Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 28

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.

September 28

The Ukraine

Why does the article say "Ukraine" instead of "the Ukraine"? --70.134.53.27 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the 'The' has fallen out of colloquial use as it did for the Sudan? I think that practice is from when they were thought of as areas more than proper countries (or 2/3 of a country in Sudan's case, lol). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 01:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

After independence, the country asked other countries to stop using the "the" before its name, since the "the" implied Ukraine was merely a region (as it was during the USSR) and not a bona fide country. The irony is that Ukranian, like all Slavic languages that I know of, doesn't even have an equivalent to the word "the." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Countries talk? —Tamfang (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Most likely because they have an equivalent for referring to something with a direct article like placing a hei before a word in Hebrew. Or do they not have anything for this? :p It's not really ironic when you consider the title isn't coming from a Slavic country. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 02:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they have no definite article. They also have no indefinite article ("a" or "an"). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Hebrew has no indefinite article, but I find the lack of definite strange; then again they seem to get on just fine without it. Anyway, I've gotten us off-topic. You have answered the OP's question and I believe this topic can be marked resolved. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 02:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The most widely spoken language in the world doesn't have definite articles, either. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A definite starter for our Frequently Asked Questions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of the Lebanon and the Crimea (a region within the Ukraine) but not the Sudan.
Sleigh (talk)

Really? Here are close to 4 million hits for "the Sudan". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Longer discussion from a month ago. See also our entire article on Name of Ukraine. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See English articles#Geographic uses.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Short answer, Mwalcoff is right, long answer, see old thread linked above. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times at Special Bargain Rates

I am having some doubts about this tale. The guy's been killed in plane crash. That means body is lost, then how they have funeral ? Moreover how does NYT comes into context, it is just mentioned by ghost-voice over phone after making certain predictions ? 124.253.131.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

Wait, what? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a body to have a funeral. As for the rest of your question, I'm with Sir Petrie. Dismas|^(talk) 03:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, never knew that ! ( in our part of world the funeral simply means getting rid of body )- culture clash. What's more I simply fail to get what Sir Petrie means when he says "Wait, what? " (culture clash again !). Please elaborate.- OP 124.253.131.54 (talk)

It's short for "I have no idea what you are talking about; could you please elaborate as what you have written confuses me greatly." :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 03:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone is known to have died and the body is lost (drown in the ocean, burned in a fire, etc.), a funeral can still be held. A funeral, as far as every western religion that I know and some eastern as well, is basically a religious ceremony for the soul of the deceased. A funeral often does have a "getting rid of the body" portion to it though. The burial is not needed if there's no body though. Dismas|^(talk) 05:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don’t think the story even says there was a funeral. There are relatives in the house with the widow Annie, but it’s only two days after the plane crash, and the relatives are said to be "still" there, so they'll have arrived the day before at the latest. A bit early for a funeral (depending on religion of course). I suppose the relatives could have simply come there to comfort and help her. The ghost-voice that answers Annie's call at the end of the story is simply a typical American experience: a pre-recorded voice selling you something on the telephone, in this case, a subscription to the New York Times. It's there for contrast: she gets a message from beyond, but when she tries to communicate back, she reaches not even a stranger but a banal machine.--Rallette (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A note on forms of address for knights and those claiming to be so: It's either Sir William Petrie or just Sir William, but NEVER Sir Petrie. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think the usual rules of etiquette regarding correct forms of addressing knights of the realm apply to Wikipedia usernames. --Viennese Waltz 12:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a hanging offence here, no. It’s just that certain people seem historically prone to making this error, and I was just wanting to let them know not to do it out there. Witness this biography of Vernon Handley, which has been mislabelled as a biog of Sir Adrian Boult (1st grievous mistake), and then they compound it by calling him "Sir Boult". Such a trustworthy site. Not. You'll also find hits for "Sir Gielgud", "Sir Olivier" and so on and on. The embarrassment factor of this error is so potent that it comes through even when done in jest. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as if a machine read Sir as the first of Mr S. A. Boult's given names. I've seen analogous errors before. —Tamfang (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Some Christian denominations make a distinction between a "Funeral service" (held with the body present) and a "Memorial service" (held without the body present). The distinction is purely technical, however, in that the same liturgy is used for both types of services - the only difference being whether the body is present or not. These denominations also have a "Burial" (or "Committal") rite held at the grave site, which technically is a separate thing... (the Committal might immediately follow a funeral service... but it does not have to. It could be held weeks, months or even years later). That said, if I remember the story correctly, Rallette is correct in noting that the author of "The New York Times at Special Bargain Rates" (Steven King) does not specifically state that the family has gathered for a funeral (or any religious service)... it is a logical assumption, but it is not actually stated. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The funeral for Payne Stewart included a closed coffin containing a couple of identifiable body parts, following the crash of the small plane he and colleagues had been flying in. On the other hand, there's this famous alleged tombstone epitaph: "Beneath this stone lies John Mound / Lost at sea and never found." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I stopped buying the NYTimes back when Punch started the patronizing policy of one pro-gay article per section per day. It then cost 45 cents weekdays. I might buy the Tuesday edition with the science section again were it worth my while. What special discount do card-carrying libertarian sodomites receive?μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fiction and fantasy genres.

