Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 28

= April 28 =

Fear of reprisal
If I were a member of the current North Vietnamese government would I have anything to fear from John McCain being elected President of the United States? 71.100.11.39 (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "North Vietnam" no longer exists. It's now part of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, which includes the entire country. And the U.S. long ago recognized and made peace with the country. So no, I don't think so. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Be afraid. Be very afraid. Edison (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you were a member of the Vietnamese government, you very well could worry about McCain bringing attention to human rights abuses in your country. However, as President, McCain will have far less power to do anything substantial than he currently has as a member of the Senate. --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's accurate to say he "will have far less power" as president than as a senator. Presidents generally get wide latitude in setting foreign policy and get to appoint the secretary of state and ambassadors, negotiating treaties, etc. A senator is merely one vote out of a hundred that gets to ratify appointments and treaties. A senator on the foreign relations committee would certainly have more influence than other senators over foreign policy, but still much less than the president. (McCain isn't on that committee.) That said, the status quo policy on Vietnam has wide support and I doubt McCain would change it much as president. A search of John McCain's campaign website shows the only mentions of Vietnam are in relation to his service in the Vietnam War and his time as a POW. No mention of contemporary Vietnam. --D. Monack | talk 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * McCain was, in fact, among the first Congressional proponents of normalizing US relations with Vietnam. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For those interested, here is the full text of former Pres. Clinton's 1995 speech on relations with Vietnam. Note how he thanked Sen. McCain and a few others who - in Clinton's words - "were able to move beyond the haunting and painful past toward finding common ground for the future". While we are on the topic, here's an NY Times article from 1988 on Sen. McCain's efforts to normalize relations with Vietnam. Overall they make interesting reading. I do wonder if this will be used as a campaign issue this year? - Thanks, Hoshie 08:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

