Humanities desk
< November 14	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 16 >

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.

November 15

A Good Text Analysis of Sound of Silence

I am looking for a good interpretive text (not video or recorded, unless there's a transcript) analysis by Paul Simon and others of his song Sound of Silence for a non-native English speaker who has asked for my help. We've both read the article, and I have given my comments, but I'd like to direct them to something more obvious and a lot more in-depth than neon vs. cobblestone, alienation and false gods. Thanks for any assistance. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article references many interviews with Simon in which he discusses his writing process on that song. The summary article itself has some good quotes, and gives enough information that you can probably find the originals. --Jayron 32 12:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This book presents an analysis of the use of metaphor in Sound of Silence, pages 254-259. --Jayron 32 12:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My friend thanks you for the assistance, Jayron, and it's led me to some further help on google. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How rich do first worlders need to be before other developed countries let them move there and not work?

This is not legal advice, whatever this amount is I'll never have it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In guilders, or florins? Trolling does not have to consist of legal advice, as you know. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Medeis, this is the reference desk, not the "Ask random questions that no one should rightly have written about before just to test the limits of what I get away with" desk. Please restrict your questions to concepts and things which people can help you research, not idle speculation based on completely bullshit premises. This particular question (and many you have asked before it) are based on such faulty premises that the question itself isn't even close to answerable because all we could do is spend time correcting the wrongness it is based on, which is so self-evidently wrong it defies the need to even correct. If you're not able to grasp that, to simplify: There's no evidence you have presented that there is a policy by which developed countries will allow "rich people" to move there and not work at all, so to answer "how rich do they have to be" is beyond bullshit, because your premise that they ever would do that is not established fact. We can't answer questions based on not-yet-established suppositions. --Jayron 32 12:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC) ED: My objections have been obviated by people who are not assholes like I am. Carry on. --Jayron 32 17:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The problem here is that there are over 200 nations available as origins and destinations, and SMW hasn't bothered to define any of their terms, so we have a possible ~40,000 different answers. This is simply a matter of asking whatever occurs to the OP, not a well-thought out question or one which it is possible the OP really even cares about in any real-world sense. This is WP:NOTAFORUM, and by conveniently prefacing their (?) question with "This is not legal advice" we can be sure the OP doth protest too much. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, your love of the rules is such that it causes boilerplate knee-jerk preemptive rebuttals. :) And you said I care cause I put a preemptive shh but I don't care cause that's thousands of combinations, which is it? And destination countries have different levels of xenowariness of course but origin countries aren't too dissimilar from each other and relatively high and low values might be more well known in the field which would be an interesting answer (like how Switzerland's pretty well known in the field of guns for lenient gun laws even to those who don't know every gun law on Earth). Or are you're saying I'm asking this for someone else? It seems commonsense that no rich country would let someone do this unless they could live off savings thus they could afford to ask a lawyer instead of asking me (why me?) to ask on the Internet. That's not to say I haven't later agreed with your hatting of something I wrote cause I have. But if you don't hat I usually get an interesting answer and if you do it's not worth arguing, no hard feelings. Someone else might even unhat it and I get the interesting answer anyway. Sorry for the vague and vast question, would you actually be fine if I made a list of countries or would you then complain that that's still hundreds and hundreds of combinations? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Immigrant investor programs, Economic citizenship, Portugal Golden Visa and Google "investment visa <country>" or "golden visa <country>". Basic searching shows that this can be done from between $200,000 and $10 million depending on country. Most offer the opportunity to 'invest' in the government itself. Some, like the UK, allow you to 'fast-track' your citizenship by 'investing' more.[1] Even with a golden visa you will still have to support yourself and pay local taxes. Nanonic (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also [2] for a nice breakdown of a number of countries' requirements. Nanonic (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible to answer this question the other way, of course - what is the least amount of money you need to immigrate. For Canada, for just one person it's $12,300. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case cited by Adam Bishop above, it's for potential immigrants who already qualify on the basis of their skills. Basically, it's money to tide them over until they're fully settled in and able to work in Canada. For investor immigrants (which is what the OP is talking about), the minimum amount was much greater (the program is presently suspended) [3]. --Xuxl (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't see how this applies given the 'not work' part of the question. I'm fairly sure if indicate to any offical involved in the process that you have no intention of seeking work in Canada you will be rejected. Of course the visa may be generous enough that if you don't manage to find work you will be supported rather than being kicked out but the OP seems to be referring to the case where the applicant has no intention of seeking work. And of course, barring special conditions you will likely be expected to be seeking work for any benefit [4]. I mean I guess technically there may be nothing stopping you living with the support of charities for the homeless, but that definitely doesn't seem to be what the OP is referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw this question I thought it was about countries which would allow people in but not give them a work permit. You don't need a golden visa to live in Portugal. There is also the "non-habitual residents scheme". Citizens of EU member countries may live and work there as of right. See [5]. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Western Europe and Eastern Europe

