Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 14

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.

September 14

Divine Comedy

Which translation of The Divine Comedy is usually considered the best? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.190.135 (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Why, Mikhail Lozinsky's! --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is my personal opinion, but I find the Pinsky translation of the Inferno superlative--so rich and colorful, with nary a forced rhyme (it's a hell of a lot easier to rhyme in Italian than English, so Pinsky uses a lot of Yeatsian off-rhymes to wondrous effect). I don't know, however, if he ever got around to translating Purgatorio or Paradisio--or whether he ever intended to.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There was an interesting review of a few translations of the Divine Comedy in the New Yorker of a few weeks ago. It is still online here. I thought it was pretty interesting, as it discusses some of the different approaches to translation of this that have been taken, since the original rhyme scheme is basically impossible to replicate in English. --24.147.86.187 13:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting book on translating poetry is Le Ton beau de Marot, by Douglas Hofstadter. He looks at the different approaches (faithful to form vs faithful to literal content) and compares translations of The Divine Comedy as well, though he elaborates more on translating Eugene Onegin and, of course, on A une Damoyselle malade by Clément Marot. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No matter which translation you choose, try and find one that's annotated. Or get the Cliff's notes. There's no shame in using notes to understand what's going on and what's happened during the story, especially if it helps you learn. Dante, like Shakespeare or Chaucer, totally goes down easier with some annotation. Beekone 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While the Hollanders' translation is pretty good, I thought the New Yorker review of it was good as encouragement to read Paradiso but lousy as a survey "of a few translations." Ciardi's version was brought in at the end as a comparandum, but it mangles the spare beautiful poetry of every passage Acocella admires. The non-occurrence of the name Mandelbaum in the review was criminal; Mandelbaum's translation meets all the criteria Acocella set herself for a rival & holds its own to the Hollanders' poetry. I feel pretty confident in the following summary: before Mandelbaum, only Binyon and Longfellow (perhaps a more idiosyncratic choice on my part) are worth remembering among verse translations; after Mandelbaum, only the Hollanders are worth considering for a verse translation of the whole Comedy—their version is not quite as purely Dantean, being a bit smoothed and padded in spots, but it is probably slightly more "readable" (dubious virtue) than Mandelbaum, and some people might confuse that for eloquence. As is probably clear, I recommend Mandelbaum. (Pinsky is fun to read but freely chucks out most of what is Dante's poetry; I'm assuming the questioner wants to read the content of Dante's poem.) Wareh 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to appall Dante purists and say that I personally enjoyed Dorothy Sayers' translation more than some of those held in high esteem above. Having said that, I acknowledge that most English translations of epic poems that aim at rhyme mangle the poem on multiple occasions, and Sayers' version is certainly guilty of this. Anonymous questioner, Wareh's comment to you about wanting to "read the content" is a good one for you to consider--if you want to "enjoy" the Divine Comedy, personally I'd pick a short section, and read it in as many translations as you can find until you find the one that you are most excited about reading. If you're looking for the "most faithful" or "most accurate" translation (note: of course I do not mean to imply that a "most faithful" translation can't also be the one that excites you most), follow the advice given above by those who preceded me. I don't think either motive ought to be looked down upon--anything that gets someone reading Dante makes me smile. Jwrosenzweig (editing anonymously) 07:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.34.128 (talk)

I recommend the translations of Lawrence Grant White (in iambic pentameter) and Melville Best Andersen (in the style of traditional English poetry). The original translation in English by Henry Cary, which was so beloved of Keats and the Romantic poets, is the most ringing and ponderous in certain parts (no one has ever improved on the speech of Ulysses in this translation: "Recall from whence ye sprung! Ye were not made to live the life of brutes, but virtue to pursue, and knowledge high!"), but (as the previous example demonstrates) it's also almost totally incomprehensible and often wading through it feels like trekking through the deeper muds of hell. 66.112.241.248 20:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Thanks for the other names. I hadn't seen Grant White and Anderson before ("before Mandelbaum, only..." was presumptuous of me), and Grant White has a certain basic eloquence—I might look further into it to give its qualities a chance someday. Anyway, just for completion, I'll add that it's hardly too much trouble to learn Italian to read Dante, since a reasonable person might well think that a properly informed encounter with Dante's poem is one of the highest purposes of human existence... Wareh 22:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Victor Emanuel II

