Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 January 26

= January 26 =

Bangladeshi visits by Mahatma Gandhi
Which districts or places did Mahatma Gandhi visit when he went to Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.66 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't have been called Bangladesh during his lifetime... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that he made extensive tours in East Bengal, including a four-month walking tour of 49 villages in 1947. He also lived for six weeks in a small Muslim village in 1946.  I expect there were earlier visits as well. Looie496 (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Puccini v. Andrew Lloyd Webber -- copyright term?
It's mentioned in both La fanciulla del West and The Music of the Night that the Giacomo Puccini estate sued Andrew Lloyd Webber on a claim that the song from The Phantom of the Opera too closely resembled a melody from the Puccini opera (the case was settled out of court). However, I wonder what the length of the copyright term would have been that would have allowed the Puccini estate to sue Lloyd Webber. La fanciulla del West premiered in 1910, Puccini died in 1924, and The Phantom of the Opera premiered in 1986 -- wouldn't the Puccini opera have been in the public domain by the time Phantom premiered? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It would depend on the country, but in the UK copyright expires 70 years after the death of the artist, so it wouldn't have been free until 1994. Prokhorovka (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But it was only extended from 50 years by the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, so it should have become free in 1974. Warofdreams talk 10:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Investigating further, I'm suspicious of this claim, which doesn't appear in any contemporary news report on Google. This news story from 1998 about Ray Repp's rejected claim that Lloyd Webber had plagiarised his work doesn't mention any claim from the Puccini estate, as I would have expected.  The earliest mention of the story which I can find is from 2002, when it is already mentioned as if well in the past.  In the absence of any further evidence, I think this is one for Snopes. Warofdreams talk 11:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are these people?
Reading the The Onion: who are the people in the photographs? http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-honors-911-first-capitalizers,18856/ --Icemannequin (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The one in the center is Dick Cheney. Dismas |(talk) 11:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the right is Pat Robertson. Staecker (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know who the one on the left is, but he's the only one whose face was originally in the picture rather than being photoshopped in later. Pais (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the one on the left is supposed to represent the street vendors who set up shop right across the street from the crash site to sell souvenirs. (As a practical matter, the Onion probably either hired a model or used one of their staff members.) --M @ r ē ino 15:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Precedents on this game
I'm wondering if the game "E-card", as seen on the manga Kaiji, has any precedents ? The game goes like this: 2 players, each player has 5 cards, 4 of the 5 cards of each player is a "Citizen" which when played against another Citizen results in a draw, one of the players has a "King", which wins against the Citizens, and the other player has a "Slave", which looses to everything except the King. The players take turns playing the cards until either player looses his "special" card. At first the game seems to be biased toward the King side with 4/5 chance of winning by playing the King in the first round, but knowing that, the slave side could play the Slave in the first round and win, at which case the King side could just play a Citizen and let the slave side loose, the slave in turn, can play a Citizen and the round will draw, the it goes to round 2, now with 4 cards each, the King side have 3/4 chance of winning.

I think there are 2 aspects of the game to be considered, probabilistic and psychological, but the latter is more interesting to me.

What I want to know is if there is any literature for this kind of problem ? Or the author was the first to create such a game ?

