Humanities desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 3 >

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.

May 2

Exact date of death for writer Doris Gates?

I've started an article about the Newbery winning children's writer Doris Gates. I know that she died in 1987 in Carmel, CA. But I can't find her exact date of death. I know she was married, but then divorced, and I can't find her husband's name, either, or names of any children. But she seems to have continued to use her maiden name. I hate to leave such obvious information out, but I've hit a wall. Can anyone help me out? (She was born in Mountain View on 11/26/1901, if that helps.) Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked ancestry.com, which is a pay site, but this might help: 2 sources (Social Security Death Index and California Death Index) state that she was born Nov 26, 1901; and died Sep 3, 1987, at Monterrey, CA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monterrey is in Mexico, I think. California has a city called Monterey. Nice place. Never been to the one in Mexico; couldn't say. --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualquiera. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll follow up on that and see what comes up. I appreciate it. Tlqk56 (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have any countries succeeded at reducing censoring of media?

Have any countries succeeded at reducing the censoring of the media without major government change? I'd especially be interested in examples in the Internet age. If not, keep it relatively modern if possible (TVs are a must).--128.54.193.69 (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Define censorship. 1000 Word limit. Due Thursday. Go. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The USA, UK, and probably other nations have dramatically reduced censorship since the 1950s. In the UK, theatre was censored until 1968 (Lord_Chamberlain#Theatre_censorship). Nudity, sexual content, and bad language have also become more acceptable - see for example Seven dirty words (much of which is recent) and Motion Picture Production Code for the USA, and for the UK the post-1999 British Board of Film Classification#Relaxation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "without government change". During Glasnost, the government of the USSR didn't change, but its style did. --Dweller (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also the article Freedom of speech and country specific articles: Censorship in France (in the 50s and 60s lots of censorship re the Algerian war), Censorship in the United Kingdom (which describes topics like the now-abolished ban on "apologists" for terrorism speaking on TV), Censorship in the United States, etc. I suspect, as Shadowjams says, the OP is going to have to be more specific. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im guessing here, but it seems Myanmars opening up has done so. Likewise at very points of israel's history to the current liberal regime there must have been a no-go for government regardless of disagreement. Libya of course had wholescale change as did Tunisia. Venezuela has total press freedom. I would be inclined to add Chile, Greece, South Korea, Portugal, Spain but tey had massive governmental change. As was South Africa. Zimbabwe's gone the opposite direction in the last decade...in some aspect Sudan's liberalised (but that was mainy ofor the south sudan referendum (stuff i read)). Lanka is dubious here. I imagine Ukraine's political dynamics probably change based on whos premiser.Lihaas (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might be interested in this link on censorship in Australia, but there was a new government in place, with a somewhat liberal agenda. That might or might not qualify as major government change, but I suspect the OP was thinking about revolutionary change. If the OP does wish to clarify a little, I'd be curious to know whether "media" refers to "news media", or "mass media", since the first would rule out home videos. IBE (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "succeeded" seems out of place here, implying that this was their goal. I'd say most governments would like to maintain censorship, but the explosion in the number of media channels, especially on the Internet, has made this impossible. Thus, they've retreated to only trying to censor the most extreme material, like child pornography. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. OP here. I was mostly referring to revolutionary change. For example, Glasnost works, post-fall of the USSR reforms, not so much. Australia probably works too because I'd not consider that major change in this case. As to things like child porn, I am not seeking the removal of restrictions on that. Rather mostly mainstream media or very similar styles within alternate media sources (eg nothing radical and linked to outlawed groups, rather more like private alternatives to government run media programming)128.54.193.69 (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for an author to hide his writer's voice?

I would like to know whether or not it is possible for an author to hide his writer's voice intentionally, so that the new voice is unrecognizable. Wikipedia has a short article about an author's voice: "is the literary term used to describe the individual writing style of an author. Voice was generally considered to be a combination of a writer's use of syntax, diction, punctuation, character development, dialogue, etc., within a given body of text (or across several works). Voice can be thought of in terms of the uniqueness of a vocal voice machine. As a trumpet has a different voice than a tuba or a violin has a different voice than a cello, so the words of one author have a different sound than the words of another. One author may have a voice that is light and fast paced while another may have a dark voice. In creative writing, students are often encouraged to experiment with different literary styles and techniques in order to help them better develop their 'voice'. This aspect varies with the individual author, but, particularly in American culture, having this asset is considered positive and beneficial to both the writer and his or her audience." A person's voice can be used to attribute an anonymous work to an author, but is it possible for the author to produce a work under a completely different pseudonym and writing style -- one that is irrecognizable? Does personality and personal interests have an affect on writing style? What does it take to produce an unidentifiable anonymous work?

