Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 23

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Humanities
Humanities desk
< November 22 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 24 >
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 23 edit

dessert from Arabic? edit

Somebody told me that dessert comes from an Arabic word. Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.228 (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Webster, it comes from Latin. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Webster, even the word "desert" doesn't come from Arabic. --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list of Arabic loanwords in English gives you an overview of what came from Arabic into English. Often these are not words that we associate with the Arabs. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the original questioner was thinking of sherbet / sorbet? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or the friend may have been confusedly recalling the origin of candy. Deor (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

info (metropolitan vs. megapolitan) edit

I want to know difference between metropolitan and megapolitan cities. I heard abt this site. It has too much knowledge and always ready to help new users and students. Plz help me for this question. my contact no phone number redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.229.79.190 (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Metropolitan area and Megalopolis (city type). Feel free to come back here if those do not answer your questions. Also, I apologize but the reference desk only returns answers to the desk itself, and will not call or text you. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Police edit

Are there any 4 year campuses in the U.S. or Canada that don't--or are not allowed by specific state or province law to--have armed "campus police" officers? Is there any data or information available on years that these forces started forming, data on the last few states or universities to enact such forces? Thanks. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 10:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the Campus police article - it's got answers to many of the questions you ask. In particular:
  • "Campus Police in Canada do not carry firearms, but are generally given other law enforcement's tools of trade - namely handcuffs, body armor, batons and pepper spray.
  • Campus police do not exist in the Provinces of British Columbia and Québec. Instead, colleges and universities employ civilian security guards.
  • Campus police at public institutions in the state of Rhode Island are sworn police officers, but state law prohibits them from carrying firearms."
OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Armed police on university campuses? Well, I never would have imagined that. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Itsmejudith -- why not? Many campuses are dispersed over several large areas and/or embedded inside cities. The range of problems that campus police deal with is often not too different from those that regular police deal with... AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that a college campus isn't a separate police jurisdiction, it falls under the police jurisdictions of the city, county, state, etc. So, one could rely on the regular police where an armed response is needed, and let the campus police focus on things the real cops would ignore, like the theft of iPhones, keeping in mind that arming campus police creates additional risks of it's own. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's one approach, but the police associated with major universities in the U.S. often try to be a "full-service" police department for ordinary situations in their area of authority (though obviously the idea of a campus police SWAT team would be ridiculous). AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous or not, the article Campus police says Many departments operate some of the same units as municipal agencies such as detective units, special response teams (SWAT or SRT), canine units, bicycle patrol units, motorcycle patrol units, and community policing units. [bolding added] Duoduoduo (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... a college campus isn't a separate police jurisdiction" isn't necessarily true. The difference in marijuana laws between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan is well-known (See Hash Bash). Town and gown differences including college as sanctuary have long history. 75.41.109.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I bet they aren't legally outside regular police jurisdiction. More likely, the regular police are willing to turn a blind eye to certain crimes committed on campus, since they have enough work without taking that on, too. Incidentally, a more sinister motive for campus police seems to be so they can suppress crime statistics to make the campus seem safer than it really is. Unlike public police departments, which are required to report all crimes, private security firms can, and do, keep them secret when in their interest to do so. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, my undergrad is an example of what you're asking — if the one-man security force is armed, he always conceals his weapon really well. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certain jurisdictions have separate armed police on high school campuses. The Three Rivers Unified School District in Sacramento has had quite a few controversies surrounding their independent police force. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open access rail and skies edit

Are there any developed democratic countries which don't allow open access on rail infrastructure and skies? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.27.222.86 (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For railways, there is a (possibly incomplete) list of countries that provide open access to independent train operators at Open access operator. For skies, Airspace class may be of interest. --Viennese Waltz 12:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if many countries grant open access, it's ludicrous to think that the big guys will let new kids take part in such businesses. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is open access? HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re to HiLo48: take the British railways, for example. In this dog's dinner of a set-up, the government runs a system whereby private train operating companies are given fixed-term contracts (known as franchises) to operate the vast majority of train services. But there are also one or two companies who are allowed to operate services along small sections of the rail network in direct competition with the main franchise holder. That is open access. Re to OsmanRF34: it's not a question of the "big guys" not allowing new kids to take part. The government gives the new companies the (limited) right to do so. --Viennese Waltz 04:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't sound terribly "open". "Carefully selected and heavily restricted access" would be more accurate. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the British privatized rail system, there was supposed to be a central infrastructure or track maintenance operator and various companies who would run trains on the tracks without being responsible for their upkeep. The track maintenance operator part of the system turned out to be a huge fiasco (see Railtrack), so I'm not sure this would encourage other countries to follow the British model... AnonMoos (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


