Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 February 17

= February 17 =

Which language has the most international television stations/productions?
My belief is that there are more Spanish television stations and programs, since there are 20 countries where Spanish is the native language. While China has more speakers it is mostly limited to China and her offshoots. While English is spoken in the USA, UK and former dominions.

My belief is that, since each of these Spanish speaking countries has their own media, Spanish has the most television programs of any world language.

However I have not been able to find any evidence to support my beliefs, and I was hoping refdesk could help. --Gary123 (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a difficult question to answer, as, with the advent of satellite TV, all languages available are broadcast daily and continually.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  01:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if you're right, would a greater number of smaller stations with small audiences really prove anything? Seems like you'd have to consider viewing figures to get any idea of impact. I'm afraid I can't help with any data though. 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd guess English, simply because global business speaks English and international TV is global business. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with InedibleHulk that English is the likely answer. 20 countries is frankly not very many (although there are surely more where it's popular enough that there are stations). And I suspect many commonwealth countries have at least some English productions (and probably televisions concentrating on English content even if it's not local productions), regardless of whether English is the native language. Note also that English is an official language in 58 countries per our List of territorial entities where English is an official language. (I mean heck, the Carribean countries plus US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ, South Africa is I think already 19.) I also agree with the above answer that the question is fairly complicated since it's not clear how you take in to account satellite broadcasts, co-productions etc. Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, as for Spanish vs Chinese, I don't know if this is that simple either. With increasing Chinese immigration and lower costs for broadcasting, more countries are likely getting Chinese stations and some local Chinese content. E.g I know NZ does and I'm pretty sure Australia does too. (I presume US and probably Canada & UK too.) And Chinese content (also South Korean and Japanese to some extent), is popular in various parts of Asia, particularly I think SEA. Well obviously Malaysia and Singapore, but also places like Vietnam and Indonesia or possibly most of it . Depending on the country, some of this may be dubbed, but with satellite TV or other digital broadcasts, it wouldn't be that surprising if the original language is also availabl. Also, are you solely referring to Mandarin, or are you including Cantonese and others? (Although with the rise of China, I have doubt there's many countries with only Cantonese but no Mandarin.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the Omni Television channels in Canada switch over to Mandarin, Cantonese, Punjabi or Italian for their news. Most of it is local news translated, but a bit comes from homelands. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Bear on a plane
Is it true that Boris Yeltsin once spent two days in his presidential plane, parked on the apron of Dublin Airport, too drunk to get out and take part in a G8 meeting being held there? I've heard this several times but it isn't in your article. Even if this was exaggerated though, the contrast with Putin goes a long way in explaining his popularity. 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to G8 no G8 summit was ever held in Dublin.WinterWall (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, since Ireland isn't actually a member. Do you know if something like this happened elsewhere, or in Dublin on another occasion? I've heard it from several people on different occasions, who don't know each other, and I'm almost sure it was in a newspaper at the time. Must have been round about 1995. 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's about http://www.independent.co.uk/news/yeltsin-too-tired-to-get-off-his-aircraft-1440023.html. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see this part of our article on Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin was returning to Russia from the United States, and it was planned for him to break his journey in Ireland. The plane landed at Shannon Airport (not in Dublin, but in County Clare), where Yeltsin was due to meet Irish Taoiseach (prime minister) Albert Reynolds. Reynolds was left waiting in the airport (highly embarrassing from a political and diplomatic point of view) as Yeltsin was unable to get off the plane. A planned dinner at nearby Dromoland Castle had to be cancelled. There is no unanimity on the reason why Yeltsin was indisposed: possible explanations include drunkenness, a heart attack, and a reaction to a prescription drug administered earlier in the day. RomanSpa (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would bet that jet lag had something to do with it. Russia=>USA=>Ireland without enough time at any place to catch up would be a pretty brutal schedule. SteveBaker (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hamburg state election, 2015
I saw an article in The Guardian which included some German-language infographics which seemed to be readily comprehensible, but turned out not to be.

