Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 15

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 15

Japan Policy on small arms

What is Japan's policy on small arms trafficking?

-Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.134.73.15 (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Pretty sure it's highly illegal, as guns are illegal. And the police can search and seize for guns if they have any suspicion, and send you to jail. Have a look at this article. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. Anyone else?

Archimedes

What is Archimedes' surname?69.218.220.86 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe they didn't have such things as surnames (as we refer to them) in ancient Greece. - Akamad 05:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A relative of royalty, Archimedes is known now as Archimedes of Syracuse, but I do not know what any last name may have been. DDB 05:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Archimedes was his surname. NeonMerlin 06:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You will find the same problem with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the like. Although the Romans started to differentiate people from about 300BC by a combination of given name, family name and clan name, the practice vanished with the fall of the western Empire. It was not until the early Middle Ages that surnames started to come into widespread use. Clio the Muse 07:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Everyone knows his last name was "of!" (See surname. People had descriptors rather than surnames until... until... it depends upon where.) Geogre 15:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

His father's name was Phidias, so his last name could be expresses as Phidiades, "Phidiason" like "Johnson" or something in English (assuming I declined the Greek genitive correctly). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Bishop (talk • contribs) 18:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

(Hey, why did no one say "Plutonium"? Shame on us! Adam Bishop 06:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

Natural foods

What's so special about "natural foods"? After all, aren't hemlock, nightshade, and deathcap mushrooms natural? --67.185.172.158 04:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For a detailed and interesting argument against the whole system of labeling foods "natural", as well as for countless other reasons, you should read Fast Food Nation. The short answer, in my opinion, is not much. Natural doesn't even mean natural, and as you said, really natural doesn't necessarily mean anything at all. That said, trans fats are worse than regular saturated fats, high fructose corn syrup (which I think is considered natural) is terrible for you, etc. There are loads of examples of unnatural foods that are bad for you, and in a world rampant with heavily processed foods, the vast majority of which are pretty unquestionably detrimental to your health, sticking with "natural" or "organic" is generally a healthier (and much tastier) way to go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.191.59 (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, it's almost natural for foods to be unnatural. And the line is drawn as pleased. --Proficient 05:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The way I understand it, there is no government definition, in the U.S. at least, that says what "natural" means when put on a food label. Another one for you to ponder is "free range", as in eggs and chickens. On my way to work I drive by a barn where 1000 chickens are kept. 500 per side of the barn, in large pens that are about 15'x30'. The chickens aren't kept in individual cages but they have never seen grass and the only sunlight they see is a bit coming through the one or two windows on the south side of the barn. The eggs from these chickens are sold to local markets as coming from "free range" chickens. I know this because I've bought a few chickens from them to raise at my house and my wife works with the owner. Dismas|^(talk) 09:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Once, there was an ad on late night television for a miraculous weight loss product. It was "all natural," and, more staggeringly, "contains absolutely no chemicals!" Even an empty box wouldn't fit that definition. As has been pointed out "natural" is not an ingredient, and all ingredients are "natural" in at least one sense (they are made of elements). Some recognizably "natural" products require artifice to make (table salt), and some exotic things are found made by nature (but isolated by art). Because "natural" is a term with very slippery meanings in language, there is no way for a government or even trade association to use the label precisely. Thus, no laws. Additionally, there is a problem over "organic." Lots of stuff grows and lives and therefore is 'organic' in one sense. In the United States, there is a voluntary trade association label "organic growers," but it is debatable. Some folks go hard core, others allow fertilizer. Therefore, none of these things mean anything by themselves. It's always necessary to look into the exact details and have knowledge of what they all mean. Since most people can't, there are guides and an industry in counseling. Geogre 17:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of obtuse discussion here . The point of labelling something 'Natural' goes something like this: we don't add anything to our product that we wouldn't eat ourselves. Preservatives with weird names are the main culprit. Vranak

