Humanities desk
< May 21	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 23 >

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 22

Please identify this nasheed

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=551_1431627699 This is a video from Army of Conquest. I haven't been able to find the nasheed, and google deleted the youtube channel so I can't ask them either. Does anyone know the nasheed, or can an arabic speaker search the lyrics for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioactivemutant (talk • contribs) 05:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City of London pub history

Does anyone know where online I'd be able to see anything about the histories of pubs in the City? I've discovered the Golden Fleece on Queen Street (51°30′48″N 0°5′33.5″W / 51.51333°N 0.092639°W / 51.51333; -0.092639), a block away from One New Change (which is apparently by the site of the pre-Blitz street "Old Change"), and I'm trying to figure out whether it could be the place of publication (or related to the place of publication) for Thomas Edwards' book The casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan, which was "Printed by T.R. and E.M. for George Calvert, and are to be sold at the golden Fleece in the Old-Change, 1647". Nyttend (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The London Encyclopaedia has some information about Old Change (p. 598). Londoners don't really talk about "blocks" as there is no regularity to our streets especially in the City. Queen Street is actually four junctions further down Cheapside from the site of Old Change (about two or three hundred yards) as you can see on the 1936 A to Z of London. New Change was built "a little to the east" of Old Change, which is now the site of a (rather ugly) sunken garden in the Festival of Britain style where I used to eat my sandwiches sometimes. So no, I don't think there's a connection as there are several pubs in between. Alansplodge (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at a photograph of the Old Change garden, it doesn't look as bad as I remembered. Either ~~I or the garden~~ the garden or I must have mellowed with age. By the way, in 2011 there were 28 English pubs called the "Golden Fleece",[1] so it's not a particularly rare name. Alansplodge (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Golden fleece" is a good name for any business, which is of course there to fleece you of your "gold". The only more appropriate British business name I can think of is the gambling group, Ladbroke. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

It's a small world: the "Golden Fleece" website that the original question linked to is actually in Forest Gate some six or seven miles east of the City, overlooking Wanstead Flats in Epping Forest. My sister used to rent a flat nearby and I've had a few enjoyable pints there. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had several "Golden Fleece" webpages open and closed all of the tabs, so when I went to ask the question, I apparently pulled up the wrong one. I think this is the right one. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding trite, yes there are lots of historic pub guides: a simple Google search on "history London pubs" brought up several online. Rather than recommend them to you, please have a look yourself. (The reason I'm doing this is because I'm quite a beer and pub fan and if I started looking through all these sites myself now, I'd miss the event I'd got planned for this evening!) --TammyMoet (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me some examples of ones that are reliable? I ran such a search, but the first reliable-looking one didn't show up until the seventh page of results, and much of the book isn't displayed. All I'm seeing otherwise are a mix of random popular websites, with a couple newspaper columns, and they're not reliable for seventeenth-century history. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise you were writing an academic paper on this, I thought you were interested in visiting pubs! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry; I'm in the US, working on MARC cataloging a collection of 16th-through-20th-century books, and when I can't find an authority file for the publisher, I've been doing my best to add a free-text note connecting the publisher to something currently in existence. That's why I wanted something online; our print reference collection definitely won't have anything on the subject, and I doubt I could find anything relevant in print in any regional libraries. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried approaching the Museum of London? (or for that matter the https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/london-metropolitan-archives/Pages/default.aspx Metropolitan Archive?) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to trace the Golden Fleece at 8 Queen Street back as far as 1971 [2] which given the short life span of many City pubs isn't bad going. In 1919, the same address was the registered offices of the London Coal Trade Clerks Association (a trades union) [3], but that doesn't preclude it being a pub as well. There is a mention of a pub called the "Golden Fleece" in the Post Office London Directory, 1843 (p. 122), at 3 Little Knightrider Street. Knightrider Street connected with Old Change at its southernmost end; however our article says that much of the street was demolished in the 1860s. Note also that this area was devastated by the Great Fire of London in 1666; however another pub in Knightrider Street, "The Horn", was rebuilt afterwards and is still in use as a pub today, although under a different name. This 1775 map shows how far away Old Change was from Queen Street, and Knightrider Street is partly shown on the western margin as "...riderS." Alansplodge (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sniffle-less Žižek?