close trolling by user indeffed by checkuser

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

Is Western Europe richer than Eastern Europe?

Longjop (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to define your term. We have articles on Western Europe and Eastern Europe, and each article states that there is no single definition for these terms. In addition there are many ways to define the wealth of a nation: you can start at Gross domestic product and explore from there. -Arch dude (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, see East European economies - East, west and the gap between and News Flash! Western Europe Is Richer Than Eastern Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few different definitions of the wealth of countries. Even out List of countries by GDP (nominal) uses data from three different sources. In any case, the IMF list involves European countries in the following order:

1) Germany.
2) United Kingdom.
3) France.
4) Italy.
5) Russia.
6) Spain.
7) Turkey.
8) Netherlands.
9) Switzerland.
10) Sweden.
11) Poland.
12) Belgium.
13) Austria.
14) Norway.
15) Denmark.
16) Republic of Ireland.
17) Finland.
18) Portugal.
19) Greece.
20) Czech Republic.
21) Romania.
22) Kazakhstan.
23) Hungary.
24) Ukraine.
25) Slovakia.
26) Luxembourg.
27) Bulgaria.
28) Croatia.
29) Belarus.
30) Slovenia.
31) Lithuania.
32) Serbia.
33) Azerbaijan.
34) Latvia.
35) Estonia.
36) Iceland.
37) Cyprus.
38) Bosnia and Herzegovina.
39) Georgia.
40) Albania.
41) Malta.
42) Republic of Macedonia.
43) Armenia.
44) Kosovo.
45) Moldova.
46) Montenegro.
47) San Marino.
Not included in the list: Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Vatican City. Dimadick (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

close trolling by user indeffed by checkuser

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

When will China overtake America as the world's largest economy? When will India become the world's second largest economy? When will India become the world's third largest economy?

Longjop (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read the rules up top, in particular "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that there are sources other than Wikipedia that make economic projections, right? In any case see: List of countries by past and projected GDP (nominal).:

According to the 2017 estimates of PricewaterhouseCoopers, by 2030, China will be 1st, the United States 2nd, India 3rd, and Japan 4th.
According to the 2015 estimates of the Centre for Economic Policy Research, by 2030, China will be 1st, the United States 2nd, India 3rd, and Japan 4th.
According to the 2010 estimates of Standard Chartered, by 2020, China will be 1st, the United States 2nd, India 3rd, and Japan 4th. Dimadick (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reason to love Canada [Was the Joke that Canada was the only nation to have defeated the US historically accurate?]

I read this in the form of a joke entitled "Ten reasons to love Canada". One was that the nation was only one to have defeated the U.S. Is that so ? Did that historically happen ? Or does that mean something that happened altogether different than what seems have been conveyed in the literal sense - akin to something like a joke within a joke ?210.56.109.200 (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how you interpret it, see War of 1812. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is the Battle of Quebec (1775), which took place in what is now Canada. The American revolutionaries suffered a decisive defeat in their attempt to conquer Quebec, and the British were successful in holding present day Canada against the revolution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The United States also suffered a complete and total defeat in the Vietnam War. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the comment from Bill Murray's pep talk in Stripes: "We are 10 and 1!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge: "I guess we're not 0-1-1 anymore." (Korea, Vietnam) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada>US in ice hockey. Related? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that plenty of national sports teams have defeated US teams in various sports at one time or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The United States lost the Vietnam War, but was able to withdraw its troops without many losses and the impact was small. The American casualties were also relatively small. By the estimates Wikipedia includes: 58,318 dead and 303,644 wounded.

