his college courses to earn a degree. Edison (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A slightly less cynic interpretation is that they took classes at the University of Life, and then were able to obtain the honorary degree from the granting university via transfer credit. (Typically, the core requirement for a Ph.D. is taken to be "substantial contribution to the field", and the classes, exams and dissertations are simply a mechanism for ensuring that's the case. For honorary degrees, one can argue that their meritorious achievements count as a "substantial contribution to the field" deserving recognition, and thus grants them a degree in recognition of that fact.) -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling these "fake degrees" is quite wrong. Nobody is suggesting the recipients have earned them by dint of academic achievement in the normal manner, but that still doesn't make them "fake". They are formally conferred by the university. If anything, they have a higher status than a degree one has struggled over for years. Typically, our biographical articles will show whatever honorary degrees the subjects have been awarded, but will not mention the details of any degrees they may have earned academically. A fake degree is some certificate you pay $50 for that appears to support your totally false claim to have gained some academic distinction - which is a form of fraud. Honorary degrees are at the opposite end of the moral spectrum from fraud. It's only if a recipient fails to mention the honorary part of their degree when applying for a paid position, for example, that fraud and fakery would enter into it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In the UK at least, honorary degrees are usually awarded to people who have achieved a degree of excellence in something. For example, at the last Convocation (degree ceremony) I attended at the University of Warwick, Andrew Davies (writer) was awarded an honorary doctorate to recognise his excellence in writing screenplays. For the university, it gets them publicity and a valuable patron - Mr Davies's input is welcomed into their English department and they treat him as a visiting lecturer, although I note he had previously been an employed lecturer there. For the recipient, it gives them recognition in an academic way (having gained recognition in other fields first). --TammyMoet (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Harvard awarded 9 honorary degrees a week ago. Who'd they give them to? 1. The inventor of the WWW, 2. a famous opera singer, 3. the president of Liberia, 4. a Supreme Court justice, 5. a Nobelist in Chemistry, 6. a guy who served on the Harvard Corporation, 7. a famous postmodern academic who apparently never smiles, 8. a reknown political theorist, and 9. a former US Surgeon General. I'd put those into three categories: 1. people who have done really impressive (by any standard) things outside of academia, 2. people who are known mostly within academia but are highly respected or highly decorated, and 3. the guy who used to be a member of the Harvard Corporation. I don't know about other universities, but the general criteria for Harvard seems on the whole legit. Only one of their honorary degrees this year seems at all fishy to an outsider (perhaps the Corporation guy was really great? I have no clue), all of the others are pretty legit. Almost all of them already have advanced degrees; it seems unlikely that any of them are going to try and claim to be Harvard doctorates because of this honorary degree. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that honorary-degree holders are not usually referred to as "Dr." (there are exceptions - Benjamin Franklin and Billy Graham are two). When honorary doctorates holders refer to the degree in writing, it is good and usual practice to to note that the degree is honorary inside parenthesis - for example, Ph.D. (honoris causa). Neutrality^talk 03:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes honorary degrees can bite you a little. For example Bill Cosby could paper his house with honorary doctorates. He also has one earned one. How many people wondered if the degree he claimed in the credits of The Cosby Show was honorary or earned? It was earned, but I had to look it up myself. --Trovatore (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How to refer to a woman married to a British earl

I just made this change, because the previous wording, "In 1973, John Spencer began a relationship with Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer", seemed odd: she wasn't Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer, yet when their relationship began in 1973. So I changed it to "In 1973, John Spencer began a relationship with the Countess of Dartmouth" because Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer#Titles and styles indicates that was her proper title/style in 1973. And my change also brings the sentence into line with the next sentence, which refers to her as Lady Dartmouth, and the reader can't be expected to know that the woman called "Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer" in one sentence and the woman called "Lady Dartmouth" in the next sentence are the same person. But the sentence after that refers to her by her first name Raine, which hasn't been introduced yet. If I want to introduce the first name Raine into the sentence beginning "In 1973", what can I correctly write? "JS began a relationship with Raine, Countess of Dartmouth"? "JS began a relationship with Raine Legge, the Countess of Dartmouth"? "JS began a relationship with the Countess of Dartmouth, the former Raine McCorquodale"? Which sounds most natural, while still not being incorrect to people who are sticklers for correctness in the titles of British peers and their family members? Pais (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest ..began a relationship with Raine McCorquodale (later Spencer).... Hopefully the redirect exists; if not, create it, unless it conflicts with an existing article. --Trovatore (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, she wasn't McCorquodale in '73. In that case, ... Raine Legge (later Spencer) .... --Trovatore (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But just calling her Raine Legge doesn't make it clear that she's also Lady Dartmouth, as she is referred to in the following sentence. The idea is to introduce both the name Raine and the title Dartmouth in this sentence. That she was later called Spencer isn't really relevant yet at this point in the narration. Pais (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who cares about that stupid nonsense, I suppose the wikilink will tell them. --Trovatore (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So what about "began a relationship with Raine Legge, the Lady Dartmouth..."--TammyMoet (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if that's correct. I just don't know much about British peerage titles, so I don't want to make an embarrassing mistake like calling her stepdaughter "Princess Diana". Pais (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say your last option is best ("the Countess of Dartmouth, the former Raine McCorquodale"). "Raine, Countess of Dartmouth" is the style of a divorced (or widowed) countess (which of course she was later on, but not in 1973), and I think it's best avoided in this instance as part of the point of the statement is that she was still married to the Earl of Dartmouth. Proteus (Talk) 11:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Spelling bee

I was curious as to why an apparently large number of people consider having children 10-14 years old spelling exotic words from the English language, most of which are almost never actually used in ordinary conversation or literature, as having educational value. Does such esoteric knowlege serve them well for a career or with their later educational pursuits when you consider that anyone who has a dictionary, (or even better an iPad with spell check), can equal their performance? What kind of career fields have past winners gone into? Googlemeister (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the spelling bee holds interest mainly because of its educational value. It holds interest, like shows such as American Idol or Pop Idol, because of the human interest in ordinary people demonstrating extraordinary discipline to compete against each other. In this case, the competitors are adorable children. However, there is no doubt some educational value in expanding one's vocabulary. Marco polo (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"In this case, the competitors are adorable children." What, do they weed out all the ugly ones before the competition begins? Pais (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, not all of the children who take part are beautiful, of course. I'm guilty of the POV that (nearly) all children are adorable, even if they aren't exactly pretty. I was also attempting to represent the POV of people who take an interest in the spelling bee. I suspect that most of them find even the less beautiful children adorable in their own way. Marco polo (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. And I'm guilt of the POV that children are like Thomas Hobbes' view of life in the natural state: nasty, brutish, and short. Pais (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was a spelling bee participant as a teenager. It isn't really so much an educational pursuit as a game, or academic sport. Once you get to the national finals the words have to be quite esoteric, but at the local and regional levels it's far more words that an educated person might use in writing, but I don't think that anyone thinks it's any more educational than, say, trivia competitions, or organized Scrabble. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I was runner-up spelling bee champion on Long Island a generation ago. I might have been the Long Island champion if I had known there is an e at the end of crinoline. Marco polo (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 There's also value in teaching study habits, persistence at a task that seems overwhelming, overcoming fears of speaking in front of audiences, etc. Basic character building sorts of stuff. Dismas|^(talk) 14:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, I should have realized there are more applicable words at the lower levels of the contest. Have any previous competitors in the finals have been notable for another area? Googlemeister (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to involve rote memorization of thousands of words which are transliterated into English from non-Latin alphabets by arbitrary spelling conversion rules, along with technical or scientific words so specialized that one is unlikely to see them in print, or to need to spell them. Do they have highly publicized spelling bees in countries where the alphabets are more phonetically spelled? Does China have competitions to accurately draw some of the rarely used of the 47,000 somewhat arbitrarily drawn Chinese characters? (The article says "full literacy" requires 3 or 4 thousand). Memorizing Bible or Koran verses, or memorizing famous dates from history, or the years reigned by Kings worldwide, or all the ships in a Navy by number and year of commission seem like equally low-value uses of a student's time. Memorizing all the data in the periodic table, or all the integrals in a math handbook, might be slightly higher value rote learning for those in a tech field. Edison (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A while ago, I seemed to read a lot of articles claiming that the US national spelling bee relied too heavily (or exclusively) on rare technical words, or words transliterated from another language, which the general educated adult, even if well-read, could not expect to encounter, let alone recognise. The only article I read which supported its claims with facts, did so by listing the winning national spelling bee words from ~the last 20 years, which was supposed to clearly illustrated that nobody would really know the winning words from the last few years. I knew all of them, and some I was using in conversation as a child. This isn't because I ever read a dictionary, or studied for a spelling bee, or am some sort of savant: these were just relevant words that came up in my life. Perhaps the problem is not that the words are esoteric, but just that the critics are part of a culture that doesn't use the words. I mean, the article even singled out acciaccatura as a word that nobody other than some sort of ancient music scholar would know: it's on the syllabus fairly low down in Associated Board theory grades: I didn't have to be able to spell it, but I did need to know what it was. 86.164.164.27 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's worth remembering spelling bees are fairly insignificant in English speaking countries outside the US (and Canada?) Our article doesn't perhaps sufficiently emphasise this point, but in terms of your question it does say "They are rare to nonexistent in countries whose national language follows more phonemic spelling rules, as compared to the largely historical spelling of the English and French languages." Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Memorizing the Qur'an is definitely a thing, and there are recitation competitions, shown on the islam Channel for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes there are plenty e.g. International Quran Reading Competition [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. My impression is that even when these involve recitation from memory, things like style, correct intonation etc are often an important part of the competition since I believe you often only have to memorise a fixed and not extremely long part. Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "notable for another area?": Looking at those four champions on our List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions who also have their own article on Wikipedia, we get the impression that they all appear notable mainly for winning that contest. The spelling bee is mentioned in the first sentence of all four of them. (Notability also being the first champion, or the first non-US-American winner). One became a patent lawyer, another a journalist, but I don't think either of them would have an article here, had they not won the championship. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Though Anurag Kashyap also was teen tournament champion in Jeopardy! (as anticipated by FisherQueen :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

