Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 1

Why Did the U.S. Make it Much Harder for Soviet Jews to Move Here in 1990?

Was it due to Israeli pressure, or was Israeli pressure a secondary factor, with the main factor being a viewpoint that since the U.S.S.R. is no longer than same country that it once was, there's no need to unconditionally accept Soviet refugees? Futurist110 (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're talking about here in regards to limiting immigration, Israeli pressure, etc - claims like these really need refs so others can understand. And generally, if you have a ref that discusses this, then it should be able to answer your question, which makes editors think that you can't back this statement up and not to take it for 100%.

Also, the questions you posed here may be more suited towards another forum. I don't know how many editors will be able to answer questions like these or some of the others you gave.

(just trying to help out, not trying to be harsh) --Activism1234 01:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article explaining what I'm talking about--Aliyah#Aliyah_from_the_Soviet_Union_and_post-Soviet_states. Futurist110 (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. And now where did you get it that the U.S. made it harder? --Activism1234 01:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DbK0BEeWmO4J:yivoinstitute.org/downloads/america.pdf+u.s.+limit+jewish+immgration+1990&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShVohkZ-oTJYx17sOse0EDGjsSNXvLrkDMOcRGlQaxBrZWcp0PDe9787ktGh5w2ZWrMy1DCFL3ITuRPpyySH18sY4Gd_ZkEwM01NbU1MVimZPSV3b3Owu-uEx8HyZYiA1kClVQ8&sig=AHIEtbR0hMC6ul6r_FOtxTB3Og2tJSh_5w

Page 12 here. I'm wondering if there are other articles talking about the causes in more detail, though. Futurist110 (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The article mentions two factors.

1. "given U.S. commitments to provide a haven to various other groups, many of which lacked the substantial remedies and resources available to Russia’s Jews." Very tough to absorb all of these different groups, overwhelming numbers.
2. The wave of immigration would be much much larger than before, which makes it tougher to handle, and also complete assimilation levels were high for those who came to America and they may have wanted to avoid that. The population #s wouldn't impact America's population percentage too much, but it certainly would boost Israel's (and the original goal anyway was to immigrate to Israel, not America). --Activism1234 01:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that explanation but I was wondering how large of a role the Israel lobby played in this decision. After all, the U.S. allows 1 million or so people to immigrate here each year right now, so a million Soviet Jews wouldn't have really been too much for us to handle. Futurist110 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Young Philsophers

Except from child prodigies who are some philosophers who started becoming philosophers at their 20's or in other words at at their teenage years? I am greatly curious for it is often seen that Philosophers are those aged 40 and up and sometimes older. There are some yet not often discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.241.178 (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on. This reached absurdity several posts ago, and now it's way beyond. I hereby give notice that I am going to remove any further posts along this line. Looie496 (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the OP finds an internet forum that deals with philosophy via a google search so he can ask his questions there. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Better the OP should listen to the OLD philosopher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OP's question is not ridiculous though. The usual historical example of a prodigy, a young philosopher is Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. Today (rather, some decades ago) we have Saul Kripke. And from Zeno of Elea we see that Plato's Parmenides takes place when at a time when Parmenides is "about 65," Zeno is "nearly 40" and Socrates is "a very young man". So both Zeno & even more Socrates are examples of young philosophers.John Z (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell published The Principles of Mathematics when he was 31. Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was completed before he was 30 and published when he was 32. These are among the most important works of 20th-century philosophy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche: "In 1869, at the age of 24 he was appointed to the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel...", and he had already published numerous philosophical works. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

David Hume published A Treatise of Human Nature before he turned 30. --Xuxl (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes are young philosophers. StuRat (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Eric Hoffer , the self-proclaimed "longshoreman philosopher" is an example of a famous self-taught "philosopher" who read a lot, thought a lot, and then wrote a lot, without any degree in "philosophy." (I'm reminded of the joke of the boy who cheated on a philosophy exam by gazing into the soul of the boy sitting next to him). Edison (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Saul Kripke was a famously precocious philosopher (his first publication was at age 17, according to his WP biography). Harvey Friedman was assistant professor of philosophy at Stanford at age 18 though I think most people consider him a mathematician rather than a philosopher (he has also apparently been a professor of music). If you mean e.g. social philosophers, Pekka Himanen was pretty young when his first book came out. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Mandatory gun ownership

