Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 January 13

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.

January 13

Decadent, short-lived cigar

I'm writing a short story, part of which involves a rich and decadent character smoking a cigar. For plot reasons the cigar should take around 10 or 15 minutes to smoke, in a leisurely fashion. I don't know anything about cigars, so I don't know what styles of cigar would reasonably take that time to smoke. I'm also, again for plot reasons, interested in slim cigars - looking at the cigar article a Small Panatela seems like the correct size. How long would that typically take to smoke? Is it safe to say that (yet again for plot reasons) if one cut a cigar down in size, it would take a lesser time to smoke, in proportion to the remaining amount? Lastly, I'm looking for a brand that conveys opulence, decadence, even downright sin (my character isn't a nice fellow). I know Cohibas are expensive, but if there's some boutique brand that's more so, that would be better. My story doesn't take place in the US, to the embargo isn't a factor. Thanks. 87.113.13.28 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you expect your audience to be better cigar-informed than average? If not, I think the fact that you have to ask which cigar conveys decadence means that the cigar isn't a good way of conveying decadence. Cigars are somewhat of a specialty product, so I doubt many of your readers will be familiar with the expensive brands out there. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the audience will not, but some will be (think about what "average" means): small details like this one all contribute to a character's image, so why should the OP not get such details right and avoid destroying the latter readers' confidence in his auctorial competence (not to mention that of literary critics who might check up on such details). While I can't unfortunately answer the question, I think it's a perfectly reasonable one to ask and the literary tactic a sound one. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.8 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How about using a cheroot instead? It certainly can be decadent, especially if it is the right brand. Also I wouldn't think you would be able to smoke a cigar (even a small Panatela) in 15 minutes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, upon further research perhaps it is possible. It seems this guy wanted to smoke something that doesn't take too long, since he has to do it outside on account of smoking regulations of his dorm and he chose to experiment with the Panatela on account of that. 15 minutes seems about right then. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

For research as to which types of cigars would fit your plot, I would suggest looking through some old copies of "Cigar Aficionado" magazine.... especially those from the early 90s (cigar smoking was all the rage back then). Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Government of Singapore when it was part of Malaysia

This article is about the history of Singapore in Malaysia, but how was it governed during that time? Was it governed similarly to Sabah and Sarawak now, or was it governed differently? The article makes no mention of how it was governed (except Lee Kuan Yew still being their leader). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Bearing in mind Singapore was only part of Malaysia for about 2 years, I presume it was governed in a similar fashion to other states. Yes it didn't have the Alliance as the state government, but then nor did Kelantan and Terengganu after the 1959 election [1]. Singapore perhaps had a stronger history of self-governance then most of the other states so may have had a stronger state government but I don't see any reason to think it was particularly unique, it was one of 14 state governments. (Bear in mind of course Malaya did not achieve independence that long ago so all the governments including the federal one were fairly new, albeit decendents of the existing colonial governments.) Sarawak and Sabah are okay comparisons but I don't believe there were any specific exceptions when it came to Singapore like there is with Sabah and Sarawak (e.g. restrictions on internal migration), although of course Singapore was not part of the Malayan Union and its descendent Malaya, the same as Sabah and Sarawak. Obviously the state government of Singapore had some key differing views from the governments of the other states, including the 1959 Kelantan and Terengganu state governments. As mentioned in Singaporean general election, 1963, UMNO did promise not to take part in the state elections, but more or less broke that promise. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Christian/catholic church VS. science

