Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 20

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.

June 20

a quotation attributed to Maxim Gorky: really his?

There might be different translations but as I heard it it was "Man, how beautiful the word sounds!". Can anybody tell in which work of Gorky this appears? Any other version? Is this quote attributed to somebody else also? --Thirdmaneye (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The original is "Человек! Это звучит гордо." It is from Gorky's play From the Depths, and is variously translated. A probably more accurate version is "Man! How proud the word rings." This is "man" in the sense of human or person, not "man" in the sense of male, as I understand it. (And to my American ear the Russian word, pronounced "chelovek", does not sound all that beautiful.) Looie496 (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Looie. I had a vague notion that it belonged to Lower Depths which is full of such bombastic utterances. In this part of the world where left has a strong political clout for the last sixty years this quote has been rehashed in many forms and attributed variously to Marx, Tolstoy and Gorky himself. The question came to me this morning because a school girl of in the neighborhood had this question in her assignment. --Thirdmaneye (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Compared to a lot of Russian words, Человек sounds not too bad. Compare to, say, bread: Хлеб (Khleb -- but get a bunch of phlegm in the back of your throat ready before saying it, so you can really hock out the "Kh" sound). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is the oldest author still writing?

Who is the oldest author still writing? Just curious. Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps K. D. Sethna. --Viennese Waltz 07:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

...although the question needs tighter definition, i.e. what is an author? Someone who has had written work published by a reputable publishing comnpany, probably. Self-published or vanity work would not count. What if someone had a single novel published at the age of 25 and is now aged 100, would they still count as a living author? The bibliography of KD Sethna in the above article is not very detailed on the dates of his published works. --Viennese Waltz 08:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The question did specify the oldest author still writing, so Harper Lee (now 85, only work published 51 years ago) wouldn't qualify. Pais (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, G. Szabó Judit is no longer among us. She has died in the age of 85, and was still an active writer. – b_jonas 13:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Jewish cities in Europe

Does anyone know of European cities which were predominantly Jewish on the eve of the Second World War? The only one I've found so far is Pinsk; going by Wiki, it appears that Jews comprised a majority in most Belarusian cities at the time of the 1897 census, but that they had generally fallen below 50% by 1941. --71.162.67.219 (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Does Shtetl or Category:Historic Jewish communities help? --Jayron32 12:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

According to our article on Bialystok, Jews were a majority in that city before World War II. Marco polo (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This article may help Pale of Settlement. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Of the larger towns in the Pale, some Wikipedia articles quote numbers from the 1897 Russian Empire census, others have later numbers. There were some fairly major population transfers in the former part of the 20th Century (not least the movement of some Jews from the Pale to Germany, ironically one the places with fewest restrictions on Jewish life), so the census numbers all seem a bit higher than the late '30s numbers, but based on the latest numbers quoted in the articles (prior to the formations of ghettos, such as that at Łódź, which really reflect populations collected from elsewhere in the Pale) I get:

• Balta: 55-82% (from the article; it doesn't explain the wide range)
• Białystok: ~63%
• Gomel: ~55%
• Minsk: ~52%
• Mogilev: ~50%
• Kishinev: ~43% as of the census
• Brest Litovsk: ~42% (that's a pre-WW2 number; it had been ~50% in 1897)
• Dnipropetrovsk: ~40%
• Łódź: ~33%
• Częstochowa: ~26%

Of large towns and cities with in the Pale, Kiev, Nikolaiev, Sebastopol, and Yalta were generally barred to Jews (who required special permits to live there). I don't know numbers for Konotop, Pereiaslav-Khmelnytskyi, or Kirovohrad. Niall Fergusson's The War of the World also lists towns called Ananayev and Sedlitz for which I cannot find an English Wikipedia article (but which may have articles under other names I can't find). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You might need to come up with an encompassing definition of "city" though. --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Carthaginian parrot tattoos

I’ve read in a couple of places that interpreters in ancient Carthage had yellow parrot tattoos on their arms. It sounds a bit like some sort of urban legend though. Can anyone find a good academic source to back it up? — Chameleon 06:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to this out of Gustave Flaubert's Salambo, although that article says he did painstaking research, so maybe he found it somewhere. Where did you read this? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It’s mentioned no fewer than three times by Valerie Taylor-Bouladon in her Conference Interpreting : principles and practice, ISBN 1-4196-6069-1. She’s even got a yellow parrot on the back cover. It’s a very helpful book, but the woman has an infuriatingly chaotic and unprofessional style of writing, such that I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that she has no evidence for her claim other than having read that novel. She’s certainly into French literature.