Similarly, how do historians tell the difference between the Bernoulli brothers Jacob and Johann and who contributed what? Do historians examine the brothers' normal writing styles or mathematical contributions? 140.254.227.58 (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writer's voice is the article referenced above. XPPaul (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if "hide" is the best word, as they certainly must have "syntax, diction, punctuation, character development, dialogue, etc.". Perhaps "change" would be a better term. And many writers have written books for both adults and children, or factual and fiction books, or prose and poetry, each of which require different voices. In short, "know your audience and adjust your writer's voice accordingly". StuRat (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Many literary novelists also write crime novels. Ian Fleming died half way through writing The Man with the Golden Gun and Kingsley Amis was so good at mimicking Fleming's style (and was a good friend of his) and finished the novel off for him, and then went on to write a Bond novel of his own. Also worth seeing Doris Lessing attempting to publish novels as Jane Somers. Authors quite frequently change their style. I knew someone who funded his PHd by writing steamy Mills and Boon novels. The Man who was Wanted, wrongly attributed to Conan Doyle for years, is another example. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of anonymity, is the Internet truly anonymous? Or can one's writing style, personality, and interests readily give away a person's identity? 140.254.121.39 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you return to the same place online pretending to be someone new, they might well suspect you are the same person. We get that with vandals here. However, if you go to a different, unrelated website, you are unlikely to be recognized there. As for computer programs recognizing writing style among the billions of communications each day, that would be quite difficult. StuRat (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any examples besides vandals? People who just want to fool around with having multiple identities? On one account, the person may make a false persona with very liberal political views, and on another account on the same website, the person may make a false persona with very conservative political views. On a third account on the same website, the same person may make a false persona with a liberterian political view. Then, the same person creates a thread and starts debating with his three identities, also taking note to change a different writing style as if the three accounts actually belongs to three different persons? 140.254.121.39 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the history of sockpuppetry on wikipedia and elsewhere shows it's difficult to maintain distinct identities successfully, beyond possible recognition based on styles and interests, it's fairly easy to screw up and mix up identities. Note that not all sockpuppets are vandals. Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is the case of Primary Colors (novel), who's author was identified by literary analysis, however I don't believe any attempts were made to hide or obscure the style and as a newspaper columnist it's likely he'd written similar stuff before. And I presume it was also helped by the limited pool of likely authors. Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a person makes a sockpuppet account and then takes a drug (i.e. alcohol) consistently while using that account, and remain sober on another sockpuppet account, then is it possible that the drug/alcohol will change his frame of mind? What if the drug is LSD or marijuana? 140.254.227.50 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has little peculiarities in their writing... a particular choice of words, idiosyncratic punctuation, etc. In poker these are known as "tells". Successfully writing as a sockpuppet requires eliminating those "tells"... changing all those little things that someone might recognize - I would think it more likely that the person would unintentionally "slip up" (and do or say something that would "give himself away") when under the influence, than he would if he remained sober when writing under both accounts. It is harder to remember what your "tells" are and keep them out of your writing when your mind is impaired. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One anecdote -- James Tiptree, Jr. tried to write a set of stories on somewhat different topics under the second-degree pseudonym "Raccoona Sheldon", but a number of people in the science fiction community identified the distinctive Tiptree style, so that Raccoona Sheldon was quickly unmasked... AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is starting to freak me out a bit. I am bewildered that people can easily tell the difference between a girl or a boy, familiar faces and unfamiliar faces, and especially writing styles. It seems to me that in order to change one's writing style one must go through a major psychological change to go unrecognized. Is it possible to be more successful at masking one's writing style if the writer is by nature bilingual or trilingual but never really mentions this fact to the public? Perhaps, in one piece of writing, the writer may write in Spanish as if he is a native-born Spanish speaker who doesn't know a hint of English or struggle with English. In another piece of writing, the same writer may write in English as if he is a native-born English speaker who doesn't know a hint of Spanish or struggle with Spanish. In reality, the author would be both: that his mother is Spanish, while his father is English, so the author grows up to be bilingual, speaking both English and Spanish.140.254.121.39 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.121.39 -- If it consoles you, people weren't necessarily able to tell whether "James Tiptree, Jr." / "Raccoona Sheldon" was a man or a woman (at one point Robert Silverberg was convinced the author was male, though she was in fact female), just that the two pseudonyms were probably the same person... AnonMoos (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When we read something written by someone whose English is faultless, we make deductions about their anglo-nativeness (which may or may not turn out to be true). But do we ever make the leap and say to ourselves "this person obviously is not a native <whatever else>-speaker"? I certainly don't. The question of what other languages they may happen to be equally fluent in simply never arises at all. If it did, it would only be because of some quirk of their English writing that tells me they're thinking in some foreign idiom, which is evidence for being native in some other language - but that ipso facto would also spoil their perfect record with English writing (even if only very slightly). It's only where a book is written partly in one language and partly in another (uncommon but not unheard of), and they write perfectly in both languages, that an assumption like what you're talking about could be made. But only a reader who happened to be equally fluent in both those languages would be able to make this deduction. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a person acquires a first language during the toddler years and then later acquires a second language during the teen years, then the person is likely to not be very proficient in the second language than the first, unless the person completely immerses himself within the culture that speaks the language for some time. With one language being dominant and the other language being weaker and more like baby-talk, I suppose it's relatively easier to attribute writings to the same author, as opposed to the former situation. In online communications, to avoid being seen as the same identity, I think a person could create an account that speaks lyk dys. Instead of writing 'I owe you one,' a person may write i o u 1. 140.254.121.39 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush sounded like an idiot when he tried to speak English, but apparently was impressive in Spanish. The reason for these two different voices, though, appears to be that he would ad-lib in English, while he kept to the speech in Spanish. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