They don't have national spelling bees in my country, but let me tell you of my experience anyway. In my primary school, our 4th grade teacher Mr M instituted a weekly spelling competition, on Fridays. The current champion and anyone who wanted to challenge him were tested viva voce in front of the class, with words Mr M had chosen. Spell one word wrong, and you were instantly out of the competition. It was a tough school but they were the rules we all played by (or so I thought). The winner would have the grand title of "Spelling Champion of 4th Grade" until such time as they were knocked off their perch. I was the champion for about 6 weeks running. Then one day - not a Friday - we were doing some written work at our desks in class, and Mr M was wandering around inspecting various students' work in progress. He looked over my shoulder, noticed I'd misspelt "government" as "goverment", and peremptorily decreed that I was no longer the Spelling Champion of 4th Grade. I was 8 years old, and ill-equipped to deal with such an outrageous injustice. Perhaps you can now understand the incredible bitterness and hatred of authority that have pervaded my very soul ever since. Needless to say, I have never maed eny speling errors sicne then. I shwoed him, the old batsard. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think spelling bees are remnants of the old days when rote memorization of things like the Gettysburg Address was the norm. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The broader question is whether, in a world where knowledge is quickly available with a Google search (or a Q posted on the Wikipedia Ref Desk), it still makes sense to memorize large volumes of info. I would argue that it does for "common use" items, like knowing which country is on which continent, knowing how to spell common words, etc. But, I have to agree that knowing obscure facts is only good for entertainment value and quiz shows. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Only"? You say that as if those things weren't more important than life itself, Stu. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish that more of my high school mathematics students had done enough rote learning such that they didn't need to reach for a calculator to work out what ten times eight is. Yes, it happened yesterday, sadly, with quite a smart kid. Rote learning has its place. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing a US Supreme Court case

The Bank of Xenia was involved in US Supreme Court case in 1885, so I added a mention of that when I was writing its article. Did I cite the case properly; and if not, what did I do wrongly? The relevant text is:

...a lawsuit known as Xenia Bank v. Stewart, 114 U.S. 224 (1885), which was...

Moreover, can someone summarise the case for me? I don't understand the court's opinion, and we have no article on the case. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The case is correctly cited, although usually the citation, except perhaps for the case name, would go into a footnote. Also, the sources oddly vary on the case's name; you cited correctly based on your source, but this source implies that the citation should be to First National Bank of Xenia v. Stewart (which would be abbreviated to First Nat'l Bank of Xenia v. Stewart in a footnote). The case includes several evidentiary and procedural rulings in connection with the bank's unsuccessful attempt to foreclose on some common stock (coincidentally, its own shares) that it held as security for a loan. None of the rulings are of particular importance, and the case has not been much cited, with no case citations at all since 1978. A lot of the old Supreme Court cases really are just not all that important. John M Baker (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm so glad the high Court doesn't write like this anymore. It's basically an evidence case that predates the Federal Rules of Evidence by almost a century. Our evidence article's a bit of a mess itself; I don't have any feel for how evidence law was handled pre-FRE. Incidentally it's also a pre-Erie case, and it does involve some discussion of general agency principles, so it's kind of interesting in that regard. But like Baker says, it's probably not particularly useful law today. Shadowjams (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

John, if you look at the article history, you'll see that I changed the article repeatedly according to several different forms of the name; one of them is First National Bank of Xenia Ohio v. Stewart. So basically the bank tried to seize some of its own shares because Stewart, owner of the shares, defaulted on a loan? If so, how does that work — how can a company own some of itself? I've only ever heard of this happening in Railroad Tycoon, but I always assumed that was a necessary part of what they had to do to simplify this now-more-than-twenty-year-old game. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to follow the opinion, but apparently what happened was this: McMillan borrowed $2600 from the bank, pledging as security certificates for 30 shares of the bank's stock. (Actually, there seems to be a dispute whether all 30 shares were pledged, or only 20, with the remaining 10 shares held at the bank for safekeeping.) McMillan died six months later, and the bank promptly sold the stock for $4200 and applied the proceeds to McMillan's account. Stewart, whom I would guess to be the administrator of McMillan's estate, then brought suit against the bank, claiming that McMillan had paid the note off prior to his death. The jury found for Stewart, and the bank appealed. The bank thus was the defendant in the trial court, but the plaintiff in error (i.e., the appellant) in the Supreme Court. John M Baker (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sharpe's Diet

I'm having a Sharpe party tomorrow and was thinking it would be fun to have a period appropriate menu of snacks/drinks. From memory, I can only recall them mentioning 'Best Brandy' in the show, so I'll be picking up some brandy of some description. Does anybody have any insight on the diet that someone in the 95th might have had? Potatoes and roast with some greens? Was there a particular type of beer that was in favour at that time? Thanks for any suggestions :)142.244.35.91 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to answering the question, would anyone mind explaining what the OP is referring to? Maybe a Sharpe party article is in order? Dismas|^(talk) 18:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably a party, based on the theme of Sharpe, either to watch episodes, or just socialise in period costumes etc --Saalstin (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The diets of British soldiers in the field during the Napoleonic period would have relied heavily on groats, flour, and dried legumes, which are relatively dense in calories for their weight, a key consideration in a time when transport was labor and livestock-intensive. Breads and pea and porridge soups would have been staples. Local vegetables might have been added to the mix when available and in season. Vegetables were normally boiled. Officers such as Sharpe might have had more preserved meats such as salt beef, bacon, and ham in their rations than the rank and file, as well as occasional locally procured fresh meats such as poultry, beef, or pork, or sausages. Because of its expense, meat was probably not the main source of calories at that time, even for officers. Officers probably would have had access to plenty of cheese and butter to go with their bread. Potatoes were a recent addition to the British diet at the time of the Napoleonic wars and still weren't entirely accepted as part of Continental cuisines, so probably didn't feature much. Also, where they were eaten, they were mainly a food for the poor. Probably the most common beverage would have been mild ale, though bitter was probably also available. Lager was not a part of the British diet until the 20th century. Of course, they also drank tea. Marco polo (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Would not tea have been expensive in those times, so would only be a luxury item for the well-off? 2.97.223.90 (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am under the impression that officers of the time usually were well off (especially above captain), so it might hold true. Googlemeister (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm Captain Jinks of the Horse Marines