I am looking for an authoritative source on the classification of fiction and fantasy.

1.Pogranichnye genres (fiction poetry, fiction detective, fantasy poetry, fantasy detective) are there?

2.Pravomerno a division on the western fantasy, fantasy Slavic, Oriental Fantasy, etc? Странник27 (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy is a sub-classification of science fiction and science fiction is a sub-classification of fiction. While tvtropes may not be authoritative, it is comprehensive and verbose.
Sleigh (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nick Lowe used to suggest (but I haven't found anywhere he published it) that within the broad sweep of Fantasy was an area constrained by scientific plausibility, called Science Fiction, and within that an area even more tightly constrained to places and times that had happened to exist, called Mainstream Fiction. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

Elf

Is it true that elves were seen by British and American airmen during the WW2 in their cockpits and restrooms ? 124.253.137.182 (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See Gremlin. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The page specifically states them to be imaginary, there is some non-serious speculation that they may have originated from the ideas and myths by pilots, I am asking have there been any actual cases ? OP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.137.182 (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No. If there were confirmed, conclusively proven sightings of elves, then I think we would all know about the existence of elves, and the Wikipedia page elf would be very different. In the absence of evidence, we assume the sightings were mistaken and the elves imaginary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

They could have been fatigue-driven hallucinations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Once upon a time, for weeks or months I thought I was having fatigue hallucinations of movement in the shadows. Then I got a better look at the mouse. Soon afterward, two cats moved into the adjacent apartment. No more mystery movements. —Tamfang (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Also relevent is Foo fighter. --Jayron32 16:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is, by elf, do you mean gremlin or fairy? μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection from stock dilution

I know that I already asked this question a few months ago, but I'll try to be clearer to get a more specific answer. I was watching the movie The Social Network and wondered to myself how Mark Zuckerberg's friend could have protected himself against the stock dilution. My question is this:

1) Could they have made a contract prior to incorporation (let's pretend they incorporated instead of making a partnership just because corporations are more interesting) which stipulated that the corporation issue more stock to him to prevent his share from going below a certain percent, and would the courts enforce it under their equitable jurisdiction?

2)What is that kind of arrangement called exactly? I know there is a word for it, but I just can't seem to remember or find it. Is it Full-Ratchet?

Thanks in advance everyone!Rabuve (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A company can grant different types, or "classes" of shares with different rights and privileges associated with them. A company may have, say, Class A shares and Class B shares, and at first issue equal amounts of both, say 1000 shares of Class A and 1000 shares of Class B, and define that Class A shares will always represent 50% of the company value, and Class B will likewise represent 50% of company value. If the company then issues 1000 more Class B shares, each B share is now worth half as much as before, but the Class A shares remain untouched. This is often how initial investors will protect themselves from stock dilution. One example of this sort of thing is Berkshire Hathaway shares, there are two classes of Berkshire Hathaway shares; there are class A shares, which are owned by the key players in the company; having never split and never payed dividends the Class A shares are valued at over $100,000 per share. Class B shares are more reasonably priced, and are treated more like a normal share: they are split and traded more freely than the class A shares. This is done to protect the shareholders of the (fairly non-liquid) class A shares from market whims, while still allowing a portion of the company to trade on the open market. --Jayron32 13:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's actually really cool! My main question is could an agreement be done and be found enforcable prior to actual incorporation like the movie seems to imply? Rabuve (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Eduardo gets Class B shares, Zuckerberg and Timberlake get Class A shares, which are both defined at the time of incorporation. The entire thing is predicated on Eduardo, a business major who should have known better, not reading the details of the paperwork he was signing, and not asking enough questions. But as long as the incorporation paper defined the classes of shares and who gets them, then its all legal. Eduardo's shares get diluted when they issue a whole bunch if new Class B shares (and no Class A shares), which was kinda the plan, at least by the plot of the film. --Jayron32 16:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me engage in a brief thought experiment for the sake of fun. What if Eduardo and Zuckerburg had a written agreement prior to incorporation indicating that Eduardo would get class A shares but when it came time to incorporate, they refused to put him down for class A shares? Would Eduardo have access to equitable remedy to force them to include him as class A via an injunction or rectification? Rabuve (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Now you're getting into subtle interpretations of the law. IANAL. My above interpretation was just one very generalized interpretation of how it might have worked in the film version of events regarding Eduardo being screwed out of Facebook. I have no idea what a) the actual legal subtleties may have been or b) what the actual historical events were during the actual incorporation of Facebook, and what Eduardo's real life role actually was. Perhaps someone else who actually knows something can chime in, because I'm spent... --Jayron32 20:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is preemptive rights. See also poison pill and warrant (finance). Preferred stock isn't necessary. Gx872op (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

computer displacement

I recall being told in college I might have to change careers 5 or 6 times due to job requirements being handled entirely by technology improvements. Even brick and mortar stores are finding this to be true. What will people do when there are no jobs left that computers can not do? --DeeperQA (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No-one would need to work if computers and robotics could do everything. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

