Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 November 14

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 14

Stieg Larsson's Millenium trilogy

Why did Larsson give Lisbeth a sister? Would it be for the 4th book? Kittybrewster ☎ 01:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be hard to say, and probably indeterminate for the forseeable future, since the author is no longer availible to answer questions regarding his rationale for including certain characters in his books. --Jayron32 02:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Though there is apparently much of a fourth book written — at least, that's the impression I got from various articles about the wrangling over his estate between his father and his partner. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I wondered about the sister too, and throughout the third book I kept expecting her to show up, probably as part of the conspiracy against Salander or at least with a bitter perception of her as the person who destroyed the family. If nothing else, she's a handy plot device to emphasise Lisbeth's utter isolation and the sad irony of her relationship with her mother (Lisbeth was the one who took action against her father to defend her mother, enduring years of confinement and abuse as a consequence, yet her mother doesn't recognise her and credits Lisbeth's ongoing care and attention to the absent sister). I'd take a bet that the sister would have appeared eventually. Karenjc 13:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What caused the Netherlands to become so liberal?

--75.33.217.61 (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Define "Liberal". --Jayron32 03:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Partial answer found in Politics of the Netherlands#1994-present. From 1994-2002, the so called "purple coalition" was in charge, and created some of the policies that many people associate with the Netherlands being liberal: permissive abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage laws. Now why the political parties that made up the purple coalition were able to get elected, I'm not really sure. Someone with a better sense of the history of Dutch politics might be able to answer that. The other aspect of Dutch law that people tend to consider "liberal" is the permissive drug policy: see Drug policy of the Netherlands. Unfortunately, that article doesn't really say much about the history of the drug policy in the Netherlands. Again, I must defer to someone with a greater knowledge of the political history of the Netherlands. Finally, there is the permissive attitude towards prostitution: see Prostitution in the Netherlands. That article does have a bit more about the history. In the twentieth century, especially the latter half of the twentieth century, prostitution was increasingly tolerated. Prostitute was officially recognized as an occupation in 1988. But again, why this attitude was adopted is harder to answer. Finally, I can refer you to the Dutch Wikipedia, which, unsurprisingly, has a bit more comprehensive articles. See their drug policy article, for example, as well as the 20th century prostitution article. These have a little bit more about the history. It appears that a lot of the liberalization happened in the post-war years, especially getting into the 1970s. Buddy431 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

[1]. schyler (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

SInce you have now asked this question about Scandinavia AND the Netherlands, perhaps you could tell us - What caused the USA to be so conservative? (I'll admit to guessing a little here.) But while you're thinking about the answer, you can also think about the fact that it's all a matter of perspective. What's wierd to you is normal elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just the remark I was going to make myself. To people from the UK for example, Europe seems normal (more or less) while the US seems very right-wing. 92.15.7.155 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm liberal; I'm asking because I wonder why the same causes that have made those areas liberal haven't made the US any less fascist. --75.33.217.61 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I wonder which other countries you will be looking at? If you reach my country, Australia, I may have a stronger interest. Many people think the US and Australia are similar, but not when it comes to politics and religion. To describe the Democrats as leftist, as Americans do, is laughable here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The US is fascist now? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Democrats are center-right and the Republicans are far-right, so I'd definitely say that the US is fascist. --75.33.217.61 (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. By the way, you may have noticed that the Netherlands, at least at a political level, has about the same level of insane xenophobia as the US does. What's so great about that? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict with Jayron> That's certainly true; the Netherlands have been moving towards a more restrictive view of immigration in recent years. The politics of the Netherlands seems weird from a U.S. perspective, getting coalition governments whose parties may seem to have very different ideologies. Right now, they don't even have a majority coalition. The VVD (described as "liberal", especially economically, and also generally supportive of individual rights to euthanasia and prostitution, though showing some more conservative patterns in regard to immigration) and CDA (more socially conservative, in regards to drug use, euthanasia, and prostitution) form a minority coellition, with some support from the PVV (mostly known for their conservative views on immigration, but also proponents of liberal economic policies). Note that "economically liberal" policies are typically very much at odds with the economic policies of the United States' "liberals". In the U.S., the "liberal" party, the Democrats, generally support more restrictive economic policies: higher minimum wages, more business regulation, etc, where in many other places, a "liberal" is one who supports Economic liberalism. Political labels are funny that way. Buddy431 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Liberal Party in Australia is the more conservative of two two major parties there. Go figure. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Which again is derived from their supposedly Economically liberal policies (in contrast to Labor, who favor a more interventionist approach to the economy, and are buddies with the trade unions). Now, has the Liberal party always acted in an economically liberal way? No, of course not. But the liberal label probably applies more to them than any other political party in Australia. Buddy431 (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

