Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 5

= July 5 =

How to look up criminal complaints?
I would like to find a criminal complaint filed against Justin Carter by the New Braunfels Police Department in Texas. This is a notable case in which many news sources have cited the complaint. (Don't worry about outing - the family would not be offended that people know about the case) I'm quite interested in this specific example (thinking to start an article in the next couple of days, time permitting) but in general, I often feel like I don't know the particulars of a situation for sure until I've seen the complaint and the specific laws involved. Alas, though news organizations always cite these things they seem to treat their sources like a proprietary asset. Is there some straightforward way to view criminal complaints online, or is it some deal where a reporter has to walk in an archive between 4 and 5 on a Wednesday and pay $10 a page for a copy? Wnt (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be a FOIA issue, which means that you would have to file a proper request. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that States do not have to grant FOIA requests to non-residents, so you may not even be able to access the complaint yourself if no one who has already requested it has not made it availible.  -- Jayron  32  00:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for this information in order to use it in a Wikipedia article, see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which explicitly cautions against using such material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems hard to picture that so many different news organizations obtained FOIAs with such little fanfare - my impression was that it was no easy task to get one acted on. As for the article, it would be nice (for example) to know the specific laws involved (and beyond that article, who voted for them...) Wnt (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no general system for obtaining court documents; each court system varies in how much it puts online. There is a docket sheet for this case (which I do not link to because it contains the defendant's address and birthdate; you can find it by making an appropriate search here), but it does not link to the relevant documents. Sometimes one of the parties will make a document available on request; you could try informally contacting the district attorney's office.  John M Baker (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Further to AndyTheGrump's point: An indictment is not an acceptable source for factual statements based upon the indictment's allegations, but is an excellent source for describing what the indictment itself says. However, indictments and other court documents often contain personal information that makes them unsuitable for linking. John M Baker (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Individualism and notions of justice
In the justice systems of the West, and in philosophical discussions of the idea of justice, it seems to be a given that justice must be at the level of the individual. That is, if you have done nothing wrong, you cannot be blamed because you are a member of a group that did something wrong. I can provide no reference, because it seems to be an implicit assumption, although (for all I know) references may abound. However, in Eastern countries, the importance of the group is often emphasised over the individual. I do not mean to say this is always present there, and never here, but the individualism of the West is a commonplace observation. It may seem that the collectivism of other societies could run contrary to the importance of the individual in matters of justice. Such may effectively be the case with blood feuds - someone has wronged your ancestor, you are part of the wronged group, so you take up the fight. But in jurisprudence and in higher level discussions, it seems that all societies agree that justice should focus on the individual. So that was all background.

I am wondering if anyone knows of any formal discussion of such an issue, that is, the potential conflict between the general spirit of collectivism, and the significance of the individual when apportioning blame, and dishing out punishments. I do not mean that such notions are contradictory, I merely want to see how these concerns are addressed in collectivist societies, where the group is strongly emphasised. I would welcome any scholarly references, but also even blogs by educated people from such cultures who are reflecting on such issues. I would take these sorts of things as essentially primary sources, since they show how people from these cultures think when confronting these concerns. IBE (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is. Geert Hofstede has spent his life researching and enumerating such cultural differences, and you would do well to read some of his books, particularly "Cultures and Organisations". Also Richard E Nisbett's book "The Geography of Thought" refers to the differences between Eastern and Western approaches to, for example, academic research. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice link. Following the refs led me to this on google books, although when they talk about cross-cultural perceptions of justice, they are making the aforementioned assumption. Eg. bottom of page 361: "retributive justice arises when one individual observers another's act that breaks a rule ..." (cut short here by google, just when it was getting really interesting). So unless they go on to talk about blood feuds and the like, they are making an individualist assumption, that it is about individuals doing things wrong, even when talking about collectivist-individualist cultural differences. Well, I find it interesting. More info welcome. IBE (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The individuality of Western justice is by no means an inherent aspect of Western culture. Christianity's very premise is the validity of collective punishment: Jesus can redeem the sins of mankind not because he committed those sins, but because punishment was considered transferable.  All humans are tainted by Original Sin and all women have to suffer the pain of childbirth, not because these specific people did anything wrong, but because Adam and Eve disobeyed God's commands hundreds of generations ago.
