Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 25

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 25

Fiction Type

Hello all! I have a question on what the heck kind of a...thing...I'm writing. It's set up almost like a screenplay or scriptment, where everything is presented in detail, save for the dialogue, which is largely paraphrased, and the inclusion of italicized, stream-of-consciousness thoughts. Some of the descriptions also tend to use very odd metaphors. So, what IS this thing? It's like a weird blend of scriptment, poetry, and novel, but whenever I try to pull it one way or the other, it just seems to lose its honesty and the message I'm trying to convey. Is this a funky new fiction type, or am I pretty much in a sinking boat? Because I really do enjoy writing it... Thanks!

Update: Thank you to everyone! I consulted with another person too and they suggested Dracula-style as well, so I'll give that a try (with my own author's voice). Thanks so much once again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.148.173 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

74.46.148.173 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a novel of a non-standard form, especially if the 'finished product' is the text itself, rather than a dramatisation, reading, or other interpretation. There are plenty of examples of novels that are not in strict narrative form: Dangerous Liaisons is a classic epistolary novel (consisting entirely of letters); Dracula is a sort of dossier of source material, including letters, diary entries, and even a transcript of an early audio recording; House of Leaves is a good example of ergodic literature (that article isn't great, but it provides additional examples of non-linear works). Good luck! AlexTiefling (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You might give the works of James Joyce a read and see how your writing compares. Edison (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Makrous (?), Saratov Oblast, 1943/45

From the testimony, written in 1946, of a Jewish girl from Poland whose family had fled eastward early in WWII: in around 1943 the family was permitted to relocate to "Makrous in the region of Saratov" where her widowed mother worked in a kolkhoz (and her two brothers were drafted and subsequently killed at the front in '44 and '45, the fate of their father in '41). I haven't succeeed in identifying a locale of this name; perhaps it's misspelled? (I don't have access to the original Russian-language document.) Suggestions welcome. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The TImes Atlas of the World spells it Mokrous. This report on the great bustard (pdf! here is the html file) has a map showing the same place spelled "Makrous". It lies on the road heading east from Engels, the road to Kazakhstan. It is just to the north-west of Krasny Kut. The atlas gives 51.15N 47.30E. The article Administrative divisions of Saratov Oblast spells it "Mokrous (Мокроус)" too. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

genocide curves

Where can I find genocide curves (graphs)? I mean by number of deaths (ie time would be x, deaths y), starting with the first deaths on the way to snowballing to the larger genocide? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.57.251 (talk • contribs)

We have an article on mass extinction. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Would that really be relevant when the question is mass deaths of humans? Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I am misinterpreting, but based on his comments to my similar question above (which prompted me to ask this one) Cookatoo may be referring specifically to Palestinians (by analogy with other extinct or soon-to-be-extinct _____)

I was not specifically referring to some arbitrarily selected group of humans, I was referring to humans (ie homo (genus)) in general. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

then I apologize (and have striken the text). In this case however your statement is doubly odd odd because genocide never refers to homo sapiens. That would be human extinction... 79.122.57.251 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The page here on genocide defines it, per the original coinage by Raphael Lemkin who introduced the term in 1943, by its intention: the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. It is not merely a mass-murder body count that "snowballs" (i.e. increasing in size and weight as it gathers momentum by sheer force of gravity?); your metaphor is inappropriate as it disregards the definitive element of intent. Rather, seek and read the documents and reportage stating such intent. Then if you still found the task relevant, you yourself might construct such a chart based on dates and figures you can find through study of the genocide(s) that concern you, should such a ready-made chart not be found easily or at all. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen war casualty curves (and modelling work around it). There is (was) a website detailing the statistics of the conflict in Iraq. Have you tried searching for "statistics of genocides"? Perhaps in a social science/statistical journal? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Deborahjay - I've found stellar references for clear dehumanizing and ethnic intent against ethnic Palestinians at the highest levels of Israeli leadership, ie the way Nazi germany talked and thought of Jews there, as it started to kill them off (see my question toward the top of the page). I would like to compare the Palestinian death count over time with other historical genocides. PalaceGuard has good suggestions, but unfortunately it's somewhat outside my reach. This seems like a really simple question, I mean genocide is a problem that has seen a lot of documentation and research, anyone able to think of an appropriate reference for me?? Thank you! 79.122.57.251 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Making such a statement with without (fixing own original typo) providing the actual "stellar references" is at best hatemongering and at worst racist and/or antisemitic. Please provide the exact references which you claim prove such a genocidal intent, or your posts are likely to be removed. Making unsupported negative claims against individuals or groups of individuals is not an acceptable way to format questions or to qualify them, IMO // BL \\ (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, people, remember that Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks, ie you can't say I am "hatemongering" or "racist and/or antisemitic" when I say that I am talking about the clear dehumanizing intent at the highest levels of Israeli leadership. The reference desk is NOT a soapbox, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. If you want my stellar references you can search Google yourself using the terms I used to allude to the references, you will find them very easily. The only reason I mentioned it is to give you an idea of what I am interested in knowing about, genocide curves. However, my question has not been answered; I've only just been directed to "search journals" which is outside my capacity. Thank you..79.122.75.197 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

BL, I think we would do well to simply ignore trolling like the above by the anon. At the same time, the statistical distribution of deaths over time in calamities, of which I would say certain genocidal episodes are examples, is a topic that has been much investigated and published. Hence I recommended the OP to search some professional journals.