Has anyone come across audio/video of Slavoj Žižek with the sniffling removed? That should be technically feasible, shouldn't it? It's absolutely unbearable. It makes it impossible to concentrate on what the guy's saying. There's also his speech impediment, a kind of "bilateral lisp" (is that the correct term?) but I can deal with that. (If you don't know who/what I'm talking about: here and here, but you probably won't be able to help me then.) Contact Basemetal here 16:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance at his article, I'm not sure whether not being able to concentrate on what he's saying is a bug or a feature. --Trovatore (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Assuming he doesn't talk while sniffling, careful editing could mute the sound whenever he sniffled, without interfering with the words. However, you would lose any ambient sounds during each sniffle. Depending on the volume of those ambient sounds, the muting might be quite obvious. There are also more complex ways to try to remove the sniffles without the ambient noise, but that would require lots of work and expertise. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If this is something that would take a lot of work then it probably doesn't exist. I had Googled things like 'Zizek sniffling removed' etc. but nothing serious came up. He doesn't have the reputation of being a very profound thinker but, despite his sniffling, has gained some notoriety globally. I was curious what it was all about, but, because of that sniffling, never managed to sit through even a 5 mins video. Contact Basemetal here 17:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are the infamous tampon commercials with a wheezing actress (1982) parodied here by SCTV, see minute 1:30. The real commercial was fixed to remove the breathing sounds after it became the subject of parody. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Twice the same link. You did not provide the link for the parody. Contact Basemetal here 17:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Oops, sorry, Basemetal, sometimes cut doesn't always work on PC's for some reason; never have that issue with Macs. I have fixed the link above, and here it is again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN64UooGiXw. First there is a jean commercial and its parody, then the tampon commercial at 1:30 followed by the parody. Oh, and I looked, but I couldn't find the filtered version of the actual commercial where the wheezing goes away. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a solution to the problem of <CTRL> C not telling you if it worked or not. Do <CTRL> X, instead, followed by <CRTL> V. If the highlighted text disappears, then reappears, you have confirmation that it made it into the cut buffer. StuRat (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Stu, that is actually what I did, and the text did disappear. In this case it was between browsers, so perhaps that was the specific issue. Nevertheless it has been my experience that with PC's running Windows 7 there's no guarantee the cut will take or that the paste will be the most recent cut. I've had this issue on multiple PC's running anything from XP to Windows 8, so I think its a Windows fault. I have never had this problem with a Mac, but mine is now 10 years old and I am not in a hurry to spend money to replace an Asus I bought in 2013 and love for just that problem. Of course it's embarrassing when you end up posting... well, you can imagine. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, crumbs, Žižek again. Can someone please think of the domo-kuns and upload a YouTube video entitled, I dunno, "Cultural Marxism for Dummies", consisting of <redacted> and <redacted> repeatedly hitting <redacted> over the head with paperback first editions of "The Sublime Object of Ideology"?--Shirt58 (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been done. Some ... is repeatedly hitting ... over the ... though possibly not with a ... that will satisfy all .... Contact Basemetal here 15:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like there's something very weird with your computer which few other people experience. Windows by default has only a single clipboard and no clipboard history. Certain applications like Office do have their own history but even if the application is running, this should generally only affect the application unless you majorly screw up the settings. You can install clipboard history applications, but if you did that, you should know about it unless the computer is managed by someone else which it doesn't sound like it is.

The point of all this is that if you cut something and it was successfully cut it's not possible to paste something else by default on Windows. So either you're running an application which is messing around with the clipboard, or you aren't actually cutting.

As StuRat said, cutting will generally give feedback that it worked, which was the point of StuRat's suggestion. The exceptions is something which can't be modified. In which case you should still know that there's no feedback (i.e. the content is still there). In fact with I think most applications cutting won't work with something which can't be modified. So "content is still there" does usually mean "cutting didn't work" whatever the reason.