The cost of the war was mostly on American morale, as the military forces and their tactics were seen as ineffective. According to Henry Kissinger: "in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail."

The American economy also suffered, because the United States spend an estimated 134.53 billion dollars on the lost war. It contributed to a large budget deficit.

The American military forces also lost faith in conscription, because several Americans lost their lives in infighting between American forces. "Between 1969 and 1971 the US Army recorded more than 700 attacks by troops on their own officers. Eighty-three officers were killed and almost 650 were injured."Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

58,000 is only small compared to some other wars. "I wear the black in mourning for the lives that might have been / Each week we lose a hundred fine young men." -- Johnny Cash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of which relates to the question about Canada. Let’s stay on topic please. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is "has anyone besides Canada defeated the US in battle?" Vietnam is on-topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs has the answer. The trope is based on the War of 1812, when the British Empire, largely represented by locally-recruited Canadian-born soldiers (who weren't, strictly speaking, Canada at the time, given that Canada didn't get responsible government until 1867, and there was no such thing as "Canada" except as some administrative divisions of British North America, but I digress). The simple fact is that "The U.S. was defeated by Canada" means one, and only one thing, and that is the War of 1812. Nothing else is ever meant by the trope, not Hockey games, not beer, nothing. It means the War of 1812. See here for example. Everything else in the above discussion is distraction. Ignore it. --Jayron 32 13:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm that that is what we mean. We will also happily tell you that we burned down the White House, even if there probably weren't any Canadian troops there. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that is the Battle of New Orleans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the answer to that then Johnny Horton? --Jayron 32 20:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Straight Dope has a fairly lengthy column discussing the US loss in the War of 1812 and the role of Canada. [6] CodeTalker (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Flames Across the Border: 1813–1814, the second of a two-book series about the war, Pierre Berton wrote:

Having won the last battle, the Americans were convinced that they won the War of 1812. Having stemmed the tide of invation and kept the Americans out of their country, Canadians believed that they won the war. Having ceded nothing they considered important, the British were serene in the conviction that they won it. But war is not a cricket game. The three nations that celebrated peace were beggared by the conflict, their people bereaved, their treasuries emptied, their graveyards crowded. In North America, the charred houses, the untended farms, the ravaged fields along the border left a legacy of bitterness and distrust.

But the real losers were the Indians...

--69.159.60.147 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breastplate

In this image, Moses (?) is wearing the Priestly breastplate on his back, and perhaps on its side. My question is, is this based on some religous text/tradition, or just artistic license? It kind of has to be on his back if we are to see it in the painting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be Aaron wearing the plate (see Exodus 28:30), and FWIW, I can find no other depiction of anyone wearing it on their back. The breastplate is often used in the iconography of Aaron (see many of the images here), and the artist must have placed it thusly to make it clear who he was, rather than as a correct historical representation of where it was supposed to be worn. --Jayron 32 12:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It´s not Aaron: [7]. Perhaps this scene takes place after Aaron´s death, but that´s speculation on my part. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, the artist really is making a mess of things. Neither Moses nor Joshua would have ever worn the breatplate, as neither was ever the High Priest of Israel. The high priest after Aaron's death would have been Eleazar, and after him Phinehas, and that carries us into the time of the Book of Judges which is well after the death of both Moses and Joshua. --Jayron 32 13:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Still, it´s a nice painting, and for whatever reason the Ark of the Covenant resembles the one in Raiders. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bible is actually amazingly detailed on the design of the Ark; for that reason most depictions tend to be similar and faithful to the original text. Exodus 25 gives the dimensions and ornamentation. It's interesting the painter was so concerned with getting the Ark right, but made a mess of the Urim and Thummim. --Jayron 32 14:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the ark is the cool thing. It would make a kind of sense if the painting was an interpretation of, say, Numbers 27:21.[8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration may have been first published posthumously. There is a note from the publishers, and an introduction. It's possible The Jewish Museum took the title from the book and it's the fault of the publishers.—eric 01:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see another scripturally-inaccurate European painting with the high-priestly breastplate , look at File:Le mariage de la Vierge.jpg, which shows Joseph and Mary being married by the Jerusalem high priest (very implausible in several ways...). AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least he´s wearing it correctly, like Belloq in Raiders.[9] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It matters who you think it would be...Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.80.50.135 (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Sierra-class submarines have shark teeth painted on them?