Is it reasonable to say that, historically, the christian/catholic church has been against science? I mean, one hears in school about how they would burn the heretics who would dare defy what the church had declared as truth, but one hears many things in school, not all of them true. Thanks in advance.190.25.95.239 (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the article Catholic Church and science. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Leaders of the Catholic Church haven't been particularly hostile to science for a long time. Consider that both Gregor Mendel and Nicholas Copernicus were Catholic clerics. Also, Galileo, despite his troubles with the Church, had his supporters within the Church leadership, Cardinal Baronius famously said of Galileo's work "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." On the broader issue of the inherent lack of conflict between religious thought and scientific thought, the book Rocks of Ages by Stephen Jay Gould is a particularly good read. --Jayron32 14:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Lots of famous scientists were also priests. Gregor Mendel and Georges Lemaître being just two examples. Mingmingla (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of the opposition to evolutionary science today comes from (some) Christians. HiLo48 (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Faulty logic. Nearly everyone who is a heavy drug user previously drank milk. It doesn't mean that milk drinking leads to heavy drug use. Likewise, that some Christians take an silly dogmatic stance against evolutionary science doesn't mean that being a Christian somehow predisposes one to do so. --Jayron32 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What?

There was no logic in my post to be faulty. It was an observation. HiLo48 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It was an observation which is designed to imply a fact (that Christianity and evolutionary science are incompatable) without actually stating it; thus giving you plausible deniability when confronted with it. The observation has no relevence to the OPs question, unless you are trying to make some point about the incompatabilty of science and religion. The logic which would lead you to think the observation is relevent is, itself, faulty. --Jayron32 18:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolute, paranoid rubbish. There is opposition to evolutionary science today. All of it that I am aware of comes from Christians. Not all Christians. but some Christians. HiLo48 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Being true does not make it relevent to the question. I could make lots of true statements, as you have done here. That doesn't make it particularly relevent. --Jayron32 18:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand your objection here. It's a classical example of part of the organised Christian church being against a particular part of science. It has been happening for well over a century. Obviously that makes it historical. It may not involve heretics being burnt at the stake, but it has involved them being charged and taken to court. It also involves kids telling science teachers they're wrong. It's happened to me. Those teachers, and science teaching in general, then face hurdles they shouldn't have to face. The kids lose respect for the teacher because of their Christian teachings. I'm guessing you're a Christian who doesn't oppose evolution. (Forgive me if I'm wrong.) That's great. But other Christians do oppose it. Seems totally relevant to the question. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't said anything that is factually incorrect. Your clarifications have also helped to explain your reasoning behind it. I was afraid you were making the incorrect leap between there being Christians who oppose evolution as also meaning that Christianity is opposed to evolution. It's a common mischaracterization. Thank your for clarifying, I never disagreed with the factual accuracy of your statements, but statements can have meaning beyond their plain statement, and I was afraid you were advancing a certain position which wasn't supported by the actual facts. It is clear you aren't doing that, so I heartily and completely apologize for making it seem as if you were. In this case, I was clearly in the wrong, and for that I apologize without qualification. --Jayron32 00:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

:-) HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about science, per se; it's a conflict over intellectual authority. For a very long time matters of intellectual authority were given over to religions - mostly, I think, because only those who dedicated themselves to the religious life had the time and inclination (and literacy levels) that enable them to pursue higher studies. Somewhere around the renaissance (in the west, at least) literacy and leisure time increased among certain classes, which created a new secular realm for intellectual pursuit. The two groups (secular and religious intellectual authorities) have been fighting over turf ever since. I think the Creationism/ID movement is probably the Battle of the Bulge for religious authority over intellectual matters; once it dies out, religion will reset its borders as a spiritual authority (someplace only the most foolhardy of scientists dares to tread) and that will be that. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

