Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 October 31
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 30 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | November 1 > |
| 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. |
October 31 edit
Does anybody know where I could find a recent edition of this work available online? Preferably free, but even if not? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 11:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- As it's copyright, no, you won't be able to get a free edition online. I've had a quick search of the publisher's website, and they do not appear to have an online edition available. DuncanHill (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Erskine May is a frequently reissued standard legal text; it has to be updated every so often because of major changes in Parliamentary rules and practice. The current edition is the 23rd, published in 2004, but the 24th is due out next year (for £267). Given that publishers Butterworths also do LexisNexis UK, it may well be available within a subscription but it is not yet. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am writing from Germany. The german Wikipedia-article about Halloween [1] (including some of its weblinks) states, that Halloween has more of a christian backround and nothing to do with celtic culture, and that "Samhain" "as an ancient godof death" "is not known to science". According to the german article, the whole celts in Ireland-thing is more of a romantic myth from the 19th century. I read the english article, however, and read other things there, and now I wonder whats true. Are there any reputable, scientific sources online? I would assume, the english article with its sources is correct, but is it really? --93.242.51.124 (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just a quick glance gives me the impression that the en article is "better sourced" than the de article. I'll try to see if I can find something more available online though... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thx! The german article can only benefit from that. --93.242.51.124 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Also:
- History.com supports the English version. If you want something still more authoritative than that, there seems to be plenty on the topic at Google books. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- From my Google search for halloween samhain site:.edu, I found the following pages.
- See also Great Apostasy. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- See http://www.jesuskommtbald.de/weitere-themen/halloween in German, and its translation into English by Google.
- —Wavelength (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can only emphasise WikiDao´s comments above. The German articles on Samhain and Halloween are quite poor on references when compared to the English equivalents. Indeed, the only scientific reference in the Halloween stuff is Bernhard Maier: Die Religionen der Kelten, dealing with Hallstatt, La Tene, Celtiberians and English / Welsh / Irish Celtic cultures (bits are accessible online). It seems that Prof Maier (he leaches at a private university in Bonn) very deliberately stresses the paucity of historic evidence (de bello Gallico / Germanico by the obscure Roman anthroplogist J. Ceasar) and avoids any speculations on a transition from Celtic to Christian feasts. Of course, the situation in mainland Europe was / is totally different to the "remains" of celtic culture in Wales and Ireland. You may want to check a library for Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia by John Koch (also available for a measly EUR 600 from Amazon). PS: Grüße aus Wien... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. Unfortunately, the german article is not open for editing for IPs. Maybe someone else can change it. I have linked to this discussion here. --93.242.51.124 (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thus we encounter the disadvantages of Wikipedia versus a 'real' encyclopedia. Not to say that there aren't disadvantages to both. schyler (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here are two additional links.
- http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/halloween.html (in English)
- Halloween - Google Verzeichnis (in German)
- —Wavelength (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Scholarship essay on college application edit
I'm currently filling out a college application (to the University of Kansas, so United States relevant advice is needed here), and it requires a scholarship essay (500 word maximum). There were three prompts to choose from, and the prompt I have chosen is:
| “ | The Irish writer William Butler Yeats wrote, "Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire." What do you think he means by this? | ” |
I have what I want to write in response and everything vaguely planned out (if I make more than a vague outline of what I want to write, then my writing quality goes down because I try to stick to my outline too close and my essay doesn't flow very well), but there are three things that I don't know for sure.
- Should I write the essay in first person ("I think that Yeats (in all likelihood?) meant ______") or third person ("Yeats (probably?) meant _______")?
- Should I include adverbs such as the "in all likelihood", "probably", or "perhaps" in my essay (in the style like in my examples here) to indicate that they are my own conclusions about what he meant (opinion rather than fact)?
- Is there any particular format (such as MLA or APA) that I should put my essay into, given that it does not specify a requirement for any particular style, or should I just type it in normal paragraph form with the first line of every paragraph indented and with default Microsoft Word (2003) font and margins?
Thanks in advance, Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's pretty obvious that you are writing from your perspective, and so I'd suggest starting off with a more declarative tone, "By comparing education to igniting a fire as opposed to filling a bucket, Yeats meant to..." The concern would be coming across as arrogant, but I wouldn't say that's arrogant. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- 1. It's asking you what you think, so answering in the first person is not inappropriate. Personally I would do the third person though, as it sounds more professional and is more characteristic of college writing. It is not asking you what you feel — it is asking you to analyze an idea.
- 2. I think you should avoid weasel words and state things boldly. I think Yeats' point is fairly straightforward here and does not require a lot of guesswork. The more qualifiers you put, the less confident you seem in your own analysis. I think the stronger responses will take for granted that you can interpret what Yeats is trying to say on a basic level (it is pretty obvious and you will not distinguish yourself by showing your ability to read it at face value) and reach beyond that for a more synthetic assessment (for example: what is the implication of Yeats' view — if we believe it to be true — for the modern American educational system?).
- 3. If you are not citing anything I don't think it matters much what style you use. If you are citing things, just pick a style and stick with it. I would personally just put it in Times New Roman, double-spaced, standard margins (e.g. 1" margins, or 1" on all sides except 1.25"-1.5" on left). The less your readers think about your formatting choices, the better.
