Humanities desk
< November 3	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 4

Japanese paper fans and comedy

It seems the Japanese have a penchant or liking to hit people on the head (or elsewhere) with a huge, folded paper fan. I see this alot on comedy shows.

Why do they do this? Is there something inherently funny about it other than what is seen? Is it a cultural thing?

Thanks, --69.138.61.168 02:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a cultural thing, like maybe wedgies. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...or a coconut cream pie to the face. StuRat 05:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that it's a cultural thing. But a little dose of violence being funny is kind of universal. Here in the Philippines, comedians usually hit someone's head with a rolled up newspaper and it's supposed to be funny. And like you said in the US, they have the wedgies and the cream pie. There's also Kancho in South Korea and Japan, which is called "tamis" in the Philippines.Moonwalkerwiz 05:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, kancho... 惑乱分からん 06:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question also brings to my mind the Three Stooges. Poking someone in the eyes isn't nearly as popular as it used to be but it still closely associated with them. Dismas|^(talk) 17:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you get when the Japanese do a wedgie. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that they encourage flossing. :-) StuRat 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

living outside the system

Is it still possible in this day and age for a person to live on the road, living and working in one place for awhile and then moving on to somewhere else? Is it still possible to avoid the rat race and be free? What does a person do if they value experience more than social status or money? well within reason. I live in a prosperous western european country. I have a decent, but not great education. I would like to read your opinions and learn of any books or websites on this subject. I know many people will find this question immature and want to tell me to grow up, but I would apreciate your criticism without personal abuse.

Thanks --213.202.146.136 03:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well well...quite an interesting question. I have often thought about this after reading On the Road. You are limited by 3 factors:

1. Food 2. Transportation 3. Money

1. Unless you bring food beforehand, you will have to buy it, steal it, grow it, or hunt it. There are a number of tricks (like lying to the McDonalds drive-thru people) to getting free food, and I sugguest you learn some of them; especially if your money is tight.

2. Do you have a car? People rarely pick up hitchhikers anymore like they did in the 40's and 50's. Back then, hitchhikers didn't kill or rape the people that picked them up. You might take buses, which are fairly cheap nowadays. Trains and planes are out of the question...usually too expensive.

3. No matter what you do, you will be part of the rat race, working job to job as you work around the country to get some money for your trips. You WILL inevitably run out of money eventually. Since you'll only be working in a particular area a few months at a time, you'll probably be limited to working part-time at places similar to the local Circle K or ~~Dennis~~. (Denny's --Anon.)

As for like experiences, I've been on the road a few times, and, I must say, there really isn't much to it. A city is a city is a city. A prarie is a prarie, a mountian is a mountian. There are a differences between them, but not much.

Hope that helps. --69.138.61.168 03:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of young people have a romantic idea of living on the street. They think that if they aren't beholden to anyone they are freer. It often turns out to be the other way around: they end up the victims of violence, they suffer from violence, they end up turning to drink and drugs. Here's a question: imagine you're living at large. Suddenly an unexpected cold snap hits and the temperature reaches below zero F. There is no room at the shelters. You can't afford a room anywhere even if one was available. You can't afford to leave town. What do you do? About 5,000 people in Calgary right now (over half of whom are working full-time) are asking themselves that same question tonight. --Charlene 06:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question made me think of the mathematician Paul Erdős, who, oddly enough, I was just talking to someone about today. He was an exceptional case, being sufficiently talented at his work that other mathematicians or math departments were happy to have him as a guest; I presume they also paid his traveling expenses. He lived and worked for decades with no permanent address. --Anonymous, 05:10 UTC, November 4.