To get right to the question being asked... No, I do not think it is reasonable to say that, historically, the christian/catholic church has been against science. In fact, through most of history, the Church has been a major patron of scientists and scientific exploration. Sure, at various times in history the Church rejected specific scientific data and conclusions (especially when the conclusions seemed to contradict the accepted academic wisdom of the time)... but the Church was never opposed to science as an academic discipline. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious about the school the OP goes to. Who are these people saying that heretics would be burnt, in this day and age? If it's children, who's putting such evil and anti-religious ideas into their heads? If it's teachers, they ought to be dismissed. Either way, the very existence of such a notion as "Believe what I believe or I'll kill you" frightens the hell out of me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop putting words into the OP's mouth. The OP very clearly did NOT say "in this day and age"; that's a phrase of your own invention that you're falsely attributing to the OP. In fact, the 7th word in the question was "historically". Is it not true that the Church burnt heretics, like during the Medieval Inquisition? Is it not true that the Church tortured and persecuted anyone who didn't agree with them, such as Jews, Protestants, Muslims, other "heretics", and "witches"? Is it not true that the Church forced Galileo to recant his beliefs and put him under house arrest? The notion of "believe what I believe or I'll kill you" also frightens me. The Church has historically been that notion's most ardent supporter and, along with the kings to whom it granted legitimacy, its most enthusiastic murderer. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we share some views. I never said the OP used the exact expression "in this day and age", so please don't accuse me of attributing any specific form of words to them. I was responding to their 2nd sentence: ... one hears in school about how they would burn the heretics who would dare defy what the church had declared as truth ..., which seemed to me to be about the present day, or even the future. On re-reading, I can see that it could be relating to past history. It's true that the present subjunctive is sometimes used to indicate the past subjunctive, although it's unusual to switch to that mode straight after using the simple past. Why? Because it has the potential to confuse the reader. My reading was perfectly legitimate under the circumstances, but I can see it may not have been the intended meaning. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's important to differentiate between the official position of the Church and the opinions of Christians. On any issue, a large percentage of Christians are likely to disagree with the Church, because the Church does not have absolute control over its followers.

In early history, the Church was a patron of science at a time when science was nowhere near a professional discipline, and other sources of support were rare. There's some evidence that monks helped preserve the Greek classics after the fall of the Roman Empire, but most of the classics were preserved by Muslim scholars who translated them into Arabic. After the Scientific Revolution, when science as we know it today took form, the Church generally had a lukewarm attitude towards scientific theories. It persecuted scientists who held ideas it didn't agree with--for example, it refused to accept heliocentrism because the Bible places the Earth at the center of creation. On the other hand, one might suppose that it ardently opposed evolution, but that's not true--it never officially made any pronouncements against the theory, and now accepts scientific understanding of our origins (Big Bang theory, nebular hypothesis, evolution) as compatible with Christianity.

Whether religion itself, and not the Catholic Church, tends to make people oppose science is another issue, and the answer is an obvious "yes". Consider that only 40% of the U.S. population accepts the theory of evolution, and consider the popularity of creationism or intelligent design. This is despite the fact that there is absolutely no doubt among biologists about the validity of evolution; the 60% of Americans who don't accept the scientific consensus are not basing their opinions on scientific expertise, but on religious pseudoscience. Whether religion necessarily makes people oppose science is yet another issue, and although it doesn't, this doesn't mean that the two are compatible. Try this: pick the most ludicrous, hateful, crackpot book you can think of. Read through it, and if something doesn't agree with your moral values, claim that it's metaphorical. If something blatantly contradicts modern understanding of history, science, or mathematics, claim that it's not meant to be taken literally. If something looks like a ridiculous and unproven assertion, believe it based on "faith". After you finish, you'll find that the book is perfectly compatible with modern science, because you've chickened your way out of the parts that aren't. This is what Christians have been doing with the Bible for millenia, and it's why some Christians claim the Bible is compatible with science. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the obvious answer is an unequivocal no. There is no inherent conflict between religious thought and scientific thought. There are people who self-identify as religious who misunderstand science, and who do not accept scientific conclusions, and there are people who self-identify as scientificly minded who misunderstand religious thinking, and so discredit it as valid. But those aren't the philosophies themselves in conflict, those are the individual people who are in conflict. There's nothing inherent about religion of any type which is inherently anti-scientific, just people who are. It is somewhat ironic that in your first statement you demand that people not confuse religious thought with the thoughts of religious people, and then you immediately go on to do that yourself. No, there is no reason why a person cannot at once both be a faithfully religious person and also be fully accepting of current scientific understanding. None whatsoever. That some do exactly that has no bearing on the question. --Jayron32 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean to say that even though the Bible makes statements that explicitly and unambiguously contradict scientific knowledge, you can fully believe in both the Bible and the science? Do you not accept the law of noncontradiction? Can the universe simultaneously be created in 7 days and 13.7 billion years? Can the Earth be flat and spherical at the same time? There is no way to believe in Christianity without throwing all reason and logic out the window. If you try to chicken your way out of problematic Biblical passages by keeping what you like and claiming that what you don't like is metaphorical, that's more accurately described as "believing in your own opinion" rather than "believing in religion". You might as well throw the Bible away and write your own book. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The bible makes statements that explicitly and unambiguously contradict itself. And that hasn't stopped me from claiming Jesus as my personal lord and savior. I'm afraid that you, as a non-Christian using a trite and tired arguement, are not going to convince me that Jesus shouldn't be my personal lord and savior. --Jayron32 01:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Two points. First, is the belief that Jesus is your personal lord and savior in any way scientific? Was it tested and verified using the same rigorous standards that you presumably demand of other theories, such as the theory of evolution? I concede that it's possible to believe specific scientific theories, like evolution, while also believing in Jesus as a savior. But science is more than just a collection of theories; it's a method of collecting knowledge, the scientific method. If you decide to treat one specific belief in a special way and claim that this one belief, in contrast to every other belief about the universe, is somehow immune from critical analysis, you're by definition being unscientific.