@Viennese Waltz: it's not as if all companies were indeed independent just because the law says so. They are still open in a 'open' access market to all kind of trouble caused by big companies. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. In the UK (the only country I know about) there is nothing the big rail companies can do to stop small companies getting in on the action. Where there are limits placed on the ability of small companies to run train services, they are limits that have been placed by the government, not by the main train operator. The big companies are simply not able to "cause trouble" for new entrants to the market. --Viennese Waltz 17:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there such a thing as open access at all in the United States? I thought all U.S. trackage was privately owned by rail companies, and there is no central infrastructure. Am I mistaken?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit difficult to tell. There is Amtrak, of course, the primary (only?) provider of intercity passenger rail services in the US. According to our article, though, Amtrak does not own the track it runs services on: "Amtrak operates over all Class I railroads in the United States, as well as several regional railroads and short lines. Other sections are owned by terminal railroads jointly controlled by freight companies or by commuter rail agencies. Amtrak is able to do this because it has trackage rights, but it does not maintain those tracks or control train movements on those tracks." --Viennese Waltz 14:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because in the United States passenger rail has been a distinct second fiddle to to freight rail since the 1960s. Most railroads were eager to get out of the passenger business altogether, so in return for being allowed to dump their passenger-carrying obligations onto the federal government they have to let the government run passenger trains over their tracks. Not sure that there's anything very open about it otherwise. AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article 21 of the UNDHR edit

Article 21 of the Declaration of Human Rights says the following:

"Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

How can this be reconciled with the existence of a minimum voting age in most jurisdictions? Are we not depriving children of a fundamental human rights? For the record, I don't support abolishing the voting age, but I'd like to know what legal explanation is given for not allowing children to exercise their human rights. Thanks! Leptictidium (mt) 15:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children will, in a short time, be able to vote. SO they are part of "everyone". This is different from women, who will not magically become men at a later date, or people of ethnic minorities, who will magically become part of a different ethnic group. Children do magically turn into adults. So they do get to take part in their government. --Jayron32 15:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, the UNDHR should have said "everyone has, or will have, the right..." The more accurate answer is that every society has more or less arbitrarily restricted political power to people it deems fit to rule. At this point in history, children are still considered their parents' property, and their role in politics is restricted to being used as rhetorical tools (Think of the children! Will someone please think of the children?) and propaganda (i.e. Israel's most inhuman army is killing babies!) --140.180.246.185 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about kids with terminal diseases, who are unlikely to survive to adulthood ? StuRat (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dead cannot vote under normal circumstances, so I don't take your exception here. Adults with terminal diseases who expire before the next election lose their right to vote as well. --Jayron32 17:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to when you said the justification for legally excluding children from voting is that it's not a permanent exclusion. However, in the case of children who we know won't make it to adulthood, it is a permanent ban on them ever voting. So, we need another justification. Quite simply, children lack certain rights, including the right to vote, but Article 21 doesn't make this clear. Perhaps you could argue that children be thought of as a subset of those not allowed to vote due to mental incompetence. However, some 17-year-olds are quite mentally competent, so that argument won't hold water, either. StuRat (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, children die, and for that reason we should have no age limits on voting? Seems like a weak argument. --Jayron32 01:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not what I said at all. I said that the justification that "they can vote when they grow up" is invalid. Only if no other justification can be found would one reach your conclusion. StuRat (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Show them pics of the candidates. If they smile, that's a yes. If they poop, that's a definite no. StuRat (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
And what about mentally handicapped people, who can also be denied the right to vote, and they don't magically turn into mentally healthy people either. And then there are convicted criminals who have lost voting rights. In short, these rights are just not absolute and are subject to (reasonable) conditions imposed by the state. - Lindert (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where are mentally handicapped denied the right to vote? This is not an uncontentious issue and pressure groups are successfully defending the right to vote of them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In many places, the mentally handicapped are not only encouraged to vote, but even to run. StuRat (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
In many places, but usually a court order is required to revoke someone's voting rights. According to this article 44 out of the 50 United States "contain constitutional laws and statutes that bar individuals with emotional or cognitive impairment from voting". Here is an overview per state. There are similar laws in many European countries, including the Netherlands where I live. - Lindert (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a source about "many European countries" that have similar laws? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (May 2012), states that "All democratic regimes, with the exception of Canada, Sweden, Ireland, Italy and Austria restrict voting based on mental capacity." - Lindert (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taking prisoners' voting rights, for instance, could be seen as a violation of human rights.Leptictidium (mt) 16:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the (humorous) wisdom of Terry Pratchett: "Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote." and "He’d tried to introduce Ephebian democracy to Lancre, giving the vote to everyone, or at least everyone 'who be of good report and who be male and hath forty years and owneth a house worth more than three and a half goats a year,' because there’s no sense in being stupid about things and giving the vote to people who were poor or criminal or insane or female, who’d only use it irresponsibly."Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Locking them up in the first place could be seen as a violation of human rights. Imposing a monetary penalty for speeding could be seen as a violation of human rights. Requiring drivers to have even a minute's driving training could be seen as a violation of human rights. Requiring doctors and house builders and cooks to be trained could be seen as a violation of human rights. Requiring children to attend school could be seen as a violation of human rights. Banning recidivist trolls from Wikipedia could be seen as a prohibition of free speech and thus a violation of human rights. Where does it ever end? Lines getting drawn is a hallmark of civilization. The only issues are about which lines, and who draws them, and who's allowed to ignore them with impugnity. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Impugnity"? Stop the presses, Jack misspelled a word! 24.92.74.238 (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writers such as David Mamet, Erving Goffman and Stephen Smith have used it. Add Jack of Oz to that trio and you now have critical mass. The word is hereby deemed to have become accepted. Did you have any other questions?  :) -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Article 29 says "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." In many circumstances, it is clear that imprisoning someone could be considered necessary for protecting the rights of others. I think it would be hard to argue that regulation of vehicles, doctors, etc. violates any widely-recognised human rights, and article 26 actually requires compulsory education. It is less obvious to me that withdrawing the vote from prisoners is justified. Many countries do allow all prisoners to vote, and in fact the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that a blanket ban on prisoners voting violates the European Convention on Human Rights, which has similar wording to the UDHR on elections. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And why does it say "his" instead or his/her country? Seriously. Human rights are implemented by national laws, which have different perspectives on how to interpret the basis principles. 83.60.249.187 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was drafted in 1948 and gender-neutral language didn't start to become a significant issue until the end of the 1960s (and wasn't taken seriously by many until well into the 1970s). AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uses of "he/his/him" are very frequently gender-neutral, especially in older manners of expression. See definition 2 in the first entry here. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, please. "He" is gender neutral, unless one counts inanimate as a gender. "She" is marked as feminine. This matter has been beaten to death and over again, so search the archives if you want references. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do I search for these references? Admittedly I'm not a native English speaker, but I've never seen anyone claim that "he" is gender neutral. I've seen people use "he" to refer to a generic person (in fact, I do it all the time), but always assumed that was because male is the default gender. (In French, for example, all pronouns and conjugations take the male form if the referent is a single male, a group of males, a group of both males and females, or of unknown gender. Yet nobody doubts that "il" is masculine, and "elle" is feminine.) --140.180.246.185 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, the original distinction in the Proto-Indo-European language was between animate and inanimate, who and what. The Hittite language, from the oldest branch of Indo-European, never developed a feminine gender. In the other branches, an -a (or -i) ending was generalized as a marker that certain animate nouns were feminine. There was never any masculine ending as such, which is why there is only one form for who/whose/whom. The Old English pronoun he has no masculine ending, for example; while the word she comes from the Old English pronoun heo with an appended feminine -o ending. The use of she is an exceptional marking of femininity, while the use of he simply implies animacy without comment on biological sex. In some languages like French, the animate/inanimate distinction in nouns has been lost, with only the feminine/non-feminine opposition remaining, so the issue is clouded. But the use of he for animate nouns of unspecified gender in English is a simple continuation of the historical condition. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I like linguistics, and that summary was really interesting. However, I can't help but feel that concluding "he" is gender neutral based on its history is an etymological fallacy. Language, unlike most other things, is strictly democratic: if 50% + 1 of English speakers think X means Y, then X means Y, and dictionary publishers will record X to mean Y. --140.180.246.185 (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you will need to stop looking for references and start taking votes. Good luck with your cultural revolution. μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to the point of French (and other Romance languages), even human gender pronouns don't work exactly like English. For example, possessive pronouns in French (sa, son) agree with the object, not the owner. Thus, while in English we would say "His dog" if a man owned it and "Her dog" if a woman did, in French you say "son chien" regardless of whether the owner is male or female. Also, French does have gender neutral third person subject pronoun "on", but it has no direct English translation, and can mean roughly "one" or "they" or even "we", depending on context.--Jayron32 03:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis -- I don't feel like engaging in a whole general debate under this heading, but many feel that "exceptional marking of femininity" vs. a default unmarked assumption of maleness is the whole problem. P.S. The origin of the form "she" in Middle English is actually something of a mystery, and several contending linguistic papers have been devoted to just that topic. In Old English, eo was a monosyllabic "fracture" diphthong. Some have proposed a transfer of the sonority from the first element of "eo" to the second element of "eo", leading to a development something like [hēo] > [heō] > [hjō] > [çō] > [ʃō], giving middle English "scho"; however, such an origin of the "sh" sound is not attested in the development of any other word in the English language, and other scholars think that "she" doesn't come from "heo" at all... AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then don't so debate. (I am fairly certain Lady Edith will accuse Lord Grantham regarding this in the next episode of Downton Abbey in any case.) The fact remains the use of he in parallel with who and opposed to what is a continuation of the animate versus inanimate contrast, not the "masculine", regardless of one's historical ignorance of that fact or ideological abhorrence of it. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Late proto-Indo-European / early Germanic / Old English had extremely few grammatical forms which could be called "animate" in any valid linguistic sense, so I have little idea what you think you're asserting. (The early proto-Indo-European — or perhaps proto-Indo-Hittite — situation you mentioned above is a rather hypothetical reconstruction without ascertainable relevance for the semantics of later languages.) The Old English interrogative pronoun distinguished masculine/feminine nominative hwa and accusative hwone vs. neuter nominative-accusative hwæt. Beyond that, it's mighty slim pickings for grammatical "animacy" in attested or solidly-reconstructed forms of languages ancestral to modern English. Many would prefer to call Old English hwa, hwone "epicene" anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this regard, see Gender-neutral pronoun#Modern English. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOOC search edit