Let's leave aside the problem of a lack of regulation for foods labeled as "natural" and instead talk about what the term typically means, which is "contains no artificial ingredients created in labs". These are typically listed in the ingredients by their chemical names, as opposed to the common names used for most natural ingredients. Some examples: sodium citrate, sodium phosphate, mono- and diglycerides, sodium bisulfite, magnesium stearate (I don't know if any of these also occur in nature). In common language, these are called "chemicals", while ingredients which have a common name, like sugar, are not. This is, of course, not correct from a chemistry POV, where everything is called a chemical. The problem with these "chemicals" (common usage here) in food is that they don't have the decades of history needed to establish that they are safe. For example, partially hydrogenated soybean oil (containing trans fats) was thought to be safe, but then discovered to be quite unhealthy. A safer approach is to just avoid adding unnatural "chemicals" to food and stick with foods that we've been eating for generations. If those foods were dangerous, we would have known about it by now, which is not true of the "chemicals". One exception to the rule is vitamins, which are often described by a chemical name, even though they are entirely natural. StuRat 17:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Complex subject. When talking about "natural foods" and the "organic movement" and suchlike it helps to remember that effective non-surgical treatment for most medical conditions was simply not available before 1950! Penicillin was developed during the War, chemotherapy for cancer became available around 1960, as did Valium and proton pump inhibitors. Decent betablockers and Prozac, which is considered a blessing by those who must take it, became available a decade later. Hans Castorp had to stay up in Davos for seven years because there was no treatment for him.

Back to medicine in the Thirties. It did not offer treatment. When Hitler expelled the Jews from university service around 1935 half of the medical chairs became vacant and had to be filled again. This is how homeopathy became credible.

Victor Klemperer devotes a whole chapter in his LTI - Lingua Tertii Imperii to the metaphor of nature used in the Third Reich.

To conclude the rant, everyone who buys organic products should watch the Remains of the Day and remember that the Soil Association was founded by exactly those upper-class twits you see in that film. Dr Zak 19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

They're not twits, they're aristocrats. Vranak

Well, to add slightly to that, we can recall General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove: "Purity of Essence" saves us from the Communist post-war conspiracy to fluoridate water. The idea of a purity of nature, an essence of the soil, a purity of the spirit from the intake of pure foods, has stridently left and right, xenophobic and exoticist, elements. In the US/UK as we have it now, the "health food" impulse is tinged by an embrace of exoticism and the post-Mahareshi craze for neo-transcendentalism. It's not the first time that left and right came to the same places. The actual benefits and efficacies of natural products is another matter. Some things seem to actually hold up. Most don't. Large molecules don't survive digestion (hence fears of Bovine Growth Hormone affecting children are dubious: if we could pass such large molecules along, then we'd never have to inject insulin or human Growth Hormone: we'd have pills; there are no insulin pills, no heparin pills, no growth hormone pills), although what effects the accelerated cow might have experienced due to alterations in its metabolism are unknown enough for a sane person to have hesitation. The science is "maybe a little, but probably not much," but the history is, as you say, fascinating. Geogre 21:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Which leads me to note that there's a relatively small section of most supermarkets called "Health Foods", typically containing exorbitantly priced nuts, seeds, dried fruits, carob-coated "health bars" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and tinned stuff made from soya beans and said to resemble the taste and texture of meat (shudder!). I've always rhetorically wondered, does this mean all the other foods sold in the store are unhealthy? JackofOz 02:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I suppose all the videos not in the "adult videos" section of a video store must be for children ?  :-) StuRat 03:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Infallibility of the Church -Can it be trusted?

