Humanities desk
< June 3	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 4

Swearing

Hey, it's Larry again (from the summer debate club). Monday's topic concerns the merits of swearing, i.e., should invoking few choice words once in a while be acceptable, or should people try to steer clear of swearing altogether. I've been put in the anti- camp, so I need a few pointers for making this argument. I guess I could argue that swearing is not appropriate because it reflects an intent to offend and is a custom of the uneducated that we as an enlightened society should move on from, but a counterargument I can see right off the bat is that in a lot of 'good' literature such as Shakespeare sex jokes and swearing are found frequently. How should I counter this argument? thx in advance. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that's a bad spot to be put. It's not a position that generally comes up in rational debate, since its root is essentially emotional or vaguely moral. I know these things are meant to be exercises, but this strikes me as a real set up of a topic choice, as almost no rational adult would defend the position that swearing is some kind of universally evil thing. A surprising position might be to suggest that swearing really is important, but that the actual act of swearing dilutes the meaning of the words in question, and thus their potency. Perhaps one could argue that really harsh swears should be saved up, like special weapons, to be deployed only in the most heinous of circumstances. But it's not a very compelling argument. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truth, Wisdom, and Reason are a non plus ultra and needn't a fortification from four-letter words. Indeed one who feels his or her argument/statement/joke necessitates an "invoking [of a] few choice words" then that IS universally accepted as a symbol of unsophistication. The utilization of such in archetypical classics (feel free to use this term to deride shakespeare) is not a good argument for the use of bad language because these arts are not directed at the artistic or the enlightened, but at the petty classes who enjoy and can relate to such circumstances. Furthermore, Comedy Itself is not present in the use of swearing, nor is Comedy Itself fortified by Bad Language Itself. Four-letter words are a tool of psuedo-gravitas. See this and read Poetics (Aristotle). Schyler (one language) 04:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it should be non plus ultras. Schyler (one language) 05:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a specific counter to the argument that Shakespeare's (and other's) works contain swearing, etc, you could also argue that if a work of fiction is intended to portray aspects of reality, then since some people do swear (etc), it may be appropriate to portray some characters in that work as swearing (etc), not to endorse or advocate swearing (etc), but to better show what those characters are like - if swearing is 'not a good thing' (to put things over-simply), it may be used to show that they are not themselves entirely good people.

[Disclaimer: I offer this merely as a debating argument; I do not share it myself. In my personal opinion, swearing and sexual jokes are inoffensive, appropriate and socially useful in the right circumstances, though offensive, inappropriate and socially disadvantageous in other circumstances: part of everyday social skills is to be able to judge the difference.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.190 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Points:

Swearwords are a crutch for the semiliterate and the emotionally unstable. Proof: there is nothing that cannot be communicated in decent English.
Swearwords carry no meaning other than displaying the impotence of the speaker. That is illustrated ad nauseum by the promoters of the expletive FUCK that allegedly can be used in so many ways that it becomes meaningless.
Major belief systems are unanimous in deprecating swearing.

Xinanity: Matthew 5:34 But I tell you, Do not swear. James 5:12 Above all, my brothers, do not swear. More.
Judaism: Leviticus 19:12 Do not swear.
Buddhism: Samma vacca - on the noble 8-fold path, is Right or Perfected Speech free of swearing or lie
Islam: Surah The Light(an-Nur) 24:53 Say: "Do not swear...God is certainly aware of what you do."