but they smoke weed in the netherlands, so that makes them commie pinko hippies, doesn't it?--Jayron32 04:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" -- George Orwell, 1946. ([2]) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The word basically amounts to a Bronx cheer. It defiles the speaker more than the target. LANTZY^TALK 05:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that in the Netrherlands, as in Scandinavia, religion (or the lack of it) plays a major part. The Dutch who went to South Africa were fundamentalist (Dutch Reformed), whereas the Dutch in the Netherlands are not. This applies to the USA. Many Puritans and fundamentalist sects colonised America, while their cousins in England remained Anglican. Northern Ireland also follows this pattern. It is far more conservative than other parts of the UK, and the people tend to be more attracted to the fundamentalist churches such as the Free Presbyterian Church.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

However, "Liberalism" in the Netherlands (as seen with US-centric eyes) and "Liberalism" in Sweden (as seen with US-centric eyes) have some clear differences (although Denmark do share some common characterists with the Dutch Liberalism). The Netherlands went through an extremely complicated religious dispute, whereas the issue of religion was settled in Sweden much earlier (and in a very violent and repressive manner). The Netherlands also went through German occupation. In Netherlands, and several other European countries, there is a stream of thought that constantly seeks to counter-pose itself to the Nazis (notably, this tendency is very weak in Sweden, which remained un-occupied throughout the war). It seems to me that in issues like prostitution, drugs, etc., the question is "What would the Nazis have done?" and the policy adopted is then the diametrical opposite. The Anti-Germans are an extreme expression of this phenomenon. The most interesting aspect (analyzing Dutch or Danish politics) is that racist fearmongering is just as rampant still. --Soman (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet for all of Holland's liberalism, the Church of Satan could not legally operate a branch in the Netherlands, yet it openly flourishes in the US.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Revolutions and Demagogues

I just got done watching Danton (1983 film) and two things ocurred to me: 1)My American History TA saying the American revolution was headed by "The People" and "was different from all the other revolutions" because it had no "elites" in charge; and 2)I've got to post this question to the RD. Of course this assertion by my TA fails when you look at the attendees of the Continental Congress, but, my question goes into a wider spectrum.
Has there really ever been a revolution that didn't have a Demagogue at the helm? I can only think of a few revolutions, ones in America, France, Texas, and Mexico, with Madison et al, Robespierre et al, Houston et al, and Anna et al at the helms, respectively. Was there ever a revolution that where everyone seemingly spontaneously simultaneously was fed up with things and the established government was dissolved as a result. Qualifier: the revolution mustn't have been planned or have had a figurehead a the time of revolt but could have gained one following dissolution, or radical restructuring, of the government. schyler (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Revolutions need some form of organization, or its just a mob, which is easy to put down. An organized government shouldn't have much trouble, unless there is some form of organized resistance, and that organization needs someone at the head making decisions. And, I would strenuously disagree that the American Revolution had no "elites" in charge. Nearly all of the leaders of the American Revolution were members of the elite in Massachusetts (the Adams brothers, John Hancock), Virginia (Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Patrick Henry, etc.) or New York (John Jay, Alexander Hamilton). The closest thing to a "peasant" leader in the American Revolution was probably Ethan Allen. Actual "peasant revolts" are rarely, if ever, successful. --Jayron32 04:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Madison was really not much of a "demagogue". Insofar as anyone filled that role in the American Revolution / War of Independence, it would be Samuel Adams (though with rather limited scope as compared with a Robespierre or Lenin). AnonMoos (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As a general note I would say to be wary whenever anyone invokes "the people." It's a nonsense term 99% of the time that means, "the people I prefer were doing it, and were thus morally good," and is wrapped up with an elaborate mythology that usually has nothing to do with reality. Those who invoke the moral force of "the people" are usually selling propaganda of one variety or another. This is hardly limited to any particular political ideology, mind you.</rant>