I think that this is actually easier to do now, because of globalization. Systems of different spheres of life tend to be standardized so it's easier to get in and out of something. For example, you can get money anywhere as long as there is an ATM machine around. Many kinds of jobs can be done with people miles away from you because of the Internet. You are always free to move around as long as you have money. Changing jobs is much easier too because resumes are kind of standardized and different institutions will tend to recognize the same qualities or proofs of your competence (if you're from Harvard you can be anyone or anything). But the bottomline is you still have to have capital, whether economic , social, cultural or symbolic .Moonwalkerwiz 05:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try to hook-up with some travellers. "Run away with the gypsys" as it were. Note: this is probably a Very Bad Idea. Skittle 13:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the not having a car angle goes... It depends on where you live just how well hitchhiking is looked upon. I was surprised to see so many hitchhikers when I moved to Vermont. I've never lived where it's so prevalent. The cops don't seem to care and people regularly pick up hitchhikers especially ones that they see daily. Dismas|^(talk) 17:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a friend who has been living "outside the system" for many years now. She and her boyfriend have very few possesions, and travel around the country staying with friends, or at gatherings. They pick up odd jobs here and there, and stay with friends in exchange for working or doing chores and things like that to earn their keep. What makes it work for them is that they like people, enjoy meeting new people, and know how to find people who have the same ideals they do. 192.168.1.1 4:03, 4 November 2006 (PST)

Health care prices are a pretty nasty complication in most of the U.S. Wareh 04:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

squatting could be one answer. By the way I think your ambitions are admirable --Amists 14:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Perpetual traveler. -THB 02:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Run away and join the circus

Is the source upon which this article is based listed anywhere in Wikipedia?

I am reading an article concerned with property law. It is "leasehold estate", the section on 'duties of landlord'. Can you tell me where the laws are that that section is based on. If the laws aren't listed somewhere in Wikipedia,in a bibliorgraphy, where are they; in a Federal Code, or what? I would appreciate an answer as soon as possible as this relates to an important and time sensitive event in my life. Thank you very much. I really appreciate Wikipedia, it has helped me with alot of things. I just need to know the specifics of this particular article:ie, the laws behind it.
<Removed email to protect you from international spam Skittle 13:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)>[reply]

According to the article this is common law, that is, law established by tradition antedating statury law making. The article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition; possibly that includes the section on "duties of the landlord". --Lambiam ^Talk 15:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop song - I need to download the song

I heard a song in fm. middle lines were: "oh baby when you talk like that, you make women go mad. oh baby when you dance like that...."

can anyone help me with details and possible site for download>

thanks

The song is Shakira's "Hips Don't Lie" and it can be found at most online music stores (i. e. iTunes). Abeg92 14:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The video is on YouTube. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And is highly recommended. --ByeByeBaby 20:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Election Deposit