140, it's more than just changing your writing style that gives a person away. First, it's extremely difficult to permanantly change your writing style: without very strict concentration, it is likely a person will revert to their old style, perhaps even mid-sentence, without catching it. Second, behavior is another dead givaway: even if you change your writing style, if you still go back to the same topics, people familiar with that topic will take notice. Stephen King ran into this when he tried to write novels under the pseudonym "Richard Bachmann." Folks familiar with the horror novel genre picked up on his visiting the same favorite subjects in the Bachmann books, and figured out it was him before long. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't Richard Kuklinski get the death penalty?

Others got it for much, much less. XPPaul (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, he was convicted in New Jersey, and NJ does not have the dealth penalty. Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States. RudolfRed (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But NJ abolished the death penalty 2007, after Kuklinski's sentencing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPPaul (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a full answer, but Capital punishment in New Jersey says nobody was executed between 1982 and 2007, and from 1982 to 1992 of "the 60 cases in which juries returned a verdict for the death penalty, 57 were overturned" (most on appeal[1]). So it was evidently almost impossible for someone to be sentenced to death, and even then they wouldn't be killed. Sadly the article doesn't try to explain why. --Colapeninsula (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most non-Americans would ask why anyone got the death penalty. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most non-Americans, ya think? Most Chinese, for example? For the record, I'm against the death penalty. --Trovatore (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Fair point. I usually try to be more careful with my words. How about "Most people from other western nations would ask why anyone DID get the death penalty"? HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even then I have my doubts. Their own political systems might not allow the death penalty, but I have the impression that there's a lot of support for it among the public, and that even if they don't think it's good public policy, they at least get it. Heck, I get it too.