How important was he in the ascent of fascism? C M Flea 05:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, C. M. First of all, I think you mean Victor Emmanuel III rather than Victor Emmanuel II, his grandfather, who died in 1878, well before Fascism was conceived. Anyway, if by the 'ascent of fascism' you mean Mussolini's assumption of power in October 1922 then Victor Emmanuel's role was not just important, it was decisive. Forget the mythology surrounding the March on Rome and the Fascist Revolution. Mussolini did not seize power; it was handed to him by the midget King. If Victor Emmanuel had taken a different road, which he might very well have done, Mussolini is likely to have become no more than a footnote in history, yet another failed Italian politician.

The thing is, you see, though Italy was a parliamentary democracy, the monarchy possessed considerable residual powers, including the right to appoint the Prime Minister, even if the individual in question did not command majority support in the Chamber of Deputies. A shy and somewhat backward individual, the King hated the day-to-day stresses of Italian politics, though the country's chronic political instability forced him to intervene no less than ten times between 1900 and 1922 to prevent parliamentary crises.

Fascist violence had been growing in intensity throughout the summer and autumn of 1922, climaxing with the rumours of a possible coup. Victor Emmanuel had all the means at his disposal to sweep Mussolini and his rag-tag Blackshirt army to one side. General Badoglio told the King that military would be able to rout the rebels, no more than 10,000 men, without any difficulty. Thereupon Victor Emmanuel ordered Luigi Facta, then Prime Minister, to protect Rome and draw up decree proclaiming martial law. The troops were totally loyal to the King. Even Cesare Maria De Vecchi, commander of the Blackshirts, and one of the organisers of the March on Rome, told Mussolini that he would not act against the wishes of the monarch. It was at this point that the Fascist leader considered leaving Italy altogether. But then, in the minute before midnight, so to speak, he received a telegram from the King inviting him to Rome. By midday on 30 October he had been appointed Prime Minister, at the age of thirty-nine, with no previous experience of office, and with only 35 Fascist deputies in the Chamber. Thus it was that Italian democracy died.

So, why; what happened to make the King change his mind? We can not be absolutely certain, though the explantion that he later offered in his memoirs-that he feared civil war-can safely be discounted. It would seem that he received some 'alternative' advice, possibly from Antonio Salandra, an ultra conservative politician and former Prime Minister, and General Armando Diaz, that it would be better to do a deal with Mussolini. There were also pro-Fascist elements in his immediate family, including Margherita of Savoy, his mother. Whatever the circumstances, Victor Emmanuel showed weakness in a position of strength, with dire future consequences for Italy and for the monarchy itself. Clio the Muse 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I copied parts of Clio's reply to our article about Victor Emmanuel III of Italy. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