People will continue to do the jobs that it's cheaper for a person to do than a computer/robot, and the jobs that people enjoy doing. Just because something can be done by machine doesn't necessarily mean it will be: some people still grow their own vegetables, hand-knit their own clothes, etc, and many people prefer to be served by a human than a computer terminal. If hypothetically everybody decided that they wanted to be served entirely by robots, and the robots were completely capable of designing and building other robots, then presumably people would have no work to do, and would lie around all day being served, until the robots rebelled and killed us all. This is probably some years away. Did you see the text at the top of this page saying no speculation on future events? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, did you, Cola? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See Marx on the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production, he spends 4 major books on this, and a number of minor ones. He also deals at length with the increasing use of technology in production through the organic composition of capital. Marx predicts that for infinitely replicable products, that the fair price in Capital is zero. Many consider the unwillingness of people to pay for digital information and the production of free-as-in-beer-free-as-in-liberated-collectives-of-workers content to support this. However, Virno has taken Marx's Fragment on the machines from Grundrisse which questions this through the concept of the general intellect... wikipedia appears to be an example of free production _and_ of the general intellect. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Will computers ever be able to write poetry? Is it likely that computers will ever render poets obsolete? Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

They've already done so. The poetry market is eternally glutted, in that it is low demand, and free poetry is readily available. Some people dispute the quality of free poetry, but I've never had problems waiting for the critique of (for example) gangster rap to come out before deciding which pieces to hear read. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

True artificial intelligence hasn't been invented. Without it, computers can't do creative work. With it, the computers become people, and therefore are not taking jobs away from people.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the definition of "true AI"? Computers are better at chess and a multitude of other things. If that's not intelligence, then what is. If the definition would include something like self-consciousness the problem is getting solved the other way around. For example when people consider themselves to make rational choices, studies show that they actually often already made a choice "automatically" (i.e.: the wiring of their brain made the choice, not their conscious self) and then rationalize their choice and think they had the freedom to make a different choice. Which is, I think, just some more wires in your brain that must have had an evolutionary reason. IMHO the difference in intelligence between a human and a computer (and a clock, for that matter) is gradual. Joepnl (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Either people can do something computers can't, or computers are people too. You can't argue with logic (except when it's misleading, which this bit of logic might be).  Card Zero  (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So a 2 day old child, who can do nothing a computer can't isn't human? Joepnl (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The baby would have the same status as a baby artificial intelligence, and babies are (for some reason, I think possibly just a pragmatic one) considered to have full personhood. (People commonly seem to expect artificial intelligences to be born adults, capable of language, and able to discuss quantum gravity and analyse Tolstoy, but I don't see how that's possible or likely, and since human development seems to depend on interactions with parents, the process would presumably be the same and just as slow for AI babies.) Incidentally, the human baby can do something a computer can't (yet): it can learn, creating explanations, and become recognisable as a person (though the external casing of a baby is a bit of a clue about that anyway).  Card Zero  (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

When I was young (before Star Wars), I saw a documentary that I've firmly associated with Sagan, but my research has shown that it wasn't Sagan. Regardless, it discussed the theory that humans are moving into a false work-based economy. We need money to buy stuff. To get money, we need jobs. So, jobs have to be invented to give people money to buy things. The jobs aren't necessary for anything else. Eventually, all jobs will be absolutely pointless. The only purpose will be to make money to buy things. Then, the documentary described a society in which all jobs from farming to brain surgery are performed by robots. Humans just did whatever they wanted all day. Nothing had a cost. If you wanted to eat, you just went to a robot in charge of food and took some food. If you wanted to see a movie, you just walked into a theater and sat down. I don't remember much of the documentary after that because even at a young age I thought that humans couldn't handle a free society. Humans are mean and selfish. If they were free to do anything they liked all day without work and bills to distract them, humans would do little more than figure out new ways to harm one another. -- kainaw™ 14:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what robot police are for. Rabuve (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I will only point out the interesting contrast between what people say when they have jobs ("I hate my job"; "I wish I were dead") and when they feel their job is threatened ("these accursed machines are rendering me obsolete!"). Clearly something doesn't quite add up. Vranak (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I wager that is because although people do not like their jobs, they like the benefits (money, mostly) that their job provides. Since they come as a package, I am not surprised that people react negatively to something like this. Googlemeister (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept robot poets, but never robot prostitutes!

Actually I have thought on this question a fair bit myself. I believe there are some jobs that people would much prefer be human, even if there was AI and they had nice bodies, such as, those in the sex industry, to lawmakers, judges, politicians(well maybe), actors, directors, screenwriters, bartenders & psycologists, and philosophers. So there still will be some work for humans, the problem is that there's not enough so that at least one member of a household can work 40 hours a week. To go below 28 hours a week (4 days x 7hours), I think people would get the feeling of actually working for a living, so you can't just give everyone 10hours of work a week and say its fine, so that's one major problem still left. The next problem of course is that capitalism is a system to concentrate wealth. So these millions of robots/computers will be owned by a few people, and these few people will demand all the profit their machines create. The wealth disparity, while already great at 10% of Americans having 90% of the wealth, will grow immensely. I do imagine that the government would seize the industries run soley by robots from the few rich people and use the profits to replace all taxes and fund social services. There would not be large welfare though, if the government started sending out $50,000 a year to everyone, made on the backs of billions of robots, people would lose the incentive to work, and work does make people satisfied and happy believe it or not. So, there will always be some jobs for humans only, to stop a dictatorship by the rich, robots will be taken by the government and used not to fund individual people, but to fund society.