I’ve googled a bit, and found a few people mentioning these parrots, but I get the distinct impression that these people have just read the novel too. I am an interpreter and translator, and I rather like the idea of getting such a tattoo (small, and hidden away), but only if it is authentic. — Chameleon 08:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Parrot#distribution has no indication that parrots would have been known to the ancient Carthaginians. It talks about southern Africa, but not north Africa, Europe or western Asia. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, there is a "Cambridge Companion to Flaubert", haha. I can read some of it on Google Books. Apparently Flaubert likes parrots and uses them elsewhere in his work, as a symbol of meaningless language...and despite his painstaking research, there was plenty of criticism about the historical accuracy of Salambo. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Pliny the Elder has a short paragraph about parrots (as part of a longer section on talking birds in his Natural History, book X, chapter LVIII, line 117ff), but he does not mention anything about tattoos. I would have thought that if it was mentioned anywhere in the ancient literature, it would have been just the sort of curious factoid that he would have included in his work. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I subsequently saw that the ancient Europeans (ergo North Africans too) did know of parrots. They must have been regarded as very exotic. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Another question that may shed light on factuality is: could the Carthaginians tattoo skin in yellow? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Romans knew of the parrot from India (according to Pliny), but it was not yellow but green with a "red circlet at the neck". And while they probably were deemed exotic, Pliny uses far more space to describe talking magpies, ravens and crows which apparently according to him "talks more articulately". (btw this is from the Loeb edition, vol. 3, pp. 367-373). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I’ve just had a look through the full text of Salammbô, and it’s a bit disappointing. The only bit about interpreters or parrots seems to be, ‘Apparaissait ensuite la légion des Interprètes, coiffés comme des sphinx, et portant un perroquet tatoué sur la poitrine.’ But I’ve read people on line saying it was yellow, that it had one wing spread if the interpreter did one foreign language, and both if he knew more. Plus it’s supposed to be the arm, not the chest. There must be some other source. — Chameleon 13:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant, but since Flaubert's been mentioned a few times, I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Flaubert's Parrot. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an article by a J.M. Bigwood in the Classical Quarterly 1993, vol. 43, no. 1 called "Ctesias' parrot", about parrots in Ctesias' work Indica. Bigwood does not mention any Carthagenian tattoos, but he does provide a good deal of citations to works that probably include everything mentioned of parrots in classical literature. The article "Papagei" (German for parrot) in vol. XVIII,2 pp. 926-934 of Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft (which is cited in the article) seems a good place to start looking for sources. Unfortunately German Wikisource only contains up to volume 13. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Character Variants and Section Headers (Radicals?)

I have just puzzled out how to search through the variant character dictionary at this site: http://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/suo.htm. One issue I am having, though, is that I am unable to specifically locate certain characters based on how the section headers appears as a standalone character and how it appears as part of another character; compare 水 and 氵, for example. Is there a way to determine how section headers (or are these actually radicals?) will look when they are part of another character and when they are by themselves? There are some characters that I can't find because I can't match their section headers to the original character. Any resources would be appreciated.CalamusFortis 10:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