researching novels

I'm interested in the process of researching a novel. In particular, I would like to know what main differences exist between research for popular novels and literary ones. My interest in this was especially piqued by reading in some book about George Eliot that some critics have accused Romola of being overresearched. This struck me as rather odd, but it makes sense if you allow for a few implied caveats. 203.221.126.156 08:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To begin with I am not really sure that you can draw a clear distinction between the 'popular' and the 'literary'; some great literature has also been popular, judging by sales. But in terms of researching the subject there may be no difference at all between the 'light-weight' and the 'heavy-weight'. In other words, there may be as much research, perhaps even more, going in to, say, tosh like the Da Vinci Code as there is in Daniel Deronda or any similar work of literature. Clio the Muse 00:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Clio. Yes, I had expected something like that might be the case, but I'm primarily curious about different types of research, although the amount interests me as well. Dan Brown did a lot of research for his masterly piece of c---, but all of it was superficial, including at least one basic factual error (crediting Zimmerman as a pioneer in cryptography, when in fact he pinched some other people's work). Usually, this doesn't seem to happen, and they seem to get the facts right. I'm curious about whether this is expected of literary writers to the same extent, or can they rely on characterisation and language, and then just research specific focal points of their novels without as much attention to bald factual detail (a psychological writer might read Freud or Jung, for example). Any insights are always appreciated. 203.221.127.147 14:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A few novelists are reputed to do a massive amount of research. Leon Uris comes to mind. But I don't think it's common, and the most prestigious novelists never seem to do it. I think novelists generally strive for a response, and if they can achieve this without exhaustive research, they do. That's why they generally write about what they already know, or what no one knows. People who care deeply about accuracy tend not to become professional fabricators. -Kent, 129.174.54.141 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More on the Massacre of Glencoe

Hello. I read comments here quite recently about the 1692 massacre of the Macdonalds in Glencoe, Scotland. I've gotten very interested because of this and chosen it for a school project. I live in Glasgow so my dad is taking me up on saturday to have a look at the place. Ive read what your encyclopedia says and some other stuff as well but i still dont fully understand. Why was nobody charged with murder? Why were the MacDonalds chosen instead of anyone else? How closely was the king involved. Why was the Campbell regiment chosen? Did there captain know why he was going to Glencoe? Thanks for any help you can give me. Yours sincerely, Donald Paterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald Paterson (talk • contribs) 11:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy your trip. For those visiting Glencoe, Coire Gabhail - the Lost Valley, Geograph has pictures - is worth a look, but only if you have the time and are properly equipped.

The Massacre of Glencoe article has some of the answers. See the "Inquiry" section for the strange legal aftermath. It also quotes the Master of Stair's letter to Sir Thomas Livingstone instructing that the "troops posted at Inverness and Inverlochie will be ordered to take in the house of Invergarry, and to destroy entirely the country of Lochaber, Lochiel's lands [i.e. Clan Cameron], Keppoch's, Glengarie's, Appin and Glencoe. I assure you your power shall be full enough, and I hope the soldiers will not trouble the Government with prisoners." So, initially at least, the MacDonalds of Glencoe were not specifically targeted, the Camerons getting first mention. The king did not take much interest in Scottish affairs, except insofar as they might impact his war with France. My understanding is that Argyll's regiment was nearest to hand and was picked for that reason. The fall guy commander on the spot, Robert Campbell of Glenlyon, is said not to have been aware of the purpose of his expedition, which was kept as secret as possible.

It should be easy to get John Prebble's Glencoe out of a library. It's not exactly dispassionate, but quite comprehensive and a good read. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Donald, let me answer your several questions in turn, adding a little to the information that Angus has already supplied.

Why was nobody ever charged with murder? The answer to that is fairly simple: it is highly unlikely that any murder trail could have been limited to the conduct of a few officers on the spot. Inevitably the waves would have moved upwards, to John Dalrymple and ultimately to King William himself. The Scottish Parliament did ask William to send Captain Robert Campbell and other officer's of the Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot home for trial, though no action was ever taken.

As Angus has said, the target for the 'extraordinary action' was initially much wider, embracing just about all of the Jacobite clans in Lochaber. It was scaled down because there were insufficient troops free for the purpose. In the end Dalrymple decided that an example should be made of the MacDonalds of Glencoe, first, because they had earned his particular animus, and second, because they were vulnerable. When you have made your visit to Glencoe (one of my favourite spots for mountain climbing!) you will be able to understand just why this should be so. You see, the narrow valley is not a fortress: it's a trap, one that could easily be sealed at both ends.