 * If you read Shakespeare, you'll find no shortage of blood feuds. In colonial history, there's no shortage of massacres committed against native peoples in retribution for an attack by a small (and often unrelated) group of people.  The only reason that collective punishment is not accepted today is because the West, unlike the Eastern countries you're referring to, has progressed beyond its barbaric past.  In particular, the Enlightenment emphasized that "men are born and remain free and equal in rights" (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), "laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind" (Thomas Jefferson), and "The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education"  (Adam Smith).  Enlightenment thinkers were skeptical of organized religion (see deism) and believed in the power of human reason to improve the world.  It's not hard to see why, under this philosophy, each person was considered responsible for his own actions and only his own actions.  If I get arrested and hanged simply because my dad committed a crime, I'm hardly "free and equal"; to the contrary, I'm being persecuted for my circumstances of birth, which I have no control over.  --Bowlhover (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Some good points. I confess I can't find much in our article on individualism, but my knowledge of history tells me that individualism itself has relatively recent beginnings, and does not go back to the dawn of Western civilisation. So you make the valid point that individual responsibility (in matters of justice) does not go hand-in-hand with Western political history, but do not seem to state the same for individualism itself. You don't contradict it either, but I feel it needs to be emphasised. The beginnings of Western individualism are to be seen (according to Burckhardt) in the Italian Renaissance, and according to what I read in the Times Atlas of World History, even earlier, in mediaeval times. This took some time to flourish, and may not have permeated the society until the Enlightenment. So it may not be a case of "progressing beyond barbarism", or the quickening influence of "habit, custom and education", but the natural growth of individualism as an idea and an ideal, which in turn influenced systems of government and jurisprudence. I am not trying to argue for such a case (indeed, I incline towards your approach), but I would not consider it settled as an issue of overcoming barbarism, rather than of cultural values. IBE (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to be careful with words like "individualism" and "collectivism" as they tend to be dodgy. The root words in each don't seem to capture the concepts that they denote and even then there are multiple senses of the words. "Traditionalism" would probably be a better term to use than "collectivism". With this in mind, I think the difference can be attributed to the delay in Enlightenment ideals of liberalism and cosmopolitanism to reach the shores of Asia. Japan sealed itself off from the rest of the world until the 1800s—a fascinating example of willful cultural isolationism. — Melab±1 &#9742; 03:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What became of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement in the '20 an '30 ?
Hello Learned Ones ! It seems to me the article Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement doesn't say how fruitful this agreement has been in the following years; & the blue link n° 1 seems to me to lead into cul-de-sac...It may not have been very "eupareunistic", since I notice that during the Great Purge, "espionnage for G.B." was frequently the reason for a bullet in the neck. Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers. T.y. PS : is "eupareunistic" (& "thanatophily") correct english ? Arapaima (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would guess that most aspects of USSR-UK relations suffered a strong setback after the Zinoviev letter affair... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On the language question, "euparenuistic" isn't an English word (and I'm not really sure what it means - "good relations between states"? If so, the usual word in English is entente, despite it being French).  "Thanatophily" isn't in the dictionaries, but it is understandable in English - we have Thanatophile and Thanatophilia (although I personally would disagree with the redirect - thanatophilia and necrophilia _aren't_ synonymous). Tevildo (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot AnonMoos ! And also to you, Tevildo, for picking up my obviously off play and drifting away second question : among french sexologists, an intercourse is said (or rather, was said some 50 years ago...) "eupareunique" (from "nice union" in greek) when physically and psy.lly satisfactory for both partners. As for "thanatophily", I was wondering if it is correct in english after having used it in the french meaning, as "cultural tendency to love (or not to be afraid of) death, as Mexicans and Japoneses

are said to be" ; in french, having sex with corpses is called "necrophilie" . T.y. Arapaima (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Diet Pepsi and Pepsi Max?