For the character 水, it is a 4-stroke character. I clicked on the first link on the page you linked. I then clicked on the 4-stroke link at the top of the page. Then, I clicked on 水, which took me here. For the second character,氵, that is a radical. I looked on the three-stroke character list and it isn't there. However, there were a lot of radicals on those lists. Perhaps they omitted that one. -- kainaw™ 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Click "部首検索", then click the number of the strokes of the radical you want to know. As 水 is a 4 stroke character as mentioned above, you click 04畫. Then you can reach the page kainaw linked. If you click 水 on the page, you can reach the 水 and its variants/異體字 page. [1] If you want to see other characters related 水, click the number of the strokes of the character you want to know on the left. But please be sure do not count 4 strokes of 水, the number should be the strokes of other components. For instance, if you click 01 on the left, you can see the list of 水 related 5 stroke characters. [2] Then select the one you want. Remember bold characters with 正 are the standard character. Oda Mari (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I've more or less figured out how to use the site that way. The issue I'm having is where the section header doesn't resemble the original character. For instance, 水 does not resemble 氵, 心 does not resemble 忄, and 犬 does not resemble 犭. I'm having difficulty searching through the dictionary because 1) I can't always identify which part of a character is the section header and 2) I can't match the section headers to their original character(犭->犬 ; 氵->水) , which is how they are listed. I need some kind of a list that shows how characters are modified when they turn into radicals.CalamusFortis 08:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Try Wiktionary. -- kainaw™ 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think these sites listed as EL on Chinese character are helpful. [3], [4], and [5]. See also [6] (if you cannot see the animation, reload the page), [7] (click the page. The top page is here), and [8]. Oda Mari (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A Question of Etiquette

Obviously, A gentleman should hold open a door for a lady and allow her to enter/exit through it first. However, a recent discussion with a friend brought up this point: What does one do about sets of doors, where there is a narrow hallway? There seems to be 3 ways to approach this.

1. Open the first door, let the lady enter and get the second door herself.
2. Open and enter the first door, hold it open for the lady, then open the second door and let her enter first.
3. Open the first door, let the lady enter, try to get in front of her in some non-awkward way, then open the second door and let her enter first.

None of these really seem ideal - is there standard that has been set for something like this, or does old-fashion etiquette not keep up with modern-day architecture? ^Avic_ennasis @ 12:01, 18 Sivan 5771 / 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming this lady is able-bodied I'd go for (1). If she has a one iota of common sense she will realize the impracticality of your trying to open both doors.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

From my experience... in today's world of gender equality, etiquette has changed somewhat. Instead of: "A gentleman should hold open a door for a lady and allow her to enter/exit first" we have a more gender neutral: "Holding doors open for others is considered polite". So... to apply this to your two door scenario... which ever person comes to the door first should hold it open for the person who follows, where upon the positions are reversed. If the gentleman holds the first door open for the lady, then she would enter and hold the second door open for the gentleman. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Doorway Assist Mode (DAM) can be deployed in such a circumstance, in which the gentleman grabs the door from behind, facilitating the distaff walker's forward motion, containing the clumsy etiquette problem to mere meters of forward motion. Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that etiquette has changed, but is it not today: "Holding doors open for your visitor is considered polite"? Bus stop's method works best, I think. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem I always have is when I approach a door opening outwards with someone else just behind me. In this scenario the two options seem to be (a) hold the door open but don't go through it; this can be physically difficult especially if it's a heavy door; or (b) go through it before the other person and then hold it open for them from the other side. This is easier than (a) but does mean that one has gone through the door first! --Viennese Waltz 13:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh good question - I remember having a similar debate with a friend about Revolving doors. Do you...

1. Let the lady in first (lady's first principle) and then go in after her (though inevitably she'll push and you'll get a 'free' ride round the door - not very manly)
2. Let the lady in second (ignoring lady's first) and then you push (that way you push and she gets the 'free' ride)
3. Let the lady in first (again lady's first) but then make it clear you'll do the pushing (the best and worst of both world's?!)

Of course it was all a bit tongue-in-cheek, but i'll admit it - it's always good to get a 'free' ride through a revolving door! ny156uk (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course proper gentlemen and ladies would simply assume that there were servants behind any door they wanted to go through, and would let them hold open the doors... that's what servants are for after all. :>) Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Aha, so if you have a visitor at work you need to ask your PA to be present. (If you're an academic you need a research assistant or rope in any unsuspecting postgrad.) Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me to the Caliban Trilogy where robots are used for menial tasks like this. – b_jonas 13:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In a case where it's not practical to open both doors, I usually open the outer door, assuming it to be the heavier one with possible wind to work against, unless I know the inner door to be trickier in some way.

