Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 March 14

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Humanities
Humanities desk
< March 13 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 15 >
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 14 edit

National Literary Classics in (DVD) Miniseries Form edit

I'm looking for suggestions for video (DVD) adaptions of national literary classics. For example, I have seen most of Shakespeare's works as movies in English. I have also seen War and Peace and Master and Margarita in Russian as miniseries. What I would really ike to do is watch such things as The Hunchback of Notre Dame or Faust or Don Quixote in long form in their original languages, with or without subtitles, since I speak those languages. (Subtitles are good, though, as I am not idiomatically fluent in French or German.)

But, frankly, what I'd like is a miniseries of every national epic whether it be the Kalevala, Der Ring des Niebelungen, or Tirant lo blanc.

I'd appreciate recommendations by (especially native speakers) who are familiar with such works. I am not at all limited to interest in Western works, as I love Wuxia and Bollywood, for example. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you would consider I, Claudius a British classic, then I, Claudius (TV series) is must viewing. --Jayron32 02:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron 32 is correct about Claudius. The recently deceased John Hurt was one of a dozen or more wonderful performances in the series. This Mahabharat (1988 TV series) would seem to fit your criteria but I do not know whether it is easily available or not. MarnetteD|Talk 03:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that Derek Jacobi played the stuttering Claudius, and then in The King's Speech he played the Archbishop in a film about a stuttering King. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And in Dead Again he played an adult who had stuttered as a child, and in Breaking the Code he played Alan Turing who I think had a stutter. Even so I think I'm missing one. — While we're up, when Siân Phillips guested in Midsomer Murders there was a sly wink at Livia. Tamfang (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That Mahabharat was one of the first massively popular "mythological" serials made in India. It's wonderfully acted and rather Shakespearean. From the same era is Ramayan (1986 TV series) which is slightly slower and more sentimental. New versions of both these epics are made regularly, with attempts to update the special effects, etc (Ramayan (2008 TV series) has particularly beautiful sets) but the originals are still my favourite for their storytelling. Each has well north of 100 episodes. For other versions of these two national epics, see the yellow menus at the bottom of each article. There is also a very accessible Japanese animation, Ramayana: The Legend of Prince Rama, which is a simplified movie-length version of the epic. Subtitled versions are generally easy to buy via Amazon. 184.147.120.176 (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For Chinese, the "four great classical novels" have all been turned into TV series. For Romance of the Three Kingdoms, the 1991 version is critically praised, but might seem a bit dated now - the more contemporary alternative is the 2008 remake. For the Dream of the Red Chamber, the 1987 version is the most critically acclaimed, the quality of the 2010 remake is debated. For Journey to the West, the 1986 version is the best, but it is abridged. For Water Margin, either the 1998 version or the 1983 version. All four are far longer than the typical miniseries you may have in mind. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For French classics, there are tons of adaptations of The Three Musketeers, but the one to look for is the 1969 four-part television mini-series which is both true to the original novel and also its two sequels. French article. Notre-Dame de Paris (The Hunchback of Notre-Dame) has had a ton of adaptations as well, but many of them are quite fanciful and stray from the original novel, so caveat emptor. The 1956 film version is considered a classic, however. Same goes for Les Misérables, where the film version from 1982 is pretty accurate (the 1995 one by Claude Lelouch moves the events into the mid-20th century, so that's not so great). You can also look for Le Rouge et le Noir with Gérard Philipe (1954) which is considered an absolute classic, and Germinal as filmed in 1993. Madame Bovary and various Balzac novels have also been adapted numerous times and would fit your criteria. You'll need to hunt around to find DVD copies of all of these, but this should provide a start. --Xuxl (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion Jayron. Two other Pagnol novels, La gloire de mon père and Le château de ma mère were also turned into very good films in 1990. --Xuxl (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brideshead Revisited. And, of course, there are some excellent American TV serials: The Shield (which seems to be rather under-rated); The Wire; and Breaking Bad. Sons of Anarchy is apparently based on Hamlet, but I can't say that I particularly made the connection. Shakespeare can be viewed in different formats, such as Throne of Blood, Ran, and an excellent DVD of Verdi's "Macbeth" - make sure that your DVD has subtitles to get the full effect - after the murder of Duncan, a chorus lets rip with, 'Let Hell open its gaping mouth and swallow all of creation!' 86.164.42.188 (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I actually watched I, Claudius over the holidays. (I've watched it three times, and read it twice.) I am not interested in American material, having seen Breaking Bad. I'll check out the rest. 02:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, my thanks. I have gotten Romance of the Three Kingdoms (TV series) -- 1991, as well as the 9th series of Midsomer Murders (with the Siobhan Phillips episode) which I will watch with my parents, since that is one of their favorite series, and a musical version of the Mahabharata produced recently. Not sure how that last one will work.
Are there any suggestions for Norse, Irish, or Japanese or Korean epics? How about Euskara? Georgrian? Do we have a list/category/article on national epics on DVD? BTW, I do have both Zulu and Shaka Zulu. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're missing 'Zulu Dawn', then! I know that it's not particularly what you are after, but the TV/ DVD series of 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' is good - better than the books, in fact, as the series avoids the sillier aspects (the heroine solving Fermat's Last Theorem, for example) and quietly dispenses with the sanctimonious left-wing sermonising. (NB. be sure to get the Swedish language version with sub-titles rather than the rather crap American film.) Otherwise what about Russian films such as Andrei Rublev (film), Alexander Nevsky (film), and Solaris (1972 film)? The last is so turgid that, although only a film, it seems like a whole DVD boxed set. There is also the trilogy of films by Andrzej Wajda, which have a very Polish sensibility (A Generation, Kanał, and Ashes and Diamonds (film)), meaning that they are a bit of a struggle for non-Poles. 2A00:23C4:8300:6C01:9D9:7DD:6857:1B83 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

