Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 July 6

Humanities desk
< July 5	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 7 >

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.

July 6

Specific style of living poet

I’m looking for some living or recently living poets who write in a specific style. Because I’m not very familiar with the modern poetry scene I thought I’d ask here. I don’t care what nationality or language the poets come from.

I’m looking for poets who:

1. Write very intellectual avant-guard poetry.
2. Poets who are non-realist (or not completely realist).
3. Poets who are concerned with ordinary modern objects and experiences (smoke alarms, cars, Iraq war, etc.)
4. Poets who view the world in a very eccentric, creative, perhaps surrealist way.

Wikipedia seems to have very little on current poetry movements. The closest things I’ve found to what I’m looking for are parts of the libretto Alice Goodman wrote for The Death of Klinghoffer. Some poems by H.D. and Elizabeth Bishop come close. Michel Gondry pictures seem like the film version of what I’m looking for in poetry. Brian Turner comes close too sometimes. I guess what I’m looking for could be called Kitchen Sink Non-Realism. :)

Hope someone has some clue what I’m talking about! Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Long ago Wallace Stevens offered many ways of looking at an ordinary blackbird, and a plain jar on a hill in Tennessee.--Wetman (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"To know" in the Biblical sense

Did this particular euphemism originate in the King James Bible(or for that matter, a different Biblical translation), or is it a literal translation of a word/phrase from ancient Hebrew? 69.106.4.120 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The euphemism originates in the Hebrew, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The verb in question is one with triliteral root ידע y-d-` and/or ודע w-d-` (where ` is the voiced pharyngeal consonant). AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's consider that there is not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between the words in any one language and any other. As the biblical Hebrew word predated the English, the use of "to know" is not so much a euphemism as the inadequate nature of the nearest likely equivalent, based on the conventional usage of "to know" and ידע (the word given by AnonMoos, above). Both primarily mean having knowledge (in the cogntive sense), and in regard to persons, "to be acquainted with". According to Even-Shoshan's New Dictionary (1999 edition, 5 vol.), the fourth of four meanings of that Hebrew word is glossed as the verbs בעל = a man's having possession (= ownership) of a woman (e.g. Adam => Eve) and הזדווג = to copulate (reciprocal). Besides, Modern Hebrew has an entirely other word, הכיר, meaning "to be acquainted with [somebody]". Hope this helps! (and sorry I don't know how to write the Hebrew words with full vocalization) -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy quote

This is killing me. I could've sworn this quote was from Steve Martin, but now that I research it, I can't find the quote online AT ALL! I think I got it from a documentary on Steve Martin or philosophy, but maybe I stole this from a professor? Either way, if this looks familiar to anyone, I'd love to know where it came from:

“ College philosophy teaches you just enough to really fuck you up. ”

Thanks --Shaggorama (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant Steve Martin's quote from Wild and Crazy Guy: "If you're studying geology, which is all facts, as soon as you get out of school you forget it all… but philosophy, you remember just enough to screw you up for the rest of your life." -- kainaw™ 02:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's conflating Steve Martin with Philip Larkin. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Kainaw had it right, but thanks for the poem. --Shaggorama (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

new rational

The threat of domestic and international terrorism for development of nuclear weapons of mass destruction seems to have dampened enthusiasm for building nuclear power plants which might directly drive aluminum smelters to recycle aluminum from spent aluminum-air batteries, which have an energy density equal to gasoline.

It seems quite logical then that prevention of the replacement of crude-oil based fuel with a metal (aluminum) based fuel would be a motive for maintaining a threat of domestic and international terrorism by oil rich states.

By making everyone afraid to build nuclear power plants that might free us from a crude-oil based economy we seem to be slaves of terrorism and herein seems to be the delimia with which the world is faced.