What's the difference? Why market 2 drinks with the only obvious differences being that Diet Pepsi has <1% salt (Pepsi MAX has none) and Pepsi MAX has 1 calorie per 250ml (Diet Pepsi has 2). Is there something i'm missing? Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 10:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Diet" anything is often seen as being a bit soft or womanly, so Pepsi thought that not many men would buy "Diet Pepsi". As such, they created "Pepsi Max" which has a bit more of a hardcore name to encourage sales from people who would feel embarrassed about buying a product with "Diet" written on the front. This should explain more. —  Richard  BB  11:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * {edit conflict} Diet Pepsi is aimed at women, Pepsi Max is aimed at men. This article gives some background. The same dual marketing strategy is used by Coca Cola with Diet Coke (women) and Coke Zero (men). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Coke Zero and Diet Coke have different formulations, not just different marketing strategies. The artificial sweeteners used and the actual tastes differ. --Thomprod (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup, the whole idea is that men like to imagine that they are somehow actively crushing those calories underfoot, rather than passively resisting them. Paul B (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been buying Diet Pepsi because i thought there was hidden crap in Pepsi Max. If it's just a gender stereotyping thing, then i'll stick with Diet Pepsi. I bought Pepsi Max in the week to see if it tasted different - that's the reason for the question. Thanks for the responses guys ツ Jenova   20  (email) 11:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The "Max" in Pepsi Max refers to caffeine content; it has 69 mg compared to 38 mg in a can of standard Pepsi Cola. Personally, I'd rather have a nice cup of tea. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say on the bottle how much caffeine is in Diet Pepsi. Is it possible that Pepsi Max has a difference in the amount and is meant as a kind-of energy drink version? Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 12:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Pepsi Max has nearly twice as much caffeine as Diet Pepsi - 115mg per 20fl oz for Max versus 59mg per 20fl oz for Diet. The figures are for the drinks as sold in the US - other markets may have different amounts. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is purely speculative, but look up shelf space... well, I guess not, but slotting fee provides a trace of insight on it. My impression is that the largest companies provide a really long line of products to distract the consumer from the fact that they've purchased total control over the supermarket and there isn't really any competition at all. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Introducing new flavors is also a way to steal market share, as there's a slight "novelty" bump from people who try it out (Oooh look, the new Bacon Pepsi! I'll have to try that).  It doesn't last very long, which is why companies who use that as a marketing strategy need to keep a near constant stream of new products.  -- Jayron  32  13:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * All interesting replies. I'm thinking after seeing this that it's simply just Diet Pepsi is diet, while Pepsi Max is an energy drink with no sugar content. It seems that simple. Pepsi don't release new products often and i assume that's to avoid a New Coke moment. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 13:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pepsi is a very different business than Coke is. PepsiCo is a diversified food and beverage company that, besides making soft drinks, also makes snacks (FritoLay) and breakfast cereals (Quaker Oats) and formerly owned restaurants (Pizza Hut, KFC, etc.) and even at one time owned sporting goods brands (Wilson) and a trucking line (North American Van Lines).  They've since divested themselves of the restaurants and non-food brands, but continue to have a wide variety of products and revenue streams.  The Coca-Cola Company makes beverages only.  So Coke has to manage it's beverage lines very carefully, and has different marketing strategies because it's a different kind of business than Pepsi, which can afford to run a smaller beverage product line, as it also dominates several other food-related markets.  -- Jayron  32  15:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the U.S. (but not other countries) they contain different sweeteners. Diet Pepsi has only aspartame while Pepsi Max has a mix of aspartame and acesulfame potassium. Pepsi Max also has ginseng extract. Rmhermen (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Egypt
Why do other Arab countries in the middle east support the military coup? What did they have against the Muslim Brotherhood? 163.202.48.126 (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Many are afraid that Islamist ideology will spread throughout Africa, that secularism will be eliminated, and that conservative, political Sharia law will become the governing principle, rather than more moderate forms of government. The Muslim Brotherhood were an Islamist group, and the military removed them from power. —  Richard  BB  14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would Middle Eastern Arab countries worry about the spread in Africa of fundamental Islamism? Those countries supporting the coup are by no means secular or moderate or democratic or whatever in this direction. Check [| this source] as to why the Muslim Brotherhood has a disturbed relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is the biggest supported of the coup. Other countries, like Bahrain, being Shia, are also of a different denomination of Islam, whereas the Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni.  OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposition to beards and support for cool, Western-style haircuts. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, regarding Hamas, it is concerned with stability in Egypt, but do not care who is at charge there. And it certainly doesn't care with Richard's "spread throughout Africa, that secularism will be eliminated, and that conservative, political Sharia law will become the governing principle." Support for the coup is not about fighting fundamentalists. The supporters of the new government are by no means more Westernized, democratic or less radical. I'd even say that the Muslim Brotherhood is less radical that say Saudi Arabia. It's all about power, and threats to stability. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am the OP. I don't understand what the story is about beards and hair-cuts but this is a serious question. If you don't know the answer, that's fine - but please don't treat this as a silly question. Thanks to Osman and Richard for your answers. 105.236.76.120 (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's your problem if you don't think personal freedom matters. Instead of people throwing childish insults they should read the links provided.  There's a large liberal contingent in these countries that does, including the young men I linked to in the head shaving article and the anti-Sharia/Muslim Brotherhood protesters chanting and tweeting "no more beards".  Look at the anti-Islamist protests in Turkey of the same nature. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * With the exception of the 1 vandal whose edit was quickly reverted, you seem to be the only one acting childishly. Your first link is an excerpt from this Daily Mail article, which claims that "BBC reporter tweeted that people were chanting 'no more beards' apparently aimed at the Muslim Brotherhood".  Let's leave aside the fact that the Daily Mail is no epitome of reporting quality, and that it is reporting second-hand information without identifying the source.  Even according to this Daily Mail article, opposition to beards has nothing to do with the issue; the beard is merely a symbol for MB members and Islamists in general.  For more information on the role of facial hair in signifying religious beliefs, see this BBC article.
 * Your second link is about Hamas. It has nothing to do with Egypt, the coup, Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood, or even Hamas' reaction to the coup.  It is completely unhelpful to the OP.  --Bowlhover (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have something to say about the subject, Bowlhover, do so. The OP asked why other countries supported the uprising, what they ha against the Sharia supporting and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.  So far as I am aware it is the people of those countries that do, for the reasons I have given.  The liberals don't want Islamism.  I am not aware of any Arab/Islamic governments that have openly expressed their support, although they may be happy in private, for their own reasons, which I don't believe I have insulted anyone for commenting on.  In any case, drop the personal nonsense and provide links according to your own understanding. μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What I had to say is that most users, including me and the OP, were completely confused about what relevance your post had on the question. I don't understand why you chose a roundabout way of making your point when you could have said it directly.  I have no comment on the validity of your point itself.  --Bowlhover (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

OP again. Look, I have read your links and you are entitled to your opinions, but I really don't think that support for the coup is driven by the way the MB members grow their beards or comb their hair. I think the comments and tweets you mention speak to what a certain type of beard symbolises. This question was inspired by the article on 2013 Egyptian coup d'état and I see now the section on the post-coup international response. Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon and Syria made comments supportive of the coup. 105.236.76.120 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@Medeis and @Richard: the question was why Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia supported the coup? They are not against the MB because they are against its fundamentalist views, have concerns for human rights, or want Egypt to become a democracy. They question is not why we should be against the MB, it's why Middle Eastern Arab countries are against it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't tell me if you mean the people of those countries or their regimes. I suspect that the sources I have given reflecting public attitude reflect public attitude. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the OP's point here. You said above: (emphasis added)
 * The OP asked why other countries supported the uprising, what they ha against the Sharia supporting and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. So far as I am aware it is the people of those countries that do, for the reasons I have given.  The liberals don't want Islamism.  ''I am not aware of any Arab/Islamic governments that have openly expressed their support'
 * The people may very well support the coup but it seems clear this isn't what the OP is asking about instead they are interested in the governments. Otherwise they would have asked why people in said countries support the coup not why the countries (which normally implies the government) support the coup. Even if it weren't clear initially, the OP has said they are referring the quotes in our article, which unsurprisingly are mostly from governments.