Is/was there a local law in one of the southern states that each household had to have at least one firearm? I had thought it was in Texas, but I am doubting that now. See Gun laws in the United States (by state). It may not be listed in state law as I think it was a county by-law.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought Switzerland had such a law, at some point, so they could raise a militia if attacked, since they lack a large standing army. StuRat (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In Switzerland, all males who are fit for service are required to complete basic training and keep and maintain a military issue rifle and a certain amount of ammunition in sealed packets in their home. See Gun politics in Switzerland. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a state or even a county, it's the town of Kennesaw, Georgia -- see the Gun law section of the article. Looie496 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How is that constitutional? --108.206.7.65 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no right not to bear arms in the Constitution. They do have a clause exempting objectors, otherwise Quakers could argue it violates their religion. StuRat (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's basically a nonlaw. It says you must have a gun unless you don't want to. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Depending on what is required to become an objector. The draft had an exclusion for objectors, but you had to prove that you had a religious or moral objection. StuRat (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Neutrality^talk 04:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This article, [1], points out that Greenleaf, Idaho recently passed a similar law, based on the one in Kennesaw. It also points out that the law in Kennesaw has never actually been enforced, that about 80% of the people there already owned guns, and that the law probably did not result in much of a change in gun ownership there. Also, apparently Kennesaw passed its law as a kind of protest about Morton Grove, Illinois passing a ban on handguns. Make of that what you will. Pfly (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those kinds of laws are passed strictly as political statements. If you compel someone to buy a gun, or any other object for that matter, you're basically imposing a tax. And the catch-22 with a law like this is that for proper enforcement you would have to provide written proof that you own a gun - in short, you would have to register the gun, which is something pro-gun people oppose. So it's nothing more than grandstanding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a very sweeping statement - people that support the ownership of guns by the public have a wide range of opinions on exactly how it should work. I'm sure plenty are in favour of registration. --Tango (talk)

Good luck finding any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In colonial times there were many such laws as well. With mandatory militia training usually on Sundays when everyone came into town for church.[2] Rmhermen (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The English "Assize of arms" of 1181 required every "able bodied freeman" to provide himself with a weapon and to report for training periodically. The English were required by a law of "Hue and cry" in 1285 to have a weapon and to pursue criminals. A wealthy landowner might be required to have a horse, armor and knightly weapons. A poor man was expected to have a knife or club. All were required to take up the chase through town and country, from county to county until a malefactor was captured, or pay a penalty. Rewards for catching a felon were established. Men in town could be compelled to be night watchmen. Men in colonial America were required to be part of the militia, and to muster with a serviceable firearm, to defend against insurrection (how did that work out?), or attack by brigands, native Americans, or foreign powers. This specific law was apparently repealed under George IV, but this was long after US independence. Thus it seems consistent with the British legal heritage of the American colonies that there could be a law requiring citizens to own weapons, especially with exceptions for religious reasons, if the Constitution or state or federal laws did not forbid such a requirement. Edison (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The history of colonial militias in America, the right or even requirement to have a firearm, and the right to serve in the militia, was not always a simple thing. A key term mentioned above is "freemen"—in colonial America a great many people were not free. In early colonial Virginia, for example. In 1620 Virginia had a "universal militia"—all men were subject to being mustered, indentured servants, white and black men alike (slavery did not really replace indentured servitude until a bit later). Masters of indentured servants were required to arm their servants if they were called up in the militia (servants were generally too poor to own a gun). By the late 17th century the militia laws had changed so that only free white men could be called for militia duty. The gentry had come to mistrust the poorer servant classes, white and black alike. The gentry feared that the lower class might rebel (and there were servant rebellions and conspiracies to rebel in the 1660s) and did not want to see the servant class armed. The militia laws of the late 17th century required free white men to own firearms, for use in militia duty. The servant class was not usually, as far as I know, forbidden to own firearms, although most did not as they could not afford it. As this book puts it, [3], the gentry considered the servant class hard enough to control unarmed, "and that if they were armed and permitted to attend [militia] musters, they might be tempted to obtain their freedom by slaying their masters." In 1676 Bacon's Rebellion changed the situation radically. This rebellion was at least in part an uprising of poor folk, servants, and slaves against the gentry. Poor white indentured servants and black slaves joined together in an attempt to overthrow the ruling class ([4]). During the early stages of the conflict the gentry tried to impose gun control ([5]), which only enraged the common folk more. The rebellion failed, but in the aftermath, and after lengthy debate, the right to bear arms was extended to basically all white men, servant or not. After 1705 masters were required to give a musket to servants who had finished their term, as part of a "freedom due"—although servants were still not allowed to be mustered into the militia in, eg, Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, during the 18th century ([6]). Various historians have argued that Bacon's Rebellion was a kind of precursor to the American Revolution and that there is a very direct link with right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. However, another aspect of the aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion was an extreme reduction in the rights of blacks, especially black slaves. Blacks were deprived of the right to bear arms, to vote, and so on. Before long slavery was made hereditary. In short by granting rights to poor and indentured whites and taking rights away from blacks, the gentry was able to drive a wedge between the two so they would not join together as they had in Bacon's Rebellion ([7]). After the American Revolution indentured servitude was eliminated, leaving all white men with the right to bear arms and be mustered into militias, but no such rights for black slaves or, for the most part, free blacks. Our article on Bacon's Rebellion is short and only touches on the complexity of it, which is too bad because it was a very significant event in early colonial America, but most people, most Americans have not even heard of it. There are interesting connections between Bacon's Rebellion and the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, both of which, if I understand right, involved issues of the right and/or requirement to bear arms and serve in militias. There are also links with the New Model Army. Pfly (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