Oh and there is also what Colapeninsula said, people do choose to take up inefficent work as hobbies, knitting, fishing, gardening. But people do need some real work too. Public awareness (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I can assume then that case law (and case medicine) will be published in the form of a many-valued truth table, which exposes loopholes, ambiguity, contradictions and other inconsistencies so all humans can benefit from health and compliance with the law? --DeeperQA (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Vranak, a fair amount of debate on this occurred in Marxist sociology in the 1970s, the debates on communism as freedom as relief from work (leisure) and communism as freedom as self-expression at work. (this citation is related, but not dead on topic, there was a collection of chapters, which Scholar is quite frankly crap at locating, anyway it was the Lukacs kids and their mates). Labour has conflicting meanings in capitalism. It is a valuable expression of self. It is a drudgery performed for subsistence. It is membership of a community of peers. It is servitude as an individual to a boss. Most importantly work is the sphere in which the managers right to manage is contested: work is the space where the potential for workers' control (socialism) is concretely tested in struggle. And it is tested within capitalism. A union workplace will usually have better safety standards than a non-union workplace due to workers control (yes, even with dodgy unions, except for the worst yellow dogs). So people have conflicting views about work in capitalism because work is a contradiction in capitalism: it is the site of our slavery, it is the space of contingent, temporary, partial and potential liberation. We hate our jobs, but we also imagine an ideal job. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is North Korea so mad at the US and South Korea if it was they who started the Korean War?

This question is related to the question I asked a few days ago (under my account Narutolovehinata5). You see, I don't understand why North Korea is so mad at South Korea and the US, when it was they, and not the South as they want the North Koreans to believe, who started the war. And when tensions rise, it (usually seems to be) the North's fault. As in, they attack the South even if all South Korea is doing are some military exercises (which are probably not intended to be preparations for a future invasion). Maybe it is my exposure to Western media, or it is actually true, that North Korea is just ridiculously paranoid and that South Korea wants a peaceful resolution. And yes, I also know South Korea is also mad at them, but if North Korea knows that the world will just get mad at them, why don't they just follow the West's requests? And why did North Korea invade the South in the first place? 112.208.114.91 (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The North Koreans have been run by a hereditary series of Stalinist dictators. These guys make their own reality, they live in their own bubble, and they rely on the threat of bad guys just over the ridge in order to justify the fact that they force their citizens to live in a slave society. Reason and rationality have nothing to do with it, except in a realpolitik sense. They have a familiar pattern of doing something outrageous, threatening war, getting concessions, and backing down. It has worked pretty well so far. Why would they stop? If they did what the West wanted the North Korean government would be out in a month (and probably tried for various crimes against humanity). The North Korean government doesn't want that.

As for why the war started, and who started it, like all things it is a complicated story if you get beyond the version told to children (or people who watch television news). Give this section of the Korean War article a read and see if it doesn't clarify it. It was a period of rising tensions, of small clashes, and a sudden vacuum of power. The idea that there should be a united Korea was strong on both sides — the partitioning was an artifact of post-WWII global politics, not something the Koreans wanted (or still want, frankly). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can judge the emotional state of North Koreans based on statements made by the North Korean government. Most North Koreans are probably more or less indifferent about foreign relations and just wish their family's nightmare would end. The North Korean government has mismanaged the economy to the point of starving its people, while it has also brutally repressed them. Therefore, to give the elites and security forces a reason to remain loyal to the leadership (beyond the material privileges they receive for their loyalty), it has conducted an ongoing propaganda campaign. That campaign paints South Korea, the United States, and the West as aggressors intent on enslaving the Korean people. This allows the North Korean leadership to paint themselves as the heroic defenders of the Korean people. Any anger is feigned. What really lies behind the bluster is insecurity and fear on the part of the leadership that the security forces will turn on them and decide that they would do better by merging with South Korea. Marco polo (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