- Just my two cents as someone who teaches undergraduates; obviously this is rather subjective. Keep in mind that the entire game of admissions is to distinguish yourself from the hundreds if not thousands of other high school students who have resumes very similar to your own. You don't want to do it in a slipshod way (e.g. writing everything in a funny font or making a joke of the prompt), but there is something to be gained from being a bit bold. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder if the university expects him to agree or disagree with Yeats? After all, the modern college doesn't exist to create starving artists and revolutionaries, but to graduate a class of people who can consistently show job interviewers that they have the proper skill set to succeed in an entry level position. Wnt (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely zero college professors or admissions officers think of their job as filling a bucket. Expressing a cynical view of the purpose of higher education will not get you any points, I assure you. From a very practical standpoint, you don't want to endorse to a view of education in your admissions materials that degrades the job of your potential admitting institution. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I was being snide, yet colleges sell themselves in that way so often nowadays. Perhaps it is only natural then that hypocrisy is one of the skills measured on the initial aptitude examination... Wnt (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Whether they want to create revolutionaries or businessmen doesn't really affect whether they see their work as bucket filling. I should note that I'm not opposed to taking a counterintuitive position on these kind of prompts, but you absolutely cannot make it look like you see higher education as frivolous whatever you do. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Content is your job, not ours, but I think you're entitled to a hint or two, given that you're clever-enough to think of asking for advice here. Do you remember all the times when you would ask a teacher what a word meant, in school, and he or she would say, "Look it up"? This would be a good time to remember that advice, and a good time to make it explicit that you've done so. Look up "educe" and "education" in the Oxford English Dictionary, and pay attention to the etymology. All the profs/scorers with a humanities background will love you dearly if you will quote and cite either the etymology or the most-relevant definition from the OED, or both, and then explain why that's important. You can probably access the OED online if you have a library card for your local public library. It'll help you understand the Yeats quotation, too. ( It does have to be the OED, btw; Websters' won't give you anything like the same credibility. ) Even smarter would be to locate the Yeats quotation in its original context, if possible, and make brief mention of that in your essay, without waving your hands around and saying, "Look what I did!" Humility with an obvious, rock-solid basis for the case you make is what you want to present. I would guess that fewer than 1 in 100 essays would do the first, and fewer than 1 in maybe 500 would do both, yet they're perfectly obvious ideas. Doing them both will establish you as someone willing to undertake the "heavy lifting" that's necessary to produce thoroughly researched, college-level work. Also, I agree with the previous replies: Don't hedge with "probably", "possibly", and so on. Instead, "I think", "I believe", or (at most) "It's my opinion that" should be the furthest you go in that direction. Happy researching, happy writing, and have a great time at the University of Kansas. – OhioStandard (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wiktionary stands up pretty well here also, though admittedly you won't get the same credit for referencing it! Wnt (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Content is your job, not ours, but I think you're entitled to a hint or two, given that you're clever-enough to think of asking for advice here. Do you remember all the times when you would ask a teacher what a word meant, in school, and he or she would say, "Look it up"? This would be a good time to remember that advice, and a good time to make it explicit that you've done so. Look up "educe" and "education" in the Oxford English Dictionary, and pay attention to the etymology. All the profs/scorers with a humanities background will love you dearly if you will quote and cite either the etymology or the most-relevant definition from the OED, or both, and then explain why that's important. You can probably access the OED online if you have a library card for your local public library. It'll help you understand the Yeats quotation, too. ( It does have to be the OED, btw; Websters' won't give you anything like the same credibility. ) Even smarter would be to locate the Yeats quotation in its original context, if possible, and make brief mention of that in your essay, without waving your hands around and saying, "Look what I did!" Humility with an obvious, rock-solid basis for the case you make is what you want to present. I would guess that fewer than 1 in 100 essays would do the first, and fewer than 1 in maybe 500 would do both, yet they're perfectly obvious ideas. Doing them both will establish you as someone willing to undertake the "heavy lifting" that's necessary to produce thoroughly researched, college-level work. Also, I agree with the previous replies: Don't hedge with "probably", "possibly", and so on. Instead, "I think", "I believe", or (at most) "It's my opinion that" should be the furthest you go in that direction. Happy researching, happy writing, and have a great time at the University of Kansas. – OhioStandard (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Whether they want to create revolutionaries or businessmen doesn't really affect whether they see their work as bucket filling. I should note that I'm not opposed to taking a counterintuitive position on these kind of prompts, but you absolutely cannot make it look like you see higher education as frivolous whatever you do. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I was being snide, yet colleges sell themselves in that way so often nowadays. Perhaps it is only natural then that hypocrisy is one of the skills measured on the initial aptitude examination... Wnt (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely zero college professors or admissions officers think of their job as filling a bucket. Expressing a cynical view of the purpose of higher education will not get you any points, I assure you. From a very practical standpoint, you don't want to endorse to a view of education in your admissions materials that degrades the job of your potential admitting institution. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder if the university expects him to agree or disagree with Yeats? After all, the modern college doesn't exist to create starving artists and revolutionaries, but to graduate a class of people who can consistently show job interviewers that they have the proper skill set to succeed in an entry level position. Wnt (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Broadcasting receivers in Italy edit
Why aren't broadcasting receivers in Italy allowed to receive certain frequencies? --84.61.153.119 (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- If I was just guessing, perhaps they are military use only. General Rommel (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I am referring to [2]. --84.61.153.119 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I really shouldn't be guessing - but I'm fairly sure all it means that before the EU legislation radios in Italy were only allowed to be sold if they only tuned to frequency bands used for public service broadcasting. The reasons for this will be as above - ie so that they don't listen into military/police/emergency broadcasts etc.87.102.115.141 (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, radio receivers in Nazi Germany were, and in modern-day North Korea are, restricted to receiving certain frequencies only. DuncanHill (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- See w:de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Botschaft#Odd cross-wiki behaviour by someone in Germany; sometimes includes edit-warring and disruptive page creation for a discussion of the questioner's edits. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The United States imposed such restrictions in 1994 on cellular phone frequencies (I'm having trouble finding a good source, but bad ones are [3] and [4]. The easiest solution (as for buying anything in the U.S.) is to buy an import, in this case from the UK, which the second commenter claimed had no restrictions at all. Wnt (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)