French Polynesian royal stamps

Does anybody know when these stamps of the Pomare Kings and Queens of Tahiti, King Tamatoa V of Raiatea, and King Maputeoa of Mangareva created? Were they comtemporary or commerative? What postage stamps were used during the monarchy periods of these kingdoms?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The first group of stamps you link to were issued in 1976 according to various collector sites (see here for example [8]). The other links you have bring me to generic "Colonies françaises" stamps which have no particular Polynesian design, so I,'m not sure I understand the question. As for the second question, this page [9] claims that postal service in Tahiti only began in 1859 under the French protectorate, and that before that it was a real hassle getting any mail to Tahiti... So, no stamps pre-dating the French period exist, and stamps from the protectorate period, beginning in 1862, were simply generic French colonial stamps locally overstamped with the word "Tahiti". --Xuxl (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would consult the appropriate volume of Scott's Postage Stamp Catalogue (either 1 or 2) for further information. From my own knowledge of philately, I know most French colonies, well into the 20th century used somewhat generic designs, often with overprints or else with space for the printing of the name of the colony. This was probably to spare the time of the engravers in Paris.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Polynesian Pele

Are there other Polynesian counterparts of the Hawaiian goddess Pele? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the Pocket Hawaiian-English Dictionary (ISBN 0-8248-0307-8), the basic meaning of the word pele is "lava flow, volcano, eruption". Did any non-Hawaiian Polynesian islands have active volcanos? -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Maoris are polynesian. There are active volcanoes in New Zealand. 101.172.42.144 (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is Rūaumoko but from the description of Pele in our article, I don't think he's really a perfect counterpart. See also [10] [11] [12] [13] Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

See list of volcanoes in Tonga and list of volcanoes in French Polynesia. 101.172.42.144 (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism lawsuit

According to Deepak Chopra, he was sued by Robert Sapolsky for plagiarism. But according to Plagiarism, that term does not exist in a legal sense. The source actually talks about "a lawsuit over plagiarism". So, what happened here? Was he sued in a jurisdiction where they do recognise plagiarism as a legal term, or was this actually a copyright infringment suit, or was it something else entirely? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The word plagiarism may have been thrown around, but the official claim was copyright infringement, as you suspected. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the difference is that it's perfectly legal to plagiarize whatever you want, as long as it's not copyrighted. StuRat (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is now fixed with the ref you provided too. Thanks, again. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's still copyrighted or not, claiming someone else's work as your own could get you in trouble. For example, I can post a pre-1923 photograph here because it's "free", but I still have to indicate the source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

do you mean in an "academic policy" / "wikipedia policy" / "public relations" sense, or do you mean legally? I'm puzzled what kind of legal trouble you are alluding to. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly under academic policy. When Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg's Ph.D. dissertation was found to be full of plagiarism, the media in Germany kept implying the problem was simply that he hadn't acknowledged the sources of the information - that he hadn't "used enough footnotes". But in fact, that wouldn't have been enough. A dissertation is supposed to be a work of original research, and if all of the ideas in it are other peoples' ideas, it isn't an acceptable dissertation, no matter how diligently it cites it sources. It may not be a copyright violation putting you in legal trouble, but you'll certainly be denied the degree (if they find out ahead of time) or revoke the degree (if they find out afterwards, as happened to Guttenberg). Pais (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed how the doctoral advisor didn't find it, since Guttenberg was even plagiarizing him. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole thing was a huge embarrassment for everyone involved, for lots of different reasons. Pais (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