@Larry the OP: Do not confuse swearing with sexual jokes. Sexual ecstacy is there to be celebrated with animalistic grunts while it is happening and smiling jokes in the intermission, with never a swearword. @All the 1,789 Wikipedia administrators Please don't swear. I don't like it and those of you who adhere to any of the above belief systems should know better. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using Cuddlyable3's third point is that your opponent may be religious, or at least religiously literate, and hence will know the context of these translated quotes. They will thus know that these quotes have nothing to do with the issue at hand (the use of taboo words, often described as 'swearing' or 'cursing' in modern English), but rather the swearing of oaths ("let your yes be yes, and your no be no"). So I'd only use this point if you are very confident of your opponents' ignorance of religion. 212.183.128.8 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

212.183 is right CB3... A Christian may use James 3:10 or Ephesians 4:29. Schyler (one language) 15:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole of James 3 effectively teaches that by governing the tongue we gain perfection, and Ephesians 4:29 says Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.. That ls originally a Buddhist teaching that found its way into an otherwise vicious book. Since these things were written by Paulus we may wonder whether he got these ideas before or after his epileptic faint on the way to Damascus. Here is how to spell my name: Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(to Schyler, ec) Those quotes are indeed much more relevant, but are still making a slightly different point. They are talking about cursing, about saying nasty, unpleasant, aggressive, hurtful things. That is not the same as saying taboo words. For example, in the appropriate setting, to the right person, saying "You were fucking fantastic" is an entirely positive thing to say, taken as a great compliment, and far more meaningful to them than a similar phrase without the taboo word: used appropriately, this taboo word is not 'cursing' anyone, nor unpleasant. In contrast, saying "I wish you would just die" is generally going to be taken as a deeply unpleasant, nasty thing to say, 'cursing' someone. It clearly violates the instructions in the quotes, without containing any taboo words. Even more generally, the second quote can be taken as condemning even gossip. I don't see that they can honestly be used to support a doctrine of "all swearing in all circumstances is wrong", unless "swearing" is taken to mean "saying nasty things", which wouldn't be the usual definition. 86.164.164.27 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, 86.164.164.27, if you uttered your allegedly "entirely positive thing to say, taken as a great compliment" in my house, that is the last thing you would ever say in my house. That's because my house is not your gutter. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you saying 'no' to? Did I say, "Cuddlyable3 is a person who greatly appreciates swearing used as an intensifier, and hence is a person who will be pleased by this phrase"? There are plenty of people I know who would be offended by language that I think of as 'polite', because they would think I was mocking them. They would take appropriate use of taboo words, as illustrated, as a sign of sincerity and respect. Appropriate language use is about choosing the language for the person and the occasion: if I want to express myself in a way that makes my meaning clear, and does not offend or upset other people, then I don't call you a wanker, and I don't call various other people paragons of virtue. And I read people's words carefully, so that I am not responding to thins they did not say. And I don't tell people I hate them and wish they would die which, again, violates the quoted scripture without using so-called 'swearwords'. 86.164.164.27 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was Shakespeare who said "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so". "Swear" words, "taboo" or "profane" words are defined by whom? Under what criteria? The two "worst" taboo words in the English language were words in proper usage not too long ago: just consider Gerard Manley Hopkins' poem about a kestrel, in which he calls it a "wind-fucker", or the phrase "a cunt stick" which means a cleft stick, where the C-word is given its proper usage. How this relates to what you've been asked to do I don't know, but it will give you something to think about. More directly related to your task is a Fry and Laurie sketch in which they define their own swear words, using the word "pimhole" to denote the anus. You may be able to find it on You Tube. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear whether Cuddlyable is advancing those arguments just to assist you in your debate, or intends them seriously. But the first one is a falsehood expressed in loaded language; the second carries a truth at its heart (expletives, like a good deal of ordinary language, do not have denotative meaning) but draws tendentious conclusions; and the third is true but relates to only a small part of what is today called "swearing". Bad Language, by Peter Trudgill and Lars Andersson, is a good read, and disposes of many myths around swearing. --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Em, if that was a reply to my post can you please explain it? I'm not Cuddlyable, but you've indented it under my post. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House de la Cerda

Did the House de la Cerda have any power in Castilian and Spanish politics in the middle ages up to its extinction in the male-line in the 1700s? By the rules of male preference primogeniture, they were the legitimate Kings of Castile as successor of Alfonso X's eldest son. Were they ever considered as possible successors by rebel nobles or even as threat by the reigning Spanish House of Trastámara and later Bourbon? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bestselling author

