Humanities desk
< March 26	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 28 >

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

March 27

Australian aboriginal poetry hoax

Hey everyone - I remember reading about this on Wikipedia, but now I can find no trace of it here or anywhere else online. The gist of it was that someone in Australia presented some poetry as being the newly-discovered work of a homeless aboriginal woman or something like that, while it was actually just quasi-gibberish he had thrown together. It was massively acclaimed, but then he either confessed or was found out and everyone was angry and embarrassed. The article went into some depth about how its acceptance was due to the Australian art establishment's longing to find a critically-beloved "native voice," and I even vaguely remember one of the lines from one of the poems being something along the lines of "The tax collector came today to make an assessment, but he missed my many friends and acquaintances." But everything I search is coming up blank and I'm starting to think I might just be crazy. And no, it isn't Ern Malley, Wanda Koolmatrie or Eddie Burrup. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This rings no bells with me at all, I'm afraid, Elmer. The closest thing I've found, and it's not a great fit, is Oodgeroo Noonuccal. I quote from our article:

This first book of poetry was extraordinarily successful, selling out in several editions, and setting Oodgeroo well on the way to be Australia’s highest-selling poet alongside C. J. Dennis.[7] Critics’ responses, however, were mixed, with some questioning whether Oodgeroo, as an Aboriginal person, could really have written it herself. Others were disturbed by the activism of the poems, and found that they were "propaganda" rather than what they considered to be real poetry.

Then there's this:

Initially, critics responded harshly to her poetry, claiming it was amateurish or not verse at all. It did not conform to accepted forms of verse. Critics also did not like the Aboriginal voice that came through in the poetry, and claimed her verse to be inauthentic as Aboriginal poetry, because true Aboriginal poetry came from their oral traditions, that is, any European influence invalidates Aboriginality.

There are 163 of Oodgeroo's poems here, searchable by keyword. I found 2 hits for "tax", but nothing like what you said. You may have better luck searching yourself.

If it's not her, you're crazy. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I dual-license modified versions of software under GPLv3 under GPL and a copyfree license?

Anyone modifying that modified version must still license it under the GPL, because that derivative work contains original code, which is licensed under GPL. It may be a break of the wording of the license, but not of the spirit of the license. Therefore if the copyright holder sues me for licensing it (my modifications) under both BSD and GPL rather than only under GPL, he/she is a copyright abuser. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't provide legal advice but without getting in to the legal aspect, the spirit of a GPL or copyleft license is usually that people taking advantage of the licence are expected to follow the licencing terms including the copyleft requirement. The GPL of course comes from FSF who's intentions with their licence (i.e. spirit) is well known and often made clear by them. If you try to re-licence the content without following the copyleft requirement or getting permission of all copyright holders, you are the one who is seemingly not following the spirit of the licence. Furthermore, the vast majority of people who support or use BSD licences are not going to want such improperly licenced content so there's also no point making such a licencing claim. Other then to waste the time of people who took you at your word who will have to throw out any of their work (whether proprietary or made freely available) derived from your content once they find out. And possibly annoy people who's copyrighted work (copyrighted to be copylefted) you are trying to mis-use. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's okay to violate what the license explicitly states as long as you don't violate its spirit -- what a fun idea! Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be best to read the various guidance the GNU or whoever administers the various licenses (it's hard for me to keep straight sometimes) [1], short of asking a lawyer for help. Don't think you can hide behind the "spirit" of the law to do something you expressly agreed to not do. Shadowjams (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaʻieʻie Waho Channel

Is it physically possible to swim the whole length of the Kaʻieʻie Waho Channel, separating Kauai and Oahu, alone without getting out of the water? There was a six people relay team that did this but no one has yet swam it on their own.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently an Australian named Penny Palfrey has tried it a couple of times, but failed because she ran into Portuguese man-o-war -- so presumably it is possible in theory. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The thing is, "is it possible?" doesn't lend itself to a firm "no" answer in many cases (firm "yes" answers are pretty obvious). The swim in question has not been completed with reliable verification (probably someone somewhere has claimed to have completed it). It's beyond the scope of many people's abilities. But its length (72 miles) is comparable to the record for the longest solo unassisted ocean swim of 70 miles. Given that, I would conclude that it's certainly physically possible, and it's probably practically possible, but that no objective answer can exist unless and until someone does it. — Lomn 16:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shas involvement in Rabin's death

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Due to the fact that Yigal Amir was a Mizrahi and religious Zionist, could it be possible that Shas party was involve in it because they were against Oslo Accords? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.146 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything's possible. We don't do speculation here. Rojomoke (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey Beard

Dear Wiki,

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Beard

Question: Who wrote this article and would they be willing to make contact?

