Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 22

= May 22 =

Literature related references
I'm looking for references to add to Moonrise (Warriors), and felt using the reference desk would be more efficient than contacting each individual wikiproject. I'm quite sure that the people here at the reference desk are good at research, so now I pose my question: can anyone find any reliable sources regarding Moonrise (Warriors) that are currently not on the article, especially regarding its critical reception and inspirations and influences? I've already done my best with Google Web Search, Google News Search, Google Books Search, Google Scholar, as well as all the databases that my local library and school have.  Bramble  claw  x   00:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

sci-fi science - human / animal hybrid
What is a plausible method for creating a human / animal hybrid? Let's say the person is a fully grown adult and not a fetus. The only thing I can think of is some kind of advanced gene therapy. Suggestions are welcome. Happy Post-Rapture Day, by the way! --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, strictly speaking, a hybrid can only be created at conception - there was a Soviet scientist (Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov) who attempted to create a human/chimpanzee hybrid in the 1920's - see Humanzee - but that's only within the same biolgical family, and I imagine you want to go out to a different order (Carnivora is the most popular, apparently ;)). What you're after is a chimera, but that still has to be done at the embryonic stage (in any sort of plausible situation). Changing the fundamental genetic makeup of an adult (of any species) isn't a realistic option.  However, what _is_ plausible is modifying the phenotype of an adult by various surgical/pharmaceutical methods, leaving the genotype unaltered.  See Dr Moreau and Stalking Cat. Tevildo (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Human/animal hybrids are easy in sci-fi science... just add unobtainium. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is, of course, a good point. In this sort of fiction, it's important to avoid excessive exposition.  If the means of creating your hybrid species is central to the plot, by all means write about it.  But if it's just a question of getting to the yiff scene providing some background for the central elements of the story, your readers don't want to get bogged down in irrelevant explanation of _why_ the world is as you depict it. Tevildo (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

UK courts conniving with the immoral?
In the UK courts have imposed "super-injunctions" which stop the identity being revealed in the press of married footballers etc who are having/had affairs with other women. Why are UK courts conniving with people who do things traditionally regarded as immoral? Isnt it like them conniving with criminals, although not quite as extreme? 92.15.21.174 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The short answer is Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence." The leading UK case is Campbell v MGN - the courts (up to the House of Lords) ruled that publishing photos of Naomi Campbell attending a drug rehabilitation clinic constituted an unacceptable intrusion on her private life.  The _injustice_ is not so much that such injunctions are granted, but that one has to be rich in order to pay the legal costs of getting one.  There's also the practical issue that everyone actually knows who ETK, CMB, et al, are, even though we're not allowed to mention their names. Tevildo (talk)
 * A lot of Twitterers have done an "I Am Spartacus" campaign, twittering the forbidden information themselves in addition to the original twitterer being acussed of breaching an injunction. I've just heard on the radio news that a Scottish newspaper has published some names, so perhaps the newspapers will do an "I Am Spartacus" as well. 92.15.21.174 (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, his name is in today's Sunday Herald. Tevildo (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be illegal for me or anyone else to 1) read that, and then 2) tell other people? 92.15.21.174 (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that (super-) injunctions only apply under English and Welsh law, in Scots law a interim interdict is the equivalent. Thus the Sunday Herald (which is based in Glasgow) isn't breaking the law.