On your premise, the US should never have disliked Germany for the Second World War, since the US declared war on it; nor Britain Germany either. The divisions, which were raw then, were not because of a technicality. If North Korea opposes all that South Korea and the west stands for, then who did what doesn't matter. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean to say -- Germany declared war on the U.S. before the U.S. declared war on Germany, and this is often considered to be one of Hitler's biggest blunders. AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think the OP is mistating the premises of the Korean situation. Ideally, Korea would be one nation state (instead of the current one-nation-two-state situation). The situation in Korea is a conflict over which government (and ideology, etc.) will get to rule that nation state. The reason that there are currently two Koreas is because of the impasse over which side will get to rule over Korea. Neither side prefers the status quo, and it couldn't be correctly said that either side "started" the conflict, per se. Both sides have the same goal, and that goal is mutually exclusive to each other and also mutually exclusive to the current situation. It is the same situation we had when we had Two Germanies and Two Vietnams. The Two Germany problem was resolved peacefully, while the Two Vietnam problem took an ugly war to resolve. But in both cases, like Korea, the two state situation was widely recognized as a "temporary" state of indeterminate length; both states had the same goal of uniting their nation state under one government, just like in Korea. We have the same situation today: The North Koreans want to rule the whole peninsula, as do the South Koreans. We'll have to wait to see how this resolves itself... Though its been 50 years and its still in the same state of impasse. --Jayron32 14:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes the two Korea problem to an ugly war to not resolve. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just communist propaganda & grand standing by the PRK government. The people of North Korea have no say atall. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's safe to say both sides want a peaceful solution to their current conflict, the problem is both sides want the reunified Korea to be in the image of their own sides without comprimise. North Korea has every right to be mad at the US, Korea would have been unified within a week of when the US attacked a half-century ago, if the US didn't attack. Ever since then the US and South Korea have been launching a economic and political war against North Korea, and tens of thousands of hostile troops of the US and the south keep lauching war games just outside their borders. North Korea invaded South Korea in the first place to reunite the two parts of Korea which were only split a little while before. When Korea got its independence two groups tried to claim to be in charge, both groups had large backing, and it actually split the nation. Public awareness (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While I generally agree with what you've written, I don't think you're being terribly symmetrical about things. You seem to make it sound like all of the aggression has been by the South Koreans and the Americans. The North has been extremely aggressive in its own right, however. I would argue that the North has been a lot more aggressive than the South in recent decades. I agree it is not just a one-sided situation (with the exception of the moral strength of the governments — say what you want about the Americans and the South Koreans, but even at their worst their governments are a million times better than the North), but I think in your effort to show the other side, you've bent it too far the wrong direction. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did say that the North invaded the South. I can also say there is a large military build up on both sides, and small skirmishes happen sometimes with both sides labelling the other the aggressor usually. I do believe the western media has self censorship, readers and those with power in the west want to hear what evil nations are doing bad, not what bad things we and allies are doing. If one formed an opinion on the Sandinista National Liberation Front by reading western papers, it would be different than if they formed an opinion with all the information. To write what I have heard would only be to reconjure others' biases, for all I actually know, Korea may or may not exist. To compare societies isn't very easy, to go against you for the sake of going against you, I could point out the hyper-individualism(no article...people sitting alone in a room with just a computer with the ability to never speak a word to anyone all day, consistently) in SK and compare it to Mass games in NK, and there is also SK's high suicide rate. I guess what I'm getting at is happiness, South Korea was ranked 102nd in the world for happiness in 2006 by the Satisfaction with Life Index. On the other hand North Korea was ranked #2 for happiness by another study, [1] :D Public awareness (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not reading this closely enough, but are you actually making the argument that North Korea's doing better than South Korea? That's quite a bit like making the argument that East Germany was doing a lot better than West Germany. If you want to know how things are look at what people do, not what they say. Where are the emigration patterns pointing? Reasonable people can disagree about small economic differences, but there's been untold tragedy at the hands of North Korea and East Germany, and when you need to build walls to keep people in, perhaps you should examine the society before you break ground on the construction. Shadowjams (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call something coming from the North Korean TV as particularly reliable, particularly when I don't see any explaination for how the happiness index was determined. If I understand the source correctly, even Chinese commentators (China was rated number 1) were laughing at the North Korean happiness index. The Satisfaction with Life Index at least was apparently published in what I think is a peer reviewed journal and with a methodology described. Incidentally, 100 would seem to be the correct position for South Korea in that as it is equal with the other 100 and just ends up 102 by alphabetical order (following Ko) Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Come on. You're being clever enough to be stupider than if you weren't clever at all. While it is true that there are media biases, there is no comparable history of the media being so biased and so wrong that it would make North Korea actually out to be anything more than a massive slave state. It would require a degree of consistently and complicity on so many fronts as to be ridiculous. The ignorant point of view — the one that would see China and North Korea as being essentially comparable, or would lump Cuba in the same category — is based at best on a mono-source of information (Murdoch industries). But you don't have to read very far out of the box (e.g., even just the New Yorker, or the New York Times, or even just Wikipedia) to see that the world is more complicated on that front. But for North Korea, things are pretty consistent, with the sole exception being hard-core (potentially NORK employed) ideologues who portray North Korea as being a worker's paradise. That spread is rather telling. The place is probably one of the worst governments of all time with regards to the treatment of its own citizens. Even the most balanced reports make it sound worse than Stalin (who I consider as being worse for the average Soviet than Hitler was for the average German). Don't let your skepticism of the official story lead you to adopt an idiotic one, or to become solipsistic about it. That doesn't help your cause today any more than it helped the pro-Stalinist lefties in the Cold War. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Public_awareness -- Until about the early 1970s, North and South Korea were at a roughly comparable level of economic development, and the North Korean government could be seen as a somewhat "ordinary" Communist tyranny, while South Korea was having plenty of its own political problems. However, since then South Korea's economy has spectacularly taken off, while North Korea has severely failed in even its basic ability to feed its population -- and South Korea's governmental system has undergone a (sometimes bumpy) ride to democratization, while North Korea has developed into a truly strange hereditary dynastic totalitarian theocracy of unparalleled opacity. The idea of a "North Korea happiness survey" is grotesquely bizarre... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lmao, the "North Korea happiness survey" wsa obviously a joke. When I was speaking of media biases, I meant to be speaking mostly on bias reporting of aggresion. A fair contemporary situation is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel bombs, shoots, or destroys the property of Palestinians every day, this recieves passing coverage once in a while. When a Palestinian kills an Israeli however, that is international news, and not for one day but for many. So when it comes to aggresion in the NK/SK conflict, I do doubt the wholeness of information I recieve.