How closely was William involved? He signed the orders for the killing, but the evidence suggests that he never gave the matter his serious attention. For him it was a minor problem, which he delegated to his Secretary of State. It certainly reveals a lot about his attitude towards the Highlanders; for I doubt even William, no matter how impatient, would have given his consent to the wholeasale slaughter of an English or a Lowland community.

As Angus says, the Campbell Regiment was on the spot; but there were others just as near, including that of John Hill (who, contrary to the assertion of the Wikipedia page, was not the colonel the Argyll Regiment) at Fort William. It was Dalrymple, looking to the outcome, who chose the Argylls, with the apparent intention of putting a gloss of traditional clan rivalry on an act of official policy.

If you read the orders handed to Glenlyon on the evening of 12 February 1692, the day prior to the Massacre, you should be able to deduce by the threatening tone adopted that he had no prior indication of his task, which, incidentally, was badly executed.

I'm guessing you are somewhere in your early teens? In whch case I would second Angus' recommendation of Prebble's account, a 'rattling good yarn'! There are others, including one by John Buchan, though far less satisfactory. The best 'serious' treatment of the subject is Paul Hopkin's Glencoe and the End of the Highland War. Serious in that it contains every conceivable fact; but his prose style is unbelievably dull. R. C. Paterson's Lord of the Isles, a general history of Clan Donald, also has a useful chapter on Glencoe. Clio the Muse 01:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster Followers

Anyone happen to know the total number of followers for said monster? The religion is pastafarianism.

Nobody actually follows it in the same way that one would follow islam or christianity. That's kind of the whole point. Capuchin 12:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah but you could say the same thing for Scientology. Anywho... I guess you could ask how many people would be willing to believe that the FSM was real. (whether or not every friday is a religious holiday) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.21.81 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Er no actually, you can‘t say the same thing for Scientology -it‘s followers take their religion totally seriously whereas ‘Pastafarianisns‘ are parodying organized religion.. It‘s an internet phenomenon and intended to be humorous. Natalie West 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very careful to claim that the intention is humor, Natalie. The wikipedia article definitely stays away from that, and asserts that the intention was to make a (rather serious) point. That said, people online seem to treat it as any kind of humor, which it really isn't. /65.219.168.142 06:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys should have a look at the home-page for some people that take it really seriously. They dress up as the FSM and worship bird defecatory in the shape of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.21.81 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've converted everyone on the chatroom for Arizona Diamondbacks to it after I invoked him by cooking pasta and turned an 8 run deficit into a win..hotclaws 06:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

HA! Good one. :) Anyway, I have a friend who considers himself pastafarian, but I asked him, and he says he doesn't really think it exists. I'm sure most (not all) pastafarians are like that. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Composer/Songwriter

Who wrote the music and lyrics to 5 Foot e Eyes of Blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.110.178 (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

According to most sources, Ray Henderson composed the tune. Joe Young and Sam M. Lewis wrote the lyrics. There's more information in the article Has Anybody Seen My Gal? ---Sluzzelin talk 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears she has grown a little bit since the song was written, from 5′ 2″ to 5′ 2.7182818...″! (Sorry, I shouldn't pick on the OP's typo.) — Michael J 21:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Driver's license

If you're passing someone and you accelerate to 70 mph (in a 55 mph zone) is that speeding, or are you allowed to speed up while passing someone?