What exactly is it?(seems pretty UK-centric) Can someone create a page on it? Abeg92 14:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically where all candidates standing for election have to pay a fee in order to stand. This definitely applies in UK general elections, but I don't know about UK local elections or elections in other countries. They get it back if their percentage of the vote is above a certain amount (not sure what that is). It's almost unheard of for one of the major parties (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat) to lose their deposits, but small parties and independent candidates lose theirs all the time. A few years ago the deposit was raised from, I think, £150 to £1000, and there was criticism that this move acted as a deterrent to small parties to stand for election. Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading in Kaka Joginder Singh (a pretty dedicated guy) that India's election deposits were raised from 2,000 rupees to 15,000 in 1997, so it seems they are used in other Commonwealth countries. It does sound like a page on the topic would be warranted. And I do agree with the idea. While the occasional Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel is amusing, it'd get annoying to have to go through a huge list of such every time. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a measure passed by the major parties to prevent small parties and independents from gaining a foothold. StuRat 15:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deposit is £500, it's designed to keep the elections serious, because it stops people from going onto the ballot frivolously if you can't afford to put that down. You get the deposit back if you score higher than 5% of the vote, demonstrating that you were a serious candidate. Interestingly, you don't necessarily get the deposit back just because you win - in a theoretical election with 21 or more candidates, everyone could score less than 5%. Nobody would get back their deposit in that scenario, but whoever got the most votes would win the seat. --Mnem e son 15:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deposit is not unreasonable for Parliamentary candidates, as it tries to keep the nutcases off the ballot paper, and you do get it back if you poll more than 5% of the votes. Back when the deposit was £150 you sometimes got a couple of dozen candidates at some by-elections, most of whom were using it as a very cheap form of advertising for their local businesses, as Parliamentary candidates get a free postal delivery to every elector. There's no deposit if you're standing for election to a local council - you just need the signatures of ten people on the electoral register on the nomination form (a former candidate writes...) -- Arwel (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, we normally discourage the nut-jobs by requiring a certain number of signatures. This should work with everyone, whereas the money deposit would have no effect on discouraging rich nut-jobs. StuRat 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a signature requirement is much better than a deposit. 5% of the vote is a lot to risk a thousand bucks on (the first go-around anyway), since it often takes time for a party or candidate to gain a foothold on the electoral stage. Discouraging nutjobs is fine in principle, but elitism in a process that is supposed to be completely democratic is not fine. Geez, I can't believe that I agree with StuRat about something political. What is the world coming to? Anchoress 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The British system requires both. Neither the money nor the requirement for the support of a certain proportion of the local electors discourages eccentrics. Eccentrics will always find other eccentrics who share their view of things. Clio the Muse 01:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain, for yanks, what a "by-election" is? Does Ipswich have them a lot, or does "Ipswich by-election" just stick in the mind more than others? ThanksEdison 02:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A byelection is what happens when a representative cannot serve out his/her term, and a new representative must be elected before the general election takes place. Anchoress 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, they are the equivalent of special elections in the US. I do not think Ipswich is more prone to wastage of MPs than any other British constituency; so it clearly has just stuck in your mind. Clio the Muse 03:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some US states have special elections to fill vacancies, while others have the governor or legislature appoint a temporary replacement. StuRat 09:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the parliamentary system, you don't have to be a member of parliament to become leader of a party (even leader of the governing party), but it helps of course, otherwise you can't really participate in parliament. A newly chosen party leader, who has not yet been elected to parliament (or even worse, a party leader who embarrassingly loses his own seat) usually has the authority to "force" a current party member, in a "safe" constituency, to resign his/her seat, and allow the leader to run in his/her place in a byelection, in that way getting an almost free pass into parliament. I don't know of the political leanings of the "Ipswich" constituency in partiular, but is it perhaps considered a sort of "shoe-in" riding for any of the particular parties? I.e, is it a pretty much guaranteed Tory or Labour seat? If so, that might explain the "Ipswich byelection" thing. Loomis 14:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Channel 4 [1] the deposit requirement was introduced as part of the Representation of the People Act 1918 and was presumably a safeguard, given the increase in the size of the electorate, against frivolous candidatures. The threshold was only brought down from 12.5% of the vote to 5% in 1985, by the Representation of the People Act 1985. I'd have to say that requiring every candidate to raise and risk £500 is a much smaller barrier to effective democracy, in my opinion, than the ability of major parties to raise and spend millions on campaigning. Mattley ^(Chattley) 10:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also electoral threshold, a similar concept to keep fraudulent or dangerous parties out of legislatures. 68.39.174.238 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Christian cults

In the interim period between the death of Christ and the formalization of the Roman Catholic church, much of Christianity was in the form of small cults (in the historical/religious studies sense, not the current popular connotation) which worshipped Jesus. However, given that one of the principles in Christianity is the concept of the holy trinity; were there cults that principally worshipped the other aspects of the Trinity and didn't focus (as much) on Jesus himself? Virogtheconq 15:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that like asking, were there early Christians that didn't worship Jesus? This to me seems a little nonsensical (in so much as, early Christians that didn't focus on Jesus weren't really early Christians). There were Christians that didn't use the trinity, see: Nontrinitarianism --Cody.Pope 16:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: gnosticism GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the obvious thing to look at is Arianism, a doctrine based on the notion that the Father is superior to the Son. It was the rejection of this that led the mainstream of the Church to formulate the Nicene Creed, though Arianism remained popular among many of the barbarian tribes, including the Goths and the Vandals. Clio the Muse 23:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more wrist watches?

