Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 January 10

= January 10 =

we are ispanic family.
our question is hoe we can become part of your nation because we'r living in this country for some many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.18.117 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you're a Hispanic family which wants to become US citizens ? Or are you in another country ?  What is you're current status ?  Do you have green cards, or are you in the country illegally ? StuRat (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not meaning to get all Hermione Granger about it, but let's make sure this doesn't cross into legal advice territory. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This could be a question about gaining a sense of participation, of belonging, that is not legal, but emotional or psychological. However, as we are not even certain of the country involved, it is difficult to know which way to orient an answer. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess that's better than getting all Hermione Baddeley about it. If they are interested in citizenship, there's plenty of ways to help with that without giving legal advice.  We could refer them to an INS site which lists the requirements to obtain citizenship, for example. StuRat (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We aren't sure exactly what you're asking or which nation you want to become a part of. Wikipedia is international. This is just an opinion, but if you have been living in a country for many years, then I think that you are part of it, even if you don't have legal status.  If it is legal status that you want, we are sorry that Wikipedia cannot offer legal advice, but you may be able to find a lawyer or other expert advice at an organization dedicated to helping immigrants.  We might be able to find such an organization in your country if we knew which country that is.  Marco polo (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * IP looks up to US so I suspect the first guess is right. Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Situation in Myanmar
Does anyone know of any good ideas that can help improve the conflict in Myanmar, aside from economic sanctions? Any ideas would be much appreciated.

-Julie
 * Julie, this is a reference desk.--Wetman (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I am aware of that. Sorry I do not understand, but what you are implying?
 * What I think he's getting at is we're quite good at answering questions that have a definitive answer - e.g. "What percentage of the average human body is water?" and less good at answering questions that have more subjective answers - e.g. "What is the meaning of life?". To go back to your original question - there are various methods of pressure that could be applied aside from economic sanctions - diplomatic pressure, UN resolutions, offering economic aid in exchange for democratic reforms or even military action. However the bottom line is that only the people of Myanmar have the right and ability to decide the future of their country - there are over 50 million people there - and 500,000 soldiers. No military dictatorship could continue in power should the entire country turn against them. Exxolon (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Inaugural Youth Concert
I know this is a pretty atypical question for the RD, but I've tried googling all different variants on the question and am surprisingly not getting anything. Does anybody know where to get tickets to the youth concert on January 19 in Washington DC? It is officially connected to the Inauguration. Admission is free but tickets are required… where can we get them? Thanks, Fbv65 e del — t — c // 05:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the Verizon Center site, there has yet been no announcement about tickets, though the schedule does show the event at the Center. If you click on the link in this paragraph, there is a further link to a site where you can leave your email address in order to receive information as it becomes available. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