I'm posting this here because I think the game type suits this ref desk, but I'm not sure, please move if you see it fits 189.120.226.199 (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming random play, there's a one in five chance of the king and slave being played in the same round. If that doesn't happen, the king wins. Warofdreams talk 12:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No. There is a 1 in 25 chance of both being played in the first hand. If neither was played in the first hand, there is a 1 in 16 chance in the second. (assuming random play). Quest09 (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ... but if you sum the conditional probabilities over all 5 rounds you still get 1/5:
 * $$\frac{1}{25}+\frac{16}{25}\frac{1}{16}+\frac{9}{25}\frac{1}{9}+\frac{4}{25}\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{25}\frac{1}{1}=\frac{1}{5}$$
 * Gandalf61 (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Side questions: can someone explain to a math noob, why did Gandalf multiplied by here these numbers
 * $$\frac{1}{25}+\frac{16}{25}\frac{1}{16}+...$$. Why isn't it: $$\frac{1}{25}+\frac{1}{16}+ ...$$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.238.251 (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because there is only a 16/25 chance that the game will proceed to the second round.—Emil J. 13:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that covers the probabilistic side I guess, but as I said, I'm more interested in the psychological sense when there are people playing, people will hardly play randomly, specially if there is a wager, they want to win. 189.120.226.199 (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If either player follows a strategy that makes them more likely to play their special card in one round than in another then the other player can exploit this strategy to improve their chances of winning. Therefore the best strategy for both players is to play their special card in a random round. The Slave player then wins if both play their special card in the same round, which has probability 1/5, and the King player wins if they play their special cards in different rounds, which has probability 4/5 (which is what Warofdreams said). Gandalf61 (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, since the question was about precedents, it might be worth mentioning that the game is really just a modified version of rock-paper-scissors. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Austrian Empire vs Kingdom of Hungary
Is this a good edit? The issue is that Austria-Hungary (according to that article) didn't exist til 1867, when it was formed as "a monarchic union between the crowns of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary in Central Europe." But if those two entities (Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary) had existences of their own, I'd expect Budapest to be most sensibly described as being in the Kingdom of Hungary, even if the Kingdom of Hungary was itself part of the Austrian Empire. Any advice would be helpful--thanks. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Such issues should be discussed on the article talk page. You can ask for outside opinions at WP:3O or WP:RFC.  I am sure that reasonable arguements can be made for any of four or five possible ways to write that text, and since reasonable people may disagree on reasonable issues, there should be an attempt at consensus-building on that article's talk page.  -- Jayron  32  13:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a geography question, in part to assess a large pattern of such edits. See the ANI thread about Hobartimus.  I wanted to get a reality check about my reaction to the geography. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what the correct geo-historical designation would be... but my solution to the editorial issue would be to simply leave out the name of the nation state... just say the person being discussed was born in Budapest, and leave it at that. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds awful. Don't mention what country the person was born in?  That's basic information, we can't leave it out. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blueboar. Everyone knows where Budapest is, and if they don't, they can click the link to find out where it is now. Unlike U.S. city and state names, world city names are not inseparably married to the name of the country they're in. Second choice: write "Budapest, Hungary", which was an accurate descriptor of Budapest's location in 1840 as well as today. Pais (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How to describe the location of Budapest in 1840 is somewhat akin to the question of how to describe the location of Dublin in the same year. Both were the capitals of ancient countries that had continuing existences (and that are independent today), and both were subsumed in larger empires in 1840. If it is acceptable to label Dublin in 1840 as "Dublin, Ireland", and not "Dublin, United Kingdom", then it would be acceptable to label Budapest in 1840 as "Budapest, Hungary", even though it was part of the Austrian Empire at that time. I think the existing label in the linked article, "Budapest, Hungary, Austrian Empire" does the best job of clarifying the situation in 1840.  Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Pais that "everyone knows where Budapest is." If you were to ask 100 people in Times Square where Budapest is, I'm guessing maybe 15 would know. But I do agree that "Budapest, Hungary" is probably the best wording. Even before the Ausgleich, Hungary was still there; it was just subordinate to Vienna at that time. Saying "Austrian Empire" would give people unfamiliar with Central European history the idea that he was born in today's Austria, and most people aren't familiar with "Austria-Hungary." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did anyone else miss the giant, glaring error in this whole dispute. I give you all a hint, it isn't the country name that is the only issue here.  Check the dates here and see if you can see the problem with claiming this person was born in Budapest anywhere in 1840.  -- Jayron  32  15:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great observation, I've made the correction: (Iaaasi (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

Guns in the Bible