This is it! I tried a poetry course and I'd like to try some more, maybe economics, programming ? Now I'm looking for a list of massive open online courses. Not Coursera's or MIT's or Upenn's, just every mooc available now or in the coming months in the world. I might not find that list in Wikipedia : but do you have an idea if (or why) it's (not) already on the Internet ? Thank you! --82.227.17.30 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot provide a list of courses in coming months. Everything you'll need however is in the article MOOC. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I found this :

A community of online learners offering MOOC reviews & ratings to help identify the best free courses from Udacity, Coursera, edX, Stanford and more. http://coursetalk.org --82.227.17.30 (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1990s discovery that would alter established beliefs about Human beings edit

looking for a discovery in the 1990s which has altered the established belief about human beings. Would appreciate any help 183.83.244.183 (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC) V S Murthy[reply]

Whose beliefs? --Jayron32 18:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General belief till such time183.83.244.183 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)v s murthy[reply]

Are you expecting something like the Quantum physics or Relativity theory? I have the impression (not corroborated by fact) that discoveries are running out. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OsmanRF34 -- Many physicists at the end of the 19th century thought that few basic principles or new fields of physics remained to be discovered, and that almost all future physics work would be concerned with the application of existing laws. They turned out to be completely wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "general belief". I don't know that there's anything which is "generally believed" by any majority set of the human population. There are people who believe some very strange things, and who's beliefs haven't been changed by any discoveries for some time. --Jayron32 18:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be thinking of the Martian meteorite Allan Hills 84001, the examination of which appeared to show extra-terrestrial life. Of this President Clinton said "If this discovery is confirmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our universe that science has ever uncovered"(ref). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More likely the OP is thinking we'll help him with his homework. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 19:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What competent teacher would ask such a bizarre question? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I can very easily imagine a teacher wanting to expand his students' minds by getting them to research discoveries that altered established beliefs about human beings; and, moreover, getting them to not just come up with anything in the history of science but to focus on the 1990s. In fact, I'm having a hard time imagining an alternative context where this very specific question could have arisen. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "the established belief about human beings" is meaningless. Perhaps the OP misquoted the teacher's question, or left out some required context. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A student mishearing and/or misquoting their teacher? Unheard of!  :) -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unpresidented, even. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the 1990s that it was determined that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees (and vice versa) than to other apes. Previously, I suspect people expected that chimpanzees and gorillas would be more closely related to each other than to us. See Human evolutionary genetics#Divergence times and ancestral effective population size.-gadfium 22:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might find something in our article on 1990s in science and technology. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what are some of patents that are considered by legal experts to be quite broad, but which courts have uphold? edit