Second, your viewpoint is extreme and does not represent Christianity. Few Christians would agree that the Bible clearly contradicts itself and can't be relied on for anything. As I've shown above, the majority of Americans don't even agree with your views on evolution. The fact that you think Christian arguments against science are bullshit--and I'm glad you hold this belief--does not mean that the average Christian is not biased against science by his religion. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting though -– the Big Bang theory was proposed by a priest. And a Catholic one at that. Ironic, isn't it? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No, because priests should be (and usually are) very well educated people. That's why it's so disappointing when dogma takes over from the reality of science for so many. The irony is when they ignore their education. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A recent, long and equally heated thread on the same subject is here. Alansplodge (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A few things: 1. there isn't a generalized "Christian church." There is a Catholic church, and there are other organized church denominations (e.g. Eastern Orthodox), but the vast majority of Protestant sects are not hierarchically organized. So it's hard to generalize for them all at once. 2. There have been a few well-known examples of science conflicting with Christian religion, but on the whole it has not been historically in conflict. As others have noted, there have been many Christian scientists, even quite orthodox ones. 3. The Catholic church in particular has been a major patron of science at times, and also been involved with various scientific/political disputes that have put it on the wrong side of things. I emphasize the political there: at the time when Catholicism was having trouble with, say, Galileo, there was little distinction between a political dispute and a theological one. Most historians of science today take care not to over-emphasize that particular issue as being one about doctrine — it was more about the politics of 17th century Italy than it was about a dispute over specific facts. (To emphasize this, it is common to point out that the way Galileo framed the problem — as Copernicanism vs. Ptolemaic astronomy — was wrong. By that point, it was Copernicanism vs. the Tychonic system, which the Church had adopted as its favored interpretation of Galileo's observations.) So I would (as an historian) probably say, "no, I don't think that's a fair generalization." It's known as the conflict thesis, which is considered fairly discredited by most historians. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Pawley & Corkran kidnapped in Manchuria

I looked up General Charles Corkran and find that this highly decorated Serjeant-at-arms H of C died in a shooting accident. No obituary. I read it on wikipedia so it must be true. I searched further and find his son, Charles Horace Corkran was the subject of a short story by Evelyn Waugh. [2]. Is that fiction? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've not read the book, but I will note that there is a tradition of writing about real people in a fictional manner. See Biography_in_literature#Biographical_fiction if you use their real names and Roman à clef if you use pseudonyms. --Jayron32 14:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is an obituary of sorts - the notice of his death given to the House of Lords by the First Lord of the Admiralty. Reliable enough, I would presume... Shimgray | talk | 12:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A poem starting with the line...