There is a problem with the so-called "infallibility of the Church" in Roman Catholicism. It is this: Couldn't some bad and un-Christian Popes and bishops decide, or have decided, to make up false, or at least fallible, messages, claims, and teachings which they claim and lie that they are infallible and from God but really aren't? Or couldn't they decide to change, distort, or not tell messages from God in the way they like to suit their own purposes? How has the Catholic Church ever reacted and responded to this question and problem?The Anonymous One 06:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems primarily to be one of your misunderstanding. There is no doctrine of "Infallibility of the Church". You can compare your misconception with the actual doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Everyone acknowledges that specific Popes have been bad and that some could even be considered heretics. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility asserts that God acts in such a way as to prevent any formal declarations of dogma from containing errors, even when made by such bad men (apparently by causing such declarations to be exceedingly rare.) - Nunh-huh 07:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

TAO, haven't you already asked this question here before? Just google "Catholic apologetics" for your answer. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 07:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably with the whole idea of "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." In other words, the Catholic church has the excuse to do whatever they want and say it's supported by God. They don't even follow prophets they honor, as seen with the Three Secrets of Fatima, where they failed to reveal the third secret when it was supposed to, and who knows if they made up the one they eventually revealed. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The above flight-of-consciousness has nothing to do with any doctrine of infallibility that is actually Catholic doctrine. It contains no facts related to the initial question, though probably someone's spleen now feels well-ventilated. - Nunh-huh 10:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It does in my mind, but I will remove it anyways because I wasn't aware that it was actually a trolling question. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

More anti-Catholic polemics: this is getting so tiresome. Perhaps, on reflection, it might not be such a bad thing. I note that in last week's edition of The Spectator ( London, 7 April) Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, says that Christians need 'a little more persecution.' Yes, I know, Catholics are not really Christians; you have made this prejudice all too plain on more than one occasion. Clio the Muse 07:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Abominable One, I want to check your user contributions to see how many times you have brought up this stupid nonsense. However, "contributions" is a misnomer, and I would feel guilty if I clicked the link that would suggest these are contributions. And Clio, why do you suggest that Catholics are not Christian? Are you simply humoring our weekly Refdesk troll? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look in the Humanities Archive for April II, Twas Now, under the heading 'Roman Catholic Church-not really changed', where I deal with this at some greater length. My response was rhetorical in intent, a 'confirmation' of all of this person's preconceptions, in the hope that it would rid us all of his tedious agenda. Clearly, as is usual in these cases, it did not work. In future I intend to ignore this altogether. I wish others would do the same. Clio the Muse 11:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, we have an article called Infallibility of the Church. JackofOz 10:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So far User:The Anonymous One seems to do nothing with the Reference Desk except post polemics, coyly phrased as questions. I vote that the next one he posts just gets deleted, it is a misuse of the desk. --24.147.86.187 13:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Puerile trolling and religious taunting has been a problem at the reference desk for at least a year, if not from its inception. These divide between the childish tantrum ("You think theres a god your nuts!" vs. "All you ___ are going strate to hel!") and the chip porters (the ones who carry their chips on their shoulders from place to place) ("Isn't it true that Hitler was a Christian?" vs. "Isn't it true that evolution is only a theory and has several unprovable assumptions?"). I'd personally suggest that any enquiry about ultimate reality be forbidden and that we only allow questions about specific and historical or verifiable matters. "Did the Thomists really believe that transubstantiation would mean that the eucharist would literally become flesh" is answerable. "Catholics call themselves Christians, but isn't i true that they're idolators" isn't. Geogre 17:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Posted a duplicate of this comment on the desk's talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I do hope it helps. The Reference Desks have always had a "dorm room bull session" vibe, and that can be a good thing, but it has to be controlled by having some restraint. "Things answerable by fact" would be one restriction I think we could agree upon, and "Things covered by Wikipedia" would be another. The factuality or fictitiousness of religion can't be answered, but the facts about religious practice, thought, and worship can be. We shouldn't be making bad faith assumptions about the motives of our questioners, so we should just be silent or ask for a better question, even if, privately, we want to administer a tele-slap. Geogre 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Indulgence -an infallible doctrine?