An even worse etiquette problem is due to high security areas. Since you aren't allowed to let anybody else in with you, once you swipe your badge, it's necessary to close the door in the face of the woman standing behind you in line. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The Reference Desk is not an advice column, but my advice is to do whatever seems most natural. What will seem most natural will depend on the specifics of the situation, for which there are many more than three possibilities. Awkwardness is usually best met with a polite sense of humor and a smile.

See also our article on Etiquette. WikiDao ☯ 16:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

One possibility is to attach a strong string to both doors and give explicit instructions to your female companion to pass through both doors when the first is opened. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol :) WikiDao ☯ 21:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If the doors have "handicapped" opening devices, hit those and then everyone can go through unimpeded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What a male chauvinist pig type premise! Obviously each person holds open every other door, depending on who got where first. Read Robert Heinlein. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't a true neo-feminist reach up on her little high-heels and thump you on the jaw for being so patronising? In reality, in the UK its usual for the person in front to hold open the door as they pass through it for the person following, regardless of gender. 2.97.210.205 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In crowds, I hold the door proportional to how much of a hurry I am in. When I need to be somewhere fast, I sometimes do as little as give the door a shove to keep it open for the next person, and I have been known to hold the door for a dozen or more people. It all evens out, I suppose. Adam Berman (talk) (contribs) 10:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Immigration Officer in Inception

Morning-- this may betray a profound ignorance on my part, but at the end of the film Inception, Leonardo DiCaprio's character arrives at the immigration gate at LAX and hands his passport to the officer there, who has eagle military insignia on his shoulders, normally denoting a rank of US-O6 (colonel in the Army, Air Force, or Marines; or captain in the Navy or Coast Guard). The next officer that he meets seems to have silver oak leaves on his shoulders, denoting a rank of US-O5 (lieutenant colonel in the Army, Air Force, or Marines; or commander in the Navy or Coast Guard). My question is this: what branch of military service would these officers belong to? My guess would be Coast Guard....? However, (and realizing that it's a film, not reality) are coast guard captains and commanders often assigned to immigration desk duty at airports? It would seem (pardon the expression) a bit beneath their pay grade.... Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably U.S. Customs and Border Protection (see the section on insignia). The U.S. federal military is prohibited from normal police functions so it would not be the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines. Coast Guard is a special case but they handle law enforcement on the water, not in the air. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Must be it. Thank you! All you globetrotters out there-- is it normal for higher-ranking officers to be assigned to the passport desks like that? Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The insignia you describe could designate a GS-14 and a GS-13 according to this section of our Customs and Border Patrol article. That seems plausible, especially as it was supposed to have been a sensitive and "arranged" border crossing. WikiDao ☯ 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Booker possibilities

Is there any way to know what are some novels that are considered to be favourites for being nominated for this Booker Prize this year? Every time the shortlist is announced I've usually only even heard of a few of them, let alone read all of them. Just once I'd like to be able to knowledgeably say which one deserves it, instead of saying that The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet deserved it last year, despite not actually having read the Finkler Question. Or any of the others for that matter. 123.243.54.85 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Booker prize also announces a longlist, is that what you are asking about? They do not seem to have announced the longlist for 2011 yet, but last year's was announced in July. WikiDao ☯ 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Until the list is announced, you can always pick up the novels that gather a lot of "buzz", which is a bit of a subjective criteria, but includes a) novels by former winners/short-listed authors that receive good reviews in influential places; and b) novels by new authors or unheralded authors that receive unusual attention from these same places. This won't allow you to pick out in advance some of the dark horse nominees (there are usually a couple), but you should be able to get started on at least a few of short-listed books: well-established authors tend to dominate both the short list and the long list, and they receive a fair amount of publicity when they publish what is seen as a major work. Also, someone working in a good bookstore should know which books are being pushed for major awards, and which are not and would likely love to talk to you about the subject if it's ing to result in your buying a few titles. --Xuxl (talk)