past GDP (PPP) per capita edit

I was looking at this table List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#1.E2.80.932003_.28Maddison.29 and notice that a lot of the countries shared the 700 value in early history. Is that just a place holder value or what? Or does it mean the author think all those countries had relatively similar GDP per capita back then? (which would make sense before the industrial revolution) ECS LIVA Z (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a SWAG estimate. StuRat (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did Vin Diesel study at Stella Adler's acting school? edit

Why would it be called an alternative fact?173.10.31.59 (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for your assumption? Or did you just invent it for this question? Please provide some context. --Jayron32 03:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, what assumption are you referring to? I didn't know I had any assumption in my question. Invent it? What is the "it" that you wonder whether I invented it? But yes, I SHOULD have given more context! ...On Twitter, someone said Diesel might have studied at Adler's school and then referred to this website called "Alternative Facts." I'm just trying to figure out what it's about and why it would matter enough to be a "burning issue" enough to get on Alternative Facts.173.10.31.59 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Health insurance edit

If a person is healthy and does everything he can to preserve his own health, then what's the point with paying into health insurance? Maybe health insurance is necessary for "accidents", however defined, but if the person has a lot of offspring, the offspring will succeed him. Everybody dies eventually. Some people just die sooner than later. If the person is sick, then he may be able to obtain financial, emotional, and spiritual support from his community. If he relies on a health insurance company, then the company will probably look at how many other people are sick and then set insurance rates based on that. If many people are sick as well, then he has to pay more for healthcare. Plus, the company makes a profit when there are only healthy people. So, what's the point with health insurance? Why can't people just form large communities and fund each other's medical costs directly? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everywhere in the world people have done exactly what you suggest. However in the United States a significant proportion of the population seem to think that sort of behaviour is wicked. Thincat (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where I can take cash, walk into a doctor's office, and get care on demand throughout "almost everywhere in the world." I assume you are referring to socialized healthcare. As implemented, it is a service by quota system, not a service on demand system. Service by quota is why so many people from socialized health countries come to the United States for service on demand. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As to your last statement -- sorry, but no. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a strawman argument. One person states that people come to the US for treatment they are not receiving in their country. Another points out that a majority of people don't do that. The assumption is that the first person was talking about a majority and/or the second means nobody is coming to the US for treatment. The reality is that some people cannot get the treatment they need and they come to the US for treatment because the treatment is available if you can pay for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.51.150 (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Insurance is not necessary for the individual. As an individual, you can make your choice to have insurance, just in case, or you can choose to not have it and pay for your health care, or lack of it, yourself. When not discussing the individual, it is different. Should a parent be required to have health insurance for a child? What about a spouse? The individual is being allowed to choose the limits of health care for other people. That is where debate starts. In the United States, it has progressed further. The Affordable Care Act mandates that everyone must have health insurance or pay a steep penalty (it is not a tax!). Why? The increased cost of health insurance for everyone who purchases it is used to cover the cost of insurance for those who cannot afford it. If all of the healthy people opted to refuse health insurance, there wouldn't be enough money in the system to pay for insurance for everyone else. So, again, the choice by the individual is affecting others. Therefore, your question about choosing insurance for one's self is actually a case of choosing insurance for others. As for the funding question, health maintenance organizations have been formed to pay for medical costs for the members of the organization. That isn't new. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but a person can produce a lot of babies. If a person has 10 children and 9 of those children die from disease, then one child is left and will pass on the genes. Why not choose fecundity over longevity? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are humans, not mice. Even from a purely economic perspective, we put a lot of care and training into an individual, so it makes sense to preserve this investment. From a public order perspective, we know that desperate people tend to use desperate measures - so if it is cheaper to help people to a reasonable standard of living (including health care) than to police them, it's again economically advantageous to do so for a society (if not for each individual member). And to nitpick, if a person has only one child, population will halve every generation (since it takes two parents for every child). A gentle reduction in population may be a good thing at our current level of population, but such a rapid reduction is not sustainable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But that is assuming that humans are identical. Humans aren't identical. Maybe one human may produce more viable and fertile offspring than another, and over time, the human population will adapt to the pathogen. It's an evolutionary arms race. So, if disease wipes out specific lineages, then the survivors will adapt. Sure, medicine is fine, but natural selection is a strong force. Using antibiotics only kills the susceptible strains, but the resistant strains persist. How is that different from humans? If people put more emphasis on fecundity, then the viable and fertile offspring will survive, and because some people have greater ability to produce fertile offspring, then the resistance will benefit others in the population. 