Did the Russians think it was simply cool or did they serve a purpose? Any other examples of submarine art? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not submarines specifically, but nose art on warplanes is very similar and has a long tradition. Here contains a few other examples. --Jayron 32 14:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not shark but barracuda teeth, Барракуда (Barrakuda) being the project name for the class. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Americans also have a thing for submarine nose art; USS Torsk, USS Redfin, USS Baya and USS Von Steuben have all sported teeth, whereas USS Chicago has had a cow of some sort (only joking, something to do with ~~American football~~ basketball I believe). If anyone is thinking of writing an article, I found nothing which could conceivably be used as a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be basketball, could be Chicago's traditional association with cattle processing (which is why the basketball team is called the Bulls). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was that it was rather too close a resemblance to the team's logo to be a coincidence. Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navsource.org, which seems at least semi-reliable, says it is in tribute to the Chicago Bulls. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems plausible. And interesting that it was expected to wash away after a few dives. As an aside, you may or may not be aware of Cows on Parade, which were on display in downtown Chicago in the late 1990s or so. In olden times (until about the 1920s) they used to actually have cattle drives down city streets. That wouldn't work so well now - they would get stuck in traffic! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such "sentiments" have the function to boost the Morale of the soldiers. Allot like military medals and traditions, probably to distract from the functional core of this sector which apriori frequently becomes an "ice cold, down to the(your) bone" reality. --Kharon (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"allot" (v.): To distribute or apportion by (or as if by) lot. I think you meant "a lot". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

A lot meant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two disasters, same cause

I know the American Red Cross helped out in the relief efforts following the sinking of the RMS Titanic aftermath. But did the same organization do the same thing in the Hindenburg disaster aftermath?2604:2000:7113:9D00:42A:E2CE:C3D7:55E7 (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is Yes. Checking newspapers.com (a pay site) I see blurbs that both national and regional officials were dispatched immediately to help where possible. Keep in mind that the loss of life with the Hindenburg was way much smaller than with Titanic: 36 vs. somewhere around 1,500. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much.2604:2000:7113:9D00:E489:B375:36EB:1AC5 (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "cause", I assume you mean "charitable cause"? Because the Hindenburg crash was most definitely not caused by an iceberg. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were both caused by physics! ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The captains of both ships failed to realize the gravity of the situation until it was too late. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean charitable cause.142.255.69.73 (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where there are icebergs, there's evaporation. When things evaporate, skies get cloudy. Cloudy skies bring lightning strikes. That's not to say the ship was or wasn't struck by lightning, but if it were, it's not unfathomable that vapour from the Titanic's old foe (or one of its kinderbergs) regrouped and reformed over the next 24 years, circling the currents until the perfect opportunity for East Coast vengeance. Or it might've happened purely by coincidence. Water moves in mysterious ways, even when it all looks the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That theory reminds me of the Pig-Pen character in A Charlie Brown Christmas, and about how the dirt that covers him could have been trod upon by Solomon or other biblical figures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mudwell the Mudbunny said something similar. "Look beneath your boots and I'll be there." Dude's talking about soil instead of dust, but isn't all dust just unreturned ground waiting for rain and lightning to revive it again? Verily I say unto thee, perhaps. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]