Humanities desk
< August 29	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 31 >

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.

August 30

Economies of scale in philanthropy

To what extent are philanthropic and altruistic endeavours affected by economies or diseconomies of scale? Neon Merlin 02:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the same extent that for-profit endeavors are affected. The economies of scale may be more difficult to measure because the objective of a philanthropic endeavor is not as clearly defined as is the objective of a for-profit endeavor (i.e., the profit itself). However, difficulty in measuring a phenomenon does not imply that the phenonenon does not exist. Wikiant (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Universalism in Sydney

Are there any churches or congregrations of any Christian Universalist denominations in Sydney, Australia? Are there any Unitarian Universalist churches or congregrations there? Are there any churches or congregrations that are Christian Universalist but not Unitarian Universalist there? Bowei Huang (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article on Christian Universalism contains a link at the bottom, which indicates that this is a member of the CU Association. They are, however, in Victoria and not in NSW.

The WP article un Unitarian Universalism contains a link at the bottom which indicates that The Unitarian Church of South Australia Inc. is a member of the UU Association. They are, however, in SA and not in NSW. There is no website but an email address is given. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness

When will the 2009 edition of the Guinness Book be released? February 15, 2009 (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Guinness site records it is to be published in the autumn / fall and will be available on September 17th. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public nudity in the United States

I want to know some facts about public nudity in the United States.

Why public nudity is not completely legalized in the United States? I mean why the US has laws on indecent exposure?
What is the general public attitude towards public genital exposure in the United States?
Why exposure of genitals in the public places is considered "indecent" and not accepted in American law? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) In which country in the world is full public nudity commonly accepted (outside of narrowly specialized contexts, such as certain beaches)?

2) This is more an anthropological question than a a strictly legal one; there's some info at Modesty... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal restrictions on individual behavior in public and definitions of what's acceptable are likely to be based on "prevailing community standards." If you're unfamiliar with public attitudes in the United States on this and other matters, you can probably learn a great deal through web accessible journalistic and entertainment media and corresponding internet forums such as Yahoo!Answers. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a TV commercial running right now in the U.S. that says a lot. It shows a family that is vacationing in Spain and, because they don't have AT&T, didn't get a phone call warning them that the beach they were to visit is a nude beach. So they get there and the parents are horribly shocked that they're at a nude beach. The message is that if you don't have AT&T phone service, horrible things will happen to you, like you'll accidentally go to a nude beach with your kids. As for why American culture is so conservative about nudity, that's a very difficult question to answer. Most cultures have some sort of taboo regarding exposure of parts of the body. Some cover the penis but not the buttocks; others cover both and giggle at those that leave the buttocks uncovered. It's noteworthy that most Americans have no qualms about "consenting adults" being naked, but they think there's something horribly wrong with children seeing naked people, and by children here they mean anyone under 18. Many American parents would jump in front of a bus to keep their kids from seeing nudity. I don't think they've really thought about why this is any more than they think about other taboos, such as not urinating in public. Most Americans would be shocked to find that in some countries, there are topless women on advertisements. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The USA's attitude towards the human body exposed is a complete joke. This is a country that choked on the sight of a NIPPLE on television, cueing an orgy of lawsuits, legislation, fines, acts and other lunacy over something that any human can see by looking down. Exxolon (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To supply some perspective, I think Americans view the AT&T commercial as they do ones with football-playing bottles and shower gels that make you irresistible: the commercials are playful and taken seriously only by the dense and the agenda-ridden. Similarly, the "choking" of the pre-planned nipple incident was limited mainly to the FCC, the fearful network, the craven sponsors, leaders of easily upset bodies of believers, and the media -- the latter, lacking any other bright, shiny things, kept flogging the issue almost till a court threw out the FCC's fine against the network. — OtherDave (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of India

I want to know about the 73rd amendment to the constitution of India.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.80.82 (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full text. Algebraist 14:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Roman time

When doing reserch I came across a date of 700's B.C.E. I know what the B.C. stands for, but what does the E. stand for? 15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)~~ -- Tcthoma2