playing in the street

 * Please note: The responses had been re-ordered by the questioner, and, as a consequence, the thread became confusing. I have put the comments back in chronological order, and changed the indenting as was appropriate. I have changed no text within any comment. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Our town has a law (misdemeanor) against blocking traffic by one or more persons in the street which is the basis for a code enforcement (civil) law that prohibits basketball nets being set up on the curb or in the street. Youth refuse to comply with this law and setup the nets and play in the street anyway. Code enforcement and the police will enforce the law but only under a large amount of pressure. The consequence is not as significant for motor vehicles as it is for bicyclists who the players absolutely refuse to grant the right-of-way, especially if they are burdened with groceries, etc. What steps can a bicyclist use to deal with this effectively on a daily basis if an alternate route is unavailable? (BTW, this is a perfect example how one culture is totally ignorant of the many cases and long history behind the need to have and maintain right-a-ways. PS. I'm not asking for legal advice either although I am looking for a solution that is legal. I already know that I can spend 130 weeks worth of groceries on an attorney to find out where each player lives and file a law suit.) 71.100.11.39 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will ignore the aside about what "one culture" does or doesn't understand, and comment only on the basic issue. If a polite "Beep, beep; Excuse me; I'm coming through" doesn't work, then I suggest (as there are likely more of them than you) you get off your bike and walk it through the game, with the same degree of care and courtesy as you would if you were not on a bike. You could also stop to talk to the youths at some time other than when you are trying to pass through an active game, explaining your difficulty, but I would not recommend you bring to that talk either attitude or a legalistic approach. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you considered filing a petition with your city/municipal or county government. It seems there is a need for basketball courts/ community space for juveniles in your neighborhood.  If you get all sides of this issue together (cyclists, players, parents, drivers) you might even get a signature list going.  Some local governments have open sessions where "the public" can ask questions and request actions.  You may even find it on your TV.  Your local/district/county representative will also be more receptive to the needs of his/her constituents around election time.  Also consider hooking up with bigger groups like the local cycling association, scouts, neighborhood association, urban community projects etc., etc.  The more the merrier.  If you can find a pot among all the public funds that would pay for the costs that would be a cherry.  (There's a lot of money out there that is set aside and doesn't get spent in the right place or on the intended purpose because no one asks for it). Win-lose strategies (right of way) only work if you have the upper hand, otherwise win-win strategies (you get your space, I get mine) have more of a chance of getting you somewhere. Hope this helps.--71.236.23.111 (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously suggesting that someone in this "one culture" should take personal responsibility and simply walk safely - or worse, drop the passive-aggressive attitude and discuss the problem directly with those who are part of the problem? That isn't how they do it on TV.  You are supposed to complain to everyone (except those who can do something about the problem) and eventually explode with hostility one day and drive an SUV through the game at high speed.  At least that is how I figure this "one culture" works. --  k a i n a w &trade; 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You should not ignore the mention of "one culture" since it is the crux of the problem. What should not be ignored either is your same lack of knowledge and comprehension regarding the need and purpose for designating right of ways. I know of a case where day after day a motorist's right to pass was denied until one day his wife's urgent phone call turned his need to pass into an emergency. Instead of using the right of way which had been provided by the City, namely the street, he was forced to use the yard of the property owner where the net had been placed; destroying in the process, a fence, a hedge, a lawn, and a tree while on the return trip to the hospital with his wife lying in the back seat moaning and his horn blowing nailed a number of defiant players. He was of course arrested at the hospital and eventually released but all this just because the members of a more privative culture decided they owned the street and the right of way was theirs. That's what you can expect when members of a culture with more primitive rules rejects the rules of a more sophisticated culture that have been developed over time from many relevant cases representing both sides of the argument. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I have tried that on several occasions at more than one location and invariably you become treated as an intruder or as an invader of the more primitive culture's space. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding the agonizingly careful language, this is beginning to have the smell of a rant about it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Only in response to your comment and defense of the awareness of how the failure to acknowledge the difference in rules followed by one culture versus another actually plays out. It may very well seem like a rant to someone unwilling to comply with the rules of the more sophisticated culture when it is in reality only a statement that a conflict in the rules exists and the more sophisticated rules are the law of the land, which are being defied and not followed. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion. I just completed as a matter of fact a petition for sidewalks on a street in a different part of the neighborhood. I have also provided a copy of the law to the property owners who leave the nets out on the streets. They know what the law is but remain defiant and demand to have it their way. They do have other places they can play such as in their driveways instead of on the street which is why we suspect that their true motive for playing in traffic is so they can agitate drivers and have a more interesting game. 71.100.11.39 (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It couldn't possibly be that the street offers them more room to play their game, could it? That said, please drop the soapboxing about "more primitive" cultures. It's very difficult to see you as the grieved party when using such inflammatory rhetoric. -- Kesh (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) My advice would be to sit them down and have a talk with them, being careful to explain to them why they are so primitive and you are so sophisticated. I think the problem will probably resolve itself at that point. Recury (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The only things we know for certain are that the basketball players are young and in a different culture to you. So I'm going to assume youth subculture but which of these is it? I see there's nothing on that list dealing with street-basketball playing youth so perhaps you can add to it?
 * 71.236 mentioned the parents, did you try them?
 * Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How about a little perspective? Is it really that inconvenient to ride around the children?  Is this a residential neighborhood?  Give the kids a break.  I'm sure you are very by the book, but I've noticed many bicyclists who couldn't care less for the rules, riding on the wrong side of the street, going the wrong way on a one-way street, acting as if stop signs and red lights don't apply to them.  All of this leads to little respect toward bicyclists. --Nricardo (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In Britain the solution would be to buy a bicycle-bell. In American the solution is to buy a bigger gun than the children have - or at least that's the impression I get from watching Hollywood movies. But seriously I think the essential thing is to appear to be nice and friendly to the children while explaining the problem to them - kids have such a small range of attention that they may not have realised its a problem, and speaking to them in a friendly manner will also mean they recognise you as a person rather than an anomymous (sp?) thing. And I think you mean "right of way" rather than "right a way". 80.0.98.253 (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Older art (war based)
Okay this is the only place i can think of that could answer this, i hope i am not placing this in the wrong section! :)

I am looking for some images of some old art, and unfortunately i dont know where it is from or what it is called, consequentially, i cant really search so well for it can i?!

