Humanities desk
< April 3	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 4

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

Why was the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs case not reported in Western media at all? I find it a bit suspicious, strange, that it hasn't been reported at all in Western media.

If anything, the fact that it hasn't been reported in Western media leads me to even greater suspicion (which is already very high - for example everything that the BBC says has to be taken with a massive pinch of salt) of Western media.--Hassan Mohammed (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be because people these days are more interested in Jade Goody's death than anything else. Sad, I know. Seriously. It makes my eyes stream because everything people watch or read about it just celebrities.--KageTora (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, I agree. Why wasn't the North Sea helicopter crash, killing 16 people, about the same as today's shooting, on the main page? That killed 16 people. Is it because it's in Scotland? And the Anglo-Americans don't care? Yeah, that'll be what it is. 500 people could die today in Pakistan or Nigeria and if it wasn't reported in Western media, they wouldn't give a *beep*.--Hassan Mohammed (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proximity is a large factor in importance. If one person dies in your house, it will be more important to you than 500 deaths on the other side of the planet. Assuming that everyone should base their concern on the number of people killed is a bit ridiculous. Another factor is self-protection. If you drive a 94 Ford Taurus and you just heard of three incidents where a 94 Ford Taurus exploded for no apparent reason, it will be a lot more important to you than hearing about 100 incidents in which a Toyota Prius exploded. Assuming that everyone should base their concern on the number of cars exploded is a bit ridiculous. If, your entire point is to find a reason to hate a race or nationality of people, you can make all the ridiculous assumptions you like to justify your position. -- kainaw ™ 01:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"500 people could die today in Pakistan or Nigeria and if it wasn't reported in Western media, they wouldn't give a *beep*." Well, that makes sense, doesn't it? It is rather difficult to care about something you haven't been informed about?

Surely you're not suggesting that people should spend all day reading local newspapers from across the globe in hundreds of different languages, so that we can feel bad if a few hundred of our six billion humans die tragically? APL (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you imagine Western media, and Westerners in general, attempting to pronounce Dnepropetrovsk? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Matthew 6:34 of the right version, "Sufficient unto the country is the evil thereof", which is essentially what everyone above is saying. (@ Adam Bishop: I had to do a "cut and paste" just to Google it.) // BL \\ (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of yesterday's front page news, The Daily Mirror reported that Obama gave the Queen an iPod, and The Sun was saying that Jade Goody's funeral was fake. This is front page news, folks! Inside there were a few short references to certain killings and shootings. As said above, people don't care unless it directly affects them (not that the Queen's new iPod or Jade Goody's supposed fake funeral affects them, but anyway, it's something to read when they've got nothing else to do). Emotion and immotion are the two things that sell news, these days.--KageTora (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The helicopter crash was hugely reported in many newspapers, but I suppose a lot depends on your definition of "western media" - you probably wouldn't find it in USA Today for instance. I find it bizarre that the d. maniacs weren't - would have thought that that story would have been picked up. pablo_hablo. 10:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting to compare the coverage of the two recent helicopter crashes (Newfoundland and North Sea). The basic similarities and closeness in time could make them a good test case regarding media coverage. Matt Deres (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, Hassan is just trolling us. The Maniacs happened two years ago, and I remember reading about them in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most Western journos didn't give too much coverage to the murders, but Caitlin Moran went one better and managed to turn it into a story about herself. Talk about self absorbed. Rockpocket 02:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much point in knowing about tragedies that you can't do anything about. Since nothing we can do will have much effect on serial killers in the Ukraine, spending time hearing about it just depresses us with no benefit. Knowing about such a situation close to home is important, though, as we can then vote to put more cops on the street, etc. StuRat (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon I on his Imperial Throne

Does anyone know where I could find a hi-res version of this painting? Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 06:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --217.227.104.1 (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online questionnaire that tells me who to vote for

I heard that there is a website which helps one decide, on the basis of a questionnaire, which party best represents one's views in the EU Parliamentary election (or whatever it is that's going on right now). Anyone have an URL? ----Seans Potato Business 13:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

euprofiler.eu? ---Sluzzelin talk 13:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Seem it wont be ready until the end of the month though. ----Seans Potato Business 15:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be rather suspicious that any such tool would be used to push voters in one direction or another. StuRat (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression that the EU parliament doesn't do a lot, for some reason. 99.227.94.24 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare Biography

Hi, life is short, so I'm probably not going to read more than one Shakespeare biography, but which is THE ONE? Is there one accepted, canonical, non-speculative, not too "original", no gender-bushwa etc. work that would give me the plain facts? Also, I tend to mistrust anything too recent, especially when heavily hyped (I mean, looks like there's at least two new biographies every year, but just what new can they teach without being speculative, if you catch my drift). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare#Bibliography is long, but not exactly helpful. Thanks, --84.191.207.101 (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you know, it's just not as easy as you think. First of all there will be a MASSIVE divide into two kinds of books:

ones that ignore the possibility that the William Shakespeare whose biographical facts are generally propagated (you know the one: Stratford-upon-Avon, married Anne Hathaway at 18, died a rich landowner where he was born etc etc.) is NOT whoever wrote those famous 16th c. plays and poems, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, etc, etc
ones that entertain this possibility.