Has paying indulgences or performing sacraments for salvation ever been declared an "infallible" doctrine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Anonymous One (talk • contribs) 03:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

• See indulgence. Has there ever been a declaration that any sacrament provided salvation? Not that I'm aware of. Geogre 10:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbuthnot

How common is the surname "Arbuthnot"? I ask this because there seem to have been a lot of articles about people with the name Alexander Arbuthnot. In comparison, there are about the same number of articles on people named Alexander Smith and Alex Smith combined. I had never heard of the surname Arbuthnot before. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever see Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express? Sean Connery plays Colonel Arbuthnot. JackofOz 10:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The name is of Scottish origin, coming from the barony of Arbuthnot in the Mearns. It was in former times written as Aberbuthnoth, signifying a dwelling near the confluence of a burn (stream) with the sea. It cannot be that common, though, because I personally have never come across an Arbuthnot, though I have visited Scotland many times. Moreover, your list of notable Arbuthnots, Twas Now, seems to go no further than the early twentieth century. For the Smiths, on the other hand, you might care to look here. Clio the Muse 11:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this research, Clio, but the reason I asked is because I do not trust personal experience as a valid indicator of the facts. Like you, I have not heard of any Arbuthnot, but that does not mean it is uncommon. I did not provide a list of notable Arbuthnots, but I did provide a list of notable Alexander Arbuthnots (the first Arbuthnots I came across), and compared that to notable Alex Smiths and Alexander Smiths because they have the same first name. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The family was quite illustrious in Scotland. Part of this is due to a single family, which included the famous "Doctor Arbuthnot. It is, in that respect, much more like Churchill than Smith. They were not very numerous, but they were pretty well known. Hence multiple articles. Geogre 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• • We also have one individual user writing a lot of them, if memory serves - a good example of the apparent bias which results from one field being covered unusually comprehensively. Shimgray | talk | 19:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, her. Yeah. She wants to trace the entire Arbuthnot genealogy. I've pointed to her the relevant sections of WP:NOT before, but most of the articles she has written are of people who at least marginally squeak past the line that would mean an AfD. In other words, kids, don't try this at home: she's getting away with it by being very smart about it. Geogre 21:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• • If these subjects are notable enough for Wikipedia (even marginally) and if they are reliably attributed, she or someone should be "trying this at home" - ie. creating articles on them. What's wrong with properly attributed articles on notable Scots historical figures? --Charlene 08:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • You figure I'm insulting Scots here? Wow. Thistles are prickly. "Kids" shouldn't try this at home because she is being very smart and knowing the difference between appropriate and inappropriate, while most of the people who try this stuff do not. It was a compliment to Kittybrewster, not an insult to Scotland and all things Scottish. Then again, this kind of hypersensitivity does make one less inclined to be complimentary next time.
    • However, the answer is to the question is that Wikipedia is not a vanity project for anyone. Mapping out articles because they are part of this or that family is a bad motive. If the results are appropriate, then that's all to the good, but the impulse should be discouraged. Geogre 10:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he (not she) would enthuse about a Smith specialist. It is vastly harder to do that I would think. Precisely because there are many more Smiths. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And it's still a bad motive that could have good results. We've had endless numbers of genealogists attempt Wikipedia. They mostly fail for the fundamental reasons. Even peerages are going to fail if all that a figure has going for it is a title. A person has to do something and be referred to in some way that makes a discursive article necessary for there to be a Wikipedia article. Simply being the father/mother of someone is not sufficient. Most humans manage to reproduce. Geogre 02:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In would say that was a personal opinion. What we should be aiming for on Wikipedia ae articles, of various lengths, properly sourced, on notables. Obviously some people are more notable than others. But I would discourage republican/political attitudes which contradict facts. Some extremely fine and very academic people have been genealogists. To suggest that they are unable to make intelligent contributions to Wikipedia but, say, supporters of terrorists can, is wrong. David Lauder 11:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