The art depicts (i think) characters at war, or characters in general in such a way as it tells a story. It is sort of cave painting style in this manner because it tells something with pictures, but it definately seems to be way past that era, possibly done on paper or some form of fabric.

The art commonly has text above in a thick sort of calligraphy. The language i dont know, but it could be an old form of english, whereas the letter V is standing for a modern U or such. Im not certain about that though.

It is POSSIBLE that the type of text or the language in which it is written could be somewhat common in images of a catholic origin. I'm not sure.....

I have described what i am looking for to the best of my ability. I will add more if i think of it, but does anyone have an idea what i may be speaking of?

137.81.113.204 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 137, I'm not absolutely sure what it is that you are looking for, but it occurs to me that the Bayeux Tapestry depicts a story of politics and war in very much in the manner you describe. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty much exactly it! Is there a name given to depictions LIKE this one, so that i may find more of the same style? At least i know its language and location now and one instance of it! THANKS! 137.81.113.204 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot say if there is a specific name given to this art form, but for another in very much the same style there is the Overlord embroidery. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Intereesting range of dates, the events are 1066 and 1944... but both about normandy.... HM! Thank you very much Clio! :) 137.81.113.204 (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are other embroideries of this kind: for example the Hastings embroidery and the Plymouth tapestry  and the New World tapestry.  SaundersW (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Islam sometimes considered an Eastern religion?
Is Islam sometimes considered an Eastern religion? Islam has more followers in the Eastern countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, and India. It look like an Eastern religion to me because of followers in the Eastern world and It's Middle Eastern culture. Jet (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If by "eastern religion" you mean the ones that are lumped together like Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc, then no, not at all. Islam is lumped together in another group with Christianity and Judaism, the "Abrahamic religions". Adam Bishop (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Christianity is popular in Australia, which is very far east. That doesn't make it an eastern religion. Paragon12321 (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do some people in the Middle East don't know Western culture?
I was chatting online with a Muslim missionary on Friday night. The missionary is in Saudi Arabia. I told him, about the leis and other Western cultures. He doesn't know that because Islamic culture does not include Western culture. Jet (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What are the leis? And why is this surprising? Most westerners don't know anything about Islam. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ...or Hinduism, or Buddhism. Slightly more confusing:  Saudia Arabia has Islam as a state religion and 100% of the population are Muslims.  What would be the task of a missionary in this country?  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think most westerners don't know much about LEIS, either, despite its being a product of their own culture. Algebraist 10:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about Hawaiian leis? These aren't really a part of Western culture, though most Westerners know about it, if only through The Brady Bunch. --D. Monack | talk 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most Westerners have only a passing knowledge of the Brady Bunch. I, personally was aware of the floral reefs, but didn't know they were known as leis - however, I doubt the OP was refering to those. 89.213.79.245 (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No More Heroes Any More
In criticising Thomas Carlyle's great man theory of history Herbert Spencer said that an individual is the creation of a series of complex influences and long before he can remake his society, his society must make him. Does this mean that the actions of any given historical figure are only of passing relevance, and that things would have happened in much the same way, even if he had never existed? Count Fosco (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose what he was saying was that to attribute the great changes throughout history to individuals is to ignore the processes that shaped those individuals. It could be interpreted as meaning that if it wasn't for Napolean, someone else would have have done what he did, or it could be interpreted as saying that Napolean is only important insofar as he is a figurehead for the numerous social and political movements that made him into the Napolean we know and lead to the actions that made him famous. I'm just speculating here, I have only a passing knowledge of the great man theory.--Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Spencer's view is similar to Marx's: "Man makes his own history but not in the conditions of his own choosing"; "the educator must himself be educated". (Sexist language the fault of the translator!) The "great man" view was very prevalent in the 19th century, when schools saw it as their role to hold up models to be emulated, hence the need for writers to critique it. I think these critiques can be taken in a strong sense or a weak one. In a strong sense, people's actions hardly matter at all, and social forces account for everything. But if we take them in a weaker sense, we must take into account that the "great" person's character was formed by social influences, but once that character is formed, the person's actions can have a decisive effect at certain historical junctures. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you want a novel written with no other purpose in mind than to critique the "great man" view of history, pick up War and Peace. -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Spencer is, of course, reacting to Thomas Carlyle's statement to the effect that "the history of the world is but the biography of great men" by pushing the pendulum in the other direction. The reaction is understandable, and the corrective necessary. There are few modern historians who take Carlyle's inflated accounts of Robespierre or Napoleon seriously, just as few have any patience with his over-ripe and flowery prose.