Thank you for your recommendation, however this is outside my easy capacities. Is there no simpler reference you could direct me to? Thank you. 79.122.75.197 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Deborahjay, a genocide does not have to start as a genocide, but the earlier murders may well, post facto, be seen as part of the genocidal episode. Was the genocidal intent present in the little random incidences of violence prior toKristallnacht? Probably not. But today we still see them as part of the whole genocidal episode. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DO you have statistics for any "little random incidences of violence"...I mean ex post facto body counts, etc, as historical genocides have been pieced together after the fact in their etyology? Thank you. 79.122.75.197 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are hoping that one of us here on the ref desk just happens to be a statistician specialising in rate-of-casulty research, and that that person would make their data freely available to you... I'm afraid the chances are rather slim.

A website similar to what I was referring to on the Iraq war is iCasualties. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Chatter that it sounds like nobody wants

to the people calling me racist troll etc

First of all, Israeli leadership is not a race or ethnicity, whereas Palestinians are. So it is impossible to be racist when talking about what Israeli leadership thinks or does, and using this term about me is a personal attack and should be removed. Israeli leadership means just that: the leadership of a country. There is no inkling of racism in any of my statements.

Secondly people accused me of being a troll for "qualifying" my question with allusions that I didn't actually soapbox on about. The reference desk is NOT a place to try to convince people of anything, for me to start listing the ways in which my stellar references show the highest levels of Israeli leadership has clear dehumanizing ethnic intent of the Palestinians would be just that: soapboxing. I'm not here to start a debate. If you are interested you could simply Google it, using the very terms I used.

Israel is a country, like America, France, China, etc. Please, please, please, people, don't identify a country's leadership with its people, as the poster above did when he said claims about Israel's leadership are claims about "groups". The thinking that country's leadership=its ethnic people is the exact reason Germans would not have critized Hitler: doing so would be "anti-German".

Just my two cents. Pleaes don't make more personal attacks against me, since I am not soapboxing and not trying to convince anyone of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.57.251 (talk • contribs)

My remarks were not a personal attack at all, but purely comments on the unsupported content of what you wrote, and the possible effects of such unverified content. This would seem to me to be the definition of what a "personal attack" is not. As the Ref Desk at large seems prepared to accept both the questions and your subsequent amplifications, removals and clasifications of others' text, here and on the talk page, I am finshed with this. // BL \\ (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't much care for the question, and I am certainly not prepared to accept the wanton deletion of other's contributions based on spurious accusations of personal attacks. I've tried to restore the deleted content so there is at least a complete record here. - Eron^Talk 17:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted but only moved and you know it. The word "wanton" in "wanton deletion" (which did not happen, but only a move) is another personal attack.

What can be better-faith than moving things that BELONG on the talk page, TO the talk page, with a note?

The fact is, this is the reference desk, not a soapbox for you and others. When you cover up my question with a bunch of spurious accusations about me being a troll, hatemongering ("at best") and antisemitic ("at worst") -- when I clearly have done none of this -- in order for me not to receive an answer to my questions about history, you are pushing some absurd POV agenda to keep me from learning facts about genocides. WHY??? 79.122.75.197 (talk)

You deleted content from this page. I restored it. Material is deleted and restored all the time around here where there is question as to its suitability for the Reference Desk. The appropriate forum to discuss such things is on the Talk page. - Eron^Talk 18:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved it, leaving a note linking to the where I moved it on the talk page -- where it is much more appropriate. You moved it back then said I "wantonly deleted" content, as opposed to the truth, which is that I moved it with a note and link. Big difference. 79.122.75.197 (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

proposal to move everything but the question and answers to the talk page

I feel that so much of the above material including my responses are wildly inappropriate for this page, since my question remains unanswered and is now buried from those who would know the answer by a bunch of inappropriate needless junk. Here, I propose that the above discussions exist only on the talk page and not here as an eyesore to everyone. I propose a version like this one. Please let me know below if I have your support in moving spurious debate to the talk page, where it belongs, and leaving the (unanswered) question here. 79.122.75.197 (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I oppose. It'll disappear anyway, why move it to clutter elsewhere and would last longer? If it really is to be obscured the way is to have it all expanded if a little button is clicked. Genocide is controversial anyway as you have found out above and you'll have problems getting a proper definition. What's wrong with just putting in all war, civil war, genocide deaths and other state or nation caused massacres and pogroms together? The end result is lots of dead people caused by state sponsored hate or fear. By the way you won't get any friends calling people's contributions inappropriate needless junk. Dmcq (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