The second infographic, titled "Wanderung AfD", appears to indicate what parties the Alternative for Germany (AfD) voters in this past weekend's election had voted for in the previous state election (in 2011). It looks like 7,000 AfD voters had voted for Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) in the last election, 8,000 for Christian Democratic Union (Germany) (CDU), 1,000 for The Left (Germany) (Linke), 4,000 for Free Democratic Party (Germany) (FDP), 1,000 for Alliance '90/The Greens (Grüne), 8,000 had been nonvoters (Nichtwähler), and 9,000 for other parties (Andere). That's 38,000 votes. But AfD received 214,000 votes this time. The other 176,000 couldn't have been past AfD voters because AfD didn't exist at the time of the 2011 election. Am I misinterpreting this infographic? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've figured it out. Apparently Hamburg has cumulative voting, in which voters can cast 5 votes. That would account for most of the discrepancy. See http://wahl.tagesschau.de/wahlen/2015-02-15-LT-DE-HH/analyse-wanderung.shtml. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's the difference between votes and voters. There were 1.3 million eligible voters, and a turnout of 57%, for 741000 voters and (modulo undervoting and invalid votes) 3.7 million votes. So the 214000 votes correspond to the 6.1% for the AfD (and to about 42000 voters - close enough if you assume that the numbers of voters are all approximate and rounded to the next 1000, and that votes could even be split between parties). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Levi-Strauss in Praise of Marcel Mauss
§I am looking for a quote where Claude Levi-Strauss praises " The Gift" (1925) by Marcel Mauss and says something like Mauss' work is so great and pioneering that all the works that follow on Exchange/Gift will be like a footnote to Mauss' work.