There is a famous case of a man setting up the court of Chicago into ruling on whether Shakespeare wrote the works above, by means of a lawsuit. The court ruled that the Stratford guy did not write the famous things. He never made mention in his will of ANY writing, etc. etc.

Now if the city of Chicago rules that the stratford guy did not write the famous stuff, you are gonna get a heckuva time finding a "non-speculative, accepted, canonical" biogragphy on the writer of the famous stuff... 79.122.13.83 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the city of Chicago is particularly empowered, qualified or situated to rule on this subject. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Illinois also recently declared that Pluto is still a planet. Anyway, as for Shakespeare, a biography that simply claims someone else wrote the plays is a biography to be avoided. The "best", however, in an academic sense, would probably still deal with the controversy. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last sentence. Those biographies that claim he did write the plays should also be avoided if they simply make that assertion without acknowledging that many people disagree, or without acknowledging that most of the "facts" about Shakespeare are not supported by evidence but are based on historical tradition. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose so, but the idea that he didn't write them is a fringy conspiracy theory and should be avoided more :) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not quite what I meant. I've seen biographies of Shakespeare that claim hundreds of things he "did/wrote" (as if there were incontrovertible proof of them all). What they need to state in many cases is: "I believe he did/wrote X, even though I can't prove it". True, there are alternative theories about who really wrote the plays etc, but even if there weren't, there's still little or no actual evidence about many of the things he is generally said to have done/written. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no great canonical biographical work for Shakespeare as there are so many books with so many slants and none will be free from bias and speculation. Saying that I would recommend the very recent Peter Ackroyd's biography for a good non-academic readable work about Shakespeare and his era from a great literary biographer. For a some what older and more scholarly work the best might be Samuel Schoenbaum's works particularly Shakespeare: A Documentary Life which focuses more upon the actual written evidence of his life.

Despite how much we think we know about Shakespeare there are still large gaps in his story and his life is not meticulously well documented as he really wasn't all that important at the time. Any biography of his will have to include a lot of speculation and "scene setting" based on what was going on around him at the time, this is why authorship doubts can creep in. Even if true that he did not write the plays, raking over the same biographical details everyone has for centuries is not going to prove it conclusively. If a biography of Shakespeare sets out to say he is not the author then it is hardly the biography of the same man as one that starts with the premise that he is the author. I entirely disagree that the authorship question should be discussed in a good biography. If you want a biography of Marlowe, or Bacon, or Oxford that focus upon one them being the author of Shakespeare you can get a biography like that, if you want a book that discusses the entire question and possible authors you can get one of those books. It is important to know these questions exist and I am perfectly willing to acknowledge one of the other contenders might be the actual author, but if you want to read the biography of the Stratfordian claimant then you shouldn't have to put up with all the other speculations unless you are really reading the biography of the plays themselves. If you cannot read a book without realising at the beginning that it starts from a particular premise that not everyone might agree with then perhaps you should read about someone less complex than Shakespeare. meltBanana 01:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so you are basically telling me that i am too dumb to read Shakespeare because I happen to get the impression that Anti-Stratfordianism is a fringe theory and seems to attract, for the most part, freelancing crackpots. That is, um, strong. --77.188.124.189 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a biography would need to contain a large number of caveats, acknowledging that there is no source material for many of the claimed parts of his life, only tradition. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I liked Bill Bryson's short book Shakespeare: The World as Stage. A good summary of what's known, not known, and debated about Shakespeare's life. And at just 200 pages long, should fit easily into the reading schedule of even the busiest person! Pleasant, very readable and non-idiosyncratic prose to boot. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed that one too. Bryson is frank about how little we really know about Shakespeare's life, and mostly avoids filling the gaps with speculation, as many Bard biographies tend to do. He does discuss, and debunk, the various authorship theories, since the "evidence" for that is all speculation. I also like Will In The World by Stephen Greenblatt, which attempts to fill some gaps with literary analysis. These are popular biographies; I have no idea which biographies are highly valued by experts. —Kevin Myers 13:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powers of US President to influence the Senate