Also, if you are at the point which convention of another ticket (already recived) would result in a driver's licenses being suspended, can you move to another state, and get a driver's licnesse prior to the suspension? A) What would happen after your origional state tried to suspend its licnesse? B) Would you start off with points in the new state for "violations" accured before you got the licnese in that state? XM 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Not legal advice - merely a link to the Highway code) You don't give a country or state (I'm assuming you live in the US, though), but in the UK, you must stay below speed limit even when overtaking (Highway Code says "You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle" while Green Flag says "Only overtake if you are 100% certain that the road ahead is clear and you can overtake within the distance without going too fast for the conditions or breaking the speed limit") - the idea is that if the car in front is travelling at the speed limit, there's no reason to overtake. Not all US states use the point system, so in theory you could move to one of those states, but our article doesn't list which ones these are. Laïka 13:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do live in the US (Arkansas), and am close enough that I could move to Texas. Texas appears to have a point system as well. My two concerns then are A) If I move to Texas and get a TX drivers licensse before my trial, what happens when I get convicted--will Arkansas seek to suspend my drivers licensse? If so, what will happen? And B) Do my points transfer? Thanks XM 14:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything over the speed limit is speeding. There's an unspoken 5-10 mile buffer zone in most cases, but if a cop gets the urge he can pull you over for doing 56 in a 55. If someone is traveling at 55 mph in a 55mph zone you can't legally pass that person. Beekone 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The unspoken premise of the question seems to be, if the speed limit is 55mph, I have a legal right to do 55 by passing the person doing 53 (even if I have to go 70 to do so). Not so. Wareh 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where following the actual law may sometimes be dangerous and stupid. When passing, you should aim to spend as little time as possible in the wrong lane. But yes, you can get a ticket for this- speed laws are not aimed at traffic safety, they're aimed at generating revenue. Friday (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd put that differently, Friday. Speed laws are aimed at traffic safety - that was what the legislators were about. All too often, though, those who enforce the laws (usually traffic police) do it in such a way as to generate the maximum revenue, often with quiet encouragement from the local and/or national governments who benefit from the money. So, instead of targeting notoriously dangerous roads, it's normal to find that the enforcement people get busy on the better roads, where travelling above the speed limit is less dangerous so more people do it.

Returning to the OP's question, in the UK all speed limits apply while overtaking. It's quite normal here to find speed checks at the best places on a difficult road for overtaking, because overtaking is the one time when most drivers see no harm in breaking the speed limit. I don't know of a country where there's an exemption for overtaking. Xn4 00:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

While to some extent you have a point I would say it isn't that simple. While generally you should aim to spend as little time as possible on the wrong side of the road however I would argue it's still possible to go too fast such that your likely to be a bigger danger. Also remember that if overtaking IMHO you should never be in a position that you have to go that fast anyway. While it's still better to go as fast as is safe, in the end it shouldn't make much of a difference since you should never be passing unless you have enough clear road to easily pass the car while travelling at a much more resonable speed. And IMHO there is no real justification for overtaking a car consistent travelling at or close to the speed limit. As for enforcement I agree there is a degree of revenue generation involved but again it's not that simple. One of the biggest things people forget is that one of the reasons traffic enforcement tends to be blind is because it's simple and it works resonable well. For example if a road is known for overtaking then it's likely that some of it is dangerous overtaking. However it's virtually impossible for a static device to determine if the overtaking is dangerous. Someone who is going at extreme speeds to overtake is probably far more likely to be overtaking dangerously then someone at a more resonable speed. So by targetting these people you hope to cut down on dangerous overtaking. Of course someone overtaking at a slowish speed without sufficient room is going to be more dangerous still but the likelihood here IMHO is that on average you will actual reduce dangerous overtaking even if you effectively increase the danger for all people when overtaking slightly. Similarly some people argue that speed limits or bannings talking on mobile phones are unnecessary because the police should concentrate on reckless driving. The problem here is that giving police too much discretionary power tends to be a bad thing and more importantly, just because something isn't immedietly reckless doesn't mean it isn't reckless in other situations. By stopping people from doing it in any situation the hope is that you reduce the chance they will do it when it is reckless. BTW, as for dangerous roads there are several issues to consider. Firstly if the problems are not caused by speed then clearly speed cameras won't help much. Putting more police officers on the road may help but only if part of the reason the road is dangerous is because of clearly careless or reckless activity that can be easily recognised before it's too late. Also if the road is narrow, winding or hilly it may be difficult for the police officers to see much of what is going on and also they may not be able to observe the road from a vantage point so they will need to just be driving along the road. Finally consider that you may not be able to stop people on the road safely so your only option may be to ticket them after the offence which may not necessarily help much in some cases. N.B. I'm not involved in law enforcement or legislation or research into traffic control Nil Einne 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Violin and Clarinet duos