Beyond that — there have been a lot of revolutions (and rebellions, which may be more fruitful for your inquiry). --Mr.98 (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Anything in classical history which may fit the requirements? schyler (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The best fit would perhaps be the German Peasants' War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And of course the English Peasants' Revolt although it came to a sticky end; as did the An Gof uprising in Cornwall. D'oh! These both had leaders - sorry!Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot the Spanish Revolution and the Paris Commune... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There was also the Shanghai Commune of 1927. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It was possible for the lower classes in Roman to get their way by simply refusing to work with the nobles, but this was more like a general strike than a revolution (see secessio plebis). Any real revolution in Rome (or Greece) definitely had a leader, except for, possibly, the helot revolts in Sparta, but those never accomplished anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't actually an answer because it hasn't happened, but it's interesting to note that Marx predicts the revolution by the proletariat will be spontaneous much like you describe. --GreatManTheory (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellites is an example of a "revolution by majority". No doubt, there were some noted dissidents (though it is not clear if they were as well known within the SU), no doubt the reforms by Gorbachev were the thin edge of the wedge, no doubt this all could have gone a different way with a successful August Coup / without Boris Yeltsin, but - essentially - this was a "democratic revolution".

So, maybe Marx was right, after all:) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden (Nidwalden and Obwalden) rebelled against the Habsburgs.
Sleigh (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the American Revolution, your TA may have been more right than you think. Elite participation is not the same thing as elite leadership. It's not clear that the guys sent to the First Continental Congress were "leading" the Revolution. They may, in fact, have been catching up. There's the famous apocryphal quote from the French Revolution which may describe was going on in the Continental Congress: "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader." There were in fact numerous non-elite "leaders" of the American Revolution in the early stages, such as William Molineux and Thomas Young. We don't even have articles on important "peasant" leaders of the early Revolution, like Ebenezer Mackintosh or the Loyal Nine. They are now obscure because most historians have told the story of the American Revolution from the point of view of the elites who eventually got in front of the parade. —Kevin Myers 14:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the most recent historian to explore this is T. H. Breen in American Insurgents, American Patriots: The Revolution of the People (2010), if anyone is interested. —Kevin Myers 23:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wealthiest Nations in History

In this documentay I watched, it said that China during the reign of Emperor Qianlong had a fourth of the world's wealth in it's treasury. Is this true? Also does anybody know which nations were the wealthiest in the world in past periods history? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think any of those claims for historical relative wealth (and probably absolute wealth for that matter) need to be taken with a grain of salt. They were (and are) often used as propaganda claims for the success and power of the leader in question. But prior to any structured, organised, world-wide international financial markets (and at that time parts of the world still remained 'undiscovered', so could not be counted in any way), how could such judgements be made? As a general rule though, it's probably fair to generalise that the wealthiest nations at any time in history fairly closely correlate to the most powerful, i.e., those with the most extensive empires. Not true in all cases of course, but your question is pretty open-ended. --jjron (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading about Mansa Musa, one gets the impression that the Malinese empire might have been the wealthiest nation at some point. Kind of ironic, given the state of the country now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that the modern nation of Mali has no historical connection to the ancient Malinese empire, beyond taking the same name. --Jayron32 06:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware; I was referring to the fact that the area in which it was based has undergone a lot of desertification since the days of the empire, which has had a rather drastic effect on the quality of life there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Jjron about the unreliability of historical statistics on personal and national wealth, especially in pre-industrial economies, but for what it's worth such estimates are available. From statistics compiled by Angus Maddison, summarised in our List of regions by past GDP (PPP) page, it appears that the Chinese economy amounted to about 22% of the world economy in 1700 and about 33% in 1820, so it's quite plausible that the figure during Qianlong's reign (1736-1795) was about 25%. But that's a measure of the Chinese economy, not it's treasury. Was there no private property in Qianlong's China? From the same page we learn (and keep taking Jjron's pinch of salt) that the Indian economy was the world's largest in the years 1, 1000, and 1700; that China took the title in 1500, 1600, 1820, and 1870; and that it was the USA in 1913, 1950, 1973, and 2003. In each case that must partly reflect the size of the population of those countries. At List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita we have statistics (you haven't forgotten the salt, have you?) on average wealth per person. It seems you were richest if you were Italian in the years 1 and 1500; West Asian in 1000; Dutch in 1600, 1700, and 1820; British in 1870; American in 1913, 1950, and 2003; and Swiss in 1973. Antiquary (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