why move the clutter? So my question could maybe be answered? Instead, editors here are intent on keeping me from being able to check my facts from facts from others. I didn't claim anything about death count curves, I wanted to learn something about them. But this bothered editors very much, because the reason I was interested is because I'm interested in the actions of another country's leadership, which they identify with a race. Question that country's leadership, and you are racist. But you are right about the fact that "Genocide is controversial anyway as [I] have found out above" -- in fact, I learned more about Genocide than that it is controversial: I learned a much harder lesson about genocide. I learned how Hitler was able to vamp up from a small incident killing 100 jews to killing 6 million without opposition from decent people around him. I realized that all he had to do was identify himself with the German people, so that criticing Hitler would be "racist" (against the Germans). This is exactly what I learned from criticizing I****l's (maybe the asterisks will keep me from getting slandered below!) leadership -- I was called racist and antisemitic, because the people who called me this confused Israeli leadership for Jews. I had convern based on the fact that according to my stellar references I***el has been vamping up the rate of change in Palestinain deaths over time, genocidally (=genocidal because of its intent, which you can see in dehumanizing ethnic intent expressed at the highest levels of I****li leadership, again, from stellar references). Note: to anyone who might get angry that I just criticized a country's leadership, the problem is with you, not me. What is very interesting is that I am looking to confirm or refute the numbers -- I want to actually compare historical genocide curves with what is going on to Palestinians. It's very weird for me to get such negative reaction to questioning LEADERSHIP, since probably almost every editor here is from a very free country in which there is a strong tradition, certainly in the past decades, to keeping authority in check, not just accepting whatever state power does like it's mussolini's italy here. Nobody here is a fascist who thinks it's great that state leaders should wield godly powers of life and death. I can raise concerns about any country, from America to Zaire, and my factual questions will get answered so that I can decide for myself whether America is vamping up civilian deaths in Iraq with ethnic intent (ie genocide), whether France is vamping up civilian deaths with ethnic intent (ie genocide) anywhere, whether Zaire is vamping up civilian deaths in Iraqq with ethnic intent (ie genocide). The one country whose leadership I cannot critizise -- as if I were living in fascist Italy and wanted to question Italian leadership! -- is a country whose leadership readers here identify with race. So, if you want to know how Hitler was able to vamp up to murdering six million Jews without opposition from those, those in Germany, who could have affected his decision, the answer is easy: all he had to do was identify himself with germans as a race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.220.60 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I put in a straightforward proposal about your question since your original did not have a real meaning. How about discussing the question that you said you wanted an answer to instead of wasting everybody's time with spiels like that as above? This is not a forum or personal blog. Dmcq (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, THIS IS NOT A CHATROOM. Stop now. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mozart abbreviations

As I'm going through my Mozart collection, I just discovered an unfamiliar abbreviation: a piano piece labelled "allegro and allegretto in F major, KV Anh. 135". I'm assuming that this is the same as the "Sonata in F for Keyboard" listed in Köchel catalogue with that abbreviation; but what does "Anh." mean? Talk page discussion suggests that it may mean "appendix" or "addendum", but the person posting that comment sounded somewhat uncertain, and no source is provided. Google didn't reveal anything when I looked; can someone get a good source for this? Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's almost certainly KV Anhang 135. See e.g. this. --Dr Dima (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks perfect. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely Anhang, meaning the appendix to Köchel's original list of Mozart's works. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhlans in Literature

Dear all,

I am researching a reference to the Uhlans in Pushkin's <<Метель>>. I know about Father Milon, War and Peace, etc. - but in the back of my mind lies a memory of a short story which mentions the Uhlan whose name I cannot remember.

The story involves two men who meet. One goes to the other's appartment, and there sees pictures and a uniform from when his friend was in the Uhlan, over which the friend becomes very emotional. The story is definitely in English, but I can remember very little more.

Sorry for what poor information I can provide, but I would be deeply grateful if this rang a bell for anyone!

Thanks,

86.161.65.228 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I should know whether the following suggestion is true or not, but I don't (I bought the novella but haven't got around to finishing it). The book I'm referring to is Tolstoy's Hadji Murat. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dev Patel

Hi. I reverted vandalism on Dev Patel's article and I read (after reverting vandalism) that he is referred to be British Indian. My question is: Is he considered a British Indian because of his ethnicity or because he has dual citizenship?. Thanks and forgive any spelling mistake, as you can see, I am not native. Kisses all. --201.254.73.58 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The term British Indian applies to someone who is British with Indian Ancestry, not necessarily with dual citizenship. While I have no specific knowledge of Dev Patel, since he was born in the UK it is probable that he does not have dual citizenship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, to my knowledge, India does not have dual citizenship so the term is definitely being used as an ethnic label.199.43.12.100 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Title of a late 60s/early 70s British sci-fi novel

Does anyone know the title of a 1960s/70s sci fi book in which a couple of men carry out an experiment and visit the afterlife, which appeared to be like living in rural Norfolk in the 1950s?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trellism (talk • contribs) 20:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Very flat, Norfolk. Or so I've heard. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)