I feed my horse good corn and beans

Of course it's quite beyond my means

Though a captain in the army

--Trovatore (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Officers were well off, but tea was not so expensive. A pound of tea, which would supply at least 200 cups of tea, was worth something like 8 shillings at that time. (My data points are 10s in 1773 and 5s 4d in 1830.) Meanwhile, according to this source, low-wage government workers (a proxy for footsoldiers) earned £57.17 a year in 1810, or about £4 15s a month. Even footsoldiers are likely to have been able to afford a cup or two of tea a day. High-wage government workers (a proxy for officers) averaged £176.86 in 1810, or £14 15s a month. No doubt they could afford as much tea as they wanted. Marco polo (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

British soldiers were paid a shilling (5 new pence) a day = £52 and 5 shillings per annum. Unlike many European armies, they did receive rations (including tea I suspect) instead of being left to forage for themselves. Alansplodge (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

£52 5s is (52x20)+5 = 1045 shillings. There are not 1045 days in the year. Where is the mistake? 92.28.247.193 (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bloomin' good pay - Lucky to touch it, a shillin' a day! DuncanHill (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So from the information above, a pound of tea would cost eight days wages! Many hundreds of pounds in today's money. As I speculated, tea must have been only a luxury for the well off. You could equally well say that the average person today could afford to regularly buy magnums of Champagne. From my experience of drinking tea, I think 200 cups per pound may be an over-estimate. 92.24.137.163 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Operatic languages

Good afternoon. I've noticed that the majority of operas are written in Italian, even when their composers (eg Mozart, Wagner, Hayden) were not Italian themselves (though they may also have written operas in their languages). My friend is a professional musician and minored in music history, and he tells me this is because in Italian practically every word ends in a vowel (a, i, e, or o), which allows singers to sustain the note and sing smoothly. This explains why not as many well known operas are written in French (which often ends words with whiny nasals or the sickly e feminin) or Germanic languages (which often end words in consonants). However, there are also not a lot of well known operas written in Spanish (granted there are some, and many more in certain circles), which like Italian, also ends words with vowels most of the time. WHy is this? Grazie :) 72.128.95.0 (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty cool theory, but have you read our article Opera? It has a good history of the form and you'll probably be able to draw some conclusions from the history. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All of Wagner's operas, and some of Mozart's, are written in German. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Some German operas include the ending-with-vowels bit. For example, "Ho Jo To Ho!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If they caught you playing that at my alma mater — any time except 7 AM on finals week — they'd toss you in the shower with all your clothes on and turn it on. --Trovatore (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what the German translation is for "I love the smell of napalm in the morning; it smells like victory." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

According to q:Apocalypse Now, the entire quote is "Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like … victory." And according to [21], the German translation is "Napalm mein Junge, es gibt nichts auf der Welt, das so riecht wie Napalm. Ich liebe den Geruch von Napalm am Morgen. Weißt du, einmal haben wir einen Hügel bombardiert, zwölf Stunden lang. Als alles vorbei war, lief ich herauf. Nicht eine einzige stinkende Vietnamesen-Leiche haben wir dort gefunden. Das war ein Geruch - der ganze Hügel, ja, wie roch er? Wie nach Sieg roch er." The German omits "you know that gasoline smell" and replaces the derogatory "dink" with straightforward "Vietnamese". But what does any of this have to do with the question at hand? Pais (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The horror! The horror! It's because we are being led in an operatic ring by Baseball Bugs' familiarity with Die Walküre and Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As for Spain, they had their own home-grown zarzuelas, which were/are always sung in Spanish. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole hypothesis sounds like BS to me. Singers hold on to whatever vowels there are, and if there are one or more consonants at the end of the syllable, they drop them in quickly and move on to the next vowel. And even in Italian, final e and o are often deleted in opera, thus increasing the number of consonant-final words (Di Provenza il mar_, il suol_, chi dal cor_ ti cancellò?). Pais (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite. Bizet wrote all his operas (such as Carmen, L'Arlesienne) in French: Manuel de Falla wrote in Spanish. Britten wrote in English. The problem I guess is that many operas have been translated into Italian, and the Italians like to regard themselves as the nation who invented opera. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For operatists who wrote in English, you shouldn't neglect Carlisle Floyd.

However I have never actually heard of operas being translated into Italian. (Or, really, operas being translated, period; can you give me an example of that? Some operas are based on works in other languages, but those works are usually not operas — the obvious example is Otello.) I do think Italian is probably the language that has the single greatest number of (reasonably important) operas. --Trovatore (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Trovatore, we probably should have a whole article on operas that have been sung in languages other than the ones they were written in. I'll bet there've been productions of your namesake Il trovatore in German, French, certainly in English, and more. The arias "Your tiny hand is frozen" (instead of "Che gelida manina"), "Love and music" (instead of "Vissi d'arte"), "O my beloved father" (instead of "Il mio babbino caro"), "On with the motley" (instead of "Vesti la giubba") and so on, were all from English-language versions of Puccini operas originally written in Italian. Wagner's operas were presented in Italian when they premiered in Italy, and in some cases in French when they first appeared in France. There's been a long tradition of singing Wagner - and every other non-English opera, for that matter - in English in some UK opera houses. Sir Reginald Goodall was a champion of this approach. I've heard of some Tchaikovsky operas, originally written in Russian, being presented in Czech (!) in Prague. And there's still a hangover of the translation of Eugene Onegin into German, in that the name of the opera is still often referred to by its German title "Eugen Onegin". So much more. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really, that's terrible. Sorry, I don't like it. Operas should be sung in the original. --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ingmar Bergman's Magic Flute was sung entirely in Swedish. I don't know Swedish, but I remember how nice Mann und Weib und Weib und Mann sounded in the translation: Han och hon och hon och han (lit. "He and she and she and he"). Pais (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

followup question (not OP)

So, ranked by list of number important operatic works in that language, which are the biggest "Operatic languages" and in what order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.139.65 (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Count them yourself at Wikipedia's List of important operas. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Will you do it, please? --86.8.139.65 (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

How to do the bump?

Apparently there was a dance going around a while ago called 'the bump'? Anyone know how to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately! The song "The Bump" by Kenny is the archetypical song for the dance and tells you exactly what to do! Two people stand side by side but facing in opposite directions. There is a count "1,2,3, bump!". For the "1,2,3" part you move your hips from side to side, on the "bump!" you touch your partner's hip with your hip. That's the bump bit, see? Then you jump and turn round 90 degrees and do the same. If you do a search on YouTube for the song no doubt you will find the song and the demonstration. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Flip Wilson used to end each of his shows (ca. 1970) by doing a ritual "hand slap" with the guest star, followed by a "bump" with that guest star. That stuff was all the rage at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For Flip's approach, go to about 7:50 of this clip.[22] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You can see it performed here. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to perform a self lobotomy after watching it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oy. Suddenly, "Walk Like an Egyptian" seems like high-art by comparison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Let's do the Time Warp again... [23] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, with one of James Bond's villains describing the steps. Awesome.[24] I expect that even now, somewhere in the world, someone is watching that movie and "acting out". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Macarena doesn't come with instructions, but it doesn't take long to catch on. And nobody did it quite like Charo:Go to about the 3:00 mark ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

June 4

Swearing

Hey, it's Larry again (from the summer debate club). Monday's topic concerns the merits of swearing, i.e., should invoking few choice words once in a while be acceptable, or should people try to steer clear of swearing altogether. I've been put in the anti- camp, so I need a few pointers for making this argument. I guess I could argue that swearing is not appropriate because it reflects an intent to offend and is a custom of the uneducated that we as an enlightened society should move on from, but a counterargument I can see right off the bat is that in a lot of 'good' literature such as Shakespeare sex jokes and swearing are found frequently. How should I counter this argument? thx in advance. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, that's a bad spot to be put. It's not a position that generally comes up in rational debate, since its root is essentially emotional or vaguely moral. I know these things are meant to be exercises, but this strikes me as a real set up of a topic choice, as almost no rational adult would defend the position that swearing is some kind of universally evil thing. A surprising position might be to suggest that swearing really is important, but that the actual act of swearing dilutes the meaning of the words in question, and thus their potency. Perhaps one could argue that really harsh swears should be saved up, like special weapons, to be deployed only in the most heinous of circumstances. But it's not a very compelling argument. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Truth, Wisdom, and Reason are a non plus ultra and needn't a fortification from four-letter words. Indeed one who feels his or her argument/statement/joke necessitates an "invoking [of a] few choice words" then that IS universally accepted as a symbol of unsophistication. The utilization of such in archetypical classics (feel free to use this term to deride shakespeare) is not a good argument for the use of bad language because these arts are not directed at the artistic or the enlightened, but at the petty classes who enjoy and can relate to such circumstances. Furthermore, Comedy Itself is not present in the use of swearing, nor is Comedy Itself fortified by Bad Language Itself. Four-letter words are a tool of psuedo-gravitas. See this and read Poetics (Aristotle). Schyler (one language) 04:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it should be non plus ultras. Schyler (one language) 05:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As a specific counter to the argument that Shakespeare's (and other's) works contain swearing, etc, you could also argue that if a work of fiction is intended to portray aspects of reality, then since some people do swear (etc), it may be appropriate to portray some characters in that work as swearing (etc), not to endorse or advocate swearing (etc), but to better show what those characters are like - if swearing is 'not a good thing' (to put things over-simply), it may be used to show that they are not themselves entirely good people.