This question concerns legal theory, and is a call for specific references. In legal opinion, what are some examples of patents that are held to be particularly broad, by at least one expert in the field, but which courts have upheld? In terms of broadness, I am referring to the standard term of art in patent law. I am obviously not asking for any legal advice here, though I appreciate the subject may be somewhat specialized. I would also appreciate replies with specific, broad patents that have been disputed yet upheld..178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bickering
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The question is unanswerable, unless someone here knows all patents and can measure their broadness. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is answerable by anyone who is familiar with the subject that it figures in. I've moved the rest of the "is this a real question" discussion to small lettering.

Hatted, it can only be answered on the basis of opinions and speculation. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unhatted. This can be answered with straightforward references, and is a call for some. If you don't personally know of a single broad patent that courts uphold, you can say so. This does not suddenly mean that the questino is unanswerable, or should not be open to a reference from someone who does happen to know of one. For comparison, I don't know of any broad patents yet. I'm trying to find some. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hatted, it can only be answered on the basis of opinions and speculation. Discuss about unhatting in the talk page. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the words "in legal scholarship" and "generally" and "by at least one legal scholar" and am requesting references, and rewritten the question to make this clearer. Please do not revert again. This is not a request for anyone's opinion here, it is an extremely straightforward reference desk type of question. I appreciate that it may sound like speculation to someone who is not used to researching legal theory. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well (1) I am the mad hatter and I would not have hatted this, and (2) it's asking for legal opinions and history, not advice. I do indeed remember reading of overbroad patent decisions. Indeed, one can read the appendix to Michael Crichton's Next. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep out of this Medeis. Asking for opinions is also not OK. Pointing to fiction, when you need facts is also not acceptable. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't fucking tell me to keep out of anything, Osman. And Crichton's appendix to Next (searchable here at Amazon) is a non-fiction essay with a whole list of useful references, much more helpful to the OP than your comments so far.
I hope you realize that a huge portion of law, especially civil law, is based on opinion. In particular, see precedent and legal opinion, and law report. If questions about legal experts' opinions aren't allowed, that excludes a large portion of the legal system. --140.180.246.185 (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's opinions, and then there's opinions. Some are the law. Others are just viewpoints. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the original inquiry, at least as it currently reads, asks specifically for references for what established experts consider "broad" and does not specifically call for speculation or editor-generated definitions, this seems to me an entirely appropriate and viable question for this desk. Whether the OP will get references which directly address the issue is another matter entirely, but there's no reason not to afford the request the opportunity to be addressed. Snow (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys - I feel the current state of this question is daunting to anyone who might have some simple references. I would like to move the discussion portion of this question to the talk page, and then leave a neutral version of the question and the single answer that was provided so far. I will do this if this is no objection in the next few hours. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change reverted. Though I think consensus will continue to validate this as a perfectly acceptable thread and while I agree in principle that this question would look a lot cleaner with this discussion removed (and that the talk page is the better location for it in any event), it's not really appropriate to remove other users' comments from a discussion-based namespace without significantly more serious cause than exists here. Snow (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hatted as a hopefully-acceptable compromise. -Elmer Clark (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found some stuff by restriction a google search to university websites. Here you go.
(Here’s the google search – I listed only the first three hits but more look relevant as well. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised no-one has mentioned the Wright brothers patent war; the patent there effectively covered fixed-wing aircraft and was upheld by various court cases. George B. Selden at one point was ruled by a court to hold a patent on "any automobile propelled by an engine powered by gasoline vapor", per our article, though this was overturned on appeal the following year. Both were upheld by US courts, and while I don't have access to the legal literature, I suspect searches focused on those two patents are likely to produce a rich stream of commentary. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much any valid Business method patent falls under this heading — things that most intellectual property experts think are too broad, but have upheld nonetheless. The entire category is considered overly broad by IP experts. Innovation and its Discontents has a number of specific examples of overly broad, upheld patents from over the years. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could link to at least one of the references from that book? (One of the specific patents it mentions which have been upheld). Thanks :) --178.48.114.143 (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_November_23&oldid=1142584127"