Reason: My grandfather was a personal friend of Dewey’s and, I being the youngest in my family [born 1946] only met him twice. I would like more people to know about him and have information and a means to bring it about, but would appreciate a more educated opinion. I am making lame attempts to do so now, and this author has accomplished more than I in my lifetime, I can help him or he could help me if the interruption and inconvenience would not be too great. Most gracious thanks. I have a copy of The Indian interviews of Eli S. Ricker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmans2001 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page is the best place for this sort of question. If you have material from a reliable source that you'd like to add to the article (and it sounds as though you do), feel free to add it yourself, with appropriate references. See WP:CITE on the procedure for adding references to the article. Tevildo (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles don't really have authors. Anybody can contribute to an article, and most have multiple authors, sometimes even hundreds of authors. In the case of this article, though, based on the article's history, most of it seems to have been written by 7mike5000, whom you can contact through his linked user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't. That editor has been blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks, with talk page access disabled. Looie496 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manchu

Did Emperor Guangxu, Puyi or Empress Dowager Cixi know how to speak Manchu? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Studies of Manchu-language use at court, for example, almost all conclude that the loss of Manchu as the first language of the rulers and the conquest elite implies their absorption into Chinese culture.... Nineteenth-century Qing rulers seem to have been more comfortable using Chinese" Rawski, Evelyn Sakakida. The last emperors: A social history of Qing imperial institutions. Univ of California Press, 2001. p.4 "the veritable record of the Guang-xu Emperor, which was the last veritable record in the Qing Dynasty and only used Chinese)" Yoshida, Jun, and 吉田純. "On Intellect and Intelligence in Qing China: Languages, Education and Philology." (1990). p.52 198.151.130.153 (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source I am recalling may have been Nicholas Poppe's Mongolian Language Handbook or Introduction to Altaic linguistics neither of which I have in front of me, but I remember reading the Manchu dynasty lost native fluency in Manchu within about a century of coming to rule. Sorru I don't have an exact reference and I wouldn't swear to that in court, but it's certainly not too far off. You can get his works by interlibrary loan. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More I think on it, this book by Ramsey may have been the source. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember of Puyi's autobiography, while Manchu education was still compulsory for princes, all that he could fluently say were short ceremonial phrases, such as used when greeting ministers and guests. I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe this was in the early chapters, as he was describing life in the palace. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good source on the declining use of the Manchu language in the late Han is: Edward J. M. Rhoads, Manchus & Han: Ethnic Relations and Political Power in Late Qing and Early Republican China, 1861–1928. University of Washington Press, 2000. Pages 52–54. ISBN 0-295-98040-0. Partially available on Google Books. It doesn't seem to specifically discuss the late-Qing emperors' personal Manchu fluency, though.

Empress Dowager Cixi knew Manchu fluently,Puyi [2] did not speak Manchu, his ability was limited to single words which does not even qualify for minimal fluency.Rajmaan (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banks in occupied Europe

During the German occupation in World War 2, did the occupied countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.) keep their own banks? Or were they taken over by the German Reichsbank? I've tried to find this info in Alan Bullock's treatise on Hitler vs. Stalin, but there's no specific answer in it to this question. Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National commercial banks were kept, but the Germans introduced a new policy to strengthen the "Germanic element." That actually meant that Polish without German heritage, for example, wouldn't get their savings from their Polish saving bank, in contrary to ethnic Germans living in Poland. In Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg, on the other hand, the policy was less extreme, since nationals of these countries only had to recognize their "Germanic" element and commit to the German cause to still be allowed to perform financial transactions. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also check [| this book], p. 53, available in Google books, for the fate of the central banks, which had to cooperate with the German monetary policy. Any similarity with the present situation in Europe is mere coincidence. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, in western Europe under the German occupation, people had to sign a loyalty oath to the Nazi regime in order to be able to access their own accounts, right? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]