It's easier to enter a book by a previous winner or previously shortlisted author in comparison to a non-shortlisted author - there are restrictions on how many books by non-shortlisted writers a publisher can submit[9] so looking to see which past winners have eligible books would be a good guide (although recently there has been a greater tendency to give it to younger writers). Many authors are nominated repeatedly (e.g. J. M. Coetzee, Ian McEwan, Peter Carey, and of course Beryl Bainbridge) and several winners had been nominated in earlier years (e.g. John Banville, Alan Hollinghurst). --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I actually work in a bookstore myself, which is part of why I wanted to know. I'm surprised the longlist was announced in July though, I recall it being much closer to the award date, although maybe it's because I was backpacking in Asia last year and couldn't really buy whatever book I wanted whenever I wanted. The award is given in October, right? (And does that mean that books published in October, November and December are eligible for next year's?) 123.243.54.85 (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Does not at least one of the bookmakers in the UK offer odds on the Booker winner? That would indicate what the more likely books are. 92.28.251.178 (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Voice Types in Articles about Singers

Why isn't this something you do? For example, your articles about opera singers (as well as some from the theatre) include voice types (soprano, tenor, etc.), but your articles about contemporary singers don't; Adele, Colbie Callait, and Stevie Nicks could all be listed as contraltos. I understand that it's not always easy to tell, especially without the obvious differences in terms of repertoire that help to keep things delineated in classical music, but there are plenty of contemporary musicians who are very obviously whatever voice type they are; Amy Lee is obviously a mezzo-soprano, for example, just like Adam Levine is obviously a tenor. I know that this isn't so much a question, at this point, but I didn't really know how else to get in contact with anybody about addressing this. Nobody except people like me care, I'm aware, but I still think it'd be a nice way to expand on your artciles (about singers and musicians), and would offer you another tag by which to categorize various entries.

Thanks for your comments. I suspect it's because modern music critics don't consider it appropriate to use another form of music's categorisations to describe pop. I do amuse myself by trying to categorise singers by classical voice type: for example, Jon Anderson (singer) - is he a male alto, counter-tenor or falsetto? I'm sure he couldn't be a castrato as he has children!

--TammyMoet (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you've nailed both reasons:

1) It's not always easy to categorize singers.

2) Most people don't care. I suppose we could categorize singers based on location of moles on their bodies, too, but most people don't care about that, either. StuRat (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And note that unless we can find a reliable published source that says that this or that singer is a contralto or a baritone, we may not put that information in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's more to the point. Categorising singers by their voice types would at least have the advantage of relevance (they are singers, after all, not nuclear physicists), but they just don't seem to do this with popular singers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the categorization connected with the type of voice needed in a specific piece of classical music? For example, in The Mikado, the Grand High Executioner "Ko-Ko" is stated to be a "comic" baritone.[10] So, technically, it doesn't matter who plays the role, as long as they have that particular style of singing voice. Groucho Marx once played Ko-Ko in a TV production. Nobody really cared about his range when he was doing "Hooray for Captain Spaulding", but they did care in The Mikado. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Comic baritone" seems to be a term confined to G&S. There are lots of other baritone roles in comic operas (Don Pasquale, for example), that aren't called "comic baritones". The thing is though, to be a comic baritone, you must first be a baritone. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no "you" here who do things, unless you also count among them yourself. Add the material if you can find a reliable source for it. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

trademark for "the (generic)"

sometimes I see companies whose names are "The (generic)" where Generic is whatever they're selling, though maybe not quite how they've done it. How does that work??? Is it that they're claiming trademark on whatever it is EXACTLY that they're doing, when it is referred to as "the (generic)"? Or what is going on there? Same as calling their company something like "the (generic) company" TM. Really?