How to become bestselling author? If I plan to write a book, what can I do to ensure my book will be a best-seller? --H6t6 (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, no one will even publish you if you aren't already a best-selling author: literary agents have stopped doing their job, and do not take a "risk" on a new author. (I put risk in quotation marks, because if they could judge a work, it wouldn't be one.) --86.8.139.65 (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

86.8 is clearly employing hyperbole, since new authors are published all the time, but certainly the competition is intense. That said, there is obviously no reliable formula to becoming a bestselling author, or people would already routinely use it. It helps to be able to write one's chosen language at least competently, although authors like Dan Brown challenge that requirement. It helps to have the indefinable gift of "spinning a yarn" that keeps readers enthralled, which may be unrelated to quality of prose, characterisation, or plotting (witness J. K. Rowling). It helps to have written a work that coincidentally chimes with current popular interest or the zeitgeist, but that requires sheer luck because current popular interests often change more rapidly that one can write a book. It may help to write in niche territory already pioneered by a previous writer whose slowly growing popularity has prepared and fertilised the ground of the public's imagination, as with the plethora of 'historical whodunnit' writers who have flourished in the fields sown by Ellis Peters. It helps to have had one's manuscript accepted by a publisher's commissioning editor who has enough enthusiasm for it to promote it vigorously. It is usually necessary for the publisher to decide in advance of publication to commit a large (best-seller sized) budget to promote it (though there are exceptions that surprised everyone concerned).

This topic is very large: you might benefit from seeking out one or more of the web fora devoted to writing: one of which I have heard good report (but have no connection with or personal experience of) is Absolute Write, though there are many others which you should be able to find by the normal searching processes. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.190 (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Pournelle, a science fiction author, suggests that before you write your first book you need to write a million words of fiction. Pick a contemporary genre or the next big genre like J.K. Rowling's children's fantasy or Dan Brown's Christian controversy. But it must be easy to read.
Sleigh (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write your best work you can and give it out for free and let it spread like a contagion. Then, once famous, write an okay book that everyone will say is better than the first and sell it for $9.99. Schyler (one language) 14:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn and live by the seven most powerful words in the publishing business, words that if you ever get the chance to say them, will all but guarantee that your book is a bestseller: "Thank you for having me on, Oprah." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.92.26 (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do know her show isn't on anymore, right? i.m.canadian (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Politics, and qoutes about political action

I am trying to find some decent quotes about the need to take action in politics. However,it seems very difficult to pluck them out of the sea of political quotes, and googling political quotes on action seems not to filter anything too well.

This is what i have thus far:

Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world. - Howard Zinn

It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. -- U.S. Supreme Court, in American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382,442

Silence gives consent. -- Canon Law

Does anyone have any other important ones, perhaps spoken by famous politicians, or any better sources for me to use? I have looked but again it seems that what i mainly get is general political quotes, of which very few seem to be specifically advocating voicing opinions and being involved.