 * Ultimately, newspapers try to sell more copies, but the "public interest" issue is one here. If one is to break usual privacy rules, whether written or unwritten, one needs some justification. That is simply not apparent in the case of "the footballers", but is moreso with Fred Goodwin whose affair with a colleague may (but does not appear to have) affected RBS's performance. However, can we ask that of everybody? Does it really matter what that footballer did, and with whom? There doesn't seem to be any overriding need to, which is what one might need to challenge privacy law. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the OP asking as a newspaper editor? Mmm, I thought not. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fabulous salaries of footballers and other celebrities is in part payment for having your private life all over the tabloids, so they cannot complain. 92.15.21.174 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That clearly holds no sway. In fact, universal human rights law is supposed to be that - you cannot sign them away, even if you wanted to (for example, you can't agree to being a slave, or to be eaten). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not perhaps a very good example in the latter case - you can't agree to be _murdered_, true, but that depends on the legal definition of murder, which is very juristiction-dependent. In some states, you can agree to let someone kill you (Assisted suicide), and in some states (not Switzerland, I should imagine, but...) cannibalism per se is not only legal, but considered a mark of respect to the deceased.  And, even if there is a universal human right ( nonsense on stilts ) in play here, it would be the right to freedom of speech, which the courts are fighting _against_. Tevildo (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether the OP cares to listen or not, celebrity status does not deprive anyone of the Freedom of speech to complain about a perceived mistreatment. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is well-established in UK defamation law - see Reynolds privilege. The controversy is because the recent crop of celebrities aren't taking the defamation route - they're not asserting, even as a legal fiction, that the injuncted statements are _false_, which is an essential element of defamation.  The HRA has established a (rich) person's right to supress _true_ statements about their private lives. Tevildo (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are traditions in which extra-marital relations are equated with criminality, as in such writing as . Outside certain Islamic circles, such tradition is regarded as abhorrent, primitive and is in no way prescriptive for UK Law. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Although English law was once more draconian than that. During the Commonwealth, fornication and adultery were punishable by death. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Every society with a free press is faced with the dilemma of balancing "the public's right to know" with "the individual's right to privacy". Where to draw the line is not easy. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but exactly where does the public acquire a right to know about the private lives of celebrities who are not paid out of the public purse? Taxpayers do not pay the salaries of film stars, football players, basketball players etc.  The public may well have a legitimate interest in these things, but a right to know...?  Hardly.  Even public servants and politicians, who are paid by the taxpayer, have a right to conduct their private lives in privacy, as long as it doesn't interfere with the performance of their duties.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Celebrities and similar performers earn their living by being famous. Losing privacy is part of that role. They cannot expect to be both highly-paid famesters AND keep their privacy. As I recall a judge saying some decades ago, they have chosen to be in the public eye. 92.24.185.155 (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that's rubbish. Any number of celebrities have taken action under privacy laws and non-harrassment laws, to protect themselves and their families from unwanted intrusion, and the law is on their side.  It's one thing to be in the public eye, and there's a legitimate interest in their partners, children and non-career activities.  But they still have the right to disclose as much or as little about those things as you or I do.  Whatever interest the public may have does not equate to the public's right to know, because there simply is no right to know.  Not legally, not morally, not in any way at all.  Don't believe the media when they insist on telling us stuff that they call "our right to know".  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  17:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Being willingly famous is like signing your soul away to the devil. In return for high income and glamour, you lose your privacy. Losing your privacy is what they get paid for, and is the essence of fame and celebrity. They cannot have it both ways. If they had private private lives they wouldnt be famous. 92.28.241.12 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope the super-injunctions do not cover Wikipedia as it is not a newspaper, since although the Sunday Herald website is not responding, I've just read all the saucy details by following the links from the article. Its like one of these comedy seaside postcards by Donald McGill. 92.15.21.174 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's not much the British authorities can do to prevent the breaking of these kind of court injunctions on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based in the U.S., and American courts and authorities have refused comity in cases where the actions are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits such prior restraints on publication in the U.S. However, since you're revealing your IP address as a non-registered user, I wouldn't add anything to the articles in question that's covered by the injunction. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's not a lot the super-injunctions could do to Wikipedia since it's a US-based organisation and its servers aren't located in the jurisdiction of the England and Wales courts. Wikipedians who are resident within that jurisdiction, however, would be wise not to repeat the naming of the person who obtained the super-injunction as they would be liable to charges of contempt of court. This is all very silly, as by now anyone who is interested in the case no doubt already knows the identity of the player - the Spanish press published his name weeks ago, and I'm sure that if he plays in a certain football match scheduled for next weekend which will be broadcast live in the UK then the crowd will be making audible remarks! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd still be interested to know if its illegal to read the forbidden information if you have the chance? And then would it be illegal to tell others? 