Is it irrational to think that this might be the practical motive for terrorism as sponsored by oil rich states or is this just unfounded speculation? -- adaptron (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You answered your own question. If you are trying to start a discussion about terrorism and the world oil-based economies, please use one of the many discussion forums on the Internet. If you have a request for factual information, please ask. This is a reference desk, not a discussion forum. -- kainaw™ 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Rudeness is a characteristic which you think is a virtue but it is not. -- adaptron (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Adaption, please do not take the directness of Kainaw's answer as rudeness. You are asking us to discuss the rationale of your theory, which is out of the scope of this reference desk. As Kainaw suggested, there are many other forums online where your question will be warmly received and responded to, but it is not our practice at the reference desk to speculate. Reading Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines may help you better understand why we can't help you here. Good luck. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I provided a rational for the question I did not ask for a discussion but rather a yes or no answer, since I can not find a yes or no answer to this question in any of the articles about energy economics. I am not asking you to discuss anything. At most I would be asking you to suggest Wikipedia articles. The discussion has already occurred elsewhere. In my effort to participate in that discussion in an informed and knowledgably way I began looking for answers in Wikipedia articles on energy economics and found nothing. If you can't answer yes or no and you can not address the content of the question then my expectation is for you ignore the question in hopes that it might be answered by someone else. Despite the challenge for your egos the reference desk is open to all members of the Wikipedia to answer questions and not just to a few volunteers manning the reference desk. Otherwise responses could only be provided by the reference desk staff. As John McCain once said to Cindy about the University of Southern California, the Wikipedia reference is otherwise known as the reference desk of spoiled children but this is not what I came here to ask. -- adaptron (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you say you just want a yes or no answer, here it is: No, this just unfounded speculation. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"the Wikipedia reference is otherwise known as the reference desk of spoiled children but this is not what I came here to ask" why did you come here to ask then? I personally don't tend to ask important questions of spoiled children... Anyway the answer is yes it is irrational. P.S. Has it occured to you that there might be a reason why you can't find a simple yes or no answer to a complicated question in articles intended to be about rational discussion and not simplistic nonsense Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Is it irrational to think that this might be the practical motive for terrorism as sponsored by oil rich states or is this just unfounded speculation?" - Both. It is both irrational and an unfounded speculation. Plasticup ^T/C 13:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

population

What is population?what is india's population?what is the male and female population in india? what is the concentration of population in india? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.190.253 (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Population of India will help you focus your question. --Wetman (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Guinness

Why does Guinness use, in the titles of their books, the following year instead of the current year? 208.76.245.162 (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The books are intended for a Christmas release - since Christmas occurs right at the end of year, it would seem out-of-date to give someone the 2008 Guinness Book of World Records at the very end of the year, especially if they didn't get to open the present until after New Year - giving them the 2009 Guinness Book of World Records would be more timely. Laïka 14:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could also think of it like this. The 2008 Guinness Book of World Records has the records as of 2008 (more or less). We can't be sure what records would be broken in 2009. Perhaps Microsoft will release Windows 7 for free and it will get 20 million downloads in one day beating the shit out of FF3. Perhaps we'd find someone in some lost African tribe 3 metres tall. Clearly these records if they are achieved in 2009 should be in the 2009 Guinness Book but we wouldn't expect them in the 2008 book Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it cannot be fixed. In order to change it, they would have to release another 2008 book, or skip 2008's release, or release 2008v2. No matter what they do, it effectively means losing a year's release. This is similar to the video games based on professional sports. They are all a year ahead. In August 2008, "Madden NFL 2009" will be released, based on the 2007-2008 rosters with as many updates to the rosters as they could cram in before the game went into production (probably around May 2008). It should be "Madden NFL 2008ish" - but who would buy that? -- kainaw™ 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet it can seem confusing, if you compare it with, say, the Oscars. Achievements relating to films released in 2007 were recognised at the 2007 Oscars, which were presented in 2008. World records that occurred prior to some cut-off date (presumably in early-mid 2007) were recognised in the 2008 Guinness, which was published in 2007. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some people refer to the Oscars presented in 2008 (for films released in 2007) as the 2008 Oscars. The IMDB does this, for example. Personally I think it's very confusing.

As for Guinness, it's not just them; many annual reference books are published late in the year and dated the following year. They may justify it on the grounds that for most of that year it will be the newest available edition, but really it's just marketing, a way to make the thing look newer than it really is. Similarly note that, at least in North America, the dates on magazines are normally the date when the following issue will appear. For that matter, morning newspapers are commonly printed the day before. --Anonymous, 07:12 UTC, July 8, 2008.