Thanks! 216.173.144.164 (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" ? - JFK - StuRat (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." (Or something like that.) StuRat (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke (fount it!) 216.173.144.164 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's it. Also: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease." StuRat (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The House of Peers, throughout the war, did nothing in particular - and did it very well." (Iolanthe). "If the Government should be taught thereby, that the highest wisdom of a State is, 'a wise and masterly inactivity,' — an invaluable blessing will be conferred." (Calhoun, quoting John Randolph). "When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision." (Falkland). You didn't say that the quotes had to _support_ taking action in politics, and it's by no means certain that it's always a good thing. Tevildo (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now there's a slightly sore point with me. How come no one ever performs Iolanthe or Ruddigore? All the G&S people ever seem to do is three plays (Pirates of Penzance, Pinafore, and Mikado, for anyone who wondered). I think Ruddigore has the best patter song I've ever heard, but no one ever seems to produce it. --Trovatore (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I like Think Globally, Act Locally. Looie496 (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About "...the triumph of evil...": yes it's a good quote, and there must be a million attributions to Edmund Burke on the Internet, but no-one has ever actually found it in his writings. Wikiquote have a good discussion of this at Edmund Burke#Disputed. --Antiquary (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo: valid point. I did not state that. However, I guess now is a good time to clarify that that is what i'm looking for, because i am looking for quotes that inspire people to volunteer, or point out how not voicing ones opinion and being silent can be dangerous; for use on a political website. Also, I personally find that (relatively) shorter quotes are more evoking -- i did find quotes on some websites that took up a whole paragraph. 216.173.144.164 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." — Margaret Mead
"I have found the paradox that if I love until it hurts, then there is no hurt, but only more love." — Mother Teresa
"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." — Anne Frank
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." — Dr. Seuss
"If you can't feed a hundred people, then feed just one." — Mother Teresa
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." — Winston Churchill
"Touch one life in a positive manner and you have succeeded in your own." — Christy Mathewson
"It's easy to make a buck. It's a lot tougher to make a difference." — Tom Brokaw
"He has the right to criticize who has the heart to help." — Abraham Lincoln
"Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do." — John Wooden
"I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both hands. You need to be able to throw something back." — Maya Angelou
"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope ... and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." — Robert F. Kennedy
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." — Mohandas Gandhi
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." — Barack Obama
"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." — John Lennon
"Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you." — Thomas Jefferson
"If you can dream it, you can do it." — Walt Disney

— Michael J 13:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"How can you become a better citizen? What's stopping you?" Richard Armour

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward." John F. Kennedy At about the 3:30 mark You could probably find some other good quotes from that speech.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First they came…. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Some men see things as they are, and ask "Why?". Others dream things that never were, and ask "Why not?"." (from Man and Superman by George Bernard Shaw, as varied and arguably improved by Robert F. Kennedy). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the other side of the coin, by one who (like me) was suspicious of activist government: "If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you." (Calvin Coolidge) --Trovatore (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to be President in times of prosperity. Coolidge had the good sense not to press his luck, and chose not to run in 1928. I think it was Will Rogers (who's a one-man memorable quotes machine, if the OP wants to check some of his work), who said, "Calvin Coolidge didn't do anything while he was President. But that was OK, because nobody wanted him to do anything!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle." -- Frederick Douglass -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Twain—Suppose you were an idiot. Or suppose you were a Congressman. But I repeat myself."

Groucho Marx—"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."

Will Rogers—"Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke."

Ronald Reagan—"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."

DOR (HK) (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political economics, UK

1) How did the Labour party intend to run the economy had they won the election? 2) I understand that the current government has a policy of zero wage increases for public employees. Won't this inevitably cause stagflation, particularly as the private sector appears to be following that example? 92.29.114.123 (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, the policy put forward in the Labour Party manifesto and during the election campaign was to maintain public spending (and therefore keep what are by recent standards high levels of public borrowing) for the year 2010/11, and thereafter to have reduced spending so that the budget deficit had halved by the end of the Parliament in 2015. The Labour Party argued that large reductions in public spending risked causing a second decline in GDP, but slower reductions would allow the economy to expand and therefore lead to rising tax receipts which would reduce the deficit and ensure high employment levels. See Labour Party Manifesto for details. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the second point, I'm not sure what you're argument is here: zero wage increases break the wage-price spiral and should help lower inflation, even risking deflation in the mid to long term. Unless you have a different perspective? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt that not apply if you have external price increases such as we are currently experiencing (commodities, food, etc)? 92.28.240.238 (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Assuming the OP:) Of course those external price increases are going to keep inflation in the 4-5% range by BOE's own estimates, but that has nothing to do with wage restraint, which works to mitigate the effect. So government policy will not "inevitably cause stagflation" AFAICT. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danish law on preventive home visits

According to Vass et al. (Preventive home visits to older people in Denmark: Why, how, by whom, and when? Z Gerontol Geriat 40:209–216 (2007), doi:10.1007/s00391-007-0470-2), Act 1117 of Dec. 20th 1995 with the amendments of 2005 and 2006 regulates arranging preventive home visits (forebyggende hjemmebesøg) for old people.