 * I would note we have no real idea what most of the people in said countries think of the coup, I expect many haven't even given it that much thought. And in any case many of said countries aren't places where people are used to, or always able to openly express their views. And even ignoring the questionable reliability considering the various problems facing any attempts (including that the governments may not allow it), I doubt any scientific public polling has been done to give us a gauge of public opinion of the coup in many, probably any, of said countries. I'm sure some people in said countries support the coup for various reasons, as some oppose it, I'm not sure coming up with random reasons why random people support the coup is useful in any way.
 * And you said you weren't aware that governments were openly supporting the coup. In reality, it's been clear from early on and before your reply and as reflected in our article also before your reply, that quite a few governments in the region were publicly/openly supporting the coup. Of course some of the comments may just be normal comments after any change of government and reflective of the fact many government in the region don't care much about legitimacy, more about who is currently in control, but if you read the comments and the commentary surrounding the coup carefully, it's clear it goes beyond that.
 * It's even more clear now, given as widely speculate prevously, several countries like Saudia Arabia, UAE and Kuwait who refused the previous president/governments requests for finanancial support, have promised financial aide totalling US$12 billion post coup . Even Qatar, which had been financially supporting Egpyt before doesn't seem that concerned.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of those countries have had their own trouble with the MB, see Muslim_Brotherhood. At least that isn't helping. Unilynx (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get in to this in much detail but I disagree with Osman. I think they're looking at this too simplisticly. Some of the governments may very well be concerned about fundamentalism. Just because the same governments may also be fundamentalist themselves doesn't mean they aren't opposed to forms of fundamentalism which they consider incompatible with their forms of fundamentalism. That said, I'm not suggesting this is a major factor. Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sociology
Which are the given subjects when you study Sociology as a career??  Ms.Bono  (zootalk) ☆ 14:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean rather, "which careers are open to someone who has studied Sociology?" --TammyMoet (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Or do you mean, "what topics are included in a course in Sociology"? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Itsmejudith and TammyMoet. Sorry, English is not my first language. I meant what topics are included in a course in Sociology: Thanks :) But you could answer both questions for me... ;) I am in my way to study Sociology at The University of Havana and I would like to be prepared.  Ms.Bono  (zootalk) ☆ 14:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The only on-line information I can find for the University of Havana is in Spanish (not surprising !), but if you do a Google search for "department of sociology undergraduate course list" you can see a cross section of topics covered in various undergraduate sociology programs. Or you can read our article on sociology, which has a "Scope and topics" section. As well as content-oriented courses, you can also expect to have modules on study skills, research skiils and quantitative methods/statistics. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, Gandalf61. Thanks for your answer. Unfortunately I don't have Google access, or other sites. I just have access here www.wikipedia.org. So i cannot follow any links or do Google research. Thanks!  Ms.Bono  (zootalk) ☆ 15:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have email you could use Web2PDF to browse the web using your email address. Compose an email message, type the URL of any web page in the body of that message and send it to submit@web2pdfconvert.com. The service will then fetch the corresponding web page on its own servers and will send it back it you as a PDF attachment – all this takes no more than a few seconds. For example, for searching for sociology and topics, you put "http://www.google.es/search?q=sociology+topics" in the subject of the email and send it to submit@web2pdfconvert.com. Alternatively, put http://nytimes.com as the subject or http://www.cnn.com. They'll send back an email with the Google search results or the corresponding page attached.