I mean, the basic reason that I'm against the death penalty is that I don't believe in retributive justice (as distinct from, say, deterrence), understood as "we should make bad things happen to people who have done bad things, because people who have done bad things deserve to have bad things happen to them". But let's be honest; most people do believe in it, even in Western nations. And if you believe in retributive justice, it's hard to see what, short of death, you could propose for Kuklinski that would seem adequate. --Trovatore (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an element of retribution, but as a practical matter it's permanent removal. Once a murderer is dead, he'll never kill again. That's the theory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As incapacitation, the death penalty works extremely well, but so does life without parole, and life without parole is cheaper. By a lot. --Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's easier to at least partly reverse the punishment if the court's decision is later found to be wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have asked why Kuklinski got the death penalty, because, he didn't. So, I was wondering why, when in contrast to others, he has done much, much more. PS: there is no need to discuss the death penalty in America every time someone asks a question slightly linked to it. XPPaul (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You basically opened the door yourself. Now, reading about that guy, and reading between the lines, maybe they thought he would be potentially useful as a witness against the Mafia. In fact, he was scheduled to testify until he conveniently died. But to find out for sure, you'd probably need to get to the library and read the pre-trial coverage, where they will probably say why or why not a particular penalty was sought. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a global encyclopaedia. People from many countries read this material. I have no idea who Richard Kuklinski is, but I do know what the death penalty is. Your question didn't mention the USA. Looking at it throughout the western world, there are many who have committed far worse crimes and who didn't get the death penalty. Why shouldn't the US-centrism of your question be highlighted by broadening the context beyond the borders you forgot to mention? HiLo48 (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to believe that you are acting in good faith. I'd linked to the relevant article, because I know that many people won't know who Kuklinski is. And even a short look at the article will leave the most dogmatic anti-death-penalty-in-America kind of guy wondering why he didn't get it. XPPaul (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm acting in the interests of this global encyclopaedia. Can you imagine someone from any other country in the world not mentioning the relevant country when they wanted to confine a discussion to that country alone. And why confine it thus anyway? HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The British also do that a lot. Aussies rather less; I'll give you that. --Trovatore (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many people in the internet do that. They just suppose that everyone is at the same place as them. Here we do it too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's "we", kemosabe? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This newspaper report may answer the original question... apparently a jury found that "the deaths were not proven to be by Kuklinski's own conduct"... this ruling apparently meant that he was ineligible for the death penalty. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an argument which many people subscribe to (I don't) that hit men aren't really responsible for their murders, only the people who hire them are. This is along a similar line to people who commit genocide on the orders of their commanding officer not being responsible, as they were "just following orders". (The only way I would endorse that position is if they had reason to think they would be killed for not doing as they were told.) StuRat (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a contribution to answering the question, much better that the whining before. XPPaul (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was considered responsible enough that he was tossed into the slammer for life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to not be legally responsible for a crime and still pose a danger to society, as in the case of the criminally insane, although I don't know if we could detain someone, in general, for being dangerous. (We can in some specific cases, like insanity and carrying an infectious disease.) StuRat (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A hit man is responsible, but not solely responsible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then the issue comes up as to whether punishment is to be reduced when multiple people are responsible, or whether each still must suffer the full penalty. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course no one can predict in the general case how a jury will see things, but I have never heard of a jurisdiction where "someone hired me to do it" is a mitigating factor in a murder case. Usually it's a serious aggravating factor. --Trovatore (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since that means they can't claim it was a hot-blooded murder, as it was obviously planned in advance (although I never quite understood why being angry when you commit your murders is considered a mitigating factor, but I'd have to guess that the laws were passed by those prone to temper tantrums). StuRat (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our crime of passion article is not very good, but as I understand it there are two main points. For those who think punishment can be "fair", the point is that sudden overwhelming anger tends to reduce the element of mens rea, the criminal mind. And, perhaps less often stated, it's easier to imagine ourselves in that situation, so it's harder to see the perpetrator as an unnatural monster.

For deterrence theorists, the point is that crimes committed in such a mental state are resistant to deterrence. The hardest-core of these tests is the "cop on the elbow" test (let's see if that still comes up blue). Would you have committed the crime knowing that a police officer was watching you? If so, then deterrence is useless. --Trovatore (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the question, but before I clicked on the link, I thought the it was about Ryszard Kukliński, who, ironically, never killed anybody, yet was sentenced to death (in absentia, though). — Kpalion^(talk) 20:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles of Toronto

Somebody told me that City of York is called "Los Angeles of Toronto". Is this true? He said it is because of blacks, white and latino population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.228.51 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard it. And that would be a strange reason, because Los Angeles is not known here for its ethnic makeup but is thought of as a celebrity/film city. All of Toronto is multicultural. 184.147.132.206 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in the center of the Canadian universe for some years, and never came across that term either. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, York, Ontario has not been the "City of York" for the past 14 years; and there's no mention of any associations with film or cinema in the article. Its ethnic distribution is shown, but there's nothing particularly noteworthy or unusual about it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sega and Toronto Blur Jays font

Did Sega borrowed the font from the Toronto Blue Jays? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.4 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how long Sega has been using that logo, but as a company they are a quite a bit older than the Blue Jays, so maybe it's the other way around. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somoans/Pacific Islanders

I was just watching Roots and observing what part must be fictionalised and what could have been "real". One part in the beginning of the first episode that seems fictionalised (coupled with the clear americanisation of the cast said to be Gambian (which they say is Islamic, but the tribal girls are topless)) was the massively built instructor at the "coming of age" event. Then I thought prior to the more "westernised" era of gyms and proteins/steroids how did people get so big in terms of muscles? it seems many dint, HOWEVER Samoans and other Pacific Islanders largely cut off from the modernity of gyms and supplements are quite huge in built (rugby players from decades ago stand out, and theyre still the stronger rugby countries today in contrast to the population, which is remarkable). So my question is what is it in their natural diet that feeds the muscles? Fish proteins are really known for being that musculuar building as beef, etc...though i could well be wrogn. But even nativ americans who had Bison (of which American bison are bigger than European bison per our page), etc werent as big. Or is there some sort of natural workout (swimming to catch fish, running on the beaches/hunting, etc?) that built such power. (come to think about it, ive noticed this eons ago just never really though about it).