Does the Bible give any clues or allusions about having and using guns? Thanks 92.15.10.209 (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. As our article History of the firearm explains, gunpowder wasn't invented until the 9th century AD, and firearms not until the 12th century AD. So guns hadn't been invented yet at the time even the latest parts of the Bible were written (end of the 1st century AD). Pais (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Bible does discuss various acts of violence that can, today, be committed using guns... but the discussion is centered on the act, and not the tool (which, as Pais correctly notes, did not exist in biblical times). Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do know that guns had not been invented when the Bible was written. I did not think that needed to be said. But as some religious people say that the Bible is all you need to know, I'm wondering what they would say it had to say about guns. 92.15.10.209 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I imagine they would study what the Bible teaches about violence in general and apply that to guns. Pais (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the Apocrypha isn't in the canon. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So they DID have canons... Arakunem Talk 18:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Big Man Upstairs doesn't mind Babylonians carrying guns, but he'll smash any Egyptian guns. --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even people who claim that don't really live their lives that way. For example, the Bible does not contain instructions on how to operate an automobile, and many of such people have still worked out where the key goes in order to start the car. In practical terms, even the most ardent Christian fundementalists recognize that there are some aspects of life that are not directly covered by the Bible. They may use text in the bible to influence every decision they make, but that doesn't mean that the Bible necessarily deals with all aspects of life in detail. For example, the Bible covers issues such as warfare and murder; certainly such parts of the Bible could be used to influence someone on deciding how to use a gun in a Biblical manner. But those passages could also be used on how to deal with swords or axes or rocks or you bare hands in exactly the same manner; that is the adice you receive from the Bible is not specific to guns, even though you may use it to influence your attitude towards guns.  -- Jayron  32  15:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a good handgun, don't lose it --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jedaiah was probably da man --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword (which should really redirect to live by the sword, die by the sword), for example? Or Sell your cloak and buy a sword? Or perhaps, The Bible and violence will help? In which context, if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off! (It feels like there should be an article disussing that, but apparently not) 86.164.58.119 (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I googled around hoping to find puns about gardeners "living by the sward", but all I found was pages written by poor spellers. Pais (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Uriah was an early victim of weak gun laws --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hittite! That's a point.  Deuteronomy Chapter 20  give the  justification for the  first recorded incidents  of  ethic cleansing which included Hittites.--Aspro (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Me and my machinegun go hand in hand, we're gonna lead you to the Promised Land--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And don't mention "Blessed are the Peacemakers" Alansplodge (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The nearest equivalent would be a sling, and of course we all know the story of what David did with his, right? Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Bible has a lot to say about various things that are now done with guns: warfare, hunting animals, murder of strangers, rape and sexual coercion, violence towards family members, suicide. Not all of the Biblical advice is what you might expect. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And not every story told in the Bible is intended as advice and provided with a positive role model. Pais (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a lot of the Bible is either a) overtly meant to be an example of how NOT to behave or b) meant to be understood alegorically. -- Jayron  32  21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that not all, or even most, of the Bible is advice. I was referring, clumsily, to those examples that might be counter-intuitive. "Don't kill a guest": pretty standard, worldwide. "If you rape a virgin, be sure to marry her afterwards": I'm sure there appeared to be good reasons, in that time and place. BrainyBabe (talk)
 * And on what grounds are you "sure" of that? Many cultural norms, both now and in the past, have no rational basis.  We accept them simply because they're cultural norms, without bothering to question their validity, so they don't "appear to have good reasons" either.
 * Jayron: I agree that a lot of the Bible is meant to show how not to behave. However, once you start calling whatever advice that doesn't fit with modern values "allegory", you can make the Bible say whatever you want.  --99.237.234.245 (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is incidental, but one of my favorite aspects about Milton's Paradise Lost is that when the angels fight the demons and whatnot, they use 17th century weapons. Satan brings "hideous" cannons; the angels light the wicks of theirs with a touch of their glowing fingers, things like that. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's fairly standard for artists to place their subjects anachronisticly, even moreso in the past than today. Take a look at This picture of Herod the Great as a medieval European knight!  Its no coincidence the picture was painted in the 1470's; this was exactly how warrior-kings dressed and fought in the 1470's.  Prior to modern archeology and historical practices, people simply didn't know how ancient people dressed and fought.  -- Jayron  32  21:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's so much "didn't know how ancient people dressed and fought"; I think it's more "never considered that ancient people might have dressed and fought differently". Today most people, at least in the West, can distinguish the present from history; but for many people all of history - and prehistory - is the same place. --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking recently that one way to win over the people in Afgahnistan would be to flood the country with cheap subsidised western clothing, and other western goodies, so that they identify more with the west and see the past as a different place to the present rather than as described above. 92.28.250.90 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now Showing ... ---Sluzzelin talk  01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And what makes you think either that the Afghans place so little value on their own cultures and coutures that they would readily abandon them for those of foreign interlopers, or that their current standard of available raiments is worse than "cheap subsidised western clothing"? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because almost every other country in the world has given up wearing their traditional clothing styles for everyday wear, and now wears western-style clothing (sometimes in both senses of the word) and watches Hollywood movies, etc etc. For example the people shown on the news in the recent demonstrations in Tunisia were wearing the same clothing as people in London wear, not traditional Arabic clothing. 92.24.187.66 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that's putting the cart before the horse. People aren't motivated or caused to be friendly to western ideals merely because they wear western style clothes; that's 180 degrees wrong.  People who have been exposed to (and are friendly to) western ideals will dress in western style clothing...  You cannot effect a culture change by simply bombing them with teeshirts and blue jeans.  You have to actually have the culture change first, before people start wearing the teeshirts and blue jeans!  -- Jayron  32  13:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You've forgotten that Osama Bin Laden wore trendy flared trousers in the 70s, before he went wrong. 92.15.12.148 (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. If jeans etc were made available at a price less than what they wear now, then particularly the young (men) would start wearing them. If they watch DVDs of Hollywood movies and other cultural products, they they are going to be influenced by them, including aspiring to the comparative wealth and freedom depicted in them. If they had access to the internet, then other cultural ideas and perspectives are going to diffuse into the country rather than just what they learn at the Madrassas. If they had more tractors maybe they'd be more inclined to grow other crops than opium. 92.15.12.148 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then they can get fat and decadent and lazy and arrogant, just like us! That would be awesome. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm mistaken, the cheapest jeans and T-shirts come from China. 81.131.22.166 (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the other cultures must be losing their clothing styles because they're more pluralistic and open-minded than Western cultures. I mean, when was the last time that you went clothes shopping and saw those Arab-style robes for sale on the rack?  Or any other regional clothing style?  And there are still Western businesses that impose very narrow-minded, traditional clothing taboos on their employees and so forth.  In France they even moved to ban headscarves in schools.  Personally I tend to suspect that some of the other regional clothing styles may well be better, but I haven't had the opportunity to compare. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Women often wear "ethnic" clothes, at least here in Europe. I've seen women wearing traditional Chinese silk dresses for example. I think clothes similar to arabic robes were high-fahion in the 70s, although the headress was not worn probably because it was incompatible with hair-dos and it restricts vision. Lots of women wear saris in Britain, they are a very common sight. Its men who are very restricted in what they can wear. 92.28.244.55 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's the Hanfu movement in China, but I don't know that they're particularly anti-western... AnonMoos (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The giving of clothing and other material mass gifts does seem to be effective in showing countries that you're really trying to help them, not just killing them. I heard a journalist on TV (not all that reliable therefore) say that Africans are grateful for all the clothing that people (at least here in the UK anyway) give for free for export to Africa, and there has been little hostility to the west from most of Africa. The Berlin airlift and not letting Germans starve after the war may have been responsible for the lack of hostility or bitterness of Germans to the west after WWII, as they could plainly see we were trying to help them. The advantage of subsidising clothing is that it encourages identification with the west and distances the past, including feeling that you have something in common with people you see wearing similar clothes in the mass media, is seen by all rather than sitting on a shelf at home, can be distributed through normal and existing trade channels, and is less susceptible to be creamed off corruptly as few warlords would want five thousand pairs of jeans and even if they did they would still be distributed one way or another. 92.29.125.152 (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Permanent states of emergency
Reading the article 2011 Egyptian protests, it occurred to me that it would be interesting for Wikipedia to have a global map of how many countries are under a permanent state of emergency under some sort of enabling act. The state of emergency gives some specific instances, but it is too incomplete, and perhaps too close to "original research", to make the basis of a standard .svg map. Is there a chance anyone has taken a stab at this in print? Wnt (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The US has had a Terror alert color code of Yellow (Elevated: significant risk) or higher for nine years next month, and the alert level has never for a minute dropped to Blue (Guarded: General risk) or Green (Low: low risk). It was ramped up for secret reasons and in 2004 when elections were impending. So it seems fair to say the US has had a permanent state of emergency since March 12, 2002. Edison (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The coded terror levels aren't really an enabling act, nor do they clearly say it's a state of emergency - I was thinking more of the "states of emergency" beginning in 1950 and continuing under the National Emergencies Act (has there ever been a break?) Wnt (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to find out the approximate size of the outdoor sporting industry in the US? How much $$$...
I would like to know how much $ is involved in online sales as well as the total for all of the market? How many sportsmen? I would like to figure this out for each outdoor sport. Hunting, Fishing, Skiing/snowboarding, camping, hiking, climbing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.204.66 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * World-wide? Just the US? Just Colorado? 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmiller (talk • contribs)
 * The OP has now added "in the US" to the title. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you asking about online transactions about outdoor sports? See for some indication of the difficulties of calculating just one part of the "industry". 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's one measure: the US imported $84.6 billion worth of athletic and sporting goods (excluding clothes and shoes) in 2009; 2010 data will be out in about three weeks. Now, that doesn't take into account domestic production (mostly high-end stuff) or exports, but it does give some indication. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)