[Disclaimer: I offer this merely as a debating argument; I do not share it myself. In my personal opinion, swearing and sexual jokes are inoffensive, appropriate and socially useful in the right circumstances, though offensive, inappropriate and socially disadvantageous in other circumstances: part of everyday social skills is to be able to judge the difference.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.190 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Points:

• Swearwords are a crutch for the semiliterate and the emotionally unstable. Proof: there is nothing that cannot be communicated in decent English.
• Swearwords carry no meaning other than displaying the impotence of the speaker. That is illustrated ad nauseum by the promoters of the expletive FUCK that allegedly can be used in so many ways that it becomes meaningless.
• Major belief systems are unanimous in deprecating swearing.

• Xinanity: Matthew 5:34 But I tell you, Do not swear. James 5:12 Above all, my brothers, do not swear. More.
• Judaism: Leviticus 19:12 Do not swear.
• Buddhism: Samma vacca - on the noble 8-fold path, is Right or Perfected Speech free of swearing or lie
• Islam: Surah The Light(an-Nur) 24:53 Say: "Do not swear...God is certainly aware of what you do."

@Larry the OP: Do not confuse swearing with sexual jokes. Sexual ecstacy is there to be celebrated with animalistic grunts while it is happening and smiling jokes in the intermission, with never a swearword. @All the 1,789 Wikipedia administrators Please don't swear. I don't like it and those of you who adhere to any of the above belief systems should know better. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with using Cuddlyable3's third point is that your opponent may be religious, or at least religiously literate, and hence will know the context of these translated quotes. They will thus know that these quotes have nothing to do with the issue at hand (the use of taboo words, often described as 'swearing' or 'cursing' in modern English), but rather the swearing of oaths ("let your yes be yes, and your no be no"). So I'd only use this point if you are very confident of your opponents' ignorance of religion. 212.183.128.8 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

212.183 is right CB3... A Christian may use James 3:10 or Ephesians 4:29. Schyler (one language) 15:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole of James 3 effectively teaches that by governing the tongue we gain perfection, and Ephesians 4:29 says Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.. That ls originally a Buddhist teaching that found its way into an otherwise vicious book. Since these things were written by Paulus we may wonder whether he got these ideas before or after his epileptic faint on the way to Damascus. Here is how to spell my name: Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(to Schyler, ec) Those quotes are indeed much more relevant, but are still making a slightly different point. They are talking about cursing, about saying nasty, unpleasant, aggressive, hurtful things. That is not the same as saying taboo words. For example, in the appropriate setting, to the right person, saying "You were fucking fantastic" is an entirely positive thing to say, taken as a great compliment, and far more meaningful to them than a similar phrase without the taboo word: used appropriately, this taboo word is not 'cursing' anyone, nor unpleasant. In contrast, saying "I wish you would just die" is generally going to be taken as a deeply unpleasant, nasty thing to say, 'cursing' someone. It clearly violates the instructions in the quotes, without containing any taboo words. Even more generally, the second quote can be taken as condemning even gossip. I don't see that they can honestly be used to support a doctrine of "all swearing in all circumstances is wrong", unless "swearing" is taken to mean "saying nasty things", which wouldn't be the usual definition. 86.164.164.27 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, 86.164.164.27, if you uttered your allegedly "entirely positive thing to say, taken as a great compliment" in my house, that is the last thing you would ever say in my house. That's because my house is not your gutter. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying 'no' to? Did I say, "Cuddlyable3 is a person who greatly appreciates swearing used as an intensifier, and hence is a person who will be pleased by this phrase"? There are plenty of people I know who would be offended by language that I think of as 'polite', because they would think I was mocking them. They would take appropriate use of taboo words, as illustrated, as a sign of sincerity and respect. Appropriate language use is about choosing the language for the person and the occasion: if I want to express myself in a way that makes my meaning clear, and does not offend or upset other people, then I don't call you a wanker, and I don't call various other people paragons of virtue. And I read people's words carefully, so that I am not responding to thins they did not say. And I don't tell people I hate them and wish they would die which, again, violates the quoted scripture without using so-called 'swearwords'. 86.164.164.27 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was Shakespeare who said "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so". "Swear" words, "taboo" or "profane" words are defined by whom? Under what criteria? The two "worst" taboo words in the English language were words in proper usage not too long ago: just consider Gerard Manley Hopkins' poem about a kestrel, in which he calls it a "wind-fucker", or the phrase "a cunt stick" which means a cleft stick, where the C-word is given its proper usage. How this relates to what you've been asked to do I don't know, but it will give you something to think about. More directly related to your task is a Fry and Laurie sketch in which they define their own swear words, using the word "pimhole" to denote the anus. You may be able to find it on You Tube. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear whether Cuddlyable is advancing those arguments just to assist you in your debate, or intends them seriously. But the first one is a falsehood expressed in loaded language; the second carries a truth at its heart (expletives, like a good deal of ordinary language, do not have denotative meaning) but draws tendentious conclusions; and the third is true but relates to only a small part of what is today called "swearing". Bad Language, by Peter Trudgill and Lars Andersson, is a good read, and disposes of many myths around swearing. --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Em, if that was a reply to my post can you please explain it? I'm not Cuddlyable, but you've indented it under my post. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

House de la Cerda

Did the House de la Cerda have any power in Castilian and Spanish politics in the middle ages up to its extinction in the male-line in the 1700s? By the rules of male preference primogeniture, they were the legitimate Kings of Castile as successor of Alfonso X's eldest son. Were they ever considered as possible successors by rebel nobles or even as threat by the reigning Spanish House of Trastámara and later Bourbon? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Bestselling author

How to become bestselling author? If I plan to write a book, what can I do to ensure my book will be a best-seller? --H6t6 (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing, no one will even publish you if you aren't already a best-selling author: literary agents have stopped doing their job, and do not take a "risk" on a new author. (I put risk in quotation marks, because if they could judge a work, it wouldn't be one.) --86.8.139.65 (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

86.8 is clearly employing hyperbole, since new authors are published all the time, but certainly the competition is intense. That said, there is obviously no reliable formula to becoming a bestselling author, or people would already routinely use it. It helps to be able to write one's chosen language at least competently, although authors like Dan Brown challenge that requirement. It helps to have the indefinable gift of "spinning a yarn" that keeps readers enthralled, which may be unrelated to quality of prose, characterisation, or plotting (witness J. K. Rowling). It helps to have written a work that coincidentally chimes with current popular interest or the zeitgeist, but that requires sheer luck because current popular interests often change more rapidly that one can write a book. It may help to write in niche territory already pioneered by a previous writer whose slowly growing popularity has prepared and fertilised the ground of the public's imagination, as with the plethora of 'historical whodunnit' writers who have flourished in the fields sown by Ellis Peters. It helps to have had one's manuscript accepted by a publisher's commissioning editor who has enough enthusiasm for it to promote it vigorously. It is usually necessary for the publisher to decide in advance of publication to commit a large (best-seller sized) budget to promote it (though there are exceptions that surprised everyone concerned).

