Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 July 2

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

< July 1 Humanities desk archive July 3 >

"Meanings" sections

I see that you've started having "meanings" sections, e.g., "Meanings for K". Have you considered making your meaning entries available as semantic web content or by some other means to ontology/FBR developers?

Thanks,

Ben Olasov UCSF

• Can you give us an example? We really shouldn't be having a "meanings for" section, as that's lexical work, and we already have a very good online lexicon in Wiktionary. Wiktionary is the wiki dictionary, and because of it, dictionary definitions are generally frowned upon in Wikipedia: we simply shouldn't be duplicating our efforts. An article can, and really should, have a link across project space to the entry by the same term in Wiktionary. That's as good a thing as defining in Wikipedia is bad. Geogre 04:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a reference to K#Meanings for K. It looks legit to me. --Shantavira 08:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So, essentially, a disambiguation appended to articles simply on letters/numbers? That is fine, of course, and something we've been doing since dirt. On the other hand, we've been having "meaning" sections sporadically inserted on things like proper name articles and disambiguations that are, strictly speaking, not cricket. Geogre 13:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

was america the first free country

was america the first free country--64.12.116.72 05:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) [ email removed to prevent spam ]

That depends very much on what you mean by "free". I suspect that in almost any case, the answer is no. The United States was not the first country to become a republic, nor to be democratic, nor to abolish slavery, nor to adopt universal suffrage. Also, there are probably reasonable ways to define "free" which America wouldn't qualify for today. For example, the US is far from being a leading nation in the sense of free trade.-gadfium 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Narcotics for personal use are legal in the Netherlands; so it is freer than the United States. But I personally would object to that degree of freedom.Patchouli 07:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Not really, although it was one of the first major modern republics, and much of its culture is based on the concepts (or at least symbols of the concepts) of personal liberty. In practice, Americans have been quite willing to restrict their personal freedoms whenever given the opportunity, as exemplified by the long endurance of slavery, the draconian drug laws, the puritan morality laws, the Ataturkian attitude toward the desecration of the flag, the neutralization of labor unions as a political force, the retention of capital punishment, etc. Of course, many of these issues will be viewed by Americans as a benefit to freedom: my history teacher once opined that "labor unions are anti-capitalist and capitalism is freedom", or something along those lines, and this is a fairly common attitude among middle- and upper-class Americans. Likewise, they view draconian laws and capital punishment as freeing decent people from the threat of crime, despite abundant evidence that the American justice system is deeply flawed. Generally, Americans are taught to believe that the USA is the best, freest country in the world and always has been. As silly as this sounds, if you actually doubt this assessment, you will be viewed as unusual. But I assume it is this way in most countries. In its favor, the USA is not really a nation-state, so there is less bigotry than you might expect. There is also quite a bit of religious tolerance, although some religions are more equal than others. The USA was one of the first large democracies, which is significant, even when one considers that most people were not able to vote. Overlooking the Civil War, it has also been fairly peaceful and has not had many severe political crises. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It was one of the first full-scale countries (i.e. not a city-state) to have a somewhat broadly-based democratic political system. AnonMoos 11:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if you ignore the Parliament of England and the one in Iceland. Flamarande 11:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And the Swedish Riksdag, and quite a lot of other things. So no, the US was not the 'first' free country, and it hardly is one now either. - ulayiti (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

England didn't really have a "somewhat broadly-based democracy" in the U.S. sense until 1867, while Iceland was a rather low-population country (inhabiting only part of the island) which was not all that different from a city-state for the current purposes of comparison. AnonMoos 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't say that England was free before America was established. In fact, since the monarchy still exists (though with almost no power), it is still not completely "free". Besides, the guy who asked the question didn't ask whether America is free now. He meant to ask what the first democratic country was, I believe. Mo-Al 15:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The best thing would be to read History of democracy. It'd be a stretch to say that the US was the first "free" country by any sense of the word, but it was influential in the development of republican democracy and the party system. The first independent nation to allow universal participation in the political system (including minorities) was Norway. EdC 04:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it was the first democratic nation, but Athens was a democracy long before the Americas were sighted by Lief Erikson. Not a particularly free one though. Emmett5 03:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Was Athens a democracy when Socrates was executed in 399 BCE for freely speaking his mind?--71.107.200.35 05:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• A parliament does not automatically create a democracy especially if it is as impotent as the Majles that has to suck the toes of members of the Council of Guardians and has to think twice before any action for fear of asset seizure, imprisonment, disappearance or assassination.71.107.200.35 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Let's wrap it up with: NO, the USA (America is something diffrent) were not the first free country. The question is indeed a bit rethorical as freedom largely means something diffrent during the ages. Flamarande 09:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedians have discovered a new country called America. It will always be USA for me, and its inhabitants will always be USA'ers and not Americans. If one looks at voting rights for women and their participation in elections, couldn't one say that perhaps a country like Denmark or Sweden was the first free country?Evilbu 10:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Evilbu. Long before Wikipedia, the country between Mexico and Canada was called "America" and its inhabitants "Americans", and not just by citizens of the USA, but by Europeans and Asians and Africans as well. We all know those terms are controversial, but at least they're real. "USA'er" is not an English word, and if you use it, people will think you're either crazy or hopelessly conceited. Bhumiya (said/done) 12:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If America is a free country, can I have it? I have a growing family and we're a bit cramped. --Dweller 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Irving Berlin wrote a song called "God Bless the United States of America" but when he realised it didn't scan, he changed it to the shockingly incorrect "God Bless America". Maybe his estate should give back all those royalties he derived from his deceitful and wicked scheme.  :--) JackofOz 06:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