list of commentable story news agencies

Some of the news organizations that post news online also provide a reader signup blog for readers to comment - even to have interactive discussion styled in the form of the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Many news organizations, however, do not provide readers with anything except the story they have written. For instance if I wanted to comment that Russia needed many means or methods of appeal for a "final" decision by government not to let citizens protest as a means of forestalling protest "riots" I would have no way of finding a news organization that both carried the story and provided the reader the opportunity for such comment. My question is whether anyone knows where I might find a list of online news organization according to whether they provided readers with a reader blog and whether the reader blog is interactive or not? Nebraska Bob 14:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Reference Desk is not for "interactive discussion". 82.36.179.20 12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You did not read the question. Nebraska Bob 03:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

quality assurance and control

1.State the distinctive features and similarities

2.State the various methods used in process of quality control.

3.State the main types and causes of unemployment of any country and suggest the measures the government could use to improve the situation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.165.155.26 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

State why you can't read Quality assurance and Quality control for yourself and do your own homework. Clarityfiend 19:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hyperreal Religion

What is a "hyperreal religion"? 206.124.144.3 19:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Stuff like this. 71.100.160.118 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that might be an example of one but I meant generally what is a hyperreal religion? 206.124.144.3 04:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an invented neologism without any generally agreed upon meaning. However, you might find the hyperreality article to be of interest -- presumably, that's more or less the meaning of "hyperreal" that's intended. — Lomn 14:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mosiac of the Trans-Siberian Railroad composed of semi-precious stones and diamonds

I am looking for information on hugh mosaic(mural)composed of semi-precious stones and diamonds, displaying a map of Russia and the route of the Trans-Siberian Railroad. Russia was surrounded by water which was depicted in lapis lazuli; the land portions were green (malachite), brown (tiger's eye) and black (onyx). The route of the railroad was black and periodically along the route there were large diamond clusters, indicating stops perhaps. I saw this in 1975 in a room (?throne room) of the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, when I was on a one of the very early Glastnos tours then begun by the USSR. The scale of the mosiac was magnificently large, and I have never forgotten it. However in 1985, on a second visit, the mosaic was not on display. I asked several curators in the palace but it seemed no one knew anything about this. Had it "disappeared?" I'm planning a third visit in 2008 and would like to see it again if possible. No one that I know has any information on this great work of art and my web search has not proved successful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John P Casarino (talk • contribs) 19:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

John, if you go to the Hermitage website here [1], and type in Trans-Siberian Railway in the search box it will lead you to a reference in the News Archive to a panorama by P. Ya. Pyasetsky, entitled The Great Siberian Route:the Main Trans-Siberian Railway (1897-1903), which seems to be in storage at present, undergoing restoration. I'm not really sure that this is what you are looking for, though, as it is made up of several watercolours glued to a canvas, and there is no mention at all of precious and semi-precious stones. It was exhibited in the Siberian section of the Russian pavilion at the World's Fair in Paris in 1900, and was awarded the Gold Medal by the jury, while Pyasetsky was given the Legion of Honour. It occurs to me, as you first saw the mosaic you are alluding to in 1975, this might have been a little bit of Soviet deception? Perhaps this is unfair, and maybe it is just another example of Russia being 'a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.' Clio the Muse 07:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also take into consideration the possibility that the mosaic may have been moved to another museum after you were there. A gem mural of the Trans-Siberian isn't something I'd think the Soviets would bother spending money or time on creating (even if the jewels were fake); it sounds like something from Imperial times. --Charlene 08:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Guilds.