This topic is very large: you might benefit from seeking out one or more of the web fora devoted to writing: one of which I have heard good report (but have no connection with or personal experience of) is Absolute Write, though there are many others which you should be able to find by the normal searching processes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.190 (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Pournelle, a science fiction author, suggests that before you write your first book you need to write a million words of fiction. Pick a contemporary genre or the next big genre like J.K. Rowling's children's fantasy or Dan Brown's Christian controversy. But it must be easy to read.
Sleigh (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Write your best work you can and give it out for free and let it spread like a contagion. Then, once famous, write an okay book that everyone will say is better than the first and sell it for $9.99. Schyler (one language) 14:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to learn and live by the seven most powerful words in the publishing business, words that if you ever get the chance to say them, will all but guarantee that your book is a bestseller: "Thank you for having me on, Oprah." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.92.26 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Politics, and qoutes about political action

I am trying to find some decent quotes about the need to take action in politics. However,it seems very difficult to pluck them out of the sea of political quotes, and googling political quotes on action seems not to filter anything too well.

This is what i have thus far:

Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world. - Howard Zinn

It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. -- U.S. Supreme Court, in American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382,442

Silence gives consent. -- Canon Law

Does anyone have any other important ones, perhaps spoken by famous politicians, or any better sources for me to use? I have looked but again it seems that what i mainly get is general political quotes, of which very few seem to be specifically advocating voicing opinions and being involved.

Thanks! 216.173.144.164 (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" ? - JFK - StuRat (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." (Or something like that.) StuRat (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke (fount it!) 216.173.144.164 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. Also: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease." StuRat (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"The House of Peers, throughout the war, did nothing in particular - and did it very well." (Iolanthe). "If the Government should be taught thereby, that the highest wisdom of a State is, 'a wise and masterly inactivity,' — an invaluable blessing will be conferred." (Calhoun, quoting John Randolph). "When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision." (Falkland). You didn't say that the quotes had to _support_ taking action in politics, and it's by no means certain that it's always a good thing. Tevildo (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now there's a slightly sore point with me. How come no one ever performs Iolanthe or Ruddigore? All the G&S people ever seem to do is three plays (Pirates of Penzance, Pinafore, and Mikado, for anyone who wondered). I think Ruddigore has the best patter song I've ever heard, but no one ever seems to produce it. --Trovatore (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I like Think Globally, Act Locally. Looie496 (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

About "...the triumph of evil...": yes it's a good quote, and there must be a million attributions to Edmund Burke on the Internet, but no-one has ever actually found it in his writings. Wikiquote have a good discussion of this at Edmund Burke#Disputed. --Antiquary (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Tevildo: valid point. I did not state that. However, I guess now is a good time to clarify that that is what i'm looking for, because i am looking for quotes that inspire people to volunteer, or point out how not voicing ones opinion and being silent can be dangerous; for use on a political website. Also, I personally find that (relatively) shorter quotes are more evoking -- i did find quotes on some websites that took up a whole paragraph. 216.173.144.164 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." — Margaret Mead
• "I have found the paradox that if I love until it hurts, then there is no hurt, but only more love." — Mother Teresa
• "How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." — Anne Frank
• "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." — Dr. Seuss
• "If you can't feed a hundred people, then feed just one." — Mother Teresa
• "We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." — Winston Churchill
• "Touch one life in a positive manner and you have succeeded in your own." — Christy Mathewson
• "It's easy to make a buck. It's a lot tougher to make a difference." — Tom Brokaw
• "He has the right to criticize who has the heart to help." — Abraham Lincoln
• "Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do." — John Wooden
• "I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both hands. You need to be able to throw something back." — Maya Angelou
• "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope ... and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." — Robert F. Kennedy
• "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." — Mohandas Gandhi
• "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." — Barack Obama
• "A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." — John Lennon
• "Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you." — Thomas Jefferson
• "If you can dream it, you can do it." — Walt Disney

— Michael J 13:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• "How can you become a better citizen? What's stopping you?" Richard Armour

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• "This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward." John F. KennedyAt about the 3:30 mark You could probably find some other good quotes from that speech.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• First they came…. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Some men see things as they are, and ask "Why?". Others dream things that never were, and ask "Why not?"." (from Man and Superman by George Bernard Shaw, as varied and arguably improved by Robert F. Kennedy). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

From the other side of the coin, by one who (like me) was suspicious of activist government: "If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you." (Calvin Coolidge) --Trovatore (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to be President in times of prosperity. Coolidge had the good sense not to press his luck, and chose not to run in 1928. I think it was Will Rogers (who's a one-man memorable quotes machine, if the OP wants to check some of his work), who said, "Calvin Coolidge didn't do anything while he was President. But that was OK, because nobody wanted him to do anything!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle." -- Frederick Douglass -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Political economics, UK

1) How did the Labour party intend to run the economy had they won the election? 2) I understand that the current government has a policy of zero wage increases for public employees. Won't this inevitably cause stagflation, particularly as the private sector appears to be following that example? 92.29.114.123 (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

On the first point, the policy put forward in the Labour Party manifesto and during the election campaign was to maintain public spending (and therefore keep what are by recent standards high levels of public borrowing) for the year 2010/11, and thereafter to have reduced spending so that the budget deficit had halved by the end of the Parliament in 2015. The Labour Party argued that large reductions in public spending risked causing a second decline in GDP, but slower reductions would allow the economy to expand and therefore lead to rising tax receipts which would reduce the deficit and ensure high employment levels. See Labour Party Manifesto for details. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

On the second point, I'm not sure what you're argument is here: zero wage increases break the wage-price spiral and should help lower inflation, even risking deflation in the mid to long term. Unless you have a different perspective? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldnt that not apply if you have external price increases such as we are currently experiencing (commodities, food, etc)? 92.28.240.238 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(Assuming the OP:) Of course those external price increases are going to keep inflation in the 4-5% range by BOE's own estimates, but that has nothing to do with wage restraint, which works to mitigate the effect. So government policy will not "inevitably cause stagflation" AFAICT. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Danish law on preventive home visits

According to Vass et al. (Preventive home visits to older people in Denmark: Why, how, by whom, and when? Z Gerontol Geriat 40:209–216 (2007), doi:10.1007/s00391-007-0470-2), Act 1117 of Dec. 20th 1995 with the amendments of 2005 and 2006 regulates arranging preventive home visits (forebyggende hjemmebesøg) for old people.

I'm, however, unable to find this act online. I tried searching on Lovdata.no, to no avail. Does the article that I cited even give the correct act number and date?

Could someone find it and give me the link? This would help me with my research project. --PeeKoo (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized that the country domain of Lovdata was .no. I found what I was looking for on retsinformation.dk. Scandinavian languages are just too similar.. :) --PeeKoo (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

did Tennyson (Alfred, Lord) know Greek?

Hi, did Tennyson know Greek? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.139.65 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. According to Mark W. Edwards Sound, Sense and Rhythm: Listening to Greek and Latin Poetry Tennyson began learning Greek when he was seven, and had written an epic poem in Greek by the time he'd gone to university. --Antiquary (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nerang National Park IUCN

Is Nerang National Park IUCN Category II (National Park)? Talvinlee (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This question was originally asked on Talk:Nerang National Park [25] and I've moved it here.  Chzz  ►  09:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The IUCN believes that it is "Nerang Forest Reserve", a level VI area (forest managed for recreation and production.)[26] Which matches neither name in our article. Rmhermen (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