One thing I've never understood about the American system of government is the extent to which the President is able to influence the decisions of the Senate (and, I guess, the House as well, although I'm not so interested in that for the purposes of this question). I'm thinking in particular about the prospects for US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. That article quotes Obama as saying "As president, I will reach out to the Senate to secure the ratification of the CTBT at the earliest practical date." But in practical terms, what power and/or influence does he have to do that? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, none at all; if the Senate doesn't want to do what the President wants, too bad for the President. Good luck getting your pet bill signed if you buck the President on a major issue, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely so. the President certainly doesn't have any constitutional powers to force the Senate to do one thing or another, but these people are running the country and they have to be able to work together. And lest we forget, the Senate is currently ruled by Democrats, meaning that they are essentially "on the same team" as the President. What's the point of having political parties if you're never ever going to cooperate on stuff? Belisarius (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "balance" of power is a bit lopsided though. From Congress' view, the President is nothing more than a small annoyance. If he wants to use his veto power, just override the veto and get on with whatever you want to do. From the President's view, if you want to get a law passed, Congress has to agree with you. If you want to go to war, Congress has to pay for it. If you want to subsidise medications to some other country, Congress has to pay for it. If you want to put in a miniature golf course on the White House lawn, Congress has to pay for it. The media bashes the phrase "leader of the free world" into our heads every day, but Congress holds the ability to override the President and the power of the checkbook. I see it more as a leader on a leash. If he obeys, he can do anything he likes. If he misbehaves, he will quickly become a puppet. -- kainaw ™ 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's pretty much as it should be, imo (apart from the puppet thing). No one person should have the power to execute decisions that do not have the support of the other elected representatives of the people. But neither should the Congress go down its own path in total disregard for the views of the person that the same people who elected them also elected their national leader. Neither the president nor the Congress should ever be a puppet of the other, but should find ways of working together harmoniously for the good of the people (exactly how Wikipedia has worked at all times since its inception - **straight face, tongue in cheek**. In fact, why don't they hand over the running of all the countries of the world to us? We'd soon find ways of coming to consensuses about things instead of permanently bickering on ideological grounds, and only those people who are interested in effecting or opposing a change would bother to be involved, but everyone, bar none, would be able to express their views, which would be on the permanent record. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough Jack, that's exactly how the world is run, at least that small part of it which is governed by UN decisions. That's a pretty good description of how the UN works. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, except for decisions of the Security Council, for example, which excludes rather a large number - about 95% - of the world's countries. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, assuming you mean the permanent members. StuRat (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

A "small annoyance"? "Just override the veto" Ye Gods! If the Senate had a filibuster-proof supermajority and the House had the equivalent then you'd be right, but they don't. The Senate is, currently, most certainly susceptible to executive pressure for this reason. Tempshill (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the Congress was of uniform opinion on everything, they could roll right over the President (they could even remove him from office via impeachment on some trumped-up charges). But, the nature of elected bodies is such that they are almost never of uniform opinion. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to Kainaw) The presidency has way more power than that. They don't call it the imperial presidency for nothing! Signing statements can twist the legislation that is passed as the president pleases; executive orders let him do just about anything legal he wants in the executive branch (which is the branch of the government that actually, y'know, does stuff), and as GWB has shown us, apparently anything illegal he wants as well; the War Powers Act lets him start wars as he pleases, at which point Congress's privilege of declaring war is the uttermost dead letter. --Gwern (contribs) 20:55 8 April 2009 (GMT)

I dispute most of Gwern's statements above. The signing statements are controversial but they aren't much different than a president deciding to try to not enforce a law he doesn't want to enforce. The signing statement just makes it plain. (I'm not advocating either, of course.) This interpretation of the War Powers Act is very strange. Tempshill (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there something very wrong with a President being able to decide not to enforce any law he doesn't like ? Can a charge of contempt of Congress be brought against him for that ? As a recent example, GWB opted not to collect certain oil company royalties. StuRat (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can Fed or State Government seize insurance benefits from inmates?

If a Texas inmate becomes a beneficiary of an insurance benefit can the state of Texas or the Federal Government attach a portion of or seize all of the benefit for state or federal costs attributed to the person’s incarceration? How? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browneyedgrl1965 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't give legal advice but this seems unlikely. I don't think the USA or any other modern country attempts to recover costs of incarceration from prisoners. At $88 dollars a day even a short sentence could saddle an inmate with a huge bill. Since it would probably violate the "all equal before the law" doctrine to make some inmates liable (those who receive a benefit, or an inheritance, or are wealthy before incarceration) I'd expect rapid legal challenges to an attempt to seize an insurance payout to pay for an inmate's incarceration. Exxolon (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see.