looking up entry/exit requirements for travel
is there a place where one can find entry/exit requirements to various countries for chinese nationals who are also u.s. permanent residents (green card holders)? there are various countries for which the consular sites say that us nationals do not require a visa while chinese nationals do. However, these sites do not say anything about chinese nationals with green cards. --Blahmebe (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The most authoritative reference is the consular sites, which you've already looked at, or actually contacting consulates/embassies. The green card is not a travel document or passport, and (as you'll see from consular sites) most countries base their visa requirements on nationality not residency, so it is likely that most of them will not consider possession of a green card as grounds to exempt you from visa requirements. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You may find this site, created by a number of airlines, useful. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It was very helpful. It seems, unfortunately, that Mexico is one of the few places that exempts Chinese nationals from visa requirements on the basis of having a green card. --Blahmebe (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't surprise me. As other have mentioned, residency in another country is usually not of great interest to any country. The only exceptions are likely to be in neighbouring countries or other countries with a particular close relationship. For example, Australian residents in NZ Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In how far is Palestine a souvereign country?
How much is Palestine a sovereign country? I don't mean international recognition, but domestically. There is a government, albeit split now, but how completely does it govern? For example, afaik it doesn't have a regular army (which I suppose is why Hamas is called a terrorist organisation). Israel invaded the Gaza Strip, so it had no military presence there. But on the West Bank, Israel puts up road blocks and walls, so does it effectively police that area? Or does the PLO also have a police? On this map, do the Palestinians have complete control over the green areas? For another aspect, does Palestine have its own money and can it freely trade with other countries without interference from Israel? For example, I understand that Palestinians (at least in the Gaza strip) need permission from Israel to leave their country (or whatever it should be called). Is this true? DirkvdM (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From my understanding, the West Bank is divided into Israeli-controlled (Area C) and Palestinian-controlled (Area A and B) areas. Generally speaking, Fatah controls the Palestinian population centers of the West Bank. The Jewish settlements and most of the rural area are under the jurisdiction of the Israeli army. Because the Jewish and Arab areas of the West Bank are so mixed up together, one often has to traverse Area C to get from one Palestinian town to another. Hence the checkpoints. Again my understanding is that Fatah has complete control over the Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, including the security forces. The Israeli shekel and Jordanian dinar are used as currency. Israel controls the Jordan River, so there is no way out of the West Bank without traversing an area of Israeli control. The Gaza-Egypt border is generally closed at Egyptian insistence. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course one has to traverse Israel (occupied) territory overland to leave the West Bank. But is that just a practical obstacle? For example, what about air travel (assuming there are Palestinians who could afford that)? And what about the Gaza strip? It borders on the sea, so can't Palestinians travel and trade over the Mediterranean? Gaza has a small port, but on Google Maps I see only small boats. Oh, and can't journalists get in through there? DirkvdM (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The only exits from the West Bank are over the Allenby Bridge or through Israel. There's no commercial airport on the West Bank itself.  The Gaza airport has been shut down, and Gaza basically blockaded from the sea (except for intermittently-tolerated brief local fishing trips) since 2000/2001... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I now read in a newspaper a remark that Israel should stop the blockade of the Gaza Strip. That was originally the reason for my question. I read hints about this, but no clear explanation. Does Israel stop all international trade by the Palestinians? So not just guns? DirkvdM (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Large-scale commercial trade into and out of Gaza is usually only allowed by Israel at times when there is almost complete cessation of all violence -- something which has been increasingly rare since 2000/2001. Israel normally allows humanitarian supplies and basic necessary commodities to flow into Gaza except when there are major onging hostilities, but this shoveling in of international aid over the wall does very little by itself to sustain an active economy within Gaza. AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What territories did Israel conquer in 1967?
I've read that Hamas has effectively (if not officially) abandoned its goal of destroying Israel when a few months ago it said that Israel should withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967 (the Six day war). But the article doesn't make clear what those territories are. Is there a map of that? Or of the situation before that, so I can compare it with the present situation? Oddly, I find lots of maps of battle plans and such, but none of the resulting actual situations. DirkvdM (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, the international community recognizes Isreal proper as the territory from before the 6-day war; During the 6 day war, Isreal occupied these territories: the Golan Heights (occupied from Syria), the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, (occupied from Jordan) and the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip, occupied from Egypt. While Israel would later return the Sinai to Egypt, they still techinically "occupy" the remaining territories(Golan, Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem).  I'm surprised that you had trouble finding this in our article on the Six Day War, that article clearly explains these 3 territories, and the links to each territory contain some nice maps... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  11:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the text, but what precisely constituted, for example, 'the West Bank' before the war? Oh, hold on, the second map in that article answers that question. The problem is there is such a humungous amout of articles on the area. That map should really (also) be in the Six Day War article. Oh, I see it is also in the 1949 Armistice Agreements article. Anyway, question answered; what is now regarded as the Palestinian areas is the same as what it was before 1967. I understand the borders of the UN Partition Plan were never effectuated. DirkvdM (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, the Palestinian Territories are considered to be the West Bank and Gaza Strip (The Golan Heights has always been considered a Syrian territory, and lies outside of the general definition of Palestine). Most Israeli people, and indeed many factions within the Israeli government, consider the two to be part of any Two-state solution for a truly independent Palestine.  Some of the stumbling blocks for that solution are:
 * The disposition of East Jerusalem which Israel considers an integral part of Jerusalem, but which most Palestinians consider an integral part of their territory.
 * The question of security, which is probably the biggest stumbling block for true Palestinian sovereignty. Isreal's main objection to granting full sovereignty to Palestine is the inability (or lack of desire) of the Palestinian Authority to prevent attacks into Isreal from Palestinian territory.
 * Political fragmentation within the Palestinian Territories; currently Hamas is in charge in Gaza, and Fatah is in charge of the West Bank; most major parties to the conflict do not favor a "three-state" solution, and yet that seems to be where the current trend is heading.
 * The status of Israeli settlements, especially within the West Bank. Some of these were settled under the authority of the Israeli government, and others "illegal", but the question of what to do with Israeli nationals within the Palestinian territories greatly complicates any potential Palestinian sovereignty question.
 * I agree that there is a HUGE amount of Wikipedia dedicated to this conflict, but it is a massively complicated problem. It is likely at least as messed up as the Schleswig-Holstein Question of the 1800's, a problem so complicated that Lord Palmerston, former British Prime Minister, once commented on it: "Only three people understood the Schleswig-Holstein Question. The first was Albert, the Prince consort and he is dead; the second is a German professor, and he is in an asylum: and the third was myself - and I have forgotten it."  Such sentiment could equally apply here... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For a while now, I've though of the Israel-Palestine conflict as the Jarndyce v. Jarndyce of modern geopolitics, an issue so complicated, with so much history, with so many different parties and so many different arguments on both all sides that the words "right", "wrong", "guilt", "justice" and "fairness" have lost all meaning. No one is innocent and no one is fully to blame, and the conflict can't be settled by finding a solution that "punishes" the "offended party", because that party simply doesn't exist. Belisarius (talk)
 * To be a bit contrary, has anyone else seen the following old observation, which I agree with - quoted from memory - "The really striking thing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is how easy it is to solve" (and continued that the solution is just the 2 state -solution the OT's to the Palestinians, pre 67 Israel to Israel.) The speaker shocked his American Jewish audience, but he wasn't above a little "epater les bourgeois." John Z (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The main outlines of a final solution have been rather clear since around the late 80's, but that most definitely doesn't mean that it's "easy" to get there. To mention only one thing, a Palestinian collocutor who doesn't show itself as prepared to take strong action to suppress terrorism is worse than useless and completely and utterly untrustworthy and unreliable from the point of view of many in Israel.  Many Arabs seem to feel that managing the level of terrorism and keeping it "at a low boil" sends some kind of carefully calibrated and guardedly positive signal to the Israelis, but consistently over a number of decades, the Israelis have simply never understood such "messages" as the Arabs originally may have intended them, and there's no evidence that the Israelis will understand them in such a way at any time in the forseeable future... AnonMoos (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Language in Shakespeare
I'm writing a paper on the use of language in a scene from Shakespeare. Here are some approaches that I could bring to that subject. Does anyone else have any other thoughts on possible approaches?
 * 1) I could discuss meaning: what do the words actually mean, what story are they telling?
 * 2) I could discuss levels of meaning: what do metaphors, similes and puns mean on their metaphorical and literal levels, and what is the relationship between the two?
 * 3) (Following my point about puns) I can discuss the use of wordplay and humour. If I wanted to be more specific I could follow Partridge/Rubinstein/Williams and focus on sex and bawdy.
 * 4) I could discuss imagery.
 * 5) I can identify and discuss the use of rhetorical devices, perhaps using the extensive database at Silva Rhetoricae.
 * 6) I can discuss subtext and emotional content, and how that relates to the actual text, including how much scope there is for the actors to engage in interpretation.
 * 7) I could follow, say, Mark Rylance, in focusing on religious, paranormal or supernatural aspects.
 * 8) I can follow Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan and ask what the language tells us about the psychology of characters and/or the psychology of the writer.
 * 9) I can deal with the words as poetry and therefore:
 * 10) Like Ian McKellen or Vivien Heilbron, focus on the last word of each line: establshing whether those words carry more than their share of the meaning of the scene as a whole.
 * 11) Like John Barton, focus on contrapunctal stresses: that is to ask whether the stresses that fall outside the normal pattern carry extra meaning.
 * 12) Like Antony Sher and others, view late Shakespeare like jazz music: identifying the broken stress patterns themselves as driving the sound of the poetry.