~~I'm, however, unable to find this act online. I tried searching on Lovdata.no, to no avail. Does the article that I cited even give the correct act number and date?~~

~~Could someone find it and give me the link? This would help me with my research project. --PeeKoo (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, I just realized that the country domain of Lovdata was .no. I found what I was looking for on retsinformation.dk. Scandinavian languages are just too similar.. :) --PeeKoo (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did Tennyson (Alfred, Lord) know Greek?

Hi, did Tennyson know Greek? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.139.65 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. According to Mark W. Edwards Sound, Sense and Rhythm: Listening to Greek and Latin Poetry Tennyson began learning Greek when he was seven, and had written an epic poem in Greek by the time he'd gone to university. --Antiquary (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did he know Diddley? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nerang National Park IUCN

Is Nerang National Park IUCN Category II (National Park)? Talvinlee (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This question was originally asked on Talk:Nerang National Park [1] and I've moved it here. Chzz ► 09:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN believes that it is "Nerang Forest Reserve", a level VI area (forest managed for recreation and production.)[2] Which matches neither name in our article. Rmhermen (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US higher education institutes

Can anyone please tell which are the most free market/fiscal conservative-leaning and which are the most leftist/Marxist-leaning higher education institutes in the US? What I know is that GMU is libertarian heaven, and Harvard is Marxist heaven. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard is Marxist heaven? By, uh, what metric? If you define your metric, perhaps we'll be able to help you out a little more. The university itself certainly doesn't act Marxist; it's business school certainly doesn't preach Marxism; it's undergraduate population is pretty diverse in terms of its political opinions (textbook Marxism, in my experience, not really being one of them), and so on. It's probably true that individual faculty members, or even some departments, lean Marxist (in the very broad sense, not in any orthodox sense), but even there I'd be puzzled as to which ones you specifically had in mind. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's thinking of the well-known Marxist and Harvard grad, Bill O'Reilly. One school to look into would be the University of Chicago, which was created by John D. Rockefeller for the specific purpose of cranking out business students. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The business school at U of Chicago was started eight years after the school began (and wouldn't have made the top five important things I think of). Yale Divinity School is often considered quite liberal (they say postliberal?) but not Marxist. Rmhermen (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The professors at Rice University sit on the right and lean towards the far right. Schyler (one language) 14:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some controversy of a donation and the terms of said donation to Florida State University from the Koch brothers [3] but it appears to only affect the economics department and it's perhaps too recent to have in itself significantly changed the character Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there's a problem in trying to use one word to describe a whole educational institute comprising maybe thousands of individual staff members. Especially when the precise meanings of these single words are very difficult to define anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google for "most conservative colleges" and "most liberal colleges" and you get lots and lots of top 10 lists. Staecker (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Marxism in American academia has been out of favor since at least the 1980's, when French post-structuralist thought criticized Marxism's reliance on a universal narrative of socioeconomic exploitation and chance. Contemporary Marxists of note would be Frederic Jameson, Louis Althusser, and Terry Eagleton. Jameson is at Duke; I believe the other two are outside of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.92.26 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People are obviously going to disagree about the specifics, but there are intellectual and political characteristics to different universities. I wouldn't be dismissive of the OPs question. I've heard the same thing the OP said about George Mason University, and the University of Chicago has a reputation from its economics department which carries over to its law school too. It's undeniable there are intellectual flavors to different universities.