Kindly help me locate it in Levi-Strauss' French ouvre or any of his English translations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.245.208 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In part 2 of Levi-Strauss's Introdution à l'œuvre de M. Mauss (1950) (text available here), he writes "En effet, et bien que l'Essai sur le don soit, sans contestation possible, le chef-d'oeuvre de Mauss, son ouvrage le plus justement célèbre et celui dont l'influence a été la plus profonde, on commettrait une grave erreur en l'isolant du reste.", which Google Translate gives as "Indeed, although The Gift is, without any doubt, the masterpiece of Mauss, his most justly famous and one whose influence has been most profound, one makes a great mistake in isolating it from the rest." This is really the opposite sentiment from the one in your question, but it may be the quote you're looking for.  Tevildo (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That quote doesn't say that The Gift is the last word on the subject of exchanges; it says that it's wrong to think that Mauss's work can be reduced to that single book. --Xuxl (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How did King Lear plan to divide up his kingdom for his three daughters?
There is an incident in King Lear (the actual Shakespeare play's text, not any films or such) about which I am confused. In the very first scene, King Lear states that he wants to divide up his kingdom to each of his three daughters, offering the best piece to the daughter who says she loves him most. But, it seems to be the case that the map was already divided into equal thirds, right from the outset. No? Furthermore, a bit later on in the scene, he gives Goneril a third; then he gives Regan an equal third. Of course, this implies that there is one more "equal third" remaining. But, he says to Cordelia, paraphrased, "Tell me how much you love me in even stronger language, so that I can give you a piece of my kingdom more opulent than what your sisters received." So, I am a bit confused by this. Was the kingdom already divided into pre-determined equal thirds at the outset, before each daughter professed her love? And what about the discrepancy in giving Cordelia more than an equal share, after the other two-thirds are already gone and there is only one more equal third left to give? I am confused. Am I missing something? Or is this just some minor irrelevant detail that Shakespeare was not concerned with? It seems to be the crux of the entire scene (which sister gets what amount dependent upon how strongly she professes her love). So, I can't imagine it's an irrelevant point of minutiae, from the perspective of the playwright. Or is Lear just playing some form of mind games, asking each daughter to out-do the others, when his decision was already pre-determined, rendering their actions moot? Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, here's my take. At the beginning of the play there is a conversation about the king's plans to divide the kingdom. It's implied that it's not settled yet, but that the king is beginning to favour one of the Dukes over the other. The opening lines of the play are: "I thought the King had more affected [preferred] the Duke of Albany than Cornwall". Glou. "It did always seem so to us; but now, in the division of the kingdom, it appears not which of the Dukes he values most". Note that the conversation is about the Dukes - the males - who are seen as the negotiators, not their wives, Lear's daughters. It's implied that a deal is being done by the men which is intended to be sealed by the ritual declarations of adoration by their wives, but that if those declarations are not fulsome, the King might decide to switch to a different deal. It's about him using his daughters to keep his sons-in-law on tenterhooks. He always indended to give Cordelia the most "opulent" third, which would function as her dowry for her prospective husbands. It's made clear that the uncertainty is only about the division between the two Dukes. In a sense it's about "patriarchal" power (in both the feminist and traditional senses of the word). The women declare their gushing devotion to secure power for their husbands, or in Cordelia's case to secure a husband and demonstrate her servile femininity. But of course that's not how the play pans out. The women are the ones who dominate after Lear gives up his power. Paul B (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I might add that such a division would never be equal in any straightforward way, since the sheer size of territory has to be set against its productive capacity, trade links, strategic significance, population size etc. The most "opulent" third might be physically smaller than a bigger bit comprising a lot of useless hills and heath. And of course Shakespeare is only following what Geoffrey says happened in King Leir's later life, though he dramatically departs from his historical sources towards the end of the play. Paul B (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But, I still don't follow.  Yes, I understand the opening lines of the play (the "does the King prefer Cornwall or Albany?" scene).  Kent says: "Wow, everyone always thought he preferred one over the other!"  Essentially, Gloucester replies: "Yes, that was always the conventional wisdom.  But, now, it looks like a very equal split, 50/50, right down the middle."  That's how I read that.  Also, with Cordelia:  the map is already divided; there is only an equal third remaining.  No matter how weak or how strong she professes her love, she can only get (at best) that equal third, which is no more or no less than the other two sisters.  So, hypothetically, let's say that Cordelia gave a very flowery devotion of love.  She should now get the "best" division.  But, there is no "best division" left.  The equal third is the only third remaining, and hence, the only third to give her.  I am still confused.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I I thought I'd already pointed out, there can be no such thing as an "equal" third in practice. The term "third" just refers to one of three parts. Even if the land were equally divided, Cordelia's could still be the more "opulent" third (containing the best land, a thriving seaport, copper mines... or whatever), which is what Lear says. In effect he's saying "now, I've got this last third, which is the most opulent, what are you going to say to me to thank me for it? Are you going to be more gushing than those two, because you really should be. Look at all that juicy farmland." Paul B (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess we are missing each other's point. When I talk about "thirds", I am not necessarily saying that the number of acres is exactly the same in each division.  One might be bigger, one might be smaller.  Agreed.  I guess what I am saying is: there is only one "piece" left, after the first two daughters got their first two pieces.   So, regardless of Cordelia's answer, she was going to get that last third piece, no matter what.  The size or desirability (or whatever) was never going to change, contingent upon her answer.  It was the last piece left.  What exactly was she competing for?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * She's not competing. She just has to go along with her father's wishes and gush about what a fantastic guy he is. It's essentially a public ritual. The only competion is a kind of rhetorical one - 'top that, can you?' - which she doesn't want to participate in. Paul B (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I guess. So, the father says, "See if you can top that?"  If she did indeed "top" that (her sisters' replies), then Coredlia would get _______ (what?).   If she did indeed not "top" that (her sisters' replies), then Coredlia would get _______ (what?).  Both of those blanks can be filled in only by the same thing (that last third piece).  So, Cordelia's answer is irrelevant.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Lear says "Now, our joy,/Although the last, not least....what can you say to draw/A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak." Our article Cordelia (King Lear) matches my memory but does not cite any lines in proof that Cordelia is expressly  Lear's favorite.  The order seems pre-determined, and the thirds are not larger or smaller, just that last is most opulent, i.e., richer in resources, as has been mentioned by Paul above. μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And to fill in Joseph's blanks, if she complies and gushes about her dad, Cordelia gets the piece of land Lear has set aside for her, and if not, she doesn't receive anything, but the audience can enjoy a great play as a result. --Xuxl (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that does not answer my question. We know that Cordelia says nothing and receives nothing.  My question was not about that extreme end of the spectrum.  My question was this.  Scenario A:  If Coredlia gushes and surpasses the sisters, she gets _____ (what?).  Scenario B:  If Coredlia offers a fair and mediocre protestation of love (and yet does not surpass the sisters), she gets _____ (what?).  Scenario C:  If Coredlia says nothing, she gets _____ (what?).  So, we know all about Scenario C.  So, I was asking about Scenario A versus B.  Cordelia offers a response between the two extremes of "gushing" versus "says nothing".  What does she receive?  The King set up an odd premise.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think Lear had a scenario B planned. Either she gushed sufficiently and received the land, or she did not and received nothing. Seeing she would be unable to top her elder sisters, Cordelia chose to say nothing and received nothing. Nothing indicates that King Lear had any finer gradation in his test of his daughters' love. --Xuxl (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was all about Lear's ego. And he was "toying" with (i.e., playing mind games with) his daughters.  The first two decided to "go along" with his foolishness, fully realizing that it indeed was foolishness.  And they had to play their part and comply.  You stated: Seeing she would be unable to top her elder sisters, Cordelia chose to say nothing and received nothing.  I would disagree with that assessment.  Cordelia wanted to be genuine and sincere.   To not tell Lear what he wanted to hear, simply because he wanted to hear it (when it was untrue).  Cordelia wanted no part of that.  That was her underlying reason and motivation.  She did not say to herself: "Wow, I can never top what those two sisters said, so I just better shut up and not even try to do so."   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Was Jun-Jun Sotto real, and if so did he win?
In 2011 a photo circulated the internet purportedly showing a Filipino election poster for "Jun-Jun Sotto" with the refreshingly honest slogan "I'll do my best but I can't promise anything" (in English). I recently stumbled upon the photo again, and was wondering: Is it real, and if so where is Jun-Jun Sotto now? The photo can be found at: http://i.imgur.com/VOQJtGJ.jpg. Many thanks 80.41.253.91 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)