It's often been said that the violin is the instrument that most closely resembles the human voice. This claim has also been made about the clarinet. I wonder, therefore, why there is no music (that I can think of) in the standard classical repertoire that features violin and clarinet as a duo, eg. in a concerto. Does anyone know of such a piece?

The closest relative I'm aware of is Max Bruch's Concerto for Viola, Clarinet and Orchestra - meltingly beautiful, well worth repeated hearings; and I know of a few chamber works for viola, clarinet and piano. But violin, clarinet and piano?? -- JackofOz 15:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia knows all - see clarinet-violin-piano trio. Gandalf61 15:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How true. Thanks for the link, Gandalf. -- JackofOz 00:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

However, the only concerto for violin, clarinet and orchestra I've been able to discover is one by Thomas Christian David (born 1925). There must be others. Anybody know of one? -- JackofOz 03:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Google[1] suggests other obscure pieces. Apparently Elsa Ludwig-Verdehr & husband Walter Verdehr have performed more than one of these (the David you mention; by Richard Mills; by Stephen Chatman; by McMaster University Prof. Emeritus William Wallace; by James Niblock; by Dinos Constantinides [Concerto of Psalms]; with other completed commissions mentioned by Paul Chihara and Ian Krouse). There also seem to be such double concertos by Erkki-Sven Tüür and William Thomas McKinley ("Lucy" Variations). I may have mangled some details, since this was a quick survey. Wareh 21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you Wareh. I'll take it from here. -- JackofOz 01:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy grail

Is the historic quest for it true? Is it accepted that Holy grail is a person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.48.98 (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I dare you to read the atricle on the 'holy grail' first. However, in the words of Stephen Fry complete "loose stool-water" and "arse gravy of the worst kind", when of course referring to 'The Da Vinci Code' and all that sail with her. Lanfear's Bane 15:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of being too bold, I'll just add that, in answer to "Is it accepted that Holy grail is a person?", the only reasonable answer is "No, not universally, and not even nearly so." At best, we can say that some authors have put forward the grail as person theory, and some find it convincing. I personally don't, but that, as they say, is neither here nor there. 71.112.34.128 06:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Holy Grail" as a phrase only existed after the Twelfth century. It is a creation of fictional literature. Interpretations of the phrase are entirely rhetorical, poetic, lyrical, fictional, etc. Greg Bard 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Book About Restaurant Kitchens

Dear Wikis, I am trying to remember the title of a book, which is about what happens "behind the scenes" in a restaurant kitchen. The book discusses the many nasty things that go on back there, such as dropping food and putting it back on the plate, "recycling" food, etc. There are probably many books about this same subject, but can anyone throw around some titles? Many thanks is advance. 198.240.130.75 15:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell? In the Paris part of the book he describes how he works in a kitchen, and how such things happen to the food. He also says that the more expensive the restaurant, the more fingers have touched your food before you est it. SaundersW 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Look through Anthony Bourdain's bibliography, since he often writes about that sort of thing. Recury 18:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitchen Confidential, by the aforementioned Anthony Bourdain? --LarryMac | Talk 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitchen Confidential fo sho. My wife's a huge Bourdain fan, so I've been inundated with these second hand stories for a longtime now. Beekone 18:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Construction Law terminology

I am looking for an on-line glossary or dictionary of construction law terminology. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archlandinc (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How's about Glossary of Legal Terms Related to Construction Law SGGH ^speak! 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