I've also heard the same thing about Harvard in the past. This article has that claim in it for instance. It's not so much old-school economic marxism as much as it is modern cultural studies and humanities... some of which use that same philosophical framework. Shadowjams (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As previously mentioned, it's hard to talk about the "most liberal" or "most conservative" colleges, since just about all schools have professors of different mindsets. No one would call BYU a liberal school, but it has some liberal professors. Nonetheless, you can't go wrong from a conservative viewpoint with Hillsdale College, which is so ideological that it refuses federal funding lest it have to comply with government mandates. On the left, you can look at Evergreen State College, where the first class on their list of economics classes is called "Alternatives to Capitalism." Antioch College in Ohio, another college famous for its left-wing orientation, closed in 2008 but is hoping to reopen in the fall. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brigham Young University and other religiously-based institutions (like the less-distinguished Bob Jones University) tend to be politically right-wing and conservative, though definitely not libertarian, because they seek to uphold traditional religious morality. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Kill A Mockingbird

At what point does the narrator mention that all the townspeople look alike because of generations of inbreeding? Schyler (one language) 14:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/t/to-kill-a-mockingbird-script.html Here's] the script. --Omidinist (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular point is not mentioned in the film starring Gregory Peck. I know because I watched it last night. That is indeed why I posted this question because I was curious to find it in my copy of the book. I thought it was at the beginning of part two, but it aint. Schyler (one language) 18:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in chapter 13: "There was indeed a caste system in Maycomb, but to my mind it worked this way: the older citizens, the present generation of people who had lived side by side for years and years, were utterly predictable to one another: they took for granted attitudes, character shadings, even gestures, as having been repeated in each generation and refined by time."" --Omidinist (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember that anywhere in the book, but I'm looking through my old, highlighted and annotated and summarised, GCSE copy. Might you be thinking of "...because of Simon Finch's industry, Atticus was related by blood or marriage to nearly every family in the town."? That's near the beginning (page 11 in my copy). 86.164.164.27 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A second relevant (but not fully) quote, from chapter XIII. Jem says, "scratch most folks in Maycomb and they're kin to us." I wonder if there might be a reference during the trial, when they talk to the guy with the inter-racial family. I'll get back to you... 86.164.164.27 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although Maycomb was ignored during the War Between the States, Reconstruction rule and economic ruin forced the town to grow. It grew inward. New people so rarely settled there, the same families married the same families until the members of the community looked faintly alike. Occasionally someone would return from Montgomery or Mobile with an outsider, but the result caused only a ripple in the quiet stream of family resemblance. - To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee. pages 215-216 in this Google Books' version. ^Avic _ennasis @ 22:46, 2 Sivan 5771 / 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha! You win! You were two pages ahead of me in chapter XIII. :) 86.164.164.27 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks! Schyler (one language) 13:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Germany, Anchluss and the Spanish Civil War

There is a interesting section now in German involvement in the Spanish Civil War, an article most of which I've written, but this was from the original text:

"It has been speculated that Hitler used the Spanish Civil War issue to distract Mussolini from Hitler's own designs on and plans for union (Anschluss) with Austria. The authoritarian Catholic, anti-Nazi Vaterländische Front government of autonomous Austria had been in alliance with Mussolini, and in 1934 the assassination of Austria's authoritarian president Engelbert Dollfuss had already successfully invoked Italian military assistance in case of a German invasion."

This isn't the area I have books on. So I have two questions: firstly, can someone provide a source (any book would do) for the latter part, which I think is uncontroversial; secondly, is the first sentence justified? It would be nice to cite it and add any extra information to the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dollfuss wasn't president, he was the Chancellor. The President at the time was Wilhelm Miklas. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search Google Books or Google itself for "Brenner Pass Incident 1934" [e.g. page 251 of Stanley G. Payne's European Fascism], which deserves its own small Wikipedia article. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between "clean bill of health" and "unqualified statement of assurance"

Hello.

In auditing, what is the difference between these two terms? I've frequently heard about organisations that are audited and receive a "clean bill of health" on their accounts but don't get an "unqualified statement of assurance". How can you get one without getting the other?

Thanks in advance! Leptictidium (mt) 21:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I've never heard the second expression where I live in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard either phrase used in a professional accounting or auditing report. "Clean bill of health" may be used informally. Bielle (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Auditor's report#Unqualified Opinion discusses this terminology, and this web page gives a formal definition of an "unqualified statement of assurance", as the term is used by the US Department of Defense. Looie496 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]