92.15.21.174 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't answer legal questions. Consult your lawyer about whether it's legal for you to passively read something. "Telling others" sounds like it would be a violation of the injunction, but you would have to consult your attorney to find out for sure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what the point of the footballer etc continuing with all this is. Surely his wife, children, friends, workmates, most of his fans now know the secret details? 92.29.113.29 (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBC have now named him . I think it's safe to say that the injunction is now (to use a technical term) brutum fulmen, and the fact that CTB is Ryan Giggs can legitimately be published. Tevildo (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the original question, when a criminal has done something immoral such as a minor crime, does it not breach their human rights to make it known to the public? 92.24.185.155 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. However, it's legal to breach someone's human rights if such a breach is in the public interest ("necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others", Article 11).  The courts have ruled that it _is_ in the public interest to reveal that someone has committed an actual _crime_, but not (necessarily) in the public interest that they've merely indulged in immoral behaviour, such as drinking to excess or committing adultery.  Is revealing that someone has indulged in immoral behaviour "necessary for the protection of morals"?  Get an expensive lawyer and see if you can persuade the courts that it is. Tevildo (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Political ideology and corporate donation
How much influence the political ideology of a corporate donor play in making contributions to political parties? For example how much money Koch brothers donate to the Democrats, or how much money George Soros donates to the Republicans? --DHOD 1234 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That will depend on the ideology. Corporations (or their PACs, actually) tend to donate to politicians who they think will act in the company's best interests, not necessarily some nebulous ideology. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we have to differentiate among the types of donors here. As previously pointed out, corporate PACs tend to donate to both parties, and especially to incumbents, so they'll always have a foot in the door. You can see here how drug companies, to use one example, contribute to both parties, slightly favoring the GOP. Labor unions, on the other hand, donate almost exclusively to Democrats, presumably thinking the GOP is a lost cause. Donors associated with ideological organizations, such as abortion-rights groups, also favor the side that promotes their point of view. Then you have some industries that do tend to favor one party or the other: the oil industry gave Republicans 75% of its donations, while lawyers favored Democrats by the same amount. For the record, $1,500 of the $2.8 million in political contributions from the Koches since 1989 has gone to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The CRP doesn't have a 21-year breakdown for Soros, but 97% of money from people associated with Soros' firm went to Democrats in 2009-10. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On the flip side, in a recent election, my company donated nothing to either candidate, as they considered both candidates to be unfriendly to the interests of the company. No point in trying to "bribe" someone (via legal means) if they're not going to be influenced by it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Lancers /Light Cavalry /Hussars/Mounted Rifles / Horse Artillery?
I play a game called "Axis and Allies Miniatures" where the Polish have one cavalry unit. I am trying to create a playable scenario that includes all of these variations, but to represent them in the game I have to know what the difference is between all of the real units mention in this quote, how ever small? 24.78.172.60 (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggest you start by reading our articles on Lancer, Light cavalry, Hussar and Mounted infantry. While not necessarily focused on Poland, they will give you a good overview. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Polish cavalry. These distinctions arose during the 18th and 19th Century. Lancers were a Polish innovation copied first by France and later by Britain and the German states. British Lancers still wear the Czapka as ceremonial headgear, in honour of their Polish forebears. Lances continued to be carried into combat by all the major armies into the First World War; a photo of Polish Uhlans with them in the 1930s is here. Hussars copied the style of Hungarian horsemen and their distinctive uniform became wildly fashionable across Europe during the Napoleonic Wars. Many British light dragoon regiments became hussars at this time. There was no difference in role, just a dashing uniform. Originally, light cavalry - light dragoons, hussars and lancers - were used for reconnaissance and skirmishing attacks. Heavy cavalry - dragoons, cuirassiers and Household Cavalry - were used as shock troops for smashing through the enemy line in battle. Mounted infantry was a British innovation of the Second Boer War, allowing infantry to cover large distances like cavalry but to dismount and fight like infantry. By 1914, all British cavalry had trained to fight this way (carrying a standard infantry rifle), as well as keeping the option of an old fashioned sabre charge. Our Polish cavalry article suggests that was also the case in Poland in 1939. Horse artillery were units equipped with light guns, towed usually by a team of six horses, that could gallop fast enough to keep up with cavalry formations and support them in action. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So the Americans and Australians managed to field Mounted infantry before the British invented it. We must be even more special than we thought ourselves. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I was thinking of the European great powers - France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Italy - all of whom had very conservative cavalry tactics in 1914. The French were still wearing big brass helmets with long horse-hair plumes and carried carbines that were almost useless. Alansplodge (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some very detailed information on Polish cavalry on this page. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting account on this forum describing a Polish cavalry charge with lances against a German cavalry patrol who counter-charge with sabres on 23/09/39. Not the usual story of Blitzkreig. Alansplodge (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, some of this is just awesome. I will sift through it all to get the info I need. Thanks. 24.78.172.60 (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)