What or who is the Guild of St. James? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.53.69.109 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

It was the predecessor of the Worshipful Company of Joiners and Ceilers. 85.144.164.110 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict – you beat me to it, 85.144.) This is what Google is for... The historical answer is on the page Worshipful Company of Joiners and Ceilers and its external link. There is also at least on modern company [2] with that name. --mglg_(talk) 20:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Identifying the muses

The roof of the Clarendon Building in Oxford is decorated with nine statues which I take to be the various muses - see the image to the right. I've photographed some of these, but it's proving troublesome to identify them. a); b). a) is, I think, Melpomene - it seems to be a tragic mask in her hand - whilst b) could be virtually any of them... any ideas? Shimgray | talk | 19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The first-a-is almost certainly Melpomene, on the assumption that she is holding a tragic mask (a comic mask would make her Thalia), while the second-b-is likely to be Euterpe. From another of the sisterhood. Clio the Muse 20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Euterpe, the muse of music, is usually depicted with a flute, while the trumpet, as a symbol of fame, belongs to the muse of history. 85.144.164.110 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you could be right, though it is more usual to depict Clio holding a parchment scroll. Clio the Muse 20:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

On further investigation I am now confident enough to say that you are definitely right, 85.144, and it is indeed Clio. She is depicted with the trumpet in The Allegory of Painting by Vermeer. I was clearly failing to blow my own trumpet! Clio the Muse 20:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! The trumpet/flute thing was what was confusing me, and our article on Clio fails to mention the trumpet as a symbol... Shimgray | talk | 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You can just make out part of the instrument, which Clio is holding in her right hand, in the detail from Vermeer's painting shown on that page, Shimgray. Clio the Muse 22:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The trumpet is more often part of the figuration of Fama, but also with Clio. After all, it is the celebration of good deeds that historia did (at least according to Plutarch (Moralia)). There is a play on Fame's trumpet in Swift's Battel of the Books, where Fama has one trumpet for celebration, which she holds to her mouth, and another for infamy, which she holds...elsewhere...to announce the deeds of dunces. Utgard Loki 12:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Swift-Battle.jpg is the printed version of the illustration of Fama with her trumpet. The original design for the image showed the other trumpet, too, but it wasn't printed (although the 1958 OUP edition of Swift has it). Utgard Loki 14:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, a wonderful little satire, Utgard, by the greatest of the masters of the technique, all 'sweetness and light'. The figure in question, though, is still Clio! Fama is actually the Roman godess of fame and the personification of personal rumour. The Greek version is Pheme, the daughter of Gaia, and is usually represented as a winged figure holding a trumpet. Incidentally, the Fama you have linked is actually a Texas boy band! Clio the Muse 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The boy band seems to have usurped what was quite recently a disambiguation page. Should it be reverted? Or can the article history be divided in half and the Texan boys thus be removed to another page? Pharamond 10:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Smartest Guys in the Room

Where can I download this Enron scandal documentary / movie free?

Slmking 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no doubt many places you can download this 'free', but I would expect there aren't any that are legal in your country. Presuming you are from the US you can find it on sale at Amazon for $12.49 new, or from $5.88 used (http://www.amazon.com/Enron-Smartest-Guys-Peter-Coyote/dp/B000C3L2IO/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5252385-3865530?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1176674722&sr=8-1). ny156uk 22:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You can legally download the movie for free in North Korea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.168.50.40 (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Incorrect. In North Korea, any computer access you would have would be to the Intranet, and not the far more popular Internet that contains downloadable movies, Wikipedia, porn, etc. It would be far more illegal (not to mention nigh-on impossible; even the government's own official website is hosted outside the country) to download anything at all from the Internet in North Korea. If you think the MPAA have aggressive lawyers... --ByeByeBaby 08:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Is it true that Elvis was a Shabbos goy for a rabbis family? --Smokizzy 21:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As the rumor goes... Evlis was poor and lived close ro a rabbi. He would stop by on Saturday to turn on their lights and such. They never told him he was a Shabbos goy or what it was. He was just doing a favor for some neighbors. It isn't all that far fetched. --Kainaw ^(talk) 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Does a copyright renewal for a book of short stories apply to the contained story, if that story has been published elsewhere first?