US higher education institutes

Can anyone please tell which are the most free market/fiscal conservative-leaning and which are the most leftist/Marxist-leaning higher education institutes in the US? What I know is that GMU is libertarian heaven, and Harvard is Marxist heaven. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Harvard is Marxist heaven? By, uh, what metric? If you define your metric, perhaps we'll be able to help you out a little more. The university itself certainly doesn't act Marxist; it's business school certainly doesn't preach Marxism; it's undergraduate population is pretty diverse in terms of its political opinions (textbook Marxism, in my experience, not really being one of them), and so on. It's probably true that individual faculty members, or even some departments, lean Marxist (in the very broad sense, not in any orthodox sense), but even there I'd be puzzled as to which ones you specifically had in mind. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's thinking of the well-known Marxist and Harvard grad, Bill O'Reilly. One school to look into would be the University of Chicago, which was created by John D. Rockefeller for the specific purpose of cranking out business students. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The business school at U of Chicago was started eight years after the school began (and wouldn't have made the top five important things I think of). Yale Divinity School is often considered quite liberal (they say postliberal?) but not Marxist. Rmhermen (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The professors at Rice University sit on the right and lean towards the far right. Schyler (one language) 14:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be some controversy of a donation and the terms of said donation to Florida State University from the Koch brothers [27] but it appears to only affect the economics department and it's perhaps too recent to have in itself significantly changed the character Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely there's a problem in trying to use one word to describe a whole educational institute comprising maybe thousands of individual staff members. Especially when the precise meanings of these single words are very difficult to define anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Google for "most conservative colleges" and "most liberal colleges" and you get lots and lots of top 10 lists. Staecker (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Orthodox Marxism in American academia has been out of favor since at least the 1980's, when French post-structuralist thought criticized Marxism's reliance on a universal narrative of socioeconomic exploitation and chance. Contemporary Marxists of note would be Frederic Jameson, Louis Althusser, and Terry Eagleton. Jameson is at Duke; I believe the other two are outside of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.92.26 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

People are obviously going to disagree about the specifics, but there are intellectual and political characteristics to different universities. I wouldn't be dismissive of the OPs question. I've heard the same thing the OP said about George Mason University, and the University of Chicago has a reputation from its economics department which carries over to its law school too. It's undeniable there are intellectual flavors to different universities.

I've also heard the same thing about Harvard in the past. This article has that claim in it for instance. It's not so much old-school economic marxism as much as it is modern cultural studies and humanities... some of which use that same philosophical framework. Shadowjams (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, it's hard to talk about the "most liberal" or "most conservative" colleges, since just about all schools have professors of different mindsets. No one would call BYU a liberal school, but it has some liberal professors. Nonetheless, you can't go wrong from a conservative viewpoint with Hillsdale College, which is so ideological that it refuses federal funding lest it have to comply with government mandates. On the left, you can look at Evergreen State College, where the first class on their list of economics classes is called "Alternatives to Capitalism." Antioch College in Ohio, another college famous for its left-wing orientation, closed in 2008 but is hoping to reopen in the fall. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

To Kill A Mockingbird

At what point does the narrator mention that all the townspeople look alike because of generations of inbreeding? Schyler (one language) 14:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the script. --Omidinist (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This particular point is not mentioned in the film starring Gregory Peck. I know because I watched it last night. That is indeed why I posted this question because I was curious to find it in my copy of the book. I thought it was at the beginning of part two, but it aint. Schyler (one language) 18:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's in chapter 13: "There was indeed a caste system in Maycomb, but to my mind it worked this way: the older citizens, the present generation of people who had lived side by side for years and years, were utterly predictable to one another: they took for granted attitudes, character shadings, even gestures, as having been repeated in each generation and refined by time."" --Omidinist (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember that anywhere in the book, but I'm looking through my old, highlighted and annotated and summarised, GCSE copy. Might you be thinking of "...because of Simon Finch's industry, Atticus was related by blood or marriage to nearly every family in the town."? That's near the beginning (page 11 in my copy). 86.164.164.27 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A second relevant (but not fully) quote, from chapter XIII. Jem says, "scratch most folks in Maycomb and they're kin to us." I wonder if there might be a reference during the trial, when they talk to the guy with the inter-racial family. I'll get back to you... 86.164.164.27 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Although Maycomb was ignored during the War Between the States, Reconstruction rule and economic ruin forced the town to grow. It grew inward. New people so rarely settled there, the same families married the same families until the members of the community looked faintly alike. Occasionally someone would return from Montgomery or Mobile with an outsider, but the result caused only a ripple in the quiet stream of family resemblance. - To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee. pages 215-216 in this Google Books' version. ^Avic_ennasis @ 22:46, 2 Sivan 5771 / 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha! You win! You were two pages ahead of me in chapter XIII. :) 86.164.164.27 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That's it! Thanks! Schyler (one language) 13:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Germany, Anchluss and the Spanish Civil War

There is a interesting section now in German involvement in the Spanish Civil War, an article most of which I've written, but this was from the original text:

"It has been speculated that Hitler used the Spanish Civil War issue to distract Mussolini from Hitler's own designs on and plans for union (Anschluss) with Austria. The authoritarian Catholic, anti-Nazi Vaterländische Front government of autonomous Austria had been in alliance with Mussolini, and in 1934 the assassination of Austria's authoritarian president Engelbert Dollfuss had already successfully invoked Italian military assistance in case of a German invasion."

This isn't the area I have books on. So I have two questions: firstly, can someone provide a source (any book would do) for the latter part, which I think is uncontroversial; secondly, is the first sentence justified? It would be nice to cite it and add any extra information to the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dollfuss wasn't president, he was the Chancellor. The President at the time was Wilhelm Miklas. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Search Google Books or Google itself for "Brenner Pass Incident 1934" [e.g. page 251 of Stanley G. Payne's European Fascism], which deserves its own small Wikipedia article. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Difference between "clean bill of health" and "unqualified statement of assurance"

Hello.

In auditing, what is the difference between these two terms? I've frequently heard about organisations that are audited and receive a "clean bill of health" on their accounts but don't get an "unqualified statement of assurance". How can you get one without getting the other?

Thanks in advance! Leptictidium (mt) 21:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Where? I've never heard the second expression where I live in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard either phrase used in a professional accounting or auditing report. "Clean bill of health" may be used informally. Bielle (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Our article Auditor's report#Unqualified Opinion discusses this terminology, and this web page gives a formal definition of an "unqualified statement of assurance", as the term is used by the US Department of Defense. Looie496 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

June 5

Large scale memorial events

I'm looking for some large memorial ceremonies that are on the scale of the Memorials for the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in Hong Kong. There were at least tens of thousands of participants for the last 22 years, and more than 150000 for the last three. thanks F (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean things like the Remembrance Day parades, at the Cenotaph? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

broadcasters' estates

Please note I'm not asking for legal advice or anything like that. But I've seen archive footage of real people in these films. The first one was of Walter Cronkite in Apollo 13. The second one was of Jim McKay in Munich. The third one was of Johnny Carson in The Newton Boys. Since all three films tend to air on TV channels from time to time, and copies are bought on DVD, what do the estates of the mentioned decedents get?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's quite common for people making a guest appearance as themselves in TV or films to just accept a one-off fee for the appearance. In that case they would not be entitled to royalties, and so their estates would not have any income from any repeats. So the answer is "it depends on the fee agreed at the time". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, it depends on the terms of the contract, as with any film actor. Residuals don't run forever, unless you've got a really good agent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the footage of Walter Cronkite in Apollo 13 wasn't entirely archival. He recreated some of his commentary (especially the bit at the beginning of the film) to better fit the flow of the movie. — Michael J 17:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that in some cases, personality rights can run (at the moment) "forever". --Mr.98 (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

What was the turning point in Chomsky's life which turned him from an ordinary linguistics professor to a history-making philosopher? I believe he is famous because of his contribution to philosophy, rather than linguistics. What exactly was the turning point that earned him the recognition as a philosopher? --999Zot (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Never thought of him as a philosopher. He's a linguist who definitely made a name in linguistics. Then he made a name as a political commentator, which is somewhat different in my mind from philosopher. Not sure which is the greater fame; I suppose it depends on whether the people you ask are more interested in linguistics or in politics. --Trovatore (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky also had a major influence on computer science, of course. The Chomsky hierarchy has important theoretical implications and practical applications. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

His linguistics and any of his (non-political) philosophy are very clearly linked; they're basically the same thing. His fame as a linguist stands on its own, separate from his politics, and predates it. His political activism began in the mid-1960s.[28] --Mr.98 (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just ask him by e-mail: he will give you an answer. --86.8.139.65 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky is by no means unique in being famous and important in two entirely unrelated fields (Chomsky's being Linguistics and Politics). Note that Linus Pauling won Nobel prizes in Chemistry and Peace; his political work for which he won the Peace prize were entirely unrelated to his Chemistry work. Alexander Borodin made significant contributions to the world of both chemistry and music, and neither field is particularly important to the other. Benjamin Franklin is noted for both his contributions to physics and to politics. --Jayron32 19:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The science/politics dyad is especially common, especially in the 20th century, especially post-WWII. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

did George Orwell study Ancient Greek at Eton?