Connecticut Code 18-85a(b): The state shall have a claim against each inmate for the costs of such inmate's incarceration under this section... There are various exemptions.[2]
The Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act, passed in 1988, entitles the state to recover costs from inmates after any obligations to spouse or children are met. [3]
(Florida Code) Section 960.293 provides that a defendant who is incarcerated for an offense that is neither a capital offense nor a life felony offense is liable to the state in the amount of $50 per day for the costs of incarceration[4]
California Code 1203.1c(a): In any case in which a defendant is convicted of an offense and is ordered to serve a period of confinement in a county jail, city jail, or other local detention facility as a term of probation or a conditional sentence, the court may, after a hearing, make a determination of the ability of the defendant to pay all or a portion of the reasonable costs of such incarceration.

That's just from a quick search; I imagine it's pretty common. The ones I've seen so far seem to be means-tested in general. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Relations and Labour Laws

Meaning of (i) Layoff (ii)Retrenchment (iii) Conciliation and (iv) Adujdication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkls230776 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you. Rockpocket 02:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some useful links might be Layoff, Retrnchment and redundancy, Conciliation, Arbitration. In my country, there was also the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ella fillmore lillie

I would like to know the biography of ella fillmore lillie lithographer 1887 to 1987 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajpa (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one else has answered this, I'll throw in my meager findings. Other than her birth and death dates (about both of which there seems to be some disagreement) and her residence in Vermont, then Florida, there doesn't seem to be any significant biographical information about Lillie online. There is, however, an article about her in Mantle Fielding's Dictionary of American Painters, Sculptors, and Engravers (note the inclusion of Mantle Fielding's in the title, indicating an edition expanded after Fielding's death), which is available in many university libraries and which might provide a bit more information. Deor (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here's a list of other books containing information about her. Deor (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the whole population of the earth go and settle in the US and Canada, what would be the density there?

My idea in order to solve the major problems of the world is to move the whole human population of the earth in north america. It is the richest and more advanced place, and I think there should be room enough for everybody; but what would be the density of population then? I understand that we need to convince somebody to renounce to his barbecue corner in the garden to create more room, of course; also, we need to explain in detail the project to the immigration office of the US. Advantages: no more wars; the rest of the word is devoted to national park, wilderness, agriculture, and few touristic villages.--84.221.68.82 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the raw density would be about 343 people per square km; that's comparable to Japan or Belgium. And both the US and Canada have large areas which cannot support anywhere near that density or are otherwise unlivable; for example, without vast energy expenditures, the deserts of the Southwest US are close to uninhabitable, as are the northern reaches of Canada and Alaska. Oh, and there's this small detail that food needs land to grow. So maybe a density of 500 would be my wild-ass guess -- that's about the density of South Korea. That's pretty crowded, especially since we're mushing together as neighbors a lot of people who historically don't like each other very much... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that how rich and advanced they are could be easily affected by things like extreme population density, or suddenly having their populations grow to 6 billion people. --140.247.250.235 (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the wise points made by the previous posters, consider this: if all the population is on one continent, and all the agriculture is on other continents, how is the food to be produced, shipped, and distributed? What will the environmental impact of this be? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the idea that shoving 6.77 billion people into one continent will solve that world's problems is preposterous. First, your assertion that there would be no more wars because everybody's on the same continent is quite wrong; see civil war. The possibility of such a war happening would be increased ten-fold, because there many countries that have some never-ending conflicts with each other (e.g. Israeli–Palestinian conflict, North Korea–United States relations, I could go on and on) and forcing them to live side-by-side would only exacerbate their issues. Second, the idea of dispersing the entire human race to one location just so "the rest of the world is devoted to national park, wilderness, agriculture, and few touristic villages." really makes no sense. As Alex pointed out, the environmental impact of constantly transporting food would be extremely worthless, when you could just have people remain in their native countries and save energy by eating locally grown foods. See overpopulation to understand how many flaws your plan would have. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds cozy. In the early 20th century, it was asserted that the Earth's population could stand on the Isle of Wight, which has an area of 381 km². John Brunner in 1968 guesstimated that the world's population in 2010 would be able to Stand on Zanzibar(area 1554 km²) (Now part of Tanzania). Edison (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone in the world stood evenly spaced on Jamaica, we would get slightly less than 2 m² per person. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that measured at high tide or low tide? // BL \\ (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My place is on the beach!--pma (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

After the first Hurricane, everybody left would be able to spread out a bit. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if the continent you chose was Antarctica, it actually would solve all the world's problems. :) --Sean 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People bring their problems with them. A suicide bomber doesn't become peaceful just because you move him. It's better to leave him where he is to blow up his own people. StuRat (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, on the line above! you drop somepidng 84.221.69.114 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Are his own people cheaper to replace? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes. Countries which spawn suicide bombers tend to have a higher reproductive rate and spend far less to raise a child than the US and Canada. StuRat (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previously on the ref desk we've had them all living in Texas or, alternatively, in Loch Ness. The latter would be fairly peaceful if we don't drain it first. Gwinva (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]