The unfortunate thing is that pendulum has remained for too long at the other extreme, held in position by those who followed in the steps of Ferdinand Braudel, E P Thompson and the like. The altogether tiresome 'history from below school' has become just that-tiresome! In my experience academics are, once again, beginning to pay close attention to the actions and decisions taken by key players at key moments in time. What, for instance, if Constantine the Great, had been killed at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, would the history of the Roman Empire have proceeded along the same lines; would we now, perhaps, be investigating Christianity as just another vanished cult along with Mithraism? What shape would the modern world have if Mohammed-or Lenin-had never been born? Is it possible to imagine that the history of Europe would have taken the same course in the middle of the last century if Adolf Hitler had never emerged from the doss-houses of Vienna, or if Soso Dzhugashvili had become an Orthodox priest?

Count Fosco, you might wish to have a look at Ian Kershaw's Fateful Choices, which touches on some of these themes. And I can assure you that it is far, far easier to get students interested in the sex-life of Henry VIII, or Charles II, than it is in crop rotation and trade patterns! Make room always for the big ideas...and for the great people. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet
please what is long source of present difficulty with china and tibet? Sreykor (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow that's a difficult question. Have a look at Tibet. To simplify, Tibet has (sort of) always been a part of China. To quote the article: "no nation has ever recognized Tibet as independent". Tibet is obviously a Buddhist region, and as China is a communist state it is committed to atheism. So there's a bit of conflict there. When the Republic of China formed in 1912, the Dalai Lama declared Tibetan seperation from the new state, which was treated as de facto independence until 1950. In the late 1940s, as the Communist Party gained power in China, there was immense internal pressure to reclaim Tibet as a part of China, resulting in an invasion. The Chinese communists saw Tibet as a backward region that was stuck with a heirarchical feudal system and which refused to modernise. Much of the conflict comes from the two opposing political systems. Tibet is ruled by the Dalai Lama under the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism, while China is ruled by (at present) Hu Jintao under the teachings of communism and ba rong ba chi. China sees itself as having a claim on Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China, while many Tibetans want at least greater autonomy, if not independence. The current Dalai Lama does not make claims that Tibet should be independent, but does want greater autonomy and a respect for Tibetan traditions and culture. These cultures and traditions are often antithetical to the Chinese communist tenets of government, especially the elevation of the Dalai Lama to near-godly status. Recently, due to the emigration of Tibetans and the resulting Western trend for new age mysticism, often combining elements of Buddhism, Tibet has become an issue in Western countries, which has increased scrutiny on Chinese activites there. As China is a known abuser of human rights, the cause of Tibet is championed around the world, to the dissatisfaction of many Chinese nationals and expatriates who take the view that Tibet is indeed a part of mainland China. Much of the problem goes back into the 13th century when China was controlled by the Mongol empire, and then later when China was unifed under the Qing dynasty. Tibet has been a part of China for a long time, but it has generally been left alone by the various governments that have ruled it, as it has little strategic value and few natural resources. The current incarnation of the Chinese government, however, dislike the idea of a region operating under medieval religious traditions and as such have attepted to reintegrate Tibet into mainland China. This has exacerbated the problems in the region, helping no-one and creating the modern situation. I hope that helps. --Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Next time I see a contribution here appended with the formulae 'I hope that helps', which seems to appear ad nauseam, I may very well scream out loud! Or, better still, I shall conclude my own with 'I really do not care if this helps or not, but I have spoken!  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! It would be pretty neat if you could similarly summarise all the other current world events that we should know about! Seans Potato Business 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tibet has (sort of) always been a part of China. And Hungary and Serbia have (sort of) always been a part of Turkey; Hawaii has (sort of) always been part of the United States; Sinkiang has (sort of) always been part of China; Afghanistan has (sort of) always been part of Greece... --Wetman (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC).