I know it is a possibility, and probably far from uncommon there, but does anyone know if George Orwell (Eric Blair) studied Ancient Greek at Eton? --86.8.139.65 (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Orwell was educated in both classical languages of Latin and Greek. See here:[29] --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. This was too hard for me to track down. --86.8.139.65 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly safe to say that anyone who attended a British public school until relatively recently would have been taught Greek as a matter of course. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

thank you for this clarification, also useful. could you clarify when "fairly recently" is? (I would think "until about 1920" but this is just my impression... it sounds like it could be later for you...) --86.8.139.65 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I learnt Ancient Greek O level in the 1970s at an English grammar school. I understand that it's still available as a GCSE subject. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

so that's why you're so smart :) --86.8.139.65 (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The benefits of a British education. Ancient Greek in grammar school...... The closest thing we got to ancient Greece in my El-Lay High School, was an elective class in Greek Mythology (which I had already studied in the 7th grade!).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne, given that I'm aware 'grammar school' seems to be used in the US to refer to a school offering primary education, you might be taking Tammy's education as being more extraordinary than it was. I advise clicking the link. 86.182.34.112 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservative regions in Liberal Canada

In the Action democratique du Quebec article, in mentioned in the Electoral Support that the conservative regions in Quebec are Chaudiere-Appalaches and Capitale-Nationale. So, I am wondering that what about Ontario, is there any regions that are conservative and what about in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick? And does it mean that in conservative Western Canada, there are regions that are liberal too?

Well Vancouver is typically (or stereotypically) Liberal, in the west. As for Ontario, the rural areas of the south always seem to vote Conservative. The north, and Windsor in the south, tend to vote NDP (I'm sure this has something to do with unions and the mining and automobile industries). Downtown Toronto is always reliably Liberal or NDP. In the last federal election in May, it was somewhat surprising that so much of southern Ontario, not just the rural parts, voted Conservative. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a map of the results from the recent election. You can see that the Conservatives nearly swept rural and suburban southern Ontario, won all but two seats in N.B., took four mostly rural seats in N.S. and won the westernmost of PEI's four seats and Labrador. In Western Canada, the Liberals won two seats in central Vancouver, one seat in Winnipeg and Ralph Goodale's seat in Saskatchewan. The NDP did best on Vancouver's east side and eastern suburbs and the Victoria area and won a couple of other seats in BC, a couple in Manitoba and one in Edmonton. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Even when Manitoba turns Conservative (or, earlier, Reform), the ridings (electoral districts) around polyethnic Winnipeg tend to vote Liberal or NDP. Three or four decades ago, the Progressive Conservative areas in the Province of Quebec tended to be in the Eastern Townships, long populated by English-speakers, many of whose ancestors were United Empire Loyalists who'd fled the American Revolution. Non-Liberal Francophone Québécois tended to vote for nationalist parties or Social Credit. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Appiani d’Aragona

Why did the Appiani family that ruled the Principality of Piombino used the surname Appiani d’Aragona? PS you can't find this on wikipedia. It's in the other language wikis and books.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the genealogical entry E3 here says that it was Emamuele who adopted the surname. One might infer that it had something to do with his marriage to one Colia de'Giudici d'Aragona, an illegitimate daughter of Alfonso V of Aragon. Deor (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Overthinking the ACT Science section?

Hello all. I'm studying for the ACT Science section, and today I did a (non-official practice) that had a question like this: Several studies are done on a particular species of plant, and the results are (summarized into words, the originals are data tables): the plant's leaf size increases with humidity, peaking at 75% and decreasing for all values greater; leaf size increases with sunlight, peaking at 3 hours per day and decreasing for all values greater; leaf size is greatest at an optimal day/night temperature (F) of 85/65, it is less for any other combination (85/85, 65/65 [lowest], 65/85). The question asked, based on these data, where would the plant thrive the least as measured by leaf size, and the choices were a desert; a temperate grassland; a tropical rainforest; high altitudes. My first instinct was desert, but I reasoned that at high altitudes, temperatures would be lower, there would be less humidity, and a lot of sunlight so I picked that one. The book says a desert is correct, because the studies do not mention altitude. Apparently I overthought the question. How do I know when "reasoning" turns into "overthinking"? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that this helps you much, but this is why standardized tests suck. You CANNOT test reasoning via a multiple choice test. It cannot be done. And yet, this question is trying to do that. I am a science teacher; I have taught my fair share of Earth Science classes. If I had read what you wrote above for an answer, I would have given you full credit for a well reasoned answer. If you had arrived at the "desert" answer, and had a well-reasoned explanation for that one, I would have also given you full credit. The very notion that this test cannot read and interpret your reasoning means that it cannot evaluate your ability to reason. Multiple choice tests have one purpose, and one purpose only: the recall of facts. Any multiple choice test that attempts to evaluate anything else is a sham and total hogwash. Sorry, I know that isn't helping you pass this test, but as an educator myself, I take this shit VERY seriously, and it really gets my goat when I see something supposed to be "educational" which screws it up so phenomenally bad. </rant> --Jayron32 18:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

While in no way disagreeing with Jayron, I would suggest that, if you are using anything but the most general information and that information is not included in the question itself, you will be over-thinking for the purposes of the test. Personally, I would have thought that both desert and high altitude would be about equal, except that there is nothing about elevation in the question and so I would have selected "desert". That's just from a lot of experience both writing and taking such tests. Bielle (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like it's the typically tricky question, the trick being that you can't assume anything not in evidence. In short, you have to be both very intelligent, and an idiot. Just what colleges want, apparently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, you need to avoid using any information not given in the question. The problem is, the correct answer to that question is "e) Insufficient information". If they haven't given you any information about altitude then you can't determine whether a desert or high altitude would be better. That is very different from concluding that the desert is worse, which is what they have done. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

so when you raise money for a startup, is it your money or investors' (the company's)?

I'm just reading this... http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_18203847 my question is... am I correct in concluding that the only problem here is that he got the money in order to buy percetages of OTHER companies? (in oter words that he was just supposed to be a broker or middleman?). If it had been his OWN startup he was selling shares in, all that behavior would have been fine, right? I mean: when you sell some of your company (which you obviously start out owning 100% of) then that's now your money, right? Not the company's. (would be different if the company sold debt obviously...then it's the company's money)...

Am I correct in my assessment? That it's then your money to do with as you please, and you are not expected to donate it to the corporate entity (which doesn't own itself, you do) or in any other way have a duty to spend on the company instead of hookers and blow? thanks86.8.139.65 (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In general, you are not correct. You might start by checking Share capital, but in essence, when you start a company you do not own its shares; you've merely created a new legal entity which has a certain authorised share capital (and in general, you will at the time of formation buy some or all of these authorised shares). The first sale of any of those shares requires the money received to go into the company. Having bought a share (we can now term it a paid-up share), you may then sell it on, and the money received for the sale is yours. I suspect the chappie in your story has been selling previously unsold authorised shares - i.e. things which belong to the company - and pocketing the cash. Whether or not the company exists to buy shares in other companies is an irrelevance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