During mediaeval times parts of Britain became very wealthy from the wool trade, producing fabrics like worsted which were exported to the rest of Europe. The wealth enabled the building of many mediaeval churches. The english counties of Norfolk and Suffolk have about 600 or more churches each, most of which I imagine were built in mediaeval times. It may have been the wealthiest area on earth at that time with the exception I suppose of Venice. At some point Britain, with its large empire, must have been the wealthiest country in per capita terms at least. 92.15.7.155 (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say the Byzantine Empire was doing pretty good until the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

They were pretty poor off by then, actually. After Constantinople was sacked in 1204 they didn't have any money and depended on the west for help (which rarely came). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware of that fact. I had presumed they were quite well-off when the Ottomans arrived in 1453. I must add another nation to the list. Spain would have likely been the richest nation-at least in Europe, after the discovery of America with all the gold and silver filling their treasury.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Read the article Philip II of Spain which explains the financial situation of the Spanish Empire. Basicly the Spanish state had a lot of gold, but was expending all of it. There were a couple of times when state was declared bankrupt and unable to pay its debts. Flamarande (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Philip II's reign began in 1554 which was many years after Columbus discovered America in 1492! I was referring to the period around the early 1500s when Spain was considered the greatest power in Europe, especially after the annexation of Burgundy and the Low Countries.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That happened during the rule of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (who ruled from 1519 until 1556): "The enormous budget deficit accumulated during Charles' reign resulted in Spain declaring bankruptcy during the reign of Philip II". Flamarande (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

See this[3] question above for more details of the Fourth Crusade. Alansplodge (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting related article on changes in economic importance over the centuries, and the reasons behind them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a quote by a medieval

I happened to come a across a quote a long time ago that I am now hoping to find again. It was attributed to a medieval musician (pre 1200) and concerned the changes that music had undergone up to that point. If you know of that particular quote, or perhaps somewhere where I could find it, I would appreciate it. My apologies for the vague description. Thank you. Vidtharr (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember anything about the kind of changes, or the general tenor of the quote? Hucbald, Isidore of Seville (who famously said it was impossible to notate music), Anonymous IV, ... Antandrus (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm shooting in the dark here, but this may be interesting -- a common trope since at least the time of Plato is that whatever the current generation is doing different musically is corrupting or damaging the purity of what came before. Here, for example, from Boethius De instititione musica (early 6th century, and here he is quoting an alleged ancient Greek document by Timotheus, now known to be a forgery): "Whereas Timotheus the Milesian, having come to our city, has dishonored the ancient music; and whereas, by discarding the seven-stringed cithara and introducing a multiplicity of tones, he corrupts the ears of the young; and whereas, by the use of many strings and by the novelty of his melody, he decks music out as ignoble and intricate instead of simple and orderly, embellishing the melody with the chromatic genus instead of the enharmonic ..." (tr. probably by Oliver Strunk from the Friendlein edition of Boethius, Leipzig, 1867). Antandrus (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the change the quote was referring to was the effects of the fall of Rome and the subsequent invasions. It had more to do with major changes in society rather than a single person. I'll take a closer look at Isidore; it may be what I'm looking for. Thank you again. Vidtharr (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Augustine talks about music, and also about the fall of Rome, and he's just the sort of person who would complain about innovations. I'm not sure if he would have mentioned this in City of God or Confessions, we'll have to look around for it. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you by chance know where I can find an online version of his (Augustine's) essay "On Music"? Thank you. Vidtharr (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Here it is in Latin: [4] -- don't know if that helps. Can't find it in English. Antandrus (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I can manage with the Latin version. Thank you kindly. Vidtharr (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dahrendorf's work on law schools' students