Or, you can just give me the usual thing about doing my own homework. AndyJones (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See if you find this useful
 * Analysis of the language used in its cultural setting and the audience. What common ideas, knowledge, views, etc. is the play based on?
 * Compare how language would have to be changed for a different cultural setting or audience. (E.g. imagine an island population without hierarchical system.  How could you explain/transpose the ideas of kings and queens? How would the Tempest work for Kalahari Bushmen?)
 * (N.B. This will require a lot of reading up on other cultures and languages)--76.97.245.5 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps.
 * All your approaches would be appropriate (if done well). It's OK to ask for homework help in this manner - you're asking about how to approach the homework. You're not asking us to do it for you, so we're not angry (well, I'm not). Some of the approaches you propose are harder than others. Discussing broken rhythms, for example, requires a good knowledge of Shakesperean use of rhythm to start with. I didn't do particularly well in this subject though, so I'll leave it for people with more experience to help you with more detail. Steewi (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Statue of Virgin Mary
In the Roman Catholic religion, what does the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary standing on the world with snakes at her feet signify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.26.104 (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC) It's the immaculate conception,she is crushing Satan(the snake) beneath her heel. http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/The_Church_Year/Immaculate_Conception.hotclaws 16:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the iconic triumphalist formula connection with the alleged Marian apparition of 1830: see Catherine Labouré. The serpent connects Mary with Eve, crushing the serpent with her heel (Genesis). The serpent is an emblem of Error: we know that means us. For the demonization of the serpent, see Serpent (mythology). The image is intended to remind the viewer of its complementary opposite, Regina coeli, "Queen of Heaven", an epithet inherited from Ishtar. --Wetman (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It also incorporates Mary-as-the-Woman-of-Revelation. - Nunh-huh 16:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent point: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Thank you, Nunh-huh --Wetman (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

is it sounding or side of
is it by the sounding sea or by the side of the sea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.98.213 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the question is mroe a Language Desk question, and really depends on context, but I'll give it a go.


 * "By the sounding sea" could be correct if it's an unusual poem, where the sounds are the waves crashing, etc.; "sounding" would be an adjective, in this case. It's not normal English, though, as if a person wished to write of the soudns of the sea, he or she would be better off writing, "By the crashing sea," or "the turbulent sea." It is proper grammar, though, even if awkward.


 * So, why didn't I just automatically say "by the side of the sea" is correct? because, frankly, that doesn't sound right, either. You can be by the side of a road, but think about it; the sea is so vast, it's hard to envision it with sides the way a road has two clear sides. So, I'm not really comfortable saying that's right, becasue while it may be poetic, it's a little redundant; why not just say "by the sea"? Although, when using a certain rhyme scheme, if you need six syllables, then, by george, "side of the" are three good little syllables to throw in to make a six-syllable phrase.


 * Edited to add, if you'd wanted the title of something, you should have capitalized the appropriate words. The way your sentence is worded, with no capitals in the first letters of words, it doesn't look like a title. It looks like you heard something, though, and may not have heard quite well enough; can you ask the original speaker, or was this on the radio or TV somewhere?Somebody or his brother (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If the OP had given us all the information . . . Poe wrote a poem called Annabel Lee of which the final two lines are controversial. I quote from our article:


 * There is debate on the last line of the poem. The Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore, Maryland has identified 11 different versions of the poem that were published between 1849 and 1850.[9] However, the biggest variation is in the final line:
 * Original manuscript – In her tomb by the side of the sea
 * Alternative version – In her tomb by the sounding sea