 * I suppose that's a fair point, although none of those situations (apart from Xinjiang) could claim equivalance with that in Tibet. I was attempting to summarise the complexities of the issue for the OP. I admitted that I was simplifying vastly, but Tibet has been a part of China for hundreds of years and continues to be so today. The history of the formation of the various Asian states is long and complex, and I was simply trying to get across the point that Tibet has been a part of China for as long as the current incarnation of China has existed. The current problems in Tibet don't really go back further than that, so I saw no need to go into the politics of over a millenium ago. I wasn't trying to give an exhaustive answer, but I felt that I covered the overwhelming majority of the issues, gave links to some informative articles and tried to not take sides on the issue. If you disagree with what I wrote, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but the fact that Tibet has (sort of) been a part of China since its unification is a major factor in the troubles there today. The Tibetans aren't happy with being a part of China and China is not willing to relinquish a territory that has been a part of it for hundreds of years. As I admitted, this is an oversimplifaction, but it illustrates the facts well and the articles I linked to should have more thorough explantions. --Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Syrekor, China and Tibet existed together for many centuries in what might be thought of as a symbiotic partnership, where each derived positive benefits from the other. Tibet is a poor country with few natural resources. What was important, it might be said, was its spiritual power, not its material wealth. It was this that the Tibetans used in their exchanges with their more powerful neighbour to the east; passing on something of their spiritual knowledge-and magic-in return for protection and other forms of support. It was a mutually-beneficial relationship that went back to the time of the Mongols.

In 1244 the Mongols, who had conquered much of China, reached an agreement with the powerful Buddhist religious order of Tibet. In return for access to some of the more esoteric branches of Tibetan knowledge, the Mongols appointed the monks to rule the area on their behalf. It was the beginnings of the patron/priest relationship. Even Kublai Khan's chief spiritual advisor was a Tibetan Buddhist, famed for his alleged magical powers. The relationship between the Mongols and the Tibetans deepened over time. It was Altan Khan, a later Mongol ruler, who is though to have bestowed the title of Dalai Lama on the Tibetan holy man who converted his people to Buddhism. The fifth Dalai Lama was even to call on Mongol troops to defeat his internal enemies. And thus the partnership was established, one of equals. And for as long as the rulers of China coveted Tibet's spiritual wealth, then it remained for all practical purposes as an independent nation. From the Mongols to the Manchus, Lhasa was the spiritual centre of the Chinese world.

But Tibet's unique spiritual heritage, the tradition of Lamaism itself, was accompanied by growing political weakness. The whole structure, the balance between spiritual wealth and earthly power, was threatened as external forces came into play in the nineteenth century, when Britain and Russia began to struggle for influence in Central Asia in the so-called The Great Game. When the British invaded Tibet in 1903, forcing the then Dalai Lama to take refuge in China two things became clear: Tibet was incapable of defending itself and its weakness was a threat to the security of the Chinese state. It was from this point that the ancient symbiosis began to degenerate. The Chinese managed to re-impose their control of the area but were driven out by the Tibetans themselves after the onset of the Revolution of 1911.

