Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 February 26

= February 26 =

UK Civil service governance
Is Civil Service (United Kingdom) an organisation or is it just an informal name given to all government departments? I know civil servants are employed by individual departments.


 * It has a contralised structure, with a senior official who is Head of the Civil Service. Although people may work for a particular department, moving from one to another is common, and you remain within the same employment. Wymspen (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Centralised + controlled + contrary = contralised. Beautiful.  Very fitting.  I love it.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  12:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I wish I could lay claim to such imagination and ingenuity - but sadly it was just a typo. Wymspen (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Identifying the symbols of a Model 1891 Mosin-Nagant "Dragoon"
Posting per an users request, could you help to identify the meanings of the symbols on this Model 1891 Mosin-Nagant: http://imgur.com/a/JpLDb. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I see a swastika and the year 1941, which go together. I can't make out much on the symbol that looks like a treble clef or the surrounding symbols, though (maybe a 2 1 in front and a 1 after ?). There also appears to be a faint embossed (is that the right word when on wood ?) stamp consisting of a pair of concentric circles, but I can't read anything on that.  StuRat (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin%E2%80%93Nagant#/media/File:Mosin-Nagant_M1891_-_Ryssland_-_AM.032971.jpg indicates that the circular embossed stamp is original - either a maker's mark, or a Russian army stamp. The other strange symbol could be something as simple as the owners initials, in some sort of monogram. Wymspen (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you know anything else about the gun, where it's from, who owned it? The swastika looks to be of a Hindu variety. This type of gun was used all over the world, so a Hindu owner would not be beyond imagining. I tried looking up that other symbol in lists of Hindu religious symbols, as well as Indian alphabets, but couldn't find it. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That's also the form of swastika used by the NAZI regime, and the inclusion of "1941" makes me think that's the correct identification. Also, this is a weapon, not a religious artifact, so military markings are most likely. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Look again, Stu. I don't recall the Nazis ever including the dots between the bars. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the dots, but do now. StuRat (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems rather more likely to have been some creative whittling by a soldier on the Eastern Front, than the rifle owned by a Hindu mystic in British India. But you never can tell I suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The combination of Mosin-Nagant and Swastika makes me think of Finland. Cheers ✦  hugarheimur 17:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point - why didn't I think of that? See this Finnish aircraft for example. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there any Reliably-sourced non-Zhuangzi versions of the Butterfly dream?
Are there Reliably-sourced non-Zhuangzi versions of the Butterfly dream, especially any that pre-date Zhuangzi? The question was prompted by viewing Francis Ford Coppola's Youth Without Youth (film) a few hours ago. My memory of the precise movie conversations is inevitably probably somewhat inaccurate, but it is roughly as follows: Towards the end the hero is having a dream in which fellow academics discuss the Butterfly dream. One of them eventually refers to an unnamed Chinese philosopher (presumably Zhuangzi), but before that they seem to be talking about a king dreaming he's a butterfly dreaming he's a king dreaming he's a butterfly (and so on ad infinitum, I understood them to be implying). Zhuangzi's version contains no mention of either a King (the dreamer is Zhuangzi, who is not a king) nor an 'ad infinitum' bit. Although the relevant articles do mention Hindu and Buddhist notions of illusions (Maya), they don't seem to mention any non-Zhuangzi Butterfly Dreams, so I was wondering does anybody know of Reliably Sourced alternative versions, especially (but not only) if they pre-date Zhuangzi. (Note: my real interest is actually Simulated Reality and Simulation Hypothesis (which strictly speaking are not usually about dreams as we normally understand the word 'dream'), but the Butterfly dream is important background for that). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * you're looking for a source for this dream earlier than c. 300 BC (the Zhuangzi)? And you think a random Coppola film might contain such a reference?  That strains credulity, if you ask me.  No, to the best of my knowledge there is no other version of this story other than the Zhuangzi.  There has been some scholarly hypothesizing on a possible Indian influence/origin of the Zhuangzi, but it is very much hypothetical and not widely held.   White Whirlwind  咨   03:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, White Whirlwind. The Coppola film is entirely based on a Romanian novella which largely seems to be about Indian notions of reincarnation - so Hindu (or perhaps Buddhist) sources would seem eminently plausible, at least to me (and regardless of whether Coppola himself knew about them or not, since he likely got his knowledge from the novella, whose author Mircea Eliade may have got his knowledge from other sources, or either he or Coppola may have made the whole thing up). Do you by any chance have any sources for the scholarly speculation that you mention? Tlhslobus (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is nothing but pure artistic embellishment, I assure you. The scholarly speculation appears mostly in the writings of Victor Mair, see his chapters in Kohn (2000) p. 30, and Nienhauser (1998) p. 21.   White Whirlwind  咨   08:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, White Whirlwind. I've now managed to find out more myself - Google (here) gives numerous references that suggest the dreaming King is Janaka, but he dreamt he was a beggar, not a butterfly, and the date of the source (Ashtavakra Gita) is unclear, being anything from shortly before Zhuangzi to over 1000 years after him. This entry (from a book seemingly with no page numbers, but part of its "Waking State" section) tells the story as follows:
 * The Indian version concerns King Janaka, who had a very realistic dream that he was a starving beggar. When he awoke, he had doubts whether he was the king who had just dreamt he was a beggar, or whether he really was a beggar, now dreaming he was the king. This story goes on to describe how he summoned his advisers to clarify his quandary but to no avail. It required the Sage Astavakra, the eponymous teacher of the Astavakra Gita, to explain that he was neither the king nor the beggar but the one Self.


 * I may eventually put a reference to this in Dream argument, though I suspect the above source is self-published and thus unusable. Thanks again for your help.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

ICANN
What are the effects of ICANN shifting to international control? Benjamin (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (see article ICANN) by agreement with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) was freed from US government oversight on October 1, 2016 which prompted the report The U.S. government no longer controls the internet. It quotes ICANN’s board chairman assuring that the Internet of tomorrow remains as free, open and accessible as the Internet of today, but also carries a few critical comments that the move needlessly "give(s) away another bit of America". Time will tell whether any future issues that might be seen at ICANN can be attributed to the change. Blooteuth (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Has there been speculation as to what sort of practical effects the change might have, or support or opposition to the change for particular reasons? Benjamin (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The US government hasn't "controlled the internet" since its name changed from ARPANET. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is arguable. NSFNET was a central part of the early post-ARPANET Internet. And, relating to the original question, ICANN was formally operating under a contract with the U.S. government until just several months ago. It's true that the U.S. government had a very hands-off attitude towards ICANN, but they could always have started making demands or given the contract to someone else. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)