Humanities desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 12 >

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.

December 11

Need to contact Arabist

I used the email (tim@mackintosh-smith.com) on Tim Mackintosh-Smith's official website to send him a letter, however, I got a delivery error message. Does anyone know of a valid email for him? I usually contact authors via their publishers, but I figured someone out there might have his contact information already. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the error message? Not all errors are permanent. If your sure the errors was permanent, try e-mailing the webmaster and telling him? the e-mail is borked Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery error. I'll try the webmaster then. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early photoshopping question

I think I've seen this picture before, but I'm not sure; it definitely shows a powerful trio: Stalin, Lenin, Kalinin. However, Stalin looks rather out of place: is this one of the many pictures where he's added in after the picture was taken? The image description includes a link to its source, but the URL is rotten. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a painting to me. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't been added in, no. It was doctored by cropping (to make Stalin and Lenin look closer), not by adding in people.

As for the "painting" look—many Soviet photographics reproductions from this period have this look. It has to do with the technology they used, I believe, and probably a purposeful style that was in vogue at the time. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found what seems to be an enlargement of part of the image. It nudges me toward the "portrait" point of view. You'd think those files Lenin has (on Kalinin, maybe) would throw some shadow. Still, I'm no expert; it could be an amateur photographer, like some Comm intern. --- OtherDave (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to stalinproject.com (see here) that is indeed a photograph of the March 1919 party congress, but it was "doctored so that only Stalin, Lenin and Kalinin appeared". We can suspect that the three of them were retouched at the same time, which would explain the painterly quality of the image. The site (stalinproject.com) goes on to say that Kalinin was "later erased" from the photograph. I notice the picture credits on that site are to the "David King Collection". No doubt this is the same David King who is the author of The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia (Metropolitan Books, 1997, ISBN 0805052941, ISBN 978-0805052947), which I think you'll find worth consulting, Nyttend. Xn4 (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several examples of this type of photo manipulation, including the "Vanishing Commissar", can be found at Censorship of images in the Soviet Union. — jwillbur 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly correct on all these fronts, though again, I think the "painting" effect is something indicative of technology in use at that time and place, not manipulation. It's extremely common on Russian "photos" even through WWII for them to have that complete hazy appearance, which again I suspect has something to do with the printing techniques, the paper, etc. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, in my temp-work days I once had an assignment in a newspaper morgue, and found to my surprise that nearly every photograph was blatantly retouched, usually to improve contrast between the subject and the background. —Tamfang (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Grand Duke of Russia

I know Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia (d. 1960) was the last living daughter/male-line granddaughter of a Russian Emperor. But who was the last Grand Duke? Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several living claimaints to the throne of Russia. See Line of succession to the Russian throne for more on these... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take the question to mean the last living son or male-line grandson; I'm rather sleepy and can't answer this now, but it shouldn't be hard for someone that's awake to discover. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How should I understand this answer

Galaxia the Stories Of Ilusion

I added a request for an article how long I need to wait till the article actually appears on Wikipedia is it possible to request it here ? if so there's the material for the article: http://www.mediaminer.org/fanfic/view_st.php/158666

"In my view, this falls into the category of articles that should never appear in Wikipedia, for the reason of . . . well, non-notable seems too generous. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC) "

Can somebody explain to me what expression "Non-notable seems to generous" Means is this a probe of offending me !! My novel cannot be posted becuse it would be "To generous" ? Is this Wikipedist telling me that I have to give a bribe in order to get an article about my Novel here posted ??? Is Wikipedia corrupt ? Becuse this answer surrelly suggest it !

Can somebody more inteligent explain me the true reasons here's the Material: http://www.mediaminer.org/fanfic/view_st.php/158666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not someone saying you should offer them a bribe. It's someone pointing out that this book doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) and doesn't seem likely to in the future, neither does it meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) (as it's an ebook). Nanonic (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "generous" quip seems to be that editor's way of rudely suggesting that your book is not only "non-notable", but that it's "very non-notable".

Obviously, this was unnecessary, but it was not a request for a bribe. Or a suggestion that you need to be more generous or anything like that. APL (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words Im too poor right say it!! First thing read the Material then comment ! Don't think Ill stop trying that easilly ! First i suggest you should read it than you can say is it notable ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calme down, getting all upset isn't going to make a difference. Notability, for the purposes of Wikipedia, is not something that is inherent in your own novel; please read the links that Nanonic provