Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 14

= March 14 =

Shandong cuisine
Shandong cuisine is one of the "four most influential among these ("Four Great Traditions", Chinese: 四大菜系; pinyin: Sì Dà Càixì).". Which are the others?174.3.107.176 (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to our Chinese cuisine article, there are eight great traditions. See bar on the right. --Kvasir (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a conventional Eight Great Traditions and a Four Great Traditions, simultaneously, as the Shandong cuisine article states, but the sidebar ignores. The Four Great Traditions -- according to Chinese Wikipedia -- are 魯菜 (Shandong), 川菜 (Sichuan cuisine), 粵菜 (Cantonese cuisine), and 淮揚菜 (Huaiyang cuisine). The equivalent sidebar in Chinese Wikipedia mentions both the Four and the Eight.--达伟 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there One Great Tradition to rule them all, and in the darkness kitchen bind them? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Tevildo (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not... traditionally . But try Manchu Han Imperial Feast. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Group psychology
Is there a specific word used in psychology to describe how similar people in unfamiliar settings will gravitate towards each other? For example, foreign exchange students from China who have never met gravitate towards each other in an American school. I am writing a paper on merchants in a foreign country during the 12th century and I would like to touch upon psychological reasons for grouping. Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's probably a term for it, having to do with relative comfortableness or cultural familiarity. A term I would use is "neighborhooding", as groups of immigrants to the US tended to cluster together, leading to "the Jewish neighborhood", "Little Italy", etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's "used in psychology," but how about tribalism? 63.17.50.41 (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a secondary question: Has there ever been an anthropological study done that showed how each proceding generation was more inclined to assimilate more aspects of the host culture than the last generation?

Thanks for the input so far. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think what you're looking for is affinity. It's one of a number of mechanisms that accelerate the forming and storming stages of group development.
 * ALR (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting question that certainly seems to be normal human behavior. The adults who came from offshore still have their roots in their homelands. The younger ones who followed their parents are more likely to assimilate more easily and to become naturally bilingual. And the children born in the new land have no connection to the old country and its language except what their parents teach them about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of that has to do with the level of need. Fully grown adults might feel less of a need to assimilate and more of a need to simply be with "their own", and can get by otherwise. The younger they are, the greater the need might be to assimilate to the population at large, as clinging to the old country will tend to hold them back from advancement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There have, but I can't think of the search terms to find them. It's much more interesting than Bugs's guessing would suggest: there's stuff about later generations trying harder to differentiate themselves than earlier generations: it isn't linear. Hopefully one of the many people with experience in this area will find you some starting points. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Derailing comments moved to talk page. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I happened upon the Ethnic enclaves page and looked up a few articles relating to this. One word often used is "spatial assimilation." A paper I'm reading claims "segregation is natural as a group enters the United States. In the beginning, people's limited market resources and ethnically bound cultural and social capital are mutually reinforcing; they work in tandem to sustain ethnic neighborhoods ... immigrants entered American cities, in which working-class people had to live near their places of employment and had little contact with people outside their neighborhood." This perfectly describes what I believe happened to the subject of my study. The paper also mentions, "People with more financial resources and mainstream jobs avoid ethnic zones, and these areas are left behind by immigrants with more experience and by the second generation in search of the 'Promised Land.'" So there are economic reasons to be considered when studying how proceeding generations assimilate more than the last. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * During the time of the British Empire, english people would stick together in the same way. Of various reasons for this, a relevant one is that they all spoke the same language. 89.242.243.82 (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I contacted a psychology professor who suggested a paper, but I can't find it. Perhaps someone on here might be able to help:

"There's a classic 1976 paper by William and Clare McGuire, probably could find it on a Google Scholar search, on 'situated identity' or 'contextual identity' that does account for your phenomenon. In the context of being in Paris, an English speaking American suddenly seems quite similar -- in the context of New York City, hardly so."

--Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

FOX News babes
Why FOX News anchors wear mini skirts showing their most of the upper part of their legs? Is is conservative value? --Fhhg (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sex sells and Fox News knows this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Similarly, Fox broadcasts Family Guy, which is often deliberately provocative and which receives plenty of morals-based criticism; the conservative Parents Television Council keeps naming it one of the "worst prime-time shows for family viewing". (See Criticism of Family Guy.)  It has been argued that Fox's "conservative values" are just a form of counterprogramming against the perceived-liberal CBS, NBC, and ABC, in order to attract viewers.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Above all, Fox Entertainment Group is a business, and as such, is trying to make money. They may believe that they can do this and also reflect the views of their owners, and largely, they appear to succeed. Buddy431 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As CT suggests, the OP is under the mistaken impression that Fox is conservative. I've had Christians tell me they find Fox programs such as The Simpsons offensive and they won't let their kids watch. Keep in mind that Fox was the brainchild of Ruppert Murdoch, who was originally a tabloid news guy, about whom Mike Royko once said, "No self-respecting fish would be wrapped in a Murdoch newspaper." Keep that in mind, and it tells you everything you need to know about the core nature of Fox. They are entertainers, first and foremost. The reason Fox News appears to be conservative-leaning is because the owners determined that this was a market they wanted to tap. They could switch to all-liberal tomorrow if they decided that's where the money is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fox's parent company News Corporation is also responsible for Britain's leading form of soft porn, Page Three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.14.1 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. It's not for nothing that it's called "Foxy News". :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of Mr. Murdoch's personal opinions (as expressed during the 2008 Boyer Lectures) are extremely liberal. Fox News is just business.  Weepy.Moyer (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fox News (like most modern newscasts) is intended as a form of entertainment, despite their claims of reliable and responsible journalism. What matters first is attracting viewership; broadcast content is a distant second, and contingent on the demands of the first.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most modern newscasts in the US, maybe. In the UK, we watch the news to find out what is happening in the world. --Tango (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the US we don't need to care what is actually happening in the world since the US is and always will be the greatest country in the world, no questions asked. --达伟 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why no one wants to come here anymore. And those who are here want to leave. Mexicans, for example, are fleeing south by the millions. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, Baseball Bugs, good one! Because, see, Mexicans actually DO come here!  It's irony!  Get it?  It has nothing to do with the fact that a brutally militaristic invading force attacked their country without provocation and took over most of its best land, conquering and occupying after illegally invading and killing, only a year before gold was discovered in the newly invaded and conquered and occupied and stolen territories!  No!  Because that never happened!  And if it did, it's ancient history!  Like Germany invading France!  Which was a long time ago and doesn't count!  So, again, great joke, baseball bugs!  You must read "Al's ramblings" and other enlightened baseball-politics sources!  Because everyone wants to come to the USA, because it's the greatest country on earth!  In the past few decades, you just can't stop all the British and German and French and Norwegian and Swedish and Japanese and Swiss and Belgian and Italian and Australian and Spanish and Portuguese and ... (well the list goes on and on) people who want to come here and are just knocking down the door to get in!  Because EVERYBODY wants to live here, right baseball bugs?  'Cause they're just like YOU! 63.17.48.33 (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not as simple as that. Look at Natasha Kaplinsky (lots of people do). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No no, You watch the news to feel like you're learning about the world. That's a critical difference that's easy to exploit. Same concept for documentaries. APL (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Fox, other stations pore on the skin as well. Here is a pic of Robin Meade from Headline News. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * this is true. there's a local channel in my area where the news team look and dress like they just stepped off the set of The OC.  First time I saw it my jaw dropped - I turned off the sound and the closed captioning and just watched for a few minutes.   damnbuddy!  -- Ludwigs 2  18:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Harvard Lampoon once had a fake cover of Time with a thinly-clad babe holding up a copy of Time with her picture on it, etc., (infinite recursion) while standing in front of a newsstand loaded with copies of various magazines, each with her picture. And the punch line was that the cover story was titled, "Does SEX sell magazines?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the distant future, Fox will be the only news channel, and the newscasters will wear swim suits. Or so I've heard. —Kevin Myers 22:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * O'Reilly in a Speedo. Yeh, that'll boost the ratings. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I've heard, Berlusconi has Murdoch all beat with regards to sexing up television -- and he has a near media monopoly, and he runs the country as well.. AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Naked News. The article, I mean. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * odd and interesting fact: naked is often not as sexually stimulating as provocatively clothed. Naked people just seem...  ordinary... but a well-made cocktail dress or dress suit makes someone seem a little bit bigger than life.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As can a well-placed rolled up sock...64.235.97.146 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Auto Insurance
I have a hypothetical for you - let's say that I have no auto insurance. Let's also suppose that another driver, the one who will eventually hit me, does have auto insurance. Now let us further suppose that said insured driver backs into the front/left side of my vehicle, causing over $3000 of damage to my car. Let's continue supposing...let's say that this insured driver who hit me is 100% at fault, and the police report shows that. Now here comes the question: will his insurance pay for the damage to my car even though I have no auto insurance? I'm not exactly sure how these laws work. Let's also hypothetically say this accident occurred in Wisconsin. Thanks for the hypothetical responses! --98.108.40.138 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're onto the fact that the laws vary from state to state. For example, some states have a recoupment fund to cover uninsured drivers. Have you checked to see whether Wisconsin's insurance commission has a website that explains various scenarios? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No I have not, but I'm sure that's an excellent place to start. If I find what I'm looking for I'll report back here with the good news! --98.108.40.138 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In principle, if the other driver causes the damage, he has to make you good again. At that point, his insurance steps in to cover him. That's how it works in Germany and most European states, wether for vehicle damage or other damages. Your principle claim is against the person who caused the damage, not the insurance. In some US states, there is a concept of No-fault insurance, which means you have to recover damages from your own insurance. However, Wisconsin has, according to our article, a conventional system. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK driving without insurance means that the car is illegal, so an insurance company would have no obligation to pay out and could have a case for claiming from the illegal driver. I'd imagine that there are similar provisions throughout the EU.
 * ALR (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In some US states, you have to have insurance in order to operate your car. In some other states, the state covers uninsured drivers via a recoupment fund which is contributed by the auto insurers who are licensed to operate in that state. One practical effect of the latter approach is that if an insured driver gets a ticket or is at fault in an accident, he helps contribute more to the recoupment fund, by his insurance premium skyrocketing. Also, every state has to allow for uninsured drivers, some way or another, because drivers can cross state lines freely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we may be talking at cross purposes, similarly there is provision for drivers to be compensated in the event of an incident with an uninsured driver in the UK. The details will vary but the general principle remains that a fund exists to provide that compensation without recourse to ones own insurance policy.
 * The question asked above is about whether the uninsured driver can be confident of being compensated for the accident. Clearly again the details vary, but in Europe there are provisions enacted by each of the member states, that prevent those using the roads illegally from being compensated, regardless of who is at fault.  The vehicle was on the road illegally, therefore the second party's insurers need not compensate, the use of the uninsured vehicle is a criminal act therefore policing might show an interest.
 * Of course all that is moot if the uninsured vehicle was on private land and demonstrably not in current use.
 * ALR (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If the other driver is at fault, he is responsible for paying you to repair the damage to your car, whether or not you or he has insurance. See tort.  The only reason the insurance company is going to get involved is because they have signed a contract with the driver saying that they (the insurance company) will pay in these circumstances.  If you have any trouble getting paid, you will end up suing the driver (and possibly his insurer) to get your car repaired, for court costs, for lost wages due to the accident (to some extent), and maybe other stuff that the other driver is liable for in these cases in your state.  You can sue him in small claims court if the total of all this stuff is under your state's limit in small claims court.  Most likely you will just call his insurer on the phone and they will pay for everything but have you go to a place of their choice.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hypothetically this is a request for legal advice and hypothetically we are on very dangerous ground talking about it. Hypothetically you would be well advised to get a hypothetical lawyer. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical lawyers are the best lawyers because they let you pay the bill with hypothetical money Googlemeister (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

artist tao lengyue (1895-1985)
why could i not find any info on this artist67.115.155.175 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I googled ["tao lengyue"] and found many references, the first few being sites trying to sell stuff. Have you already looked through the google references? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because non-Chinese sources on this artist are scarce. Try if you can read Chinese. Otherwise, you might want to consider getting someone to translate Chinese-language sources. The Chinese characters for the name Tao Lengyue are "陶冷月", if that helps you in your searches. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of Italians in World War II United States
My grandparents were harassed during WWII for being Italian, they had five sons in the war, but the U. S. said they were communist. Is there any documentation of this kind of treatment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.115.135 (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out Italian American internment. I added a section title for you. I'm not sure why the accusation of being communists would have been a problem during the middle part of the war. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Please don't type in all caps. It is read as shouting and considered rude, so I have gone ahead and formatted it for you.  There is certainly documented discrimination against Italians in the U.S. (see United States home front during World War II for some more info), but I don't think much of it was based on anti-commmunist reasons.  The Second Red Scare did not begin until 1947. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 22:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The fear of a creep towards communism was certainly alive in educated circles. F.A. Hayeks Road to Serfdom was written in this period, and Winston Churchill certainly never trusted the communist ideal.NByz (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)