With Socrates, the democracy was an oligarchy where only men (no slaves, so strangers, no women) did vote. But they said that he taught that giving offerings to gods was not necessary, so we have a theocracy too. This means that a democracy is something that you have to built and improve everyday, notwithstanding army justices, Geneva conventions trashed, and rampant ploutocracy, that you can observe everywhere. --DLL 17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strangers didn't vote in Athens? I have lived in the United States for about nine years, been out my country of birth for more than a decade, forgotten how to write the original language except being able to recognize the script, have now trouble expressing myself in the language I used when I was a child, learned English beyond the average native speaker, assimilated culturally more than Theodore Roosevelt ever imagined, yet I still can't vote or travel.--06:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If you had come to Canada all those years ago as a Permanent Resident you would be able to do both by now. DJ Clayworth 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Naturalization in the United States ordinarily only requires 5 years, not the more than nine of the anon. Rmhermen 18:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• You don't have a clue about the US immigration. 5 years according to the U.S. Immigration Code, but you think the USCIS really cares. The fact that I have adopted English as my best language doesn't mean a diddly-squat. I have sent two letters to President Bush, e-mailed US Representative Xavier Becerra once when I lived in his district, called the CIS customer service half a dozen times, gone to the local immigration office 7 times, and sent letters and e-mails to CIS Ombudsman Prakash Khatri over 20 times. The latter guy does absolutely nothing. I haven't been convicted either. I am currently stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's horrible and I truly wish I had gone to Canada, but I can't because the passport of my country of birth is absolutely worthless. It would not allow me to get a visa to move to any democratic nation with an immigration system which is why I never bothered to ever get it in my lifetime. If I try to move to Canada, I fear getting caught on the border and thrown into an immigration jail. My green card application has been pending since 1999. I really don't blame illegal immigrants. I haven't really benefited much from my 9 years of legal residence.--22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand was the first free country

I'm going to define a "free country" as one where there is universal suffrage, and if you exclude sub-territories such as US states (New Jersey) and mini-nations such as the Pitcairn Islands, then New Zealand became the first free country when it adopted women's suffrage in 1893. That's 1727 years before the USA became a free country by the same definition.-gadfium 21:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

my compatriot also failed to mention that the native Maori people of New Zealand had already had the vote before that time, compared to... when did native Americans get the vote in the US - 1920s? Oddly, the US allowed women to stand for office as early as the 1780s - they just couldn't vote. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

actually england hasnt had a parliament for hundreds of years (i forget how many exactly). neither is it a nation state. britain on the other hand has had a very old parliament and is wonderfully democratic- recognising minorities such as , oh i dont know, the scottish and welsh (and northern irish if we say the UK)

• I'd say that the United States wasn't the first free country, but it's certianly the best example of a functional free state--John Herbert Walker Bush Smith 00:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Which country has the highest rate of...

1. Atheism? 2. Vegetarianism? 3. Education? 4. Premarital sex?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.184.91 (talk • contribs)

Freedonia, no doubt about it. Geogre 13:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps Lilliput :).

On 1, you'd have to guess one of the ex- or current communist countries. Adherents.com lists Vietnam at 81% [1], for instance. Apparently Scandinavia has also become a bastion of atheism.

On 2, India?

Three is a difficult measure. You might see Literacy. I bet the bloody Scandinavians are on top of things again...