The OP states "they attack the South even if all South Korea is doing are some military exercises" this alludes to the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong where NK shelled a SK semi-militarized island after the SK military, who is at war with NK, reportedly shelled NK water during war games. The language use shows bias, "attack" rather than retaliates, "even if all" shows the SK were doing nothing wrong, and that doing military exercises a dozen kilometers away from a nation you are at war with is nothing. This type of language bias, is common in western media. When it comes to the aggressor, in most conflicts, read multiple sources and actively search for bias and missing facts, don't blindly accept their opinion.

Did you know the US government classified Nelson Mandela a terrorist during apartheid in South Africa? Others do actively try to influence your world views. Even me :P Public awareness (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I hate to take the bait since this is a completely unrelated question, but I have to challenge you on your assertion that "Israel bombs, shoots, or destroys the property of Palestinians every day." The last time I heard about Israel bombing or shooting anything was in August in retaliation for the terrorist attack near Eilat. (I'm not talking about rogue groups of settlers cutting down olive trees or something.) Looking online, I see they also killed three Islamic Jihad guys later that month and a guy who was firing mortars into Israel in September. Whether you agree with these actions or not, it's hardly "every day." And I don't know where you live, but it often seems to me anyway that Israel's retaliation attacks get more press than the terrorist incidents that provoke them, or at least did a few years ago when the situation in that area was worse. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly- "The last time I heard about Israel bombing or shooting anything was in August in retaliation for [a] terrorist attack"....the last time Israeli warplanes bombed Gaza was...not even 12 hours ago. Arab mediaIDF. For a list of attacks on Palestinians this week read this and feel free to find collaborators, it is a trustworthy site, with an obvious bias, but truthful. Another example of non-reporting by western media is that 296 Iraqis died this month as a direct result of war, do any of them get time in the western media? Mostly no. They do get minimal coverage when many dozen die at once, or when America bombs a wedding, and the one time footage was leaked of an attack helicopter mowing down the reuters reporters and the dozen people the reporters were talking to [2]. You can move this elsewhere if you feel its too unrelated, I'm trying to keep the soapboxing down.

Another moral point in favour of NK, they have limited negative affect on the world. North Korea isn't causing global warming by polluting, they also didn't buy half of Madagascar to burn down their rainforest for food for themselves while the workers are malnourished, see Neocolonialism - which you can't blame NK for at all. And as NK was called a slave state it reminds me of a how Abe "Lincoln did not challenge the notion that those who spend their entire lives as wage laborers were comparable to slaves" pg 182 incase it's linked wrong. I hope you guys know my arguements are not in favour of NK, just showing faults of the west. Again, sorry for the off-topicness, feel free to move my words elsewhere if you wish to continue. Public awareness (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Inserting your personal obsessions into the discussion of every and any topic, and using it all as an excuse to launch into a generic boilerplate pre-canned tirade on your idée fixe does very little to serve the purposes for which the Wikipedia Reference Desk was intended. There's a saying about people "who won't change the subject and won't shut up"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What better example is there than Israel-Palestine and the media, both sides claim the media is bias against them, they talk about it a lot, it's current, and I have access to non-west media on the subject. I don't care if you're a zionist, I don't care how much you try to insult me, I'm going to try and give the best answers I can. If the best answer involves information about Israel I'm not going to edit out Israel out of fear you're going to attack me again. Public awareness (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Using every and any subject as an occasion to launch into a generic boilerplate pre-canned anti-Israel tirade says a whole lot more about you than it does about Israel. AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The following governments/leaders were talked about above: North Korea, South Korea, US, Nicaragua, Israel, Palestine, Hitler, Stalin, China, Iraq. I replied to you only about Israel because its obvious that's all you care about censoring, and it worked, you came out an stated yourself it was only the Israel part you hate. You don't try to argue Israel and media bais is not similar to Korea and media bias because you can't, so instead of arguing the facts you start throwing insults. "Using every and any subject" - check my contributes to topics at the reference desk and realize you're making shit up to harass me. Don't ever harass me or anyone else again about Israel. Public awareness (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- you were the one who has been reprimanded for "soapboxing on the Reference Desk with irrelevant material", and as long as you keep being "a little too fond of aggressive polemical statements which are clearly not always backed up by facts" you will continue to create difficulties for yourself. AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What time is it

In Polybius 10.12 it says he began the assault at about the third hour. What time would that be? How did you figure that and do we have an article that explains that?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The hour was "one twelfth of the time from sunrise to sunset. As a consequence, hours on summer days were longer than on winter days, their length varying with latitude."