not asking for legal advice here, just curious...--188.28.194.120 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Xerox, Hoover, Biro, and the like? In those cases, the company's name was applied to the item and not the other way round. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry. In your particular examples, it would mean if there were a company called "The Photocopier Company (TM)" or made a product call "The Photocopier (TM)" or a company called "The Vacuum Cleaner Company (TM)" and made a product called "The Vacuum Cleaner (TM)". I believe in these particular product categories there is no company/product of either name - but in many others there is. How does that work? --188.28.194.120 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you refering to a Genericized trademark? --Jayron32 17:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm referring to "The Photocopier Company (TM)" if it existed. That means I couldn't start my own "The Photocopier Company" as they hold that trademark (or think they do). Does this make sense? Note that the quotation marks are important in the previous sentence. I'm not talking about a photocopier company, I'm talking about The Photocopier Company (TM). See? --188.28.194.120 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that it could be trademarked, but that only prevents other companies from using it as their name, others could still say things like "We are the photocopier company that's best for you." An example of what you're asking about might be The Band. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, The Band seems to be a perfect example, as brand is completely generic. How did that trademark work out for them? Any info or background on this aspect of The Band would be much appreciated! --188.28.194.120 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, simply put other musical acts cannot call themselves "The Band" as an official title; however the band "The Band" does not have any recourse against people using "the band" genericly; that is refering to Led Zeppelin as "The band with Robert Plant and Jimmy Page in it" or calling Kansas "The band that sang "Carry on my Wayward Son"." It just stops other musical acts from using The Band as their own official name. --Jayron32 19:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You can take a trademark on anything — like Orange for the telecommunications company, who has also trademarked the color orange for all telecommunications purposes. The trick is, as Jayron32 points out, the trademark is only applicable to their specific industry, and only in the context of products where there might be some way in which the consumer would be mistaken or mislead. (When you file for a trademark, you claim which domains you want it to apply to.) So I can certainly have an orange car, or even sell orange baseball hats. But if I was AT&T and started running all orange ads, or calling myself "Orange AT&T", I'd probably get sued for infringement. Trademarks are in a way much more broad than copyrights or patents in the issue of what can be declared protected, but the actual protections are relatively narrow. It doesn't prevent others from using or saying the name generally, just in the context of selling products or services. Trademarks are just ways so that companies can call themselves or their products something and not worry that people are going to confuse them with another company or product. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

When I was younger, I came up with what (at the time) I thought was a sure fire get rich quick scheme... I would start a band with the name "And Many More"... didn't care if we were any good, as long as we put out one self-produced album... the point was to enable me to sue the companies who created those compilation albums sold on TV ("Songs of the 70s", "Hot Hits of the 80s", etc) for false advertising... after all, they said their album contained "and many more"... but none of our songs were on it. Then an adult explained how trademarks actually work. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A better adult would have made you make soup out of that stone. You'll have taken the stone back out before consumption, but you'd have a band with good music and a published album. Oh well. --188.28.194.120 (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

United Parcel Service calls itself "Brown" in its advertising ("What can Brown do for you?", but that's probably more of a slogan than a trademark. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the USPTO, UPS did take a trademark on the term "Brown" for "Transportation and delivery of personal property by air, rail, boat and motor vehicle" in 2002, but abandoned it in 2005. (Serial number 76377164 if you want to look it up on the USPTO website trademark search; it's not linkabke unfortunately because of the way they've set their site up.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In Blueboar's example, a better name for a band might be "The Original Artists." That way, you could release a CD of cover songs, and on the label note that they were recorded by The Original Artists. — Michael J 15:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Etching/engraving style

What's the name of the style of etching or engraving shown at right, on his forehead, neck, and collar? I mean in particular the way that the lines follow the form, as opposed to cross hatching or just stippling alone. Is there a specific name for that sort of technique? --Mr.98 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this is Intaglio (printmaking), specifically Line engraving type of intaglio printing. --Jayron32 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the technique you are asking about is merely called "curved hatching", as opposed to cross hatching. See for example the second series of cylinders here, or this article (on Annibale, "light curved hatching excavates the concavity of the niche"). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I also found the relatively frequent usage of "contour hatching" (defined, e.g., as "curved lines that follow the turning of form" in Mendelowitz and Wakeham's A Guide to Drawing, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1993, p 73). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

landlocked nation

Are any landlocked nations used as flags of convininece? Is there anything preventing say Austria or Afghanistan from doing so? Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read it myself, but you can start with this: Landlocked Mongolia's Seafaring Tradition —Akrabbim^talk 20:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Our list and map suggests both Mongolia and Bolivia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Of the list List of flags of convenience, of the official "blacklists" two are landlocked, Bolivia and Mongolia. So presumably it would be possible for other landlocked countries to do the same, if they wanted in on the game. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable follow up question would be to ask what, given such land-locked flags of convenience, is a ship's port-of-registration? The answer for Mongolia appears to be (e.g. for MV Hodasco-15) the city of Ulan Bator, a city on a river that's frozen half the year, located on a dry steppe nearly a mile above sea level. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland has 32 flagged ships in its merchant fleet. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Attitudes by GW Allport, 1935