A friend of mine said that his lecturer - a sociologist - mentioned a Dahrendorf's paper on law schools' students. The thesis said that there are a few differences between them and other students, eg. they dress too formal for their age. Has any of you heard of this work? I tried google but found nothing. 83.6.193.8 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it legal to publicly carry a spear in Oregon?

Specifically, it would be used as a walking stick for hiking both on and off trail. Also, would some dumb ass cop say carrying such a tool was "disturbing the peace" or is there some other bullshit law I'd have to watch out for? TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This amounts to a request for legal advice, which we cannot provide. Consider consulting a lawyer. Marco polo (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But "Does any law (statute or common) prohibit the carrying of spears in Oregon?" would be a permissible question, so if anyone could answer that, I would be grateful. DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't give you a specific answer, but I googled [oregon weapon laws knives] and indications are that openly carrying "dangerous weapons" is generally illegal. To find out specifically about spears, as Marco said, you should consult a legal expert in Oregon. For example, perhaps it's possible to get a permit to carry such an object. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So I can openly carry a safe weapon in Oregon? DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be OK if you were on stage at a performance of Aida or Götterdämmerung. PhGustaf (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll start carving my treaties into my spear right away! TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, my understanding of knife laws in Oregon is that it is legal to carry pretty much any knife as long as it isn't concealed and you aren't a felon. I would think this would apply to spears too, if "holstered," but that means I can't really use it as a walking stick. I just wonder if it would be considered brandishing the weapon if you use it like a walking stick and if that would be considered disturbing the peace or something. I'm half-tempted to call the police department or district attorney's office, but even the police don't know the law half the time and make shit up when it is convenient for them (i.e. they want to confiscate what you have for themselves). As for getting a permit, AFAIK Oregon only provides for concealed pistol permits, which don't let you carry knives in a concealed manner which is pretty much bullshit, but at least it isn't like California where any attempt to prepare for self-defense is a crime. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a spear would always be classified as a weapon - there's no other use for a spear. In almost every US jurisdiction I'm aware of, walking around with bare weapon would be considered menacing - oregon menacing statute -since a bare weapon implies a willingness towards violence. you wouldn't actually have to do anything except display it in an inappropriate circumstance to be arrested for menacing.

Generally speaking, police do not like to see weapons flashed around in public areas without reasonable context. I suggest that if you want to carry a spear in public, you should wear a grass skirt and put a bone through your nose, and claim to be going to a costume party. it won't stop the cops from confiscating it, but you may avoid the misdemeanor. --Ludwigs2 01:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And make sure that it is Halloween. Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly an odd law, but would it really apply? If I'm just hiking with it on trails and don't threaten anyone then I'd think it would be okay. I don't think anyone would assume someone with a spear is "intentionally" placing them in "imminent" physical injury - someone that thin-skinned would assume the same of a holstered firearm. If I was wildly swinging it around, especially towards other people then I could see it, but not just walking around with it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the law applies a person who "intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury". By my naive reading, I think it would be rather difficult to prove (absent some other circumstance like previous threatening behavior towards a person you expect to be present) that merely carrying a weapon has any such intent. For comparison see open carry (there was a recent controversy about it when, as I recall, Starbucks said they wouldn't bar people from their stores for open carry). --Trovatore (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, imagine how you'd feel if you were wandering around a hiking trail and came across a man with a shotgun in his hands. You might not care if it was safetyed and stuck in his backpack, but if the guy walked right past you with the gun in his hands and his finger on the trigger ... even if he was really polite, that'd make me nervous.

A spear that you're carrying around in your hands is every bit as ready to kill someone (or something) as a gun that you're carrying around in your hands. APL (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, it is standard practice (and common good manners) to "break" a shotgun, remove the cartridges, and carry it with the open barrel pointing to the ground when meeting someone. Spears are slightly more difficult to carry in a way that clearly shows no hostile intent, but I would be happy to meet a stranger carrying a spear with their arm unraised and the spear's point covered. Police in cities here would certainly regard either weapon as "offensive", however it was carried. Dbfirs 08:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There's an idea. Encase the spearhead with a sheath of some kind, maybe a leather covering; and then maybe attach a "bear bell" so that it's clear it's intended as a walking stick. Still, the OP needs to contact the authorities before actually doing this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much of a point, pun intended, carrying a spear with a sheath on it, but I do like the idea of attaching a bell to it, since it is a boar spear it should be easy to tie it to the quillion. Perhaps I should get a khakkhara, but I'm not exactly sure where to purchase one. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If I were to carry an exotic weapon, I would be sure to include an atlatl, just because I would enjoy saying it when someone asked me what it was. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to be hiking on trails, don't carry a spear, carry a quarterstaff. It's almost as effective a weapon, and only an experienced hiker would realize that it's larger and heavier than an ideal hiking staff. --Carnildo (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Mad Men" and smoking

On "Mad Men", they sure do smoke a lot! How do they protect the actors' health, i.e. with fake cigarettes, or real ones but not the normal filling, or what do they do? I'm a smoker, and it hurts my lungs just to look at how often they smoke -- and that's just the one take that I see! 91.183.62.45 (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Googling around suggests they smoke "herbal cigarettes", which, while probably not great for the lungs, are at least not addictive. They probably don't inhale the smoke into their lungs most of the time, either. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

First, consider the possibility that many of the actors may already be smokers, and are going to get their nicotine fix either on camera or off.

Secondly, check out this article : The Straight Dope : Do non-smoking actors use fake cigarettes when playing a part?

APL (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to be resistant to the addictiveness of nicotine? Because if so, I'd rather smoke an actual cigarette for a scene, since there is very little difference health-wise between tobacco and herbal cigarettes. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But keep in mind you will probably re-take the same scene dozens of times if not more. So if you're smoking actual cigarettes, your one puff for a scene could easily be smoking a pack a day or more. Unless you are already a very heavy smoker, that's quite a lot. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But they don't have to finish smoking every cigarette they start. As soon as the take's over, they can just stub out what's left of the cigarette. Twenty puffs for twenty takes would not add up to any more than one whole cigarette over the course of a day. Quite mild, really. Plus, they don't have to inhale; they certainly couldn't be forced to these days. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes real life can dictate story lines. Actor Don Johnson stopped smoking around the first season of Miami Vice, and as a result so did his character on the show. [5]. 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Stopping smoking is an excellent thing to do. This week is my first anniversary. What I saved paid for an overseas trip. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Which begs the question. How did you quit the weed? I've known people who have stopped without the aid of patches, nicotine gum etc, but at the moment it seems beyond my capability to stop. I know, it's sad, but is there a proven method of stopping that is generally seen as better than all others? Jack forbes (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I never said I quit the weed. :) No, seriously, that's all in the past now. :) No, seriously, I've never touched the stuff.  :) No, seriously ...  :) As for cigarettes, Champix did it for me, in one 2-week course with virtually no side effects. No lingering hankerings. Just occasionally I get a bit stressed out and I think that if anyone offered me a ciggy I'd take it. But they never do, and I never ask. This is my experience. You, go see a doctor. I know people who tried Champix and it failed utterly for them. Horses for courses. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)