When the Communists came to power in 1949, ending decades of anarchy and civil war, the old spiritual bond between Tibet and China was gone forever. All that remained was a security threat. Mao Zedong, fearful that Tibet would fall under the control of the western powers during the Cold War, invaded and occupied the country in the early 1950s. The Chinese arrived no longer as protectors but as nationalists, determined to continue with the creation of an integrated and unified state. It was against this background that Tibetan cultural identity was seen not as an asset but as a threat. The Mountain Kingdom of the Spirit was simply no longer needed. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone I know wrote an article for his university's student newspaper that explains some of the background, although he focuses mainly on the events around the Qing dynasty. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wittgenstein at Cambridge
I believe that when Wittgenstein taught at Cambridge he had a ferocious reputation. Seemingly only Alan Turing ever had the courage to contradict him. Are there any details on his teaching method, his approach to students and the nature of his dispute with Turing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet Eldridge (talk • contribs) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Back in Cambridge in 1939, (Turing) attended lectures by Ludwig Wittgenstein about the foundations of mathematics. The two argued and disagreed vehemently, with Turing defending formalism and Wittgenstein arguing that mathematics is overvalued and does not discover any absolute truths." Jenseits aller Gewissheit - Die Begegnung zwischen Alan Turing und Ludwig Wittgenstein, ISBN 3-85218-203-4 SaundersW (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC) The book to hunt for is Wittgenstein's Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, Cambridge, 1939
 * Ludwig Wittgenstein, ed Cora Diamond, which has been assembled from notes taken by R. G. Bosanquet, Norman Malcolm, Rush Rhees, and Yorick Smythies. SaundersW (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are still stories circulating in Cambridge about Wittgenstein's time. There was a bizarre, almost Monty-Python like quality to his lectures. His students were obliged to bring along deck-chairs, on which they all sat in absolute silence while the professor remained immersed in thought. Every so often this silence would be punctuated as Wittgenstein, in the midst of deep labours, would deliver some idea! He would on occasions turn on one of his students and start a rigorous intellectual interrogation, a process that has been likened to being under examination by the Spanish Inquisition.

He had the capacity, by sheer strength of his intellect, and his relentlessness in pursuit of a point, to reduce his audience to a state of terror. You are right, Jet, that the only person with sufficient courage to stand up to him was Alan Turing. Wittgenstein maintained in one of his lectures that a system-such as logic or mathematics-could remain valid even if it contained a contradiction. Turing rejected this, saying there was no pint in building a bridge with mathematics that contained a hidden contradiction, otherwise the structure might collapse. Wittgenstein responded by saying that such empirical considerations had no place in logic, but Turing persisted. How I would love to have been present! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I vote anywhere? Does my opinion mean anything?
As a British student (23), studying in the Netherlands, the only tax that I pay being on goods that I buy and my (paltry) income in the Netherlands, do I have any right to vote in any political elections or even write to any MPs in either country?
 * You can vote in European parliament elections in the Netherlands (and in the UK, as far as I can see). It's possible you can also vote in other elections there (EU citizens can vote in UK local elections, for example); I don't know. You can also vote in national (but not local) British elections: see here. Algebraist 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to have lived in the Netherlands for five years in order to eligible to vote in the municipal elections. Without a Dutch passport you can't vote in the general election. You can vote for either the Dutch or UK European Parliament candidates. You are free to write or sign petitions to Dutch MPs or to attend meetings. You can even become a member of one of the political parties and have influence on the selection of candidates and the writing of the election manifesto. But you can't vote in general elections. C mon (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that five-year requirement conflict with EU treaties? As far as I know EU citizens have a general right to vote and stand as a candidate in municipal elections in the member state they reside in. 84.239.133.86 (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Algebraist's link doesn't work, for me at least, but here's a link to the website of the British consulate in the Hague where you can read about how to register to vote in British elections in the Netherlands. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! I have to get a British expatriate to sign as a witness. By 'witness' does that mean they have to observe me signing the form, or can I sign it and send it to them? --Seans Potato Business 20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