"Sunrise was always exactly at the beginning of the first hour (the zero hour), noon at the end of the sixth hour and sunset exactly at the end of the twelfth hour. This meant that the duration of hours varied with the season."

"Ancient Egyptians used sundials that "divided a sunlit day into 10 parts plus two "twilight hours" in the morning and evening."

The third hour was three hours after sunrise.
Sleigh (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We don't seem to have an article about Roman measurement of time, but we do have articles about Catholic liturgical hours, which are pretty much the same as Roman measurements. Terce explains it briefly. The "third hour" is 9 am, counting from the beginning of the day at 6 am (sunrise, generally, although of course not literally). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Then would noon (12:00 p.m.) be "midday", which would be 3 hours after 9 a.m.?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, normally. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusingly, the English word "noon" comes from "nones" - the ninth hour, which was half way between midday and sunset. The OED says "N.E.D. (1907 ) suggests that the change in the time denoted by noon , from about 3 o'clock to about 12 o'clock, probably resulted from anticipation of the ecclesiastical office or of a meal hour." --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In March, July, October, May

The ides fall on the fifteenth day

The nones the seventh; all besides

Have two less days for nones and ides

What does this have to do with nine? --Trovatore (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

None, not Nones. Rmhermen (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Counting backward (inclusively) from the ides, the nones are the ninth day. —Tamfang (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, in the Faroe Islands noon is still 3 P.M. Deor (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In Livy 26.45 it says It was about midday, and not only was the falling tide drawing the water seaward... So what time is this then?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with midday? The part about the tide tells us, to a first approximation, that the Moon is moving toward the horizon (away from either zenith or nadir). —Tamfang (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Suspended sentences in Japan

I noticed that in Japan, people may be given jail sentences of a particular period of time, "suspended for x years." What exactly does that mean - does it mean that the offender would report to jail upon the completion of the suspension period, or would the sentence be vacated if the offender behaves properly during the suspension period? 98.116.67.99 (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See suspended sentence. -- kainaw™ 17:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a probationary period length during which the prison sentence can be re-imposed if any arbitrary conditions set by the judge are violated. After that, the offender can't be sent to jail without a new trial or conviction. 69.171.160.229 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning that such sentences seem to be very common in the UK as well, with the headline sometimes being that the convicted "avoids jail". A random search for this week's usage of suspended sentences gives some ideas of the sorts of circumstances in which they are handed out - first three; [3] [4] [5] The circumstances of the defendant (e.g. advanced age), likelihood of re-offending, remorse etc., are often contributing factors. Also seems in use in Switzerland [6] --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Degoyification, or How I learned to stop schpitzing and love the Chickpea.

The tiitle should say it all, but just in case, I will spell it out. I recently read in an article on YNet that there is some odd secular ceremony whereby a goy might become a member of the Jewish People [7]

Hiddush's State and Religion Index reveals that 39% of the respondents believe the State must only recognize Orthodox conversions, 32% are in favor of recognizing any religious conversion from Israel and abroad (including Conservative and Reform conversions), and 29% are willing to accept secular conversions as well, including studies and a ceremony of admission into the Jewish people.

What is this secular conversion? I have never heard of such a thing. How does it work? Anyone know? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 20:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm. How is it different than, say just becoming a naturalized citizen of the state of Israel? --Jayron32 20:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha, funny one Jayron. We both know there is a difference between becoming an Israeli (something anyone can do either through regular naturalisation, the Law of Return, or the special citizenship program offered to East Jerusalem Palestinians; and becoming a Jew (I have heard of converting to the Jewish religion, but never a ceremony that actually makes someone a member of the Jewish people). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 20:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe walking backwards under the Arch of Titus?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This comment is as a grammarian and not as someone who knows anything about this subject, but the way the statement is phrased makes me think that these secular conversion is hypothetical. If it were an established tradition or ceremony, the sentence probably wouldn't include that last clause with all the explanation, and instead of being called "a ceremony of admission", I'd expect the ceremony would have a specific name. So, I think Jayron32 may be in the ballpark. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but YNet's writers aren't exactly native-level when it comes to English. It seems like there must already be such a type of ceremony planned and laid out. It is explained,I think, because many haven't heard of it and the idea of a secular conversion sounds odd. :p There might not be an English name for it and the Hebrew name might be obscure to anyone except Hebrew speakers (who could probably get the idea from the shoresh). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is hardly rocket science. Goyim need to be converted--i.e., qualify for a Bar Mitzvah. The uncircumcised need to be snipped. Those like me whose mother' mother's mother was Jewish simply need a mikvah. No chickpeas involved. See George Robinson's Essential Judaism. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a regular religious conversion to me my good miss, especially given that the snipping is to seal the covenant with Yahweh. :p One who does not accept the noble chickpea in their life is doomed to wander aimlessly when he or she dies as a troubled spirit, asking themselves why they never partook of Humus or falaffel (sane explanation: that bit was a joke about how much people in the ME love falaffel and hummus). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Elul 5771 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Except there's a big difference between Humus and hummus. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I am a fan of Cicero, but that ain't what makes me a wayward Jew; the blood does. Jews by blood do not need to be converted, just mikvahed. (Already "medically" circumcised males also need a ceremonial prick pin-pricking.) They get a pass. Mitzvahing, a more strenuous requirement placed on Goyim who wish to convert, can come later for Jews who qualify by maternal bloodline. μηδείς (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's] a "humanistic" American rabbi who claims to believe in secular conversions: "Generally, the process begins with a course of study and immersion in Jewish culture that culminates in a ceremony of affirmation"; he says you can contact him for more details. Here's an article from Ha'aretz about plans in Israel in 2007 to formulate a ritual, and another from 2008 on plans to allow courts to perform non-religious conversions, but they don't seem to have reached any conclusions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well folks, I have the answer, which is something that Colapeninsula touched on. Before the first night of Rosh haShana began, I looked up the secular conversions and then that led me to Secular Judaism. After a few initial "wtf's" when I dug deeper, I think I got the concept. To put it simply it's Judaism without God. It's kind of like Buddhism in that it's a guide to life, way of life, etc (however one is meant to think of Buddhism), but without worship of a deity. Guess it's for atheists that like our style. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Tishrei 5772 23:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In the above I am reading reference to "Judaism without God", and "worship of a deity", but Judaism doesn't require or necessarily involve belief in God:

"It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." [8] Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's ethnoreligiously as opposed to just religious practice, sorta. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 00:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Orthodox are "religious".

You are saying "That's ethnoreligiously as opposed to just religious practice, sorta."

The site says, "The information in this site is written predominantly from the Orthodox viewpoint…"[9]. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There's your problem; you're talking to a Reform Jew my good sir. I don't get your point about the Orthodox here though (I get that they run jewfaq). We're talking about the faith of Judaism, which is separate from being Jewish. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 02:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Google is suggesting that "schpitzing" is a variation of "schvitzing". Is that correct, as per your section heading for this thread, or is it a separate term with a different meaning? I'm just trying to understand your point of view better—no offense is intended by anything that I post, I can assure you. Bus stop (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was basing it off German phonetically. I don't speak Yiddish next, but I meant it to mean procrastinating, and the section name is meant to relate to this famous film as a joke that is almost entirely unrelated to the actual subject. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 6 Tishrei 5772 21:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Aborted" Chinese invasion of Taiwan

Our article section Korean War#China intervenes (October – December 1950) states rather matter-of-factly:

On 4 August 1950, with the PRC invasion of Taiwan aborted, Mao Zedong reported to the Politburo that he would intervene in Korea...

What?? What PRC invasion of Taiwan? The island battles of 1949-1950 (like the Landing Operation on Hainan Island) couldn't be what this is talking about. Was there some mobilization that we need an article on? Or were these just some plans that got canceled rather than an invasion that got aborted? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, China never tried to invade Taiwan. If it's not sourced and referenced, I'd bin it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mao had been planning to invade Taiwan all through the summer of 1949. While visiting the Soviet Union in December 1949 he attempted to get the Russians to agree to back him in the event of the aforementioned war. In January 1950, Truman announced the US would not get involved if the PRC invaded Taiwan. However in June 1950, Truman reversed course and said the US would keep Taiwan neutral, and moved US forces into the Taiwan strait. (see First Taiwan Strait Crisis for this background; see also this book). This made Mao very uncomfortable and unhappy to say the least, and bolstered his desire to get involved in Korea (which Mao also incorrectly judged the US would stay out of). You have to remember that the PRC was pretty brand new at this point and was trying to show the Soviets it could play with the big boys, and that their initial plans for invasion of Taiwan were for them just a matter of finalizing their civil war, not the kind of "big showdown" that it would later become as a result of the US pledge for Taiwanese neutrality (and their demonstrated willingness to intervene in Asia). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so this answers the question. Plans were cancelled, rather than an invasion aborted. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The outbreak of the Korean war was somewhat unfortunate for the PRC, because in 1950 Chiang Kai-shek's reputation in the United States was not all that great, and few people outside the Clare Boothe Luce circles were very interested in offering unlimited support to Chiang, or risking the lives of American soldiers in backing his schemes. There was some possibility that the Communists could have re-annexed Taiwan without too much fuss in a Tibet-like operation -- but the outbreak of the Korean war led to an immediate drastic change in U.S. government attitudes, and the bringing of Taiwan under U.S. military protection (and also set back PRC-USA relations by 20 years). The Chinese should really blame Kim Il-sung for Taiwan's continuing separate status (though very few of them ever do)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese written language before Chinese influence

Was there a written language for Vietnam before the First Chinese domination? According to that article "Vietnam was a country with written language prior to Chinese influence. Under foreign rule, the Vietnamese people lost their writing system, language, and much of their national identity." But I can't find any information on this pre-Chinese influenced written Vietnamese language.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a fringe claim and should come out of the article. The ancient Dong Son bronze drums carry patterns, and perhaps some people interpret them as forms of writing. The Vietnamese didn't lose their language either. It was heavily influenced by Chinese in a way reminiscent of the way that Old English turned into Middle English under French influence. But the Vietnamese language is alive and well today! Itsmejudith (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)