BLOWBACK

Funding Ho Chi Minh during ww2, Al Queda during the cold war, etc. is that considered blowback (CIA definition)? Or is it only for US policies?--Mostargue 17:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

blowback gives a more subtle defintion - but if you mean 'karma' or 'what goes around comes around' or 'do as to others as you would have done to you' the answer would be as you guess a tentative yes.83.100.255.59 17:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Al Qaeda was formed after the Cold War ended. The US funded Osama bin Laden and other mujahadeen fighters (and in doing so indirectly allowed Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons), but never funded Al Qaeda as such, as that group was mostly formed by people pissed off about US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. --Sean 19:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Osama bin Laden wasn't a "mujahideen fighter" -- he ran his own little volunteer supply and logistics organization in Pakistan. And the U.S. didn't "fund" him in any particularly direct sense (he had plenty of Arab money of his own). At most, the CIA coordinated logistics and supply with his organization. AnonMoos 23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • They gave him training, but I agree that there's a distinction. --Sean 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Amusing trivia: in the Cold War-era action movie Rambo III, the eponymous hero fights alongside the future Taliban against evil Communists. If I remember right, he plays some Buzkashi with them, and then later fights off a Soviet attack helicopter with a bow and explosive-tipped arrow. :D --Sean 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It couldn't be the Taliban, because the Taliban didn't begin to emerge as a distinct movement until the mid-1990's, after the Soviets had been expelled, and a few years of confused Mujahideen chaos had ensued. A lot of the problems of Afghanistan were due to the fact that Pakistan always insisted on funneling major support to the most reactionary extremist forces in Afghanistan, first Gulbuddin Hekmatiar, then the Taliban. Pakistan refused to let the U.S. operate within Pakistan to aid the Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets unless a large amount of money was given to good old Gulbuddin, and the Pakistani intelligence service (the ISI) followed a systematic policy over 15 years of fostering Wahhabism in Afghanistan. AnonMoos 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • As I said, *future* Taliban. --Sean 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The future Taliban were mainly rather young students in 1988... AnonMoos —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thames Festival

What is this about? What does it celebrate? Finally i know it starts tomorrow but what time and until when? Simply south 21:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It celebrates the Thames! The website [www.thamesfestival.org] says The Mayor’s Thames Festival celebrates London’s river with amazing open air arts, pyrotechnics, illuminations, river events, street theatre, massed choirs and music. This year marks the festival’s 10th Anniversary and we are celebrating in style - from the Al Fresco Ballrooms in unique riverside settings, to themed feasts on Southwark Bridge, to the festival’s climactic event, a spectacular Night Carnival and fireworks display.

The festival was launched in 1997 with a stunning high-wire walk across the River Thames and over the years it has grown incrementally to become one of London’s largest annual events. In 1998, a year on from the wire walk, we delivered the first Thames Festival. There was an international food and craft market peppered with street theatre and music and two large scale events: a mid-river concert on a floating stage and a night carnival. It was a modest start, but even then the festival’s character started to establish itself - one based on celebration, transformation and participation.

Essentially, we want to provide a celebration for London and its river, a city centre party if you like, one that is free and open to all. We want to close roads and bridges and transform them with culture. We want to educate and transform people’s ideas about the river, too. Most of all, we want people not just to be spectators, but to be active participants in this spectacular London event.

Adrian Evans, Festival Director.

It's on the 15th and 16th September, website has more details. DuncanHill 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It starts about lunch time an goes on till late evening (ten or eleven, I think), along the stretch of the Thames between Westminster and Tower Bridge. It's fun! I was there last year, and will be going tomorrow. Enjoy yourself! Clio the Muse 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what happens, sort of. Simply south 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientology

I was reading the article about Scientology when some facts started to unease me. According to the articles ( Scientology, Scientology vs. The Internet, Operation Snow White, Operation: Freakout...) Scientologists can sue anybody and get away with it? If it's a Church then how can it own these and how can it trademark and have legal actions by writing a few words?! It seems ridiculous to me, how can they have the right to sue anyone for critizing the religion, I thought there were rights to protect the Religion and Speech of individuals? What happened to those rights that are protected by the US Constitution? Thanks for your time (Lawyers can really help me out here, so label yourself as one!)