166.216.159.130 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming no such thing. Maybe you have some unstated assumptions? If we try to outbreed bacteria, we are fighting where we are weak and they are strong. I'd rather use our ability of cultural evolution to come up with ideas like antibiotics, hygiene, isolation and vaccination than to try to beat bacteria in biological evolution, where they have a 4 billion year head start and a numerical superiority of several orders of magnitude. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was talking about your mention of "if a person has only one child..." It's unlikely that everybody will have one viable and fertile child. My point was, some people are better at reproducing fertile and viable offspring than others, and over time, the fertile+viable offspring will take over the population by outbreeding. Also, hygiene is not always a good thing. The hygiene hypothesis suggests that humans are becoming cleaner, and with cleanliness, the body's immune system becomes over-reactive, leading to autoimmunity disorders and hypersensitivity. Using antibiotics should be the last resort, as liberal use of antibiotics in the environment just weeds out the susceptible bacteria. Vaccines rely on the body's immune system. If the immune system is compromised, then that person is a goner. Isolation may be the only thing that is useful to prevent the spread of disease, but with so many people traveling all the time from all over the world, a superbug can easily wipe out most of humanity. So... biological outbreeding still works, even at the cost of billions of human lives. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So if your appendix ruptures, you'll be content with suffering and dying from it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, he'll go to the emergency room, knowing that the ER is legally bound to treat everyone who presents with an emergency condition (a burst appendix would certainly qualify). He gets the benefits of medical care while the rest of us pick up the tab. Pretty shrewd when you think about it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. By refusing to buy health insurance, he's forcing his selfishness onto the rest of us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, it's about uncertainty about the future and what level of risk one is prepared to accept. Insurance of any kind is about risk-sharing. Most people's houses are not destroyed by fire or whatever, so most people could save their money and choose not to insure their houses. But there is a small percentage of houses that are destroyed, and nobody knows in advance which ones. Despite the best precautions and security, it could be yours. It's too late to insure after the event. By then you have certainty that an adverse event has happened, and if the insurance company accepted your post-factum premium and paid out, they'd be taking on the entirety of the risk, and that's contrary to the fundamental principle of risk-sharing. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if people would be less likely to buy house insurance when they know they can seek the aid of their relatives. While a loss is a loss and can never be recovered, one may think of loss as opportunity for change. Maybe a person loses his house by a fire, but he has relatives. So, he can stay at his relatives' house. While staying at the relatives' house, he helps his relatives with the daily work and makes a living. Then, if he wants, he may collect enough capital to invest in a house again. If the house is destroyed, then he'll still have his relatives to turn to for survival. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an option for survival. But if your house is mortgaged rather than owned outright, you may well have been compelled to buy home insurance as a condition for getting the loan. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But what if the person only chooses to buy a house when the house value is below the amount that person already has in the bank? Can the person just pay for the full house price without a mortgage? Even if the house is damaged, then the person can still live on his (damaged) property - just in a tent or make-shift house out of sticks and leaves. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you own the house outright, and it gets destroyed, zoning laws might require you to either build or demolish within a reasonable time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there zoning laws? Why not just build whatever you want on your property? Maybe one person wants to build a ferris wheel, and another person wants a personal farm, and another person just wants a family house. And another person doesn't have any money to build anything so he just lives in a tent or makeshift leafy house on his own property. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zoning laws and housing covenants protect property value for nearby owners. By allowing only certain types of construction, and by requiring a certain level of maintenance on property, that prevents your laziness from costing the people around you money. When you don't maintain your property according to certain standards, your neighbors lose value due to your action. --Jayron32 01:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you live in a suburb, then you have to follow specific maintenance standards? So, you can't grow whatever you want on your property, like make your front lawn a corn field? How does property value decrease in value? Why is it dependent on one person's property? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under capitalism, the demand for a property determines it's value, and there will be very little demand for a house next to a hog farm or an abandoned, burnt-out building. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily just suburbs, but any city. See zoning law. One city I used to live in, not only could you not grow a corn field in your front yard, you couldn't even store a boat out in the open. But oftentimes county-level rules are less restrictive. And that's also where hog farms tend to be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Cambridge edit

Is a "member" of a college at Cambridge the same thing as a "fellow" of the college? I'm trying to add the correct categories to a new article about a Cambridge professor, Elizabeth A.H. Hall. She is described as "Vice-President of Queen's College" and "a member of St. John's College". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At Oxbridge colleges, all students (past and present) are members of the college. Fellows are members of staff - either teaching or doing research. The article makes it clear that she has been a member of a college since she got her MA (which in her case would have been an honorary award as she already had a PhD). Wymspen (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wymspen, so "fellows = faculty" and "members = alumni". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Members = current students + alumni. Fgf10 (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - though in the context of the article mentioned, it does mean an alumnus. Or should that be alumna?. Wymspen (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fellows are also members of the college. The term 'college staff' (at least at Cambridge) usually refers only to non-academic staff, such as porters, and those working in the kitchens or gardens. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So Oxford differs from Cambridge in this respect. The term "staff" embraces more than porters and kitchen staff [1]. Dons are also considered "staff".[2]86.169.56.176 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UK Nuclear Arsenal edit

 

In the event that the United Kingdom decided to launch its nuclear missiles, who would push the button that launches them or issue the command to fire to the trident submarines. Would it be the Queen, as Commander in Chief, or does the Prime Minister have the authority to do this on their behalf, or would she have to go to the Queen and request permissions to launch them. It's not really something I can imagine the Queen doing but I don't see how the PM has the authority? --Andrew 23:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have content about this at Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom#Nuclear_weapons_control. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"who would push the button that launches them" See the photo that I've added, taken from the article Someguy linked; apparently it would be the weapons engineer officer. Unlike American submarines, British submarines apparently are not controlled (in a technological sense) by their naval headquarters; American commanders could hit all the buttons they wish and the missile still wouldn't fire, but apparently the technical details of launching a British missile are all performed by the crewmen and officers of a specific submarine. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's scary. What happens if terrorists manage to take one over ? StuRat (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, the British political propaganda has not convinced their populace that is a possibility. --Jayron32 02:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The greater risk to British nuclear subs was never terrorists, but rather lesbian canoeists. There was one serious UK incident involving an armed sailor, who shot and killed an officer before being overpowered by two civilians. In contrast the US lost an entire sub because a redneck contractor wanted an early weekend. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More details and images at The red button that could launch Britain's nuclear warheads. I know it's the Daily Mail (not everyone's idea of a reliable source), but it agrees with the details in our article. It seems infinitely improbable that even if terrorists could somehow get into the control room, that they would be able to access the safe with the launch codes in it and then work out the launch procedure. Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you including the possibility that they have an "inside man" familiar with the process, who helps the terrorists ? StuRat (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that some kind of risk assessment has been done. Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they do it themselves, it could be a conflict of interest situation, where they don't want to let anyone know they have a potential problem. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever countermeasures they have in place, they're hardly likely to tell us about them are they? Reading the rather minimal article above, it would seem that at least three insiders would be necessary, and those would all have to be holding the key roles. I'm not losing any sleep about this. Alansplodge (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2017_March_14&oldid=1074628503"