All of which is not good news for the blow & hooker industries. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You are trying very hard to explain, but I am having trouble following. It sounds like you're talking about a legal formality? Let's start with a real example: in the tech world, you can start a company with Zilch: you code on your laptop and initially use services exposed by Google and others (blog etc shared revenue) an establish a revenue stream. Say you get tires of doing this all by yourself, you want the thing to Br autonomous and then be able to sell it off. So, you I corporate (witha token amount of capital from your previous revenue, let's say $100). "tehnically" I gather it is atthis point that you buy authorized shares, with the share price valuing the company at $100 all told? Although, if you had wanted to, you could have paid the same $100 to purchase just half the authorized shares, valuing the company at $200 and with the company owning half the shares, however you owning these by means of owning the company itself whole cloth? Okay, if I have it right so far, now comes: say you go through with your plan, hire a part time writer and another employee on the company payroll to make it truly autonomus, and then just let it coast by itself for a few months, payin dividends to you (who own 100% of outstanding shares). Let's say revenues are around $10,000 per month, you have a lot of users etc, and you want out of the whole thing - so you sell ALL of your shares to an investor for -$500,000 which he pays because of the trailing revenue, which you have not fudged. You now have nothig more to do withthecompany - you have made a clean exit. Can you spend the 500k on hookers and blow then? without malfeasance or any further responsibility to the company? Now comes the kickr: what if you had only sold 99% of your shares? 95%? 90%? 70%? 55%? 50%? 49%? 30%? 10%? 5%? 1%? At what point are you no longer in the clear to use the proceeds for hookers and blow? Thanks. 86.8.139.65 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's take the case that you buy 50% of the authorised share capital of the company, and there are no other shareholders. You do not own the other 50% of shares; they are owned by the company. (So your sentence: "you owning these by means of owning the company itself" is wrong.) You do "own" the company, in that you own 100% of the issued share capital. But note the quotation marks. Actually, you merely own the shares you own. The company is and always will be a distinct legal entity, and it owns the other 50%. You can sell the shares you bought and spend the proceeds on pot & prostitutes. You cannot sell the 50% that remain in the company, since these are not yours. The company can sell them, but any revenue must come to the company. As to the 99% question ... you can sell 99% of your shares, which would equate to 49.5% of the authorised share capital of the company. And you'd find that you still owned 0.5% of the authorised share capital of the company. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A sensible angel investor or venture capital investor does not give money to a person. They buy a proportion of the equity of a private corporation (in many cases the startup hasn't yet incorporated, so the investors help the founders incorporate). All that investment capital goes into the bank account of the corporation (which the investors and founders jointly own). Typically the founders (who are most often also employees of the corporation) take a salary, although that's frequently very little. The kind of people who invest their own money, or who run venture funds, are astute (sometimes downright cutthroat) individuals, who won't put their money into some venture where the other owners can just take all the money out unilaterally and spend it on whatever they like - the angels/VCs get seats on the new company's board and this gives then a sufficiently tight reign on the company's spending to avoid any such shenanigans. As to the specific case you've linked: we can't comment on what he did because we don't know the details. He's been charged with fraud, which implies "intentional deception"; it's up to a court to decide if that's what happened in this case, or just bad, or unlucky, investing. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm not getting why you say it goes into the company's bank account and not my own. If I build a special bicycle you can somehow use to make money and sell it to you for $100, would you expect me to put the hundred into my pocket or into a bag on the bicycle, which is now yours? So that you've gotten both the bicycle and the money that now belongs to the bicycle? Meanwhile, I've just lost my bike... 86.8.139.65 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It goes into the company's account because that's who I write the cheque to. Your analogies to buying stuff aren't productive - I'm not so much buying something from you as going into business with you. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If you were going into business with me, you would show up and work too. But you're not, you're just giving money. In exchange for what? You write it out to a company, and get what in exchange. Oh, you get stock, by diluting mine. So, if you enter with a billion dollars, what do ai just get diluted out entirely (just about)? I find it very hard to believe that if my company (wholly owned by me) gets a check for a billion dollars from you, then that's not great news for me: actually horrible news. I can't use any of that money (it's the company's, not mine), yet I've Lost my stake in the company (have been diluted out). I find that hard to believe: that's right, I'm incredulous! 86.8.139.65 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. Nominally I do work there (I'm a salaried director), and some MBA drone that works for me becomes the COO and has a nicer office than you, and is only in the office for a few meetings a week. I paid a relatively small amount of money (for angel investments, maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars) and I get a big bunch of the equity (maybe 30%). When it goes to the first full VC round the founders will probably end up with less than 50%. Yes, to you it probably feels like a right screw-job; but it's all a contract, one that you don't have to sign. The trouble startup founders have is that their business isn't profitable and has little revenue, so conventional sources of funding like bankloans aren't open to them. They can try to grow the business off revenue alone (which is what most real-world, non internet-bubble, businesses have to do) or they can turn to angels and VCs, who take a large chunk of the business. It's no surprise that most startups fail, and a great number of successful startups (that go to IPO or are acquired by some profitable company) end up with litigation between the founders and their investors. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

When someone invests in your company, the company sells them new shares, rather than shares you own. You haven't lost out. Imagine your company is worth $100,000 and you own 100% of it and I have $100,000 in the bank. I come along and give $100,000 to your company in exchange for a 50% share. The company is now worth $200,000 and we own 50% of it each. So, we each own $100,000 worth of the company, exactly the same as we had before. You own half as much of the company, but the company is worth twice as much, so your share in dollar terms hasn't changed. --Tango (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I put in 10,000 hours of work to produce a company that makes a steady stream of thousands of dollars a month in pure profit: how could it be anything like fair for you to come along and become a 50:50 partner while putting in 0 hours? It just doesn't make sense to me: you're saying the value of my shares hasn't changed, even though I now have a 50:50 partner to split all that revenue with. Obviously if ai only get half the monthly revenue (in dividends) instead of all of it, the value of my shares has very much diminished! So why are you saying otherwise? Could you walk me through the example of where I establish a million dollar a month revenue stream all by myself as sole owner and then (due to high growth potential or whatever) you as an investor come in with 50 million? I'm finding it very hard to see why I woukdn'. just say "no I don't want your fifty million nor five hundred million: all that does is cut the percentage of the profit that I get, without impacting the value of my shares or the money in my pocket in any way. Put another way: if someone pays you $1000 for the chance to become a partner in your profitable lemonade stand, would you expect to still need to ask your mom for 75 cents for milk at the school cafeteria the next day, same as if you hadn't entered this lucrative partnership? something's not adding up... 86.8.139.65 (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The usual reason for looking for investors is because you want to expand your business. For example, you might want some money to build another factory or open another shop. You choose to sell the shares because you think that doing so will increase your profits by more than enough to compensate for you getting a reduced share. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)::::::The usual reason for looking for investors is because you want to expand your business. For example, you might want some money to build another factory or open another shop. You choose to sell the shares because you think that doing so will increase your profits by more than enough to compensate for you getting a reduced share. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The transaction - the third party coming in with $50M - only occurs if the company decides it is a good thing. If you own all of the issued share capital, you (should have) full control of the company's board of directors. You will allow the investment in the company if you think it will be a good deal for you (e.g. you'll make more profit, get more dividends, or see the share price rise as a result of whatever it is the company does with the $50M), or you will not allow the investment if you do not think it is a good deal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

okay, fine - how then?

fine, I get all of the above. Could you clearly explain then all of the steps i would need to take before I could actually see $1 mn in my bank account as well as having no obligations or responsibilities of any kind to the company I found? I eventually want out - completely, no board seat, nothing, I just want to pay taxes on the money, not have anything to do with the company, and be able to spend it on hookers and blow. could you explain all the steps I would have to take to get there? (in the context of a very large investment from outside).86.8.139.65 (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to sell your shares to someone else. Quite often, you would sell them to a much larger company that is looking to expand its business without having to go the effort and risk of doing so itself and would rather just buy an existing company. Another option is to "go public". That means you float the company on a stock exchange. That is much like selling shares to an investor, except you sell to lots of investors, in that you sell new shares rather than your own. Once you've done that, though, there is a market for shares in your company at a quoted share price and you can sell your personal shareholding very easily. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the smallest percentage of a company that has ever been floated in an IPO? I'm asking because then these dufuses (the many small traders) can twiddle their thumbs for a while and undervalue the company, until eventually revenue is so big they have to wake up. Then I can just sell my shares at the now correct share price, pay taxes on it, and invest in h&b outlays... 86.8.139.65 (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

June 6

Yevgeny Zamyatin's We

Spoiler Warning

I just finished reading Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, and I'm somewhat confused by the last chapters. What exactly happened on the spaceship in Record 34? If the Guardians thwarted Mephi's attempt to take over the spaceship, how does I-330 survive for a few more chapters, and how does the narrator wind up waking up in his own room? Why does I-330 (I assume it's I-330) tell people in the subway in Record 35 to get the Operation? What exactly happens in the Guardians' office in Record 39? It seems like the narrator is ticked off that I-330 never really loved him and only used him for political purposes and that he comes to (finally) realize that "S-" was part of I-330's conspiracy, but I can't be sure. It's all very confusing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Private vs public

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a private company and publicly traded (but privately held, not state-owned) company? --Reference Desker (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)