 * I don't know if this is legal or possible in your country. I don't know if internet use is restricted due to technical, economical or national security issues. So, do it at your own peril! 87.217.149.193 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot :)...  Ms.Bono  (zootalk) ☆ 17:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Outline of sociology has it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you 2 :)  Ms.Bono  (zootalk) ☆ 17:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking sociology trained me how to analyze data quickly into something meaningful. But I didn't even know there was anyone who couldn't access google!  As an aside, how come she can't access google? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Til Eulenspiegel Goolgle and Internet access is blocked at work and Internet access it's too expensive and I cannot afford it at home.  Miss Bono  (zootalk) ☆ 16:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically that's for the OP to answer, but if she doesn't get back to you, she might have internet access at work, and google/most internet might be blocked. This happened to me in a previous job - we really needed wikipedia, but the web was just too much of a distraction. As for the course, and assuming it has probably been answered well enough, the only thing I can add is that I would expect a course in sociology to be quite flexible. IBE (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Alba --> Murray/Salmond
This is gonna be speculation, but is Alex Salmond gonna fly down for the Wimbledon final now that Murray is [almost] through? Pnly 1 year to go...and if he makes it next year too then you got commonwealth games as well. What a climax?Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should ask his office. How on earth would we know? Paul B (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He did, incidentally. See this article. Tevildo (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Man of La Mancha
This might not be strictly referencable but what the hay... Should I read Don Quixote before seeing Man of La Mancha later this year? Dismas |(talk) 20:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You should read Don Quixote, period. It's great fun. Looie496 (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The theme of the novel is a would-be hero repeatedly makes a fool of himself in other's eyes. Given we are not allowed to give opinions I will not tell you to bother to read it.  The musical is in English, of course. μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The musical was not written with the idea that people who came to see it would be familiar with Don Quixote, and it's safe to say that most of the people who saw and enjoyed it had not read the tome on which it was based. Clearly reading Don Quixote is no prerequisite to enjoying the musical, which is not to say, of course, that it's not a good idea per se. - Nunh-huh 09:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Looie496, I have it on my "to read" shelf anyway. I was wondering if I should make a point of reading it beforehand. Once I finish a book, my wife picks my next from the shelf. This way I avoid having any "I've had this for a very long time but have just never picked it up" books. Though I can influence her decisions by saying that, as is the case here, I'd like to read X before seeing Y.

Medeis, I know the general themes of the book. Your answer was just as I expected it to be. You have not failed my expectations.

Nunh-huh, thank you! Although it was not as "clear" to me as I guess it is to you that it is not a prerequisite, hence the question. You got the gist of the question and answered it satisfactorily. Thanks again, Dismas |(talk) 05:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Effects of fiction on crime and criminals
There's a lively discussion on the effects that fictional works (movie, literature, etc.) have on crime. Are there any academic studies that examine if (and how much) Thank you. 84.109.248.221 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) they increase the abundance and severity of crimes?
 * 2) they help criminals to avoid convictions?


 * Re question 1: a related discussion is that surrounding video games: the lines of evidence and the conclusions seem to be fairly similar. A good place to start is these youtube videos: nice and short and a bit longer. The last one is in three parts, about half an hour, but very good. Then there is our article Video game controversies. I can't find any article we have specifically on fiction, although I'm sure we must have one. There is a lot of research on this, dating back at least to the 60s and 70s, e.g. Sex Violence and the Media by Eysenck and Nias. IBE (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also see Excitation-transfer theory for a bit of the theoretical underpinnings, and do a control-F for the word "movie" to see the relevance. IBE (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As the article Video game controversies says, the results are inconclusive. The same is true of Social effects of pornography.My reading of it all is that it seems we have to accept that for the average person exposure to such things desensitises somewhat and one might expect them to commit more crime, but the statistics under different laws indicate they lead to less crime overall, perhaps those who actually choose them can use them as an alternative and train to control themselves. Things sometimes just are not straightforward, it would be nice if someone could come up with an overall good solution to this conundrum. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the second part of the OP's question, I wonder if forensic science-based crime dramas, of which there are now so many, might be giving attentive criminals tips on how to avoid leaving any clues behind that might allow the police to identify them? --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly has affected how juries view forensic evidence. See CSI effect. -- 71.35.96.251 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Though not exactly an academic vehicle, the 1963 film The Wrong Arm of the Law had gang leader Pearly Gates (played by Peter Sellers) trying to improve the flagging performance of his men through compulsory training sessions at which they had to watch films of successful heists, like Rififi. --Hors-la-loi 14:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)