P.S.- After Operation Snow White and Operation: Freakout; why isn't the Church of Scientology labeled as a criminal organization? They use inimidation, harrassment, entrapment etc... and those are felonies, and if any other group did that then they would be labeled likewise.

Thanks yet again! ♥ECH3LON♥ 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[2]--Mostargue 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't legal advice, and I'm no fan of Scientology, but I'd have thought that freedom of religion, speech and association does not extend to what could be interpreted as vilification of a legally established religion. It's one thing to proclaim that your own religion is the best, but publicly referring to another in inflammatory and negative language is a different matter. -- JackofOz 03:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty is that it's even murkier than you suggest. Some inflammatory and negative language would indeed be protected by the First Amendment. "Scientology is a religion for fools" would be an example. On the other hand, lawsuits are expensive. A critic of Scientology who voices such a criticism, is sued, and wins, may look at the resulting legal bills and resolve not to criticize Scientology again. JamesMLane t c 05:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To address the other part of the question: There is no limitation to the abilities of non-profits, including churches, to own trademarks and copyrights. I ould image most denominations have trademarked their major emblems. Rmhermen 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

JackofOz, your take on free speech frightens me. I can and do vilify established religions all the time. Scientologists usually use copyright, trademark, and libel as their litigational tools. -- Diletante 16:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I second your first sentence. Why in God's name would a "legally established religion" be afforded special protection against vilification that supercedes an individual's constitutionally protected right to free speech?!

JackOfOz and other non-United Statesians are not subject to the US Constitution. The Australian Constitution does not have an explicit right to free speech. --Sean 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

True (afaik, but ianal). However, we certainly do have anti-vilification laws here, e.g. Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, and rel;igious organisations have figured prominently as plaintiffs. -- JackofOz 04:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ech3lon, you might like to take a look at Scientology and the legal system for some insight into your question. That article also discusses the "Church's" reception in other countries, notably Germany, Belgium, France and Russia, as some points of comparison to its status in the U.S. and England. Also, the Church does have the right, as does any other organization, to protect its copyrights and defend itself against libel and slander; the question is whether it is always acting in good faith or attempts to game the system by using frivolous litigation to harass, silence and bankrupt critics whose criticism is legitimately constitutionally or otherwise protected. See also: Scientology controversy, especially the section on dealing with critics. 38.112.225.84 18:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Short selling

Say you've sold a company (like SCO) short, and the company does something that causes trading of the stock to stop (like filing for bankruptcy protection) before you can cover your short. What happens? What if the company files for bankruptcy? --67.185.172.158 23:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, this shouldn't happen. See a useful article here. Xn4 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you short a stock, you could conceivably find yourself in a short squeeze, in which you must go bankrupt or purchase the stock you have sold short at many times the price for which you sold it. See James J. Hill for a 1901 example with a railroad stock. I like to think of a short squeeze as an economic Wedgie (i.e. the squeezing of your shorts). You have limited potential gain in a short,(because a stock cannot go below zero per share) but unlimited loss (because there is no limit to how high the stock could go). Edison 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Shouldn't happen" doesn't mean "couldn't happen"! I don't see an answer to the original question in the above responses or the useful article linked to. So the question remains: Suppose the situation of the question does arise. What is the legal situation then? Could the lender force you to cover, even though they would be (attempting to) force you to do something impossible, as you can evidently not buy stock that is not being traded? If they did (attempt to) force you to buy the stock, and you can't comply for the simple reason that the stock is no longer traded, what would happen next?  --Lambiam 14:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In the article referenced above there is a passing mention of your maximum gain being "100% if the company goes out of business". I wouldn't take that as a hard answer, but an indication. 199.71.183.2 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)