1) Is there any copy of this paper available to read online for free please? My Googling has not found one, but perhaps someone has better nous than me. 2) Where there any other similar papers or articles about attitudes published in the 1920s or 1930s? Thanks 92.24.186.129 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

politics in the home counties v. new england

The Home Counties and New England are stereotypically the most genteel middle class regions of their countries. However, they sit on very different ends of their national political spectrums.

New England is left of center and the Home Counties are right of center. I know a Conservative voter in Britain will likely share the same views as a left of center voter in the US on social issues affected by religiosity (abortion, marriage, etc.) but it seems Home Counties voters are more conservative than New Englanders on fiscal issues and other kinds of social issues (environmentalism, multiculturalism, etc.) Why do these two places seem to share such a similar cultural position in their countries yet diverge so much in politics?

34solid (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think your stereotypes may be off... the tidewater areas of Virginia and the Carolinias are arguably far more "genteel" than New England. And not all New Englanders are left of center. Blueboar (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

New England? Genteel? Have you been to South Boston? Or like, anywhere in New England? Certainly, there are places that have their gentility, but mostly its washed up irish boxers and lobster fishermen who can't be bothered to give you directions anywhere... --Jayron32 04:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Its a common habit to subsume social actuality, in particular working class actualities, behind a pseudo-bourgeois hegemonic culture standing in as the "national" representative and hegemon. I think this is what's happening here—in fact 34solid asks explicitly about "stereotypical" views. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to decide if Good Will Hunting or Dumb and Dumber as films, TV shows such as Family Guy or Cheers or novels such as The Friends of Eddie Coyle or the works of Stephen King that contain that display the stereotypical New England pseudo-bourgeois culture. Certainly, there exists in New England an upper class (see Boston Brahmin), and there are cultural works which explore it (John Irving comes to mind), but stereotypical New Englanders are the guys standing at the urinals in Fenway Park. I'm still not sure where the source of the belief is that New England is stereotypically more genteel than other parts of the U.S, moreso than say The Hamptons or Savannah, Georgia or somewhere like that which exhudes aristocracy. --Jayron32 04:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got no idea either; to this Australian, the American New England is weird free staters, NEFAC, "Is New York part of New England Again?," and the war of 1812. Rich Americans are Frick, MacNamara, Taylor, American Psycho, The Ice Storm, and anyone in Futurama wearing a monocle except Bender. Completely different stereotypes. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I used to think of New England as, well if not genteel, at least as sophistication and affluent. Then I began visiting there a lot. Now I've come to see it as a few pockets of affluent sophisticated surrounded by a kind of northern Appalachia--but without the gentleman-like behavior you find in southern Appalachia, even among the dirt poor. Pfly (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Without bothering to go into details, there's equally huge variation in social and political character within the Home Counties in the UK. Compare, for instance, Essex, Brighton, Slough and Buckinghamshire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Come friendly bombs Fifelfoo (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lived in New England (U.S.) for most of my adult life. It is certainly diverse, especially in terms of class. Still, its largest states by population, Massachusetts and Connecticut, are much more affluent than the national average. So is New Hampshire. I believe (without having time to research it) that Vermont is also above average. Maine and Rhode Island are not so affluent, and there are sizable pockets of the better-off states with high rates of poverty, particularly the old mill towns and former industrial cities. Still, the level of income and education in much of New England is high by national standards, though not more so than the New York, Washington, or San Francisco metropolitan areas. These areas do all arguably share a tendency toward social and political liberalism. They also share a degree of residual economic liberalism, by global standards, though by comparison with the radically economic liberal U.S. Republican Party, they appear left of center. I think that the reasons Northeastern (and Northern California) liberals tend to reject the radical economic liberalism of the Republican Party are quite complex. It might seem to be in their personal financial interest to adopt the Republican low-tax, small-government philosophy. However, Northeastern liberals I think recognize that they live in complex urban economies that really depend on a degree of state spending to function smoothly. Also, there is a bit of an attitude of noblesse oblige, especially in New England. Liberalism is a quintessentially bourgeois philosophy, and I think that the bourgeoisies of New England and Southeastern England would actually agree on a lot, in classic liberal terms. I think that the main difference is their political context. The state has a much larger (non-military) role in the United Kingdom, and its bourgeoisie may therefore be more focused on reining it in. By contrast, the state has a relatively small role (aside from military spending) in the United States, particularly in the Northeast with its neglected infrastructure and aging cities. Consequently, the Northeastern bourgeoisie tends to support a larger role for the state. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To summarize my main point, I think that the views of the affluent in New England and in the Home Counties are probably not very far apart. It is just that those views are left of center in the United States and right of center in the United Kingdom, because the "center" in the United States is so much farther to the right. Marco polo (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