..."So live that when thy time comes to join that innumerable line..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveHum (talk • contribs) 14:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be Thanatopsis, although not quite exactly as you have it. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lines 73–74 of William Cullen Bryant's "Thanatopsis" are "So live, that when thy summons comes to join / The innumerable caravan . . ." Might that be what you're thinking of? Deor (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

most famous city for opera in Italy

Hi, What is the most famous city for opera in Italy (i.e. studying it), with the most famous conservatories, etc. Thanks. --188.6.94.79 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Try our Italian opera article as a starting point. – b_jonas 16:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

La Scala in Milan is probably the most famous and respected opera house in Italy[3][4]; the Conservatorio di Milano[5] is also well respected for teaching opera. Despite La Scala's fame, many of Puccini's operas premiered in Turin, and Rome and Naples are also historically important. Rome being the capital is good for music and is home to La Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia which is very respected as a conservatory (though perhaps not as much as other countries' e.g. the Juilliard or Royal Academy of Music or Paris Conservatoire; I don't know if there are any league tables for these things). Italy's orchestras aren't as respected as its operas - none made Gramophone Magazine's top twenty in 2008 but La Scala's has a long and illustrious history and La Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia also has a good one. So, Milan or Rome. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Colapeninsula has hit upon something important, namely that with all the famous and great opera composers coming out of Italy it probably matters a lot where in Italy you pose that question. Each city and region will have their favorites, so the answer will inevitably vary depending on where in Italy you ask the question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The Venetians would say all else pales beside La Fenice. The Milanese would say the same of La Scala. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Colapeninsula, OP here - thank you very much for taking the time to post this detailed response! Very grateful. --80.98.112.4 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Studies of profitability of patents

Has anyone in any country published research in which they take a statistically significant sample of patent holders, ask them how much they spent to get their patent (C) and how much they've made as a result of having it (R) and calculated the profit (P = R - C) and calculated the average P for their sample group? 69.243.220.115 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Distribution of scores on political compass