Image

I thought they were mortal enemies! Why are they being nice to each other? 124.180.187.161 (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, they weren't. But even if they had been, they had some basic manners and understanding of diplomacy, which would have enabled them to meet and discuss the things they had to discuss -- such as, you know, not destroying the world in a nuclear inferno. Certain recent loud protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, it's preferable to have a line of communication with your enemy. You should understand that even though during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union were opposing each other, that doesn't mean the people in charge of those nations necessarily considered each other "mortal enemies". It wasn't personal. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, see also Geneva_Summit#1985:_Reagan_and_Gorbachev. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, they met thrice (85/Geneva, 86/Reykjavik, 87/Washington). Reagan realised fairly early the "revolutionary" aspects of Gorbachev's goals and the latter appreciated the support of Reagan to implement perestroika and glasnost in the then USSR. Indeed, at the end of his 2nd term Reagan gave most of the credit for the "Reagan revolution" to the (last) Soviet leader. Maybe it is of less importance in Australia, but we in Europe would still live in the middle of a cold war, had it not been for the courage of these two to sidestep the antagonism of decades. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gorbachev was not a mortal enemy of the US. Indeed, it was his lack of hardline aspects that eventually led to the Soviet state collapsing, hoisted up as it was on the back of hardline policies. Even Margaret Thatcher once espoused: "I like Mr. Gorbachev, we can do business together." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Working on Sundays

Would a hobby like gardening, woodworking, or fishing be considered working? I hate just sitting around on Sundays since the Bible says you aren't supposed to work on Sundays. Can someone please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler123459 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You should speak to a priest, or other religious adviser since if you believe in such things, it depends on whatever you believe. Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason why you are not supposed to work on holy days is not to sit around, but to pray and to study holy writ. Corvus cornix_talk 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's the "day of rest", and you find those activities restful, then go ahead, I say. StuRat (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Bible says you shouldn't work on the sabbath, which was originally Friday night and Saturday daytime. The early Church moved it to Sunday in part to differentiate Christian practice from Judaism, although some Christians, notably Seventh-Day Adventists, still observe Saturday as the sabbath. Jewish practice clearly forbids gardening, woodworking and likely fishing on the sabbath; see Activities prohibited on Shabbat. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish practice is much more codified and rigorously interpreted (if not necessarily rigorously followed) than most other faiths. Most other faiths are relatively liberal and some are perfectly ok with people going to work, going shopping, doing the gardening, fixing the fence or the roof, mowing the lawn, having a party, or what have you. You'd have to ask the particular religious adviser exactly where they draw the line. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the things I don't understand about Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity -- how, without an equivalent to halakhah or sharia, questions like this get answered. As Jack says, in Judaism, it's pretty cut and dried; there's a bunch of stuff you can't do on the sabbath, although modern innovations like electricity lead to unresolved questions. Who makes the call in Christianity, and based on what? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're a Christian you should look up the story where Jesus heals a fellow on the sabbath and he goes home carrying his bedding with him and the rabbis throw a fit and he calls them out for it. If you're a Jew you should look up the relevant verses in the Torah and really consider, given the rationale, where the sensible boundaries are. When it comes down to it this is all between you and God, and anyone who gets inbetween what is written and tells you what to do is just telling you their or someone else's interpretation and there's nothing I've ever seen in there that says they're more right than you or their interpretation is more authoritative in the sight of God than anyone else's. Maybe I'm overstepping my bounds in writing this but as far as I'm concerned, if you're doing all of this for God then look up what God says and if you're doing it for your place in the community then listen to what the people-who-like-telling-others-what-to-do tell you to do. -LambaJan (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Although many people call themselves "Christians", they can't look to any single human authority to tell them what the rules are, because there is no such authority. You have to be content with the Presbyterian version, or the Catholic version, or the Mormon version, or what have you. Even then, in my experience, one priest/minister may say one thing, but a different priest/minister (of the same denomination) may say something quite contradictory. Ultimately, it's a matter of conscience. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Using google with "bible" and "concordance" gives a site where you can look things up in the bible. Selective copy and paste with "sabbath" gives

Exodus 35:2 'Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of solemn rest to Yahweh: whoever does any work in it shall be put to death.

Matthew 12:11 He said to them, "What man is there among you, who has one sheep, and if this one falls into a pit on the Sabbath day, won't he grab on to it, and lift it out?

Matthew 12:12 Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day." Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)