De Beauvoir and Genet
Sartre was fascinated by Jean Genet, even writing a book about him. Do we know if Simone de Beauvoir had the same high estimation of the thief/homosexual/poet/author.Steerforth (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sartre and Beauvoir met Genet in 1944, in the last months of the occupation of France, and both became his friends at a time when the Maquis and the Resistance of the Left were embracing not just sabotage but also all kinds of criminalty to fight the Germans. A few years later, in 1948, Genet was facing a life sentence for ordinary crime, and Beauvoir joined Sartre, Gide, Claudel, Cocteau and others in their successful efforts to get him a pardon from Vincent Auriol, the French President. But her admiration didn't go to such extremes as Sartre's. Genet was so horrified by Sartre's book about him, by the way, that he tried to burn it. Oddly enough, Genet died the day after Beauvoir - Jacques Chirac linked the two and said "The end of an era". Xn4  22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would go a little further than Xn4: de Beauvoir developed a pronounced dislike for Genet. She described him as the "bitchy queen, fairy, gossip" who was also the "thief, juvenile delinquent, bastard and protégé of Sartre."  She was particularly uncomfortable when he insisted on giving lurid descriptions of his homosexual encounters and when he told of violent robberies,  She says that when she worked her way through the proofs of Saint Genet she felt both 'repulsion and violation.'  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can never catch you out, Clio, can I?Steerforth (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why she's a Muse. Vranak (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can keep trying, Steerforth! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A play about amputees in garbage cans
I've been trying to remember the title and author of an Absurdist play that I'm sure I've heard of, in which the only characters are two homeless men with no limbs sitting in garbage cans. I thought it might be by Samuel Beckett, but apparently not, or if so I can't find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.85.171 (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could be Beckett's Endgame, there's a man and a woman in garbage cans, but they're not the only characters in the play and they do have limbs (well, arms at least). --Richardrj talkemail 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am reaonably sure that you are referring to Beckett´s "Endgame". Negg and Nell, the two characters in the rubbish bins, are without legs and the protagonist, Hamm, is paralyzed in a wheelchair.  The only mobile character is Clov, a sort of reversed Godot.   --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tailoring question about shirts
There is a thing on the back of shirts sometimes, usually western shirts, or outdoors-style where there is what I would only describe as an extra flap of material. It covers the upper back, but stops usually about 40-50% down the back in a hemmed, but open flap. This piece of material is on top of material that would be on a normal shirt I think. I'm looking for what it's called, searching is hard since I can't get many good terms... :) - cohesion 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This doesn't really answer your specifics, but there's a western style yoke, for shirts, found on jeans as well. The one you mean is on the Driza-Bone western duster as a weather run-off and on the shirt, it could be a variation of the yoke or a double of it. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is an open-style yoke or vented back (probably because most guys think a yoke is a driving wheel for an airplane), commonly found on outdoor clothing. It usually covers a mesh material for ventilation.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a picture under the name of a vented back. SaundersW (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, thanks! It has mesh underneath? Crazy. :) - cohesion 12:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes- they are quite comfortable in the summer. They will probably become more popular with global warming.  :)  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to What's What, edited by Reginald Bragonier, Jr and David Fisher (Ballantine Books, 1981), on page 196, the piece at the back of a trench coat which is (OR in this opinion) the likely precursor to the design of the shirt, is called a "storm shield" at the back and a "storm patch" where it appears at the front. The epaulet (the tab across the top of the shoulder, usually with a botton at the outside end) covers the seam at the top of the shoulder where "storm guard" and "storm patch" meet) thus (OR again) keeping the rain from dripping through the seam. I believe the shirt style to have been just a copy of the coat. And it is a wicked bit to iron in a shirt! ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur on the ironing part. User:Krator (t c) 16:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Search for two phrases
I'm thinking of two different phrases, and blanking on what they are... The first means something along the lines of "illusion of reality" and refers to, well, the illusion of reality in fiction: plays, novels, films, etc. One could break this phrase by, say, breaking the fourth wall, by showing that it's not real after all, but "fourth wall" isn't the phrase I'm looking for. I feel like this is an obvious phrase that I just can't place.