One last thought on this. The bourgeoisie of New England is really not "genteel" in the same way as the upper classes of the South is or were. The New England elite have never shied away from commerce and have been resolutely republican (in the sense of rejecting aristocracy and monarchy) since the 18th century. This attitude contrasts with the Tory tradition that prevails in the Home Counties. Marco polo (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Massachussets has several formerly industrialised, now de-industrialised areas which naturally tend to be leftist and pro-labor, as in the north of England, Scotland, the midwest, etc. There's a strong tradition of libertarianism in New England, running back to the Revolutionary War, which has no parallel in the home counties; this leads to support for some liberal/leftist issues like gay rights as well as some anti-statist feeling. Cambridge, Ma and Cambridge, England seem to be politically quite similar (centres of higher education tend to be left-wing). Also, large areas of the home counties in England are frequently filled by people rich enough to move out of London, rather than people who grew up there - in contrast New England is seeing depopulation in many areas. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Greece's debt to Germany and France

How much does Greece owes to countries like Germany and France? 88.8.78.155 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Germany and France in specific, but if you look at the whole world the answer would be on the order of -$60 trillion (negative sixty trillion dollars), which is the world's GDP, nearly all of it owed to ancient Greek creation of Western Civilization. That is just a single year's GDP too (really we should consider several years), to say nothing of the compound interest over a period of 2000+ years. A more reasonable figure would be -$8000 trillion (before you balk at that amount, consider the 100,000 years that humanity has existed in modern form, and the number of years into the future it will continue to exist. From a discounted present value perspective, I think -$8000 trillion is just the right amount to value the world's debt to Greece at). But you asked about Germany and France. Well, one year's GDP for them is something like $4trillion, so let's say 50 years (which means not paying any interest at all to speak of on the Greek contribution): then they owe Greece something like $200 trillion. --188.28.194.120 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would the Western world owe Ancient Greece? They get credit enough. Mingmingla (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that they received too much (financial) credit. Flamarande (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Really very funny, Greeks as a kind of patent holder on Western Civilization? So, every time you behave like a civilized Western person you'll have to pay. That means Germans would have to pay less than the French, I suppose... 88.8.78.155 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Patents don't even last 50 years, and Greece didn't even file, so I think your calculations are a bit off. Googlemeister (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

According to an article from The Independent, "French banks hold Greek debt worth €56bn, the German exposure is €34bn". Looie496 (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You see? Being less civilized pays off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.78.155 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Being a bit less reckless pays off. Flamarande (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Blueboar (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're resorting to a quote, I would to answer with another quote by a barbarian chieftain (as reported by a Roman historian). He said something about how the Romans always love to say that they are here only to make peace and bring order but then devastate the land and kill a lot of people. However I don't know the name of the barbarian chief or of the Roman historian. Perhaps someone could help me? Flamarande (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It was Calgacus, he was quoted by Tacitus. Solitudinem faciunt pacem apellant - "They make a wilderness and call it peace". I think Byron used it somewhere too. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the one: "Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. - To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace." Thanks DuncanHill. Flamarande (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Conan, what is best in life?" 91.85.140.182 (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hot water, good dentistry and soft lavatory paper. Tevildo (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No crushing of enemies? Googlemeister (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)