I'm checking for a copyright renewal on the short story "Scanners Live in Vain", by Cordwainer Smith. It was first published in a magazine, Fantasy Book, in 1950; the copyright on that magazine was not renewed. The copyright on the short story itself was not individually renewed, and it doesn't appear in any copyright renewal records with Smith's pseudonym or real name in them. The story was later republished in a 1952 short story collection called Beyond the End of Time, edited by Frederik Pohl. That book was renewed, though the renewal record doesn't say anything about the book's contents or the authors thereof. Does this renewal record mean that the short stories contained in the book, to which Pohl didn't hold the copyrights, are also renewed? This is the renewal record in question:

1. Registration Number: 	 	 RE-50-281
Title: 	 	Beyond the end of time. Edited with introd. by acFrederik Pohl.
Claimant: 	 	Frederik Pohl (A)
Effective Registration Date: 	 	10Jan80
Original Registration Date: 	 	5Jan52;
Original Registration Number: 	 	A62728.
Original Class: 	 	A

Does it matter that the story was first published elsewhere? Does it matter that Smith (or his heirs) weren't listed in the renewal record in any way? Thanks in advance for any help unraveling this puzzle. grendel|khan 22:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert by any means but if magazine or book is protected by copyright law, so is everything in it. If you were to copy that short story, the owner of the renewed book could sue you for violating the copyright on one of the stories in his book. On the other hand, our copyright templates usually refer to "first published". I think you need an expert here, but I'd er on the side of caution. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, the copyright on a collection does not cover the individual items. It only covers the selection and arrangement of the items contained, plus whatever additions were new (such as a foreword by Pohl in this case—I'm assuming Beyond the end of time was an anthology). However, in this case it is prudent to assume that Cordwainer Smith's story is still copyrighted. Three reasons: first, these sci-fi writers very often were well aware of copyrights, second, assigning copyrights to publishers was not uncommon (would we find a renewal if it had been done by the publisher?), and third, the heirs of Mr. Linebarger did renew several of his short stories in collective renewals (see e.g. RE-318-924), so I wouldn't be surprised if that 1952 story was renewed, too. Although I must admit that I didn't find any direct record amongst the 13 shown at [3] nor amongst those at [4] for that particular story. But some related records make it appear likely that Scanners live in vain also might be under copyright and we just missed its entry. The copyright for Atomsk (original © 22Apr49) was renewed 23Feb77 (R655579). The Instrumentality of Mankind is another collection edited by Pohl, copyright registered 21May79, limited to "collection, edition & additions" (TX-283-252). Lupo 13:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A 1979 collection is copyrighted no matter what, anyway. But reprinting a story doesn't grant you a new copyright on it; if the story itself wasn't renewed, a later printing (especially one whose copyright claims are limited to the arrangement of the works and any additional essays and such) doesn't make a difference. grendel|khan 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in erring on the side of caution; I'm trying to clear works that weren't renewed so we can release them in Project Gutenberg. I'm not looking to fly off the handle and get someone sued, but I'm also not interested in throwing up my hands and letting the chilling effect have its way with me--the whole point of what I'm doing is taking the uncertainty out of that equation, so that works which are free can actually be used. And while most of his works were renewed, the point is that some weren't. (Consider his non-fiction works, under the name Paul M. A. Linebarger, none of which were renewed.) The reason I'm doing this research is do I don't have to assume. grendel|khan 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't assume that just because the copyright to the magazine expired, the copyrights to the contents have also expired. It's perfectly possible that Cordwainer Smith's heirs (or as Lupo says, his publisher's heirs) still own that story. The magazine probably published the story under an agreement, and unless you have that agreement in front of you it's impossible to know who owned it. --Charlene 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing some tracking-down of the agency which owns (or owned) the story, and while the person to talk to won't be back in his office until Monday, he can either produce the renewal record to show that the story is under copyright, or he can't; it's really that simple. grendel|khan 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)