Common Era... AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically the way to represent "BC" without any religious connotations. It stands for "Before Common Era". --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BCE/CE notion seems to me pernicious, as this 'Common Era' is merely another name for the Christian era. As someone said on another subject, "You'll have the thing itself, but you won't have the name for it". Kenneth G. Wilson has commented on the same lines "If we do end by casting aside the A.D./B.C. convention, almost certainly some will argue that we ought to cast aside as well the conventional numbering system itself, given its Christian basis." Strawless (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a Greek Citizen in Ancient Greek Society and his occupation

On a popular programme "Who wants to be a Millionaire" a question was asked on the occupation of this man 4 options - Sculptor, Actor, + 2 I have forgotten. The contestent did not answer the question and went home. This was a repeat edition ("classic"!) and the Questionmaster did not give the answer; the editing had removed it. I could find no mention of him in my Longmans Larrousse. Can yo help? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.68.81 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we don´t know his name this will become a rather tricky answer. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But try List of ancient Greeks to see if you recognize anyone... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from Beyond Good and Evil

I think this probably fits better here than in Language, but I'm not sure. In BG&E stanza 146, Nietzsche writes:

He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.

Yet I've also seen a translation (actually, in Watchmen that reads as:

Battle not with monsters, lest you become a monster. And if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

which is similar but subtly different. In the first version, he warns us to be careful while doing something, while in the second he warns us against doing it. Does anyone here know the original German well enough to know which translation is closer to what he wrote/meant? Matt Deres (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German is Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. The first option is much more accurate than the second; it's pretty close to a literal translation (my German is not very good but the structure is pretty obvious), though it is rendered into antiquated English for some reason. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be related to the closeness of the translation: perhaps that version translates du as thou and Sie as you. Algebraist 23:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what seems to be going on, but since Sie is formal and du is familiar, wouldn't you be closer to the original meaning? It might just be a personal choice of the translator (I got the text from Gutenberg). Anyway, thanks for the clarification; kind of a shame though, the second is much more powerful sounding. Matt Deres (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You in modern English is both formal and familiar. If you want to distinguish between the two (as in very close translation), you go back to older forms of the language, in which thou was familiar and you formal. Algebraist 00:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; I wasn't aware of that last bit. I was considering things the other way as we now use words like thee and thou when we're trying to sound archaic and/or formal. Perhaps a fresh translation made today would make use of that shift and use you in that context to preserve the familiarity. Matt Deres (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thee, thou and thy are certainly archaic these days, but they aren't really formal. They are used to refer to God, for instance, with the intention of showing a familiarity with God. --Tango (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I don't think a modern translation would use the "thou" and whatnot. It's distracting and certainly not there in the original. Sie is formal but it doesn't mean thou. Du certainly doesn't mean thou—du is the familiar form, not the formal one. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the second is much more powerful sounding. I dunno, I prefer the first, even if it sounds a bit awkward. Plus I never thought of Nietzsche as being one to tell people what not to do. Rather, do what you will, but in some cases, take some care? Also, I like the notion that you must gaze long into the abyss for it to gaze back at you. A glance won't do it. Pfly (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bit that worries me about the translation of the first translation is that he says "And if thou gaze long...", where "And if thou gazest long...". If you use 'thou' as a pronoun, it usually sounds better if the verb agrees with it, by using the -(e)st verb inflection. However, it becomes a spiral when you consider that you perhaps should also include the 3rd person -(e)th ending. And what about plurals? Thus spiralling. Steewi (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If thou gaze long" is grammatically correct. It's subjunctive - another feature, like the formal and familiar second persons, that is common in other languages but not well understood in English and is probably on the way to dying out completely. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loking for information about the roles of a police officer, probation officer within the youth offending serice please.

Hi, I'am currently studying an Open University Course (Under Grad) on Youth Justice. I have looked but cannot find the information that I require. Also new as of today, (Saturday30th August 2008). Would be great if some-one could help me out with this. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craftychef (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read probation officer and police officer? You should! Matt Deres (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]