I've been trying to find whether there are any plots showing the general distribution of scores on the political compass. I've found one reference, [6], but it gives the plots for the members of various internet forums only. Is there one that covers all results? My main question is whether scores on the two axes are correlated - ie. does being on the left make one more likely to hold anti-authoritarian views? The particular plots given suggest a mild correlation, but these aren't anything like whole-population scores. IBE (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How you score on the political compass depends entitely upon a) What the questions being asked are and b) how your answers are scored. The political compass is quite often used to convince people that they belong to a particular political stance, which they may have not realized they did before, by using a narrow set of questions which lead to a particular "score" and which proves that, hey, guess what, we're all really Libertarian! Or Socialists! Or Facists! Or any other political party or group you really didn't think you were. There is no unbiased way to use such a tool. --Jayron32 18:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point, but you make it too strongly. A responsible attempt to use such a survey would involve asking a standardised set of questions, or a subset randomly chosen from a larger set, with a simple scoring system used for allcomers. Such tools can be used properly, and indeed I frankly doubt I am the first to suggest it - I believe they are used all the time. Now your point has merit in that this particular survey is far from rigorous, and since they don't publish their methods, they are obviously a bit cagey about peer review. Still, I find it convenient to overlook these minor defects, since there is something in what they say, and no reason to assume they are misusing the tool. If there is a better version somewhere, with open and honest publication of its research design, please inform me, and anyone may feel free to answer the question as it pertains to this supposed compass that points true north. Otherwise, I'll deal with the unreliable one, IBE (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, sort of. Being standarized doesn't mean they are bias-free, it just means they are uniform. Ask a set of questions whose median answer comes out in the "Authoritarian left" square, and everyone suddely looks like a commie. Ask a different set of questions whose median answer comes out in the "Libertarian right" square, and everyone looks like they should vote for Ron Paul. The trick would be to design a set of questions which, when asked across the population, had median answers that came out in the dead middle of the chart. However, that "middle" would be constantly moving. What I consider to be an "authoritarian" stance someone else may see as "libertarian". Take abortion as an example. Does being pro-life make you "authoritarian" because you support the state preventing women from making the choice, or does it make you "libertarian" because you support protecting the liberties of the person (the fetus) who is most in need of having his/her rights protected? There is no unbiased way to administer the test. --Jayron32 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The different interpretations are, of course, problematic. But a reasonable bias in the questions is not much of a problem - simply normalize the data set. If the average quizee scores -2 on the Ron Paul vs. Benito Mussolini scale, just move the axis two units. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal political definitions are individual and relative, that's the problem with all possible tests of this nature. I am a member of a political tribe, whose qualities I define as universally positive. I define members of other tribes as "the other", and their qualities I perceive as negative. If you have the quality I perceive as negative, I make you a member of that other tribe; or contrawise if you identify me to yourself as a member of the other tribe, I will perceive your political opinions as being a priori negative. All judgements people make about political issues are based first upon tribal affiliation. That is the problem with all poltical "tests" or "labels"; the assume there is some external standard against which one can measure the political opinions to apply a proper label. That's rather wrongheaded; the label (tribal affiliation) exists first, and where we "rank" a political opinion of someone depends only on how we view their "tribal affiliation" in relation to our own "tribal affiliation". There is no universal standard. It's a unicorn, a jabberwocky, a gryphon. The universal, objective political standard is a mythical creature. It does not exist. --Jayron32 19:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(after ec, responding to Stephan Schulz's post only) Indeed, and my question is really about correlation which is unaffected by affine transformations (changes in central location and scale). So no matter where you put the centre of the distribution, a linear relationship would still be detectable. The point is that I suspect a correlation between being left and being (relative to others) less authoritarian. It is shown slightly on the thing I linked, but less than I had expected. IBE (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the quiz put me, roughly, as the sum (not the average ;-) of Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama. And I always thought a support for free markets was more of a right-wing issue... Of course, I support free markets in in which externalities are priced in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You're scaring me ;0- I never knew we had so many extremists here. I'm a left authoritarian, which is part of the curiosity - I suspect it's relatively rare, but unless someone shows me any evidence, probably not nearly as rare as I had thought. But I agree with Jayron at least inasmuchas these things probably tell us less about individuals and more about general tendencies, IBE (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in Political Survey, which seems a bit more rigorous and open than Political Compass. Their approach is to simply ask lots of questions (though, of course, the choice of questions will affect the outcome) and perform a Principal component analysis to examine the relationships between responses to different questions (instead of arbitrarily categorising them as 'libertarian' or whatever). One problem I have with these scales is that they don't seem to do a very good job of categorising people as extreme or moderate - if you find yourself on the far left of politicalcompass.org's plot, it simply means you have consistently given left-of-centre answers, not that you are an extreme left-winger. Similarly, someone in the middle could be a centrist, or could have lots of extreme opinions normally associated with different areas of the political spectrum. Those plots of members of forums are amusing though - apparently Stormfront are more centrist than Freethought & Rationalism Discussion Board! 81.98.43.107 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My problem with Political Compass is that it appears to measure attitudes rather than positions. By my positions and philosophy I think almost anyone would class me as "right libertarian", but on political compass I somehow wind up more "centrist libertarian", somewhere around the British LibDems. The only way that I can explain this is that a lot of the questions seemed to be about how much I like corporations and such, and that's maybe less than you would predict if you were to guess based purely on ideology. --Trovatore (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Are "fiction" and "non-fiction" genres?

Is fiction a genre?

Is non-fiction a genre?

Answers to these questions have eluded my searches. Nobody seems to know, which makes me highly skeptical of casual replies. Please back up your answers with authoritative references. Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe they can be considered as genres, but they are too general to be considered true genres. Can't find any references though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions like this (definition of terms and especially classification of abstracts) often don't have straightforward answers. I suggest that the answer here is "it depends": on what classificatory model you are using or referring to, or how you are using the distinction. --ColinFine (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think what we would need is a standard definition of what a genre is, so we can decide whether somethng fits that or not. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There's not an official list of genres or an official definition of genre (who would establish such a definition? would it apply only to literature or also to film or TV?) There are publications such as the Routledge Dictionary of Literary Terms, Abrams' Glossary of Literary Terms which give a definition, but it is not what the OP wants.