The other one I'm less sure about, an example of it would be the point at which robots become conscious or as conscious as humans and can think. I guess this is mostly a science fiction phrase, but I have a feeling it's not just. Another example might be animals becoming fully conscious (ie thinking for themselves, having non-basic "intelligence"), or a theory that universes themselves could become conscious. Any ideas? --zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * suspension of disbelief, technological singularity --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 22:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A different answer for the first one is "verisimilitude". On the second, I've read a lot of SF and I can't think of an expression that refers specifically to the point at which a being becomes conscious or intelligent; I don't think the above answer hits it.  Words like "awakening" are sometimes used. --Anonymous, 22:45 UTC, April 28, 2008.


 * Virtual reality what you were looking for? The other one may be Artificial intelligence or Strong AI. Self awareness or Sentience are also good candidates. An  extension of Gaia philosophy would be your last thought. Have a look through the philosophy topics. --Lisa4edit (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the first, maybe immersion? SaundersW (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some science fiction uses the term uplifted when something like an animal or other non-sentient becomes intelligent due to external forces. - cohesion 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Vernor Vinge made singularity a popular term, while uplifted was first used by David Brin.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  14:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I recall, the term used by David Mitchell in Cloud Atlas is "ascended".SaundersW (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See Biological uplift and associated articles. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ShareAlike copyright question.
I have a question about the ShareAlike license: say that there is a song that's been licensed under CC-BY-SA, and I want to use that song in my movie. Will my entire movie have to be ShareAlike-licensed?

I'm fairly certain that the answer is no: no reasonable person could think that a 90 minute movie is a "derivative work" of a 45-second clip of a song contained within it. I mean, that's silly. It's obviously a different thing if I'm making a music video or something, but the fact is that if I just use it on my soundtrack, I'm not making a derivative. I'm just distributing it along with my movie.

That's certainly how Wikipedia works, isn't it? I mean, we're free to include ShareAlike images in articles, without resorting to fair use, but the articles aren't necessarily licensed under ShareAlike (which of course they can't be, since that would be a violation of the GFDL, and the previous editors copyright). Isn't this the same situation as with my movie? --Oskar 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, if you want to use the 45 seconds, you have to license your entire thing CC-BY-SA. (Copyleft is not really about total freedom; it's about an alternative regime of copyright protections that works differently.) That's the whole point of SA -- to keep people from using the work in things that are licensed otherwise. And yes, any new work you make using a copyrighted work is considered a derivative work. It doesn't matter how brief or how tiny it is in the context of the movie, unless it falls under fair use (which requires taking other things into consideration as well). But yes, your movie would be considered a derivative work if you wanted to use copyrighted (even if it is "copyleft") material in it, by definition. All "derivative work" means in this (legal) context is that it is a work based on or derived from previously existing works.
 * Wikipedia falls under the CC category of "Collections" (see 1.b), which means that it is a work made up of individually licensed works, easily distinguishable from one another (the text is GFDL, but the images are all differently licensed and are easily labeled as such. In general a movie wouldn't fall under this category (an exception would be a movie that was nothing but a bunch of discrete film clips in a row, each labeled with their copyright status and not overlapping with one another); your described use would not fall under this category. --69.110.41.71 (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course you're always free to contact the copyright holder and come to some sort of arrangement with them which allows you to use the work under a different license. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)