On four, I very much doubt you'll find reliable stats. Marskell 16:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say 1: Pottsylvania, 2: Atlantis, 3: Utopia, and 4: Freedonia, but I don't like numbers 2 & 3 very much. (I suspected that the questioner's question was designed as a web forum thing, not a real answer.) Geogre 17:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• I lived in a Muslim country where everything looked calm and ethical to outsiders. However, many religious folks didn't truly believe in anything they claimed to believe, they lied constantly, education was horrible; premarital, extramarital sex, and child molestation were stunning. Of course, there was a profusion of sermons. However, I had never heard of vegetarianism and people ate anything edible. (I do not choose to give my background info.)19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So they have to pretend to believe in these things or else everyone else will stone them to death (despite the fact that they don't believe it themselves)? --Username132 (talk) United Kindom Netherlands 01:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You just have discovered one the the major secrets of public morals: Hypocrisy (double standarts). It is present everywhere and not restricted to the muslim countries. Remember the American preacher who was caught in a hotel with a hooker (or was it his mistress)? In former times, a good father took his sons to the prostitutes so that they became "real men". But a woman which had done "it" before marriage was considered a slut. Thank God for the 70's and the emancipation of women, besides awfull haircuts and bad clothes. By the way, I don't agree that premarital sex is a bad thing (see above). Quite the opposite, it is fun and enjoyable. It does no harm, provided of course one is of legal age, it is done on free will, and someone takes the proper precautions (condom or the STD test). How are couples supposed to know if they can share an entire live together if they never have done "it" before with each other (or with another person)? Flamarande 09:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we committed atheism together. With due precautions. Oh, and veggism too, it is so delightful, with such a sense of sin! --DLL 17:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo DS Lite European/German Version In English?

Could someone please tell me if it is possible to set a nintendo ds lite purchased in germany to use english as its default language instead of german. And if it is also possible to change the languages on all the games, or just some, or none? The store workers i asked here in germany do not seem to know for sure, so id like to check before buying.....thanks to anyone who can help.

David

Generally, a game bought in Europe (including Germany) will have five languages available to switch to: English, German, Italian, French and Spanish. Any DS Lite has the option to switch its menus to English. You'll be fine.

Actors

I read your links on Movie actors on a regular basis. Why is there nothing on Jack Elam?? One of the greatest character actors of our time!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.197.248 (talk • contribs)

Did you try reading Jack Elam? Quite a bit about him there.--Shantavira 18:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Try StarSeeker.com, they are pretty good about that kinda stuff. (Hobgoblin)

Image of St. Peter Claver

Image of Catholic saint, Peter Claver posted on your site is an ideal image, which I will like to have as a poster picture of our school, which is named after this saint. How can I get a large poster side copy, replica, or print of this image for framing?

Thank you, Brenda Chee Wah

Please respond to the email address:

(email address redacted)

If you click on that picture, it will take you to the image page. there should be a link on there saying something like "Download high quality version", which will download a copy of that image to your computer. From there, you can get it printed in the same way you would get any other image on your computer printed. Grutness...wha? 07:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Song about Sharm el-Sheikh

At my synagogue, a lot of people know about this one Israeli song written during the Six Day War about the Egyptian city Sharm el-Sheikh. They said it one some sort of music award in Israel; however, I have been searching around Google and Wikipedia and have not been able to find it.

I don't know who wrote it or if there was a major artist that performed it.

--Foxjwill 19:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The lyrics are at [2] in transliteration. I believe this is the identical with the one of the same name written by Ron Eliran, but his website is too busy being immodest to make clear if it is, indeed, the same song or not. --Dweller 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much. --Foxjwill 05:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A tour-de-force of culture

I have always fancied myself a well-read man in his early twenties who enjoys art. However, to my consternation, I have discovered that I am not so well-read or well-versed in art as I previously thought. I have, for instance, never read a great deal of books that it seems every person should: I am just beginning Slaughterhouse Five right now, a book which I always thought of as high school reading. Art is worse; I am going to a museum within a week's time and have realized that I know absolutely nothing about art. I had thought that all that was required to appreciate art was sporadic viewings, but after conversing with an art history friend of mine I now know that there's a whole lot more.

So, if you would be so kind, I am seeking your help to make myself a cultured person. I need a crash-course in art criticism and a couple books to read so as to not to appear illiterate. Any help is appreciated, thanks in advance! Isopropyl 20:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That question will be sure to raise arguments as to which are the books one should read. You might peruse Great Books, although there have been recent complaints that the Great Books curriculum is biased towards dead white European males. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Basic art criticism: if it looks pretty it is bad art, if it does not look like anything for gawd sake don't say so. MeltBanana 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Art is, of course, very subjective, so it is hard to give a single quality that makes art great. Really, whatever art you like is good art to you. I, for instance, like creativity (I consider a lot of the disparaged modern art to be pretty creative, at least the first generation of an idea... eventually people just start copying the good ideas and make less creative art). I also appreciate technical skill (buy some paints and a paintbrush, or even use some painting software, and try to duplicate a painting... you'll find things a lot harder than they look and might end up appreciating the skill it took to make the picture in the first place). I also like anything that evokes emotion or nostalgia (e.g. I tend to like paintings involving snow because I love winter.. I also like desolate landscapes or eerie scenes). I'm no master of art appreciation or criticism, though. 128.197.81.223 23:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Linda Nochlin's Realism is a pretty good basic art appreciation text. (Realism, in her case, means imitative art, as opposed to abstract expressionism.) It's published by, I think, Pelican. There are better texts, but they're long surveys. Nochlin will get you up to speed quickly so that you won't sound like a total tourist. However, for the history of art, the Jansens History of Art is still the book. Geogre 04:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. Isopropyl 04:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a confession to make here. I work part time as an arts reviewer and have been doing so for four years - but when I started, I knew next to nothing about art and did it all on bluff. The most useful thing I can suggest to you is visit as many galleries as possible and keep your ears open. Listen to other people who are there and may be discussing the art. Talk to gallery owners, staff and curators - many of them will be only too happy to share their knowledge. Go to a few openings, if you can. Not only will you pick up information, but it will help in other ways if you wish to find yourself accepted into a fairly closed world of art cognoscenti. All that, of course, is of little help for next week, but if you really want a good knowledge of art then it's something to consider for the furute. As far as crash-course books are concerned, the standard classic text is Gombrich's "The story of art", but that can be pretty dry. "Civilisation" by Kenneth Clarke provides an overview not only of all the classic arts but also how they fit into the world at the time they were created. The Jansen mentioned above is very good, and Edward Lucie-Smith is a good writer to look out for work by (his "American Realism" in particular is very worthwhile). I'd also recomment finding one particular aspect of art, rather than tackling the whole lot (if you've some idea what sort of art the museum has, this might be useful) - it's relatively easy to pick up an appreciation of the Dutch masters, or Surrealism, or Romanticism, from a couple of well-chosen texts - picking up a global overview of all art is a lot trickier. Grutness...wha? 08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Casinos

I know states like Nevada that legalize gambling receive a lot of their revenue from the casinos, but does it come from the taxes casinos have to pay or from gaming license fees?

--AxeMan 23:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one state that I know of has legalized gambling remotely like Nevada, New Jersey. But, New Jersey only allows it in Atlantic City. In all other states, they have allowed casinos on Native American reservations or off-shore. Even off-shore ones are commonly limited to slot/poker machines. Then, there are the race tracks (which I don't think exist in Las Vegas, Reno, or Laughlin - the three largest casino towns in Nevada that I know of). All in all, no state has legalized gambling like Nevada.

So, I think your question has to do with state profits from reservation gaming and off-shore casinos. I do not believe the state can tax a reservation, but they can tax all the businesses around the casino and the state citizens who work at the casino. I'm sure there is some manner in which they tax winnings on the reservation. As for off-shore, the whole point is that it is not in the state (to get around a$nti-gambling laws). But the same holds as for reservations. You can tax everything around the casino. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but speaking of Nevada specifically, are the casinos taxed at a high rate or do they have to pay a lot for their licenses?

• Both. Here's an idea of the structure: In a big casino, each slot machine is $250/year tax plus a $20/quarter license fee, while table games go up to $1000/year tax plus a quarterly fee maxing at $1200 (the structure is complicated and peculiar); plus all gaming revenues are taxed at 6.75%. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Gaming" in the U.S. is far more prevalent than Kainaw says and the laws differ for each state (and probably each city). In Illinois casino are only allowed on navigable waterways - but the gambling boats never need to actually leave dock. In Michigan only cities with more than 750,000 inhabitants can have casinos (the second largest city in Michigan has a population of only 200,000). Taxing is probably just as variable. Rmhermen 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And keep in mind that Detroit's population is falling. There was a crisis recently when the population dropped below a million, and all the tax-law exemptions for cities of a million people or more no longer applied. --Serie 22:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)