Abrams devotes 2 pages to defining genre, which begins "Genres. A term, French in origin, that denotes types or classes of literature. The genres into which literary works have been grouped at different times are very numerous, and the criteria on which the classifications have been based are highly variable." Later he says "By many critics at the present time, however, genres are conceived to be more or less arbitrary modes of classification, whose justification is their convenience in talking about literature." While acknowledging that there is no shared system of genre, he concludes that "generic distinctions remain indispensable in literary discourse is attested by the unceasing publication of books whose titles announce that they deal with tragedy, the lyric, pastoral, the novel, or another of the many types and subtypes into which literature has over the centuries been classified."

Theorists are fond of inventing new genres, e.g. Tigge's An Anatomy of Literary Nonsense which claims literary nonsense is a genre. There are also whole books that attempt to say what genre is, such as Strelka's Theories of Literary Genre, which will elude easy summary or use. Another problem is that as Abrams points out it's not always a prominent subject of mainstream academic English Literature study, e.g. the UChicagoP book Critical Terms for Literary Study doesn't have a chapter on genre. And the word has a different meaning in painting (where "genre painting" is itself a particular genre) and different meanings in film criticism, in the study of classical literature, in non-Western literature, etc.

So here's an authoritative reference for you: List of literary genres. If you're in California, your state has a definitive list. Or visit your local bookshop. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Is fiction a form of entertainment?

The entertainment article is quite vague on this point. According to it, watching movies is, reading isn't.

It also says entertainment is an activity (implying that entertainment is not the medium itself). This implies that movies, including fictional movies, are not a form of entertainment. Just watching them is.

Please clarify. The Transhumanist 23:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What is fiction?

Is this section accurate? Is it complete? Please take a quick look. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How is that any longer than "fiction is made up."? I wouldn't necessarily describe it as a genre. And the last bit, as "the opposite of non-fiction" is entirely unnecessary. Anyone familiar enough with english to understand the non- prefix could figure that out. Fiction is writing that isn't entirely based in fact. Period. --Jayron32 00:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, your definition would include a lot of material not normally considered "fiction". A book on philosophy, any opinion piece, or an as yet unproven scientific theory. Myth is generally considered separate from fiction as well. APL (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy is not a narrative. Except when it is. Insert the word "narrative" at some random point in my explanation, and it becomes essentially valid. Sorry about that. However, having a definition which is longwinded and uses dense, obfuscatory language isn't necessarily useful. Fiction is a narrative which is made-up by the author. Of course, authors may include elements of truthiness in their made-up stories, but that doesn't magically make them non-fiction narratives. "Fiction is a story someone made up." captures it well enough. So long as the idea of "story" is not ignored. --Jayron32 01:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Does fiction have to have a story? That would rule out 2001: A Space Odyssey and Silent Running and practically all of Fellini and Pasolini. --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a clear story in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Silent Running. Fellini's work also has a narrative story to it. Even films like Un Chien Andalou have a "story", or more to the point "stories" or "vignettes". A vignette is still a narrative; though perhaps better thought of as a micronarrative. But it's still a story. --Jayron32 03:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not, of course, completely serious. The works in question have a story, but it is too thin to hold my interest, and I imagine pretty much anyone's interest. The people who like those works must like them for some other reason; I haven't figured out just what it is. --Trovatore (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