Is the wrist watch likely to become extinct during the next 20 or 30 years, superseded by hand-held devices? The evening news recently raised this question, pointing out that rapidly converging personal electronic tools - cell phone, camera, Internet searcher, game player, etc. - include the time as a very minor bit of information. 66.213.33.2 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will never stop wearing a watch, no matter how many hand-held devices I've got with me, for the simple reason that nothing is easier than looking at your wrist when you want to know the time. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 17:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second this one - it's a pain to have to dig out my cell phone to find the time (as I do when I forget my watch somewhere), while you don't need a free hand to glance at your wrist. So no, it won't...although Light's idea is plausible XD —K e akealani 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its more likely that phones will be worn on the wrist and serve multiple purposes. 8-)--Light current 17:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a novel idea:

StuRat 21:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was quite comic actually! THanks for that gift!--Light current 21:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although this will go against the watch lobbyists (kidding... :^) I read an article a couple months ago, don't remember where, that said that watch sales had been on a slow decline since the boom of cell phones. Though I have to agree with what's been said. I've changed the brand of pants that I wear because the watch pocket that is sewn on Levi's no longer is large enough to fit a pocket watch. I now where Carharts because my pocket watch fits well in the pocket and the chain can easily be attached to the nearest belt loop. Dismas|^(talk) 01:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read an article like that as well. I’m one of those who has stopped wearing a wristwatch. I just look at my cell phone, or if I’m at the hospital, my pager. While those in older generations are likely still partial to wearing wrist watches, I would expect that those growing up with cell phones will find little reason to wear a watch as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect wristwatch sales to continue to decline until they incorporate cell phones and computers into them. At that point, sales should increase (while sales of those other devices will decline). StuRat 09:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we define wristwatch as a device that's worn on the wrist whose main purpose is timekeeping, then I expect wristwatches will eventually go the way of the pocket watch or handkerchief and slowly fade out of general use. I know that the strap on my watch broke last January, and I've been reliant on cell phones and MP3 players since. (In 2065 or so, wearing a wristwatch might be a stereotypical trait of the elderly.) Certainly it's possible that electronic devices may be worn on the wrist commonly, although I've seen MP3 players, USB keys and cell phones around the neck more commonly. One potential restriction around wrist wear is the simple physical size needed to make a usable device -- a screen too small is unreadable, and buttons too small are hard to press. It's interesting, though, that wall clocks are still common devices, even though wristwatches have been common for decades, and everything has the time on it these days. I'd assume that clocks will be with us for a while longer. --ByeByeBaby 20:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I for one will probably never stop wearing wristwatches. Mine broke about a month ago, and I haven't bought a new one; I will however, because I hate looking for all those devices/gadgets. When I'm on Wikipedia however, I just look at the computer's clock. | AndonicO Talk 01:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbath in Egypt