 * The short answer is that it depends upon which version you are reading. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sherlock Holmes exists! :-) (Although I guess it wasn't that hard, I did at least mention the possibily of a poem, though I'd never call what I did a guess at it, even. And, to have solved that with so little information is amazing to me. Congratulations.)Somebody or his brother (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I own a facsimile copy of the "Hirsch C" manuscript of this poem, in Poe's own hand (and it is "In her tomb by the sounding sea" at the close). His handwriting is elegant and understated; he adds just a little extra space around the final words, like a musician taking a bit of extra time at a closing cadence, or a speaker doing so at a recitation.  (Should I scan it for us?)  Antandrus  (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Antandrus: I think that would be a lovely idea as long as there are no copyright issues that might rebound to you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

technology and it's impact on jobs
Hi, is there any consensus among economists about whether technology increases or decreses the overall level of employment, or has no real effect? I'm especially interested in projections for the future, since for the moment nothing seems truly alarming. Thanks in advance, It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think that there is a consensus on that question. There is a consensus that technology raises the mean income, but economists differ on its effect on total employment.  Marco polo (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that total employment rates may not be really the right thing to look at—they're a pretty blunt indicator and are going to be heavily, heavily influenced by larger economic factors (not to mention that technological change is not generally equal in the sectors it effects at any given time—some may be phased out of existence altogether, others might change in subtle ways). Personally if I were looking into it I'd want to look at what the more detailed dynamics are. Do people end up working different types of jobs? Do they become deskilled? How many major career changes do they make over the course of their lives? Does technology improve or limit class mobility? etc. I suspect it is rather interesting, complicated, particular to the technologies in question, and so forth. Maybe it's the lack of economist in me but I suspect a statement of "technology increases/decreases employment" to be a little too reductionist, a little too hard to isolate from other variables (if an economy is undergoing a massive technological upgrade it'll have other effects that are not directly related to the technological aspects of it). ... As Heidegger said, the essence of technology is not technological ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mainstream macroeconomic theory (that which involves itself with employment and inflation etc.) mostly considers "technology" as a exogenous effect. In microeconomics, for example, a production function with various inputs will usually have an exogenous coefficient for "technological or productive efficiency."  We have a section in Technology on the Economics of Technology (at the bottom) with categories that - though interesting and useful for describing the way we've seen technology diffuse - are mostly related to history and technology and not too much related to mainstream (macro)economics.  I'm sure there are regression studies that compare different measures of technology to those things ( here is a book, for example), but those sorts of things tend to only do a really good job of predicting the past.  The effect of technology is tough to predict on a macro scale.  Everyone assumed that the PC and Internet revolution would dramatically increase per-worker productivity (when aggregated over the economy as a whole) but when looking at the data, it was found that per worker productivity continued to increase at a (recent) historically normal levels.  Higher per worker productivity wouldn't mean higher or lower employment, just that there was more stuff per person in the world.  The micro effects of technology are much as 98. discusses above: they are largely "structural."  This means that the structure of the economy will change, and the economy will experience over-employment in one (antiquated) sector and under-employment in another (emerging) sector.  I have a feeling the book that I linked to above will discuss, statistically, how these structural changes may have led to more or less employment, better or worse standards of living and more or (usually less) inflation once all of these "structural" or "sectoral" changes have been aggregated. NByz (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There's almost no consensus among economists on anything, but if anything technology tends to replace labor with capital. This would have the effect of freeing up labor for more productive work (i.e., creating unemployment). Consider the example of the automatic teller machine. ATMs are great, unless you happen to be a bank teller and lose your job. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

russian short story  Author/title
When I was in college approx. 35 years ago i read a short story about a fella who arrived at the end of his miserable life and pleaded for another chance to live his life again and make different (hopefully) better choices. Somehow he is given this wonderful gift however as he growsthrough childhood, teens, adult. . the memory of another life and the promise to live better in this new opportunity slip away first as some sort of murky memory, then perhaps a distant dream and at last the menmory is totally lost to time and of course he makes the same tragic mistakes as he did previously in his former life. I can't for the life of me remember the russian author or the title though i'm pretty sure the title consisted of only a man's name (russian). Any help is gratefully appreciated.Pastorpete1 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds like the sort of short story that Anton Chekhov might have written, but I can't say it rings any bells with me. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Strange Life of Ivan Osokin by P. D. Ouspensky, though that's 166 pages. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)