See, I loved the stories in both 2001 the novel and the film; admitedly the novel has an easier to follow narrative as it actually has to use words (rather than merely images) to advance the story. However, the multiple parts of 2001 (the film) each have a clear, linear, and rather easy to understand storyline (well, the first three parts, the third is a bit hard to follow, but its kinda supposed to be). The Jupiter Mission part many people find disconcerting because Dave and Frank are so flat and one-dimensional and boring, but that was a concious choice by Clarke and Kubrick to highlight the humanity of HAL. That kind of contrast is what I find brilliant about that part of the film. But taste is clearly subjective, and if your taste doesn't tend in those directions, then you're fine not to like it. --Jayron32 03:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Trovatore, you'd get a real kick out of Waiting for Godot, then.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I liked WfG. Sufficiently clever dialogue can substitute for plot. But when nothing happens, and also no one talks about it, I'm afraid I just get bored. --Trovatore (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine where you get the idea that "nothing happens" in 2001. Plenty happens. Plenty. And all full of Kubrickian micro subtlety behind the gross macro images, that's the best bit. I saw it on first release in 1968, and have seen it about 20 times since then, and I always mine more of its never-ending riches. But horses for courses. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary: They find some rocks on the Moon. They take a long trip to find out why. The spaceship's computer rebels. Then someone gets apotheosized, but this is not really explained; the world maybe ends, maybe not, but given Clarke's predilections, probably. What did I leave out? Not much.

In fairness, though, my big gripe is that there's no dialogue. --Trovatore (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The dialogue issue is reasonable, but to be fair your derisive plot summary could be applied to a movie you liked as well and make it seem silly. That's not really a fair summary of the film, merely speaking of something in a derisive tone doesn't actually diminish the quality of the thing you are talking about. I share much of Jack's love for 2001, it is one of my favorite films, but the lack of dialogue is a common criticism of that film, and if you like witty repartee, then 2001 isn't for you. --Jayron32 04:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

2001 has two real stories. One is the rather conventional story of a computer gone berserk, not unlike the later Terminator and War Games. This would have made a good movie by itself.

The other story is the one with problems. An alien obelisk inspired primates to become homicidal, apparently evolving later into us. For some reason, they also put one on the Moon and another by Jupiter, and kill some of the people who investigate them, even though they are apparently there specifically so they will be investigated.

This is also the part that looks like a kid was playing with animation, where there are several minutes of rather pointless patterns on the Jupiter obelisk, which don't further the plot at all. The old man/baby transformation falls into the same category. If this was made into it's own movie, I think it would have been hated by critics and audiences alike. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The monolith is a MacGuffin. It advances the plot by giving the characters something to seek on their mission to Jupiter. Now, it is a MacGuffin with some depth, as Clarke expands on the "Monolith makers" in later works, but 2001 can be understood as a stand-alone work without much recourse to needing to understand the true mechanism and purpose of the Monolith. Clarke seems to like the theme of an ancient, advanced technology which is not fully understandable, but advances the plot in important ways, see Rendezvous with Rama as another take on such an object. Back to the Monolith, one thing I have always understood about the narrative perspective in 2001 is that the characters don't really understand what it is, how it works, or what its purpose is, so as an audience we don't necessarily know anymore than the characters themselves. This is a common narrative technique, and not unique to the film or novel: if the reader only knows what the characters know, it can be a good means to get the reader to sympathize with or identify with said characters. --Jayron32 05:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

While that may be fine for French movie-goers, most Americans will want a resolution to the story, which means answering all these questions by the end. StuRat (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen lots of French films, and not many of them stylisiticly or thematically resemble 2001. --Jayron32 05:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and lots of popular American films have ambiguous endings or lack formal resolution. Memento, Fight Club, 12 Monkeys, The Graduate, etc. were all very popular with American audiences. --Jayron32 05:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Stu, it deals with interstellar travel, birth/life/death, the Universe, evolution, meaning, meaninglessness, infinity ........ and you expect answers?!! People really need to suspend their need for answers. Movies are supposed to inspire far more questions than any answers they may purport to provide. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me the real distinction here is that 'fiction' is material intended as divertissement. I.e. something that's aimed at being a pastime rather than something that is overtly serious, educational, or historically accurate. It's more of a use-metric than a genre: people read non-fiction to learn something about the world, but they read fiction to escape from the world for a while. --Ludwigs2 07:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

People do read fiction to learn things about the world, e.g. biographical novels, novels about important social issues, political novels such as 1984. You could argue the difference is that fiction provides aesthetic pleasure, but even factual works are discussed in terms of style or being well-written. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)