What is the typical weekly 'day off' in Egypt? I would have thought it'd be Friday, but I'm chatting on YahooIM with someone who claims he's living in Egypt and he says it's Sunday. Anyone know for sure? Anchoress 17:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the day off could have been chosen for two reasons, either religious (the major population seems to be Muslim, but the government atheist or secular IIRC) or economical, which day would be most appropriate for internatiopnal trade? Of course, that's not an answer to your question... =S 惑乱分からん 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your friend is Coptic? For Muslims Friday would certainly be the sabbath; perhaps Sunday is just a general day off? Clio the Muse 23:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's not my friend, lol, and I know already he's Christian. But I'm not asking about him, I'm asking about Egypt in general. He says everyone takes the day off on Sunday, and nobody takes Friday off. Anchoress 01:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word 'friend' in a generic sense (lol?) to describe someone with whom you were communicating. Perhaps you would have preferred 'interloctor', technically more correct? Anyway, assuming he is not attempting to mislead you, Sunday may very well be the general 'secular' day-off. Clio the Muse 01:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's a moot point now. I was suspicious that he was lying about being in Egypt, that's why I asked. I don't know if he's on the level about Egypt, but it's definitely the new Nigerian scam. Yahoo!IMing 30-something single women in North America. Someone else just chatted me with exactly the same story. And both of them have asked me to write them a letter of intent so they can get Visas to come to Canada. LOL. Anchoress 17:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm egyptian, and I need a visa for Canada. Could you help me please? ^{I'm not really Egyptian, and I don't need a visa by the way. ;-)} | AndonicO Talk 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's pretty... overconfident? saying you can move through the world without a visa. anyway let's get back to OQ2: the most appropiate day for international trade would most likely be sunday or monday, sunday because quite a lot of the wealthy countries have that as Sabbath. monday because on monday the wealthy countries are still slowly warming up for the rest of the week and in this case even more NOT sunday because it would give them a 1-day advantage, which is not completely lost on monday because productivity is generally lower on the first day of the week.(not workweek but week, considering going from monday-sunday)

What exactly is the difference between a Portuguese cavaquinho and a Hawaiian ukulele?

From what I've read, the ukulele was brought to Hawaii by the Portuguese. Have any significant differences evolved in sound between the two? Can I play samba music on a ukulele, for example?

You can play pretty much anything on an ukulele XD I think there are some tuning differences, and probably the way the art style evolved...the way ukuleles are made now is probably different from the way it is in Portugal, in terms of the ornaments and stuff, but the basic idea is pretty similar. —K e akealani 19:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is like the difference between a fiddle and a violin. -THB 00:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinochet dictatorship

Hi, Wikipedia community!

I'm writing an essay on the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile (1973-1990). The task is the following:

"When the military Junta took power, it declared its intention to stay in power 'only as long as circumstances require it'. However, the dictatorship lasted 17 years. Explain the long duration of this regime. Also, explain why Pinochet could not stay in power until 1998, as he had planned, although he maintained an important position well into the 90's".

I was wondering if anyone is aware of any articles published or any research into the topic of Latin American military dictatorships of the twentieth century.
Also, it seems dictatorships tend to last long. Are there any well accepted theories as to the reasons of this? If so, can anyone give me author names?

Thanks a lot, people!

--Thor Waldsen 21:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start with Pinochet, Chile under Pinochet and the History of Chile. Then I would suggest that you look at Dictatorship and Military dictatorship as general topics. The important point to bear in mind is that dictatorships of the Pinochet variety are always self-serving, and by their very nature will define when and if they are prepared to surrender power; 'national emergencies' have a tendency to last longer than initially claimed. Dictatorships of the fascist and communist variety, moreover, tend to see themselves as perpetual. Once you have done some more research I would be happy to tackle any specific questions you may have. Clio the Muse 23:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It generally requires a violent revolution to oust a dictator. Depending on the military strength of the dictatorship, even this method may be impossible. StuRat 08:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the role of outside powers. Foreign support may make a substantial difference to the ability of a dictatorship to establish itself in the first place, and then to remain in power once established. Mattley ^(Chattley) 11:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. I'll start by printing those articles and reading them. You've given me something to build on, people... thanks! --Thor Waldsen 21:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a film about love

Hello, I am looking for a movie about love between people who have the wrong idea about one another's personality and character, similar to A Doll's House. Thanks --(Aytakin) | Talk 23:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few about a one-way misperception, especially when the person was intentionally deceptive. Two-way misperceptions would be rarer, but perhaps Sleeping with the Enemy or True Lies would be examples. Are you looking for one-way or two-way misperceptions ? StuRat 08:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The absolute original, Pride and Prejudice. It's been filmed several times. You've Got Mail, The Shop Around the Corner, The Crying Game, M. Butterfly, Madame Bovary, Lolita (also filmed several times), Total Recall, Ever After. Anchoress 20:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. and Mrs. Smith? :) -Elmer Clark 02:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]