Also our articles of ethnicities dont mention diets at all...which they sohould. They only talk of language, demographics (religion), etc.Lihaas (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a 1980s Hollywood TV series is going to be a reliable source. A brief article about the South Pacific diet is here and a more scientific paper here. Apparently they love corned beef. Alansplodge (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My unsourced impression is this: If you're explicitly trying to put on as much muscle as possible, you will use a high-protein diet to maximize your results. However, if you have the right genetic makeup, you may not need a high-protein diet to get very very big (even though, with the diet, you might get bigger). --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not me as such (though im not disinterested), but i was wondering a natural not lab-oriented way to bulk it up.

Thanks for the link Alansplodge, but it mostly talks of the change to the diet and the addition of modern red meats instead of the tradtional diet. (though it does mention fish nd coconut based food)Lihaas (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, you are basing your enquiry on the appearance of modern film extras (probably American) and modern Samoan rugby players. Alansplodge (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But even the traditional wrestlers (not the WWF types, which are obviously steroid induced) from the region (i dont have any pics online, sorry)Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think genetics, not diet. Diet matters, but genetics matters way way way more. --Trovatore (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! some people just ge t lucjky ;(Lihaas (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

humanities academic journal search online

When I am looking for academic papers in medical journals I use PubMed. Is there something similar (online) for papers in the humanities topics? (Other than Google Scholar which is horrible to use). Thanks. 184.147.132.206 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know of a place where you can find about Debate Topics: http://www.gale.cengage.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=000&titleCode=GAL74&type=4&id=176168

However, the service requires you to pay for the information. Check to see if your local library has it or a similar research help service. 140.254.121.39 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am looking for something I can search without having to go to the library. And yes, free would be great. PubMed is both these things. 184.147.132.206 (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the library was mentioned, if you have a membership it's worth checking what's included in that. For instance, being a member of my local library allows me to access the Oxford English Dictionary online, and search for etymologies and stuff. If you could get hold of an Athens (access and identity management service) login that would be particularly useful, although it's usually reserved for students and staff of higher education establishments. One thing you could get through it is Project MUSE, which seems like what you're after. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR is probably the most useful resource. It's not free, but if you can't access it, you can still search it and see the first page of an article. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, though it should be noted that 1. there are still journals not in JSTOR, that are only either on their own publishers' sites or are on other services like EBSCOHost; 2. JSTOR is usually for back issues and has a "moving wall" of a year or so for most (but not all!) journals, so it isn't quite like PubMed in the sense that it is not always up to date. (For that, Google Scholar is still probably the best, though I agree it is a pain.) As someone who uses current and past humanities journals all the time, I am often tacking between JSTOR and other services, though if I were looking for general articles (e.g. just based on a search topic) and not for any one specific article, I would always check JSTOR first. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, I think the moving wall is actually four or five years. But depending on what sort of humanities topics are being sought, it's very useful. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also has the resource exchange project at WP:LIB. If you need information from a source you don't have access to, you can ask there. RudolfRed (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could tell us what your humanities interest is it would help us greatly. Humanities information resources tend to be ordered into disciplinary and topical hierarchies, and often lack union catalogues. 60.242.186.80 (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for specific papers, just do a straight Google web search with the journal name, article year, and author, maybe sometimes including the article title if necessary. Whichever online journal repository hosts the article (if any) should come up in the first few results. If you're not looking for specific papers, but rather are looking for papers on a topic in general, then as 60.242.186.80 said, you're going to want to search through databases specific for the discipline: for example, [2] for philosophy. There are also general humanities indices as well, although I don't use them so I can't speak to their usefulness. Any university library's website should have a list of the databases. Here for example: [3]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for all the help, much appreciated. I'm finding Muse and JStor helpful. This is not a specific discipline but looking at what range of disciplines have covered a topic, so individual databases, while possible, are time consuming because of having to check each one, one at a time. Thanks again. 184.147.132.206 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]