Since you highlighted something, you could delete it instead of cutting but unless you have a very weird keyboard, or major hand motor problems, it should be very difficult to do this without noticing that you did so, when trying to cut using the keyboard. If you fail to push ctrl or it otherwise doesn't register, you should see the x which replaced the highlighted text. Even if you push space you should see the space if you are paying proper attention (and with most keyboards it isn't easy to push space anyway). And besides you'd have to not only push, but push space and fail to push x. Pushing backspace or delete will generally appear little different from a successful cut, but these would generally be even harder to push then space, plus again you'd need to fail to push the x.

Different browsers should generally irrelevant since the clipboard itself is a Windows function, unless the browser messes around with the clipboard in some way or doesn't know how to use a core Windows function. (The clipboard is part of Windows, but the application obviously has to know how to interact with it.) Internet Explorer, Firefox and Chrome should not have any problems using the clipboard properly without having installed weird plugins or something. I suspect Opera shouldn't either. No idea about other browsers although it would IMO be a silly or specialised browser that does anything like that by default.

(Certain web services like online document editing services have their own way of interacting with the clipboard, but this is even less likely to affect anything other than the service itself.

P.S. In a limited number of cases, you may get undesirable results if one application copies content formated in one way, and the other application can't handle that format properly. Although this will depend significantly on the interaction since many applications with such formatted content particularly text will include plain text and perhaps some other formats, as well. But in that case, you should simply get weird results rather than "cut one link but an older link appeared".

Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a bit off topic and stale, but in appreciation for your effort I will explain that while I did ctrl x from the address field, I didn't do ctrl v to see if it pasted back, as Stu suggested, which would have been determinative. I took the disappearance of the address after the ctrl x as indicating that the cut had taken. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a right to be forgotten?

Hi, I just wanted to know if there is a legal right to be forgotten in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.101.212 (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to ask a more specific question. The police will often not participate in missing persons cases when it seems clear the missing person just wanted to get away from an abusive spouse or family. One can legally use any name one likes, (alias), as long as it is not for illegal purposes (such as to avoid debts) and there is such a thing as a witness protection program. But there's no such federal right ensconced in the constitution. Unfortunately a more specific question might end up being leagal advice, so read our disclaimer (extreme bottom of the page), and restate your question keeping it in mind. As for WP, there is a right to start over without a connection to a past identity with some restrictions. Unfortunately, I can't remember the policy! Someone else will surely think of it if that is your concern. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's called "the right to vanish." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the OP wasn't asking if there was in the US something equivalent to the European so called "right to be forgotten" regarding Google results? Contact Basemetal here 22:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The law needs a lot of keeping up to do. Unfortunately American legislators are obsessed with 1930's era farm subsidies and 1950's era highway subsidies. It's not evident that any law since the 1996 telecommunications act has even been read in full by a single congressman. Bill Clinton bragged he sent two emails during his presidency, and we all know GWB was unsure on 9/11 of how to hold a book. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are 1930 and 1950 so greedy that they gotta have a whole era, a year isn't good enough for them? — Or is era an adjectival suffix? —Tamfang (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I meant dating from the New Deal and the Interstate Highway System of those decades. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To actually address the OP's question (rather than immediately and awkwardly steering discussion into thoroughly unrelated topics for the purpose of griping about politics broadly -- please see WP:NOTAFORUM), no there is no equivalent of a right to be forgotten in terms of American legislation or legal precedent. The right to be forgotten is the result of a ruling from the European Court of Justice, and is a fairly new and novel extension of privacy rights that is at present particular to the EU and, in a more narrow context, to Argentina. It has proven controversial in Europe for a number of reasons and there is not, to my knowledge, any serious discussion in any legislative body of proposing such an approach in the U.S., where it would run contrary to a number of major legal principles on rights of expression and inquiry and the established freedoms of the press -- though there is some case law regarding civil cases that have touched upon some related issues. Note however that this is a distinct issue regarding private parties; there are a number of circumstances under U.S. law in which governmental institutions are expected to expunge records after a certain amount of time or under a court order, but there is very little in terms of similar legal mandates that apply to non-governmental agents or the press broadly. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general answer is no. I can provide pointers to some relevant case law if you wish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]