Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 January 13

= January 13 =

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
The The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance article twice mentions someone named "Duke", but the name is absent from the cast list; it's someone who apparently was a worse football player than John Wayne. A Google search for <"liberty valance" duke> reveals lots of WP mirrors and various pages that mention the guy in connection with Wayne, but nothing explains who he was. What was Duke's full name, and where does he fit in? Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Duke" was nickname for John Wayne (much better than his real name, Marion). StuRat (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * His birth name was Marion Morrison, and he was going by "Duke" even before he adopted the stage name of John Wayne. His early film credits say "Duke Morrison". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No wonder the name consistently appeared in connection with Wayne...I've added a [bracketed comment] next to "Duke" in the first quote that mentions him. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bravo. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Like Indiana Jones, he was named after a dog. —Tamfang (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

funny or else

 * If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you. —Oscar Wilde


 * If you're going to tell people the truth, be funny or they'll kill you. —Billy Wilder

I got both of these from the same unreliable source. Is one of the attributions accurate? —Tamfang (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The following is from a blog source which purportedly cites several other sources (which theoretically could be checked). Apparently, Wilder "borrowed" from George Bernard Shaw, who is credited with: "If you are going to tell people the truth, you’d better make them laugh. Otherwise, they’ll kill you"; whereas Wilder: "If you’re going to tell people the truth, be funny or they’ll kill you".  —Source:  ~: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * —P.s.: The blog is from Barry Popik; which our article suggests would be a reliable source for this topic. 71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He only says that it's attributed to G. B. Shaw (along with many other people). I think that if there were evidence that Shaw actually said it, he would have mentioned that. -- BenRG (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's a discussion of this quote at George Bernard Shaw from which it seems that it's also attributed to W. C. Fields and Charlie Chaplin.  They cite some vaguely similar quotes from GBS: "My way of joking is to tell the truth. It's the funniest joke in the world", (John Bull's Other Island), and "[Mark Twain] has to put things in such a way as to make people who would otherwise hang him believe he is joking", (no source given).  Possibly one or the other is the origin of all this. --Antiquary (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The quote about Mark Twain is pretty securely sourced to Shaw's conversation here. --Antiquary (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Where can I find a copy of Charlie Hebdo in the US?
I read that Charlie Hebdo has printed about a million copies of its most recent issue. On eBay these are being sold for $130 each. Is there a way I can get a copy in the US without having to pay $130? Shii (tock) 04:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See WorldCat. Its entry for the magazine will list libraries that subscribe or subscribed to it, sorted by their distance from your location (be sure to specify your ZIP code, since it depends on your IP address, which is sometimes far from your actual location), and it links to the library catalogue so that you can check whether or not they currently subscribe.  It's not a widely held publication in this country; I'm in metro Pittsburgh, and the two closest libraries that get it are Michigan State University and Indiana University, 250 and 350 miles away respectively.  Of course, libraries generally won't let you check out a periodical, but you can view it.  You can also request an interlibrary loan; with a magazine, this usually is accomplished by the owning library scanning or photocopying a single article, because they generally don't send the whole issue.  Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a reply, I basically just want to own it though, or get it framed. Shii (tock) 06:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Should have grabbed it when it was only $130. CNN Money says they're between $190 and $595, straight up. You know those auctions will soon make those prices look relatively sane. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or no, wait. That was the other, less relevant issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These people have decided to print the next edition in 16 languages and are smart enough to print enough copies in English to fulfill the immediate demand. Keep an eye on the web, and my guess is that the price will come down in days to come. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This article says there will be 300000 copies for foreign markets instead of the usual 4000, and 3 millions copies instead of the usual 60000. It also says among those who usually don't receive it, the US and GB are already included. Note that the last Luz green drawing showed (forgiving Prophet Muhammad holding a sheet of paper stating "Je Suis Charlie") is not necessarily the next Charlie Hebdo front page. Akseli9 (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings from Singapore. France is a racist society? Why they support the newspaper making a million copies for even more insulting Muhammad cartoons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.188.218 (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this is not what they support. And racism of course not. What they support when it is attacked by totalitarian-minded people, is the right to say or draw anything you like or don't like. You are free not to buy and not to read a cartoon hebdo that usually sells only 35000 copies or so, and issues only between 45000 and 60000 at most. Akseli9 (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Insulting Muhammad, even if that's what they're doing (which it isn't), is not racism under any definition of "race". --Bowlhover (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the cartoons have been "insulting", but that's the nature of satire. The closest to being "racist" is the stereotyped Arab in the cartoons. I don't think that's the main reason the murders were committed, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is insulting, and Charlie Hebdo doesn't pretend it isn't. The message is that the magazine forgives the attackers, and still holds Islam in no lower regard than any of the other religions they lampoon. In a way, it's one of the least bigoted things ever said about Muslims on the front page of a major global English paper (which this apparently is now).
 * But yeah, it also appeals to audience looking for the brave hero, defiant against adversity. The phrase "plucky Frenchman" gets thrown around a lot. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You gave one interpretation of "Tout est pardonné", among several possible interpretations. Another interpretation is that it's Prophet Muhammad who forgives the cartoonists, now that they are properly punished, and now that it is good to be seen with a sign "je suis charlie". Akseli9 (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Any bets on whether the terrorists will buy your interpretation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * :) Yet a third interpretation could be, now everybody forgives to everybody, and that would include terrorists? :) Akseli9 (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be the nice thing to do. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be ideal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which should never, of course, extend to the West condoning the actions of the terrorists. Likewise, the terrorist organisations shouldn't be expected to suspend their objections to what they see as material deeply offensive to Islam, but it's not beyond them to express their offence in peaceful ways and not bring their religion (of which they constitute a tiny, tiny minority) into massive international disrepute.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The West has a long way to go toward acknowledging their own terrifyingly persuasive actions resulting in large numbers of civilian casualties as something that shouldn't be condoned. Until that day, they're a bad influence on the other terrorists, snd the double standard doesn't help either populace understand how offensive the idea of a "Post-9/11 World" is. "Give Peace a Chance" is about as theoretically flawed a notion, but it's the one thing we're not sure fails yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it paradoxical that those among the very rare people who have always acknowledged what you rightly say (and made a lot of good satirical cartoons about it, supporting the said civilians), are the very ones the victims chose to attack and kill, for religious reasons? When at the same time at home, they never demonstrate or attack or kill for the right (political) reasons? Akseli9 (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Wikipedia is great. Thanks for all the hard work Ladies and Gentlemen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear5381 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind comment - it's always nice to be appreciated! RomanSpa (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)