But Baseball Bugs mentioned uploading a public-domain photo to Wikipedia pretending it's your own. So my example of "academic policy" was obviously a joke, as Wikipedia is not such an institution. where is the legal trouble here? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bugs just said 'trouble', as in possible sanctions for knowingly plagiarising (see WP:Plagiarism for why that's a problem here). Mikenorton (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Here, for sure. In academia, very likely. Legally? I couldn't say. But I'm reminded of this line from a Tom Lehrer song: "Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes! Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes! Plagiarize! Plagiarize! Plagiarize! ... Only be sure to always call it, please... Research!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Bugs might be thinking of Moral rights (copyright law) as well? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympia

Why weren't the First Olympic Games held at Olympia, the site of the original games? There is a modern town there. Has there been talk of that being a site for any future Olympic Games or can only cities bid for who host the games?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Athens in 2004 had the men's and women's shotput at the ancient stadium of Olympia. But even Athens had inadequate public facilities and infrastructure for whole modern games. 12:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess that in 1896, it was the cost of overcoming nature for the needs of a modern Olympics: "The area is hilly and mountainous; most of the area within Olympia is forested." says our article Olympia, Greece. By 2004, you could probably add ecological and archaeological concerns. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been to Olympia. It is the hell and gone in Greece. The town is rather small and mostly geared to the needs of tourists. I stayed at the Best Western, which is about two miles from town, mostly uphill. While the 1896 Olympics were not as large as those today, it would have been most impractical to hold it in Olympia. Today it would not be possible, s the necessary construction would damage protected sites, and the legacy situation would be far worse than in Athens.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It is the hell and gone in Greece. - Wehwalt, I thought this expression might have been some play on Hellene/Hellenic, but that was off the mark. Then I discovered a movie of this name they were making in 2010 about the Great Chicago Fire, but that project seems to have gone cold. I finally tracked it down in Urban Dictionary. (So little learned, so much still to learn. And that's just my so-called own language!) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

what is a "televised play"?

if you search for it you just get one wikipedia article about a 2000 remake of a sixties film - is it because they didn't have the rights to remake that film, so they decided for the 2000 version Oh No This is a "Televised Play"? Or does the term actually mean something? 84.3.160.86 (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

See Teleplay; a one-off drama not produced for the stage or cinema, and which therefore needed a new name. In the early days of television they were very much "plays", telecast live and not recorded, but the term survived for a while even after they became more like the Made for TV movies which succeeded them. Fail Safe, which is the article you're referring to, was a deliberate attempt to recreate the atmosphere of a 1950s TV play by using the same techniques they used in the 1950s; it was shot in black and white, in a single take, and originally broadcast live. FiggyBee (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The original TV version of Casino Royale was one, as was the BBC version of 1984. 1950s TV viewers were very familiar with them... AnonMoos (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

how do I get in touch with a good opera critic as opposed to a voice coach

I don't believe in modern voice coaches, because they do not produce opera singers capable of the singing that opera singers several decades earlier used to be capable of, and which I am trying to study. So I would like to find just a critic, someone with a good appreciation for classical opera, to give me feedback regarding my development. they wouldn't have a vestd interest in "teaching" someone even in the absence of techniques to do so. any ideas how I can do this? Also, I don't believe naive untrained singing is the best, obviously - so that I would not be above contacting a conservatory director. I just don't want a voice coach. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are unhappy because the available teachers don't know enough about technique, so you are going to solve the problem by finding a teacher who doesn't know anything at all about technique? Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear: I am seeking a critic rather than a teacher. This would be if, as a chef who thought he reinvented ancient techniques of court cooking that were lost with the revolutions, did not try to go to a culinary school or take part in chef's training: however, instead, he tried to find some good food critics and gourmands to "practice on." The unstated hypothesis is that if you can produce good results, it doesn't matter if you are "self-taught", and the second unstated hypothesis is that an opera critic (or the food critic) can judge whether the results are any good. Alternatively, I do believe I could contact persons at these schools who would be good critics (e.g. conductors, to name one) without them being voice teachers. What do you think is my best bet? I contacted someone from here at the refernece desk who showed good knowledge of opera, but he declined to critique my practice in operatic terms, citing the fact that he was not a voice teacher. This was disappointing to me, as I still would have valued his critical opinion. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It won't work. It would be like trying to learn a language from a critic who can only tell you whether what you said was good or bad. The problem is that there are far more ways of doing something wrong than of doing it right, so merely knowing that you got it wrong is not informative enough. You need positive instruction on technique for teaching to have any value. Looie496 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is a perfect analogy. I don't learn languages from "language teachers" but from the living language: and my standard is, in fact, the "native speaker", who can in fact tell "whether what you said was good or bad." So whilst learning following my own curriculum, which includes authentic culture, film, books, a few grammar books but for the most part organic learning, the end result is, in fact, judged by whether I can hold conversations and and write perfectly: as jusdged by educated native speakers. This actually beats the hell out of a "language teacher", as evidenced by the fact that I've learned German, French, ad Italian to a very high level, passing the countries' own exams for foreigners, in these languages. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to out myself as the person you contacted privately. Let me put it this way. If you played me a song or aria sung by Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, and then exactly the same piece sung by almost anyone else, and asked me to say which was the better singing, chances are I’d say the other guy. Now, that may surprise you, but we all have our likes and dislikes, our biases and our prejudices. A professional teacher would be able to point out exactly what Fischer-Dieskau did that made him the darling of the critics and the record-buying public for over 60 years, and what an aspiring singer could usefully copy from his technique. Me, I was never convinced about his voice, and probably never will be. To me, it has always sounded forced and amateurish. If his career had been in my hands as a critic, it would never have got off the ground and nobody would ever have heard of him. I would say the same thing about Andrea Bocelli. Some say Maria Callas was a goddess incarnate, others say she shrieked like a cat in heat. Who was right? To me, she was both: at her best, unmatchable; but at her worst, almost intolerable. One would have had to hear her on a number of occasions to get a true perspective on her abilities. You owe it to yourself to not let your singing future be controlled by the opinions of people who might get to hear you only once and whose only known asset is their opinions – and most particularly not anonymous people on the internet, about whose training or personal circumstances you know nothing. I also don't understand your reluctance to be involved with a teacher. If you wanted to learn to ski, to fly a plane, to do nuclear physics or perform brain surgery, you'd get a teacher. Your voice is just as precious as any of those things, and deserves to be trained in a way that has the support of centuries of tradition. All good singers have natural gifts; a teacher can do little with someone who doesn't have a good god-given foundation. But all naturally good singers who ever amounted to anything had good teachers to help them turn their rough nuggets into gleaming diamonds. No critic can ever do that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack, you go to extreme lengths here. I would say 87-93% of what you've written is hedging to reduce the weight of your opinion. Nevertheless, the opinion does seem to shine through, though I could be misinterpreting. Were you able to listen to my practice? If so, this is the "before" of conservatory practice (in that it is, obviously, not a product). Like all self-motivated programs, tracking progress - and making it - is extremely important. So, if you will confirm that the above is written after having, in fact, heard the practice, I will be very grateful. This does not mean I will NOT follow your advice. Incidentally I'm particulary glad you mentioned both of your examples (Andrea Bocelli, Callas). The former is explicitly an example of the fact that the tradition has died out: he can't sing. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, your link was inaccessible, but my position does not rely on having heard your voice. Maybe I know a little more than your average Joe about singing and opera and all that jazz, but that doesn't make me any more suitable as a mentor than an experienced and qualified voice teacher. If you're embarking on a major road trip, you have your car checked out by a qualified and licenced auto mechanic, not by some anonymous stranger who appears to know a few odd facts about cars. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

But when you told me that, I included it as an attachment by email instead! Didn't you get it? again, it's just a bit of practice though. just sent it again. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Secondly this "Maybe I know a little more than your average Joe about singing and opera and all that jazz" sounds fine to me! You don't have to mentor me, just an opinion is fine. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not hard to get in touch with an opera critic: try writing to one. You don't say where in the world you are, but you could check quality newspapers near you to see if they have an opera critic, and contact them. For example, Anthony Tommasini writes regularly about opera for the New York Times, and you can email him from this page. Rupert Christiansen is the (London) Daily Telegraph's opera critic[14] and the paper's contact information is here. I've no idea how they will respond to your request. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to read between the lines, I am wondering if the OP is saying that he does not want a voice coach to train him to sing like somebody else that the couch admires but to assist him to develop his own style. After all, opera was not invented by the teachers but by the countless individual singers that did it -their way – and the voice coaches learnt from 'them'. The difference is: that some will lead but others will follow. The OP -I think- is saying that he doesn’t want to follow but to lead and originate, and so lift opera to still a higher level. Yet, he recognises he needs someone as a sounding-board whom can advise him as to what works and what does not.--Aspro (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

*Grammar police sirens* That ought to be "who can advise him". I'll let you off this time with a warning :P 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that last part sounds quite egotistical almost to the point of megalomania. I would prefer not to ever say anything like that, and instead simply go through a circuitous route that does not include the traditional training, except as an afterthought once I am done with the bulk of preparation by myself. (As, in the analogy, as an afterthought of course I do read a traditional grammar textbook on a language to see if there is anything I missed organically: since, I'm not a child in an environment in that language, don't have parents correcting me, nor teachers for at least 12 years of primary and secondary school, nor 8 hours a day of media and culture. So, yeah, I do need to finish with a traditional language learning / voice learning program. But that is not the source of my development.) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you'd be as well getting hold of something sung by Mario Lanza (or his hero, Enrico Caruso but that's harder to come by) and a tape recorder: sing an aria yourself and tape it, then listen to Lanza's version and see if you can work out what the differences are. By the way, Andrea Bocelli isn't an operatic tenor, in the same way that Jose Carreras isn't an operatic tenor. I wonder if you're comparing apples with pears here: there are popular tenors like Bocelli, and there are operatic tenors like Pavarotti. Maybe you need to immerse yourself in recordings by the greats and see if you can emulate them? All a "critic" will do is tell you where you're going wrong, which can be soul-destroying. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you sing? Can I hear you somewhere? (I can contact you by email via your talk page if necessary for privacy.) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(just picked myself up after ROFL!) Yes I sing but the only place you'll hear me is in my lounge! I was trained as an opera singer, as was my grandmother, but after passing my music A level many years ago I haven't sung in public since. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if I'll be in your lounge anytime soon, so I guess I will miss out for now. Regarding my original question, do you have a critical apprecition for old-style opera music? If so I may just contact you for an opinion. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot depends on what you call "old-style". I know what I like, and my tastes include Bocelli and Carreras as well as Tito Gobbi, Caruso and Elizabeth Schwarzkopf. I don't think I could advise you without knowing your definitions. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tammy, every last note ever recorded by Caruso was released on digitally remastered CD (many CDs) some years ago. It's all very available. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you (OP) are aware that if you succeed in learning to sing the way opera singers did several decades ago rather than the way they sing nowadays, you will never get a job as an opera singer. The reason singers sing the way they do nowadays is that it's what's currently fashionable. If you go to auditions sounding like an opera singer from the 1940s or '50s, the people in charge of hiring singers will, at best, smile politely and thank you for your time, and you'll never hear from them again. On the other hand, if your goal is just to sing as an amateur, for the sheer joy of it, that's great. Pais (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, my goal is just to be better. I think good singing on some level speaks for itself and transcends fashions. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now listened to your sample and I am more than ever convinced you must go to a voice coach/teacher. I've sent you an email with my detailed feedback. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad Fiction

What is the Title of the book written by multiple popular authors in the 1960s or 70s as an example of bad fiction that became a bestseller? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.143.59 (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Atlanta Nights was written in 2004 but otherwise fits the description. Not sure about a 60s/70s-era novel, but I'll look into it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're referring to Naked Came the Stranger. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"As long as there are slaughter houses there will always be battlefields"

Hello, where did this Leo Tolstoy quote come from? At least it is considered a Tolstoy quote, but i can't find it in his complete works. Is this from an article? I know that he visited a slaughter house in 1892 (or 1893?) and it's likely that he said this sentence, but i can't find it. --KaterBegemot (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We had a similar question in 2011, see archived question, with some possibilities, but no exactly congruent quote could be found. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was a vegetarian, but that didn't stop him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's not clear that he was a (total) vegetarian. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually my intention was not to start an ethical discussion but to find the quote's source. Thanks anyway Sluzzelin! Maybe he said this in the 1893 article "Count Tolsoi on the Slaughter-House". It's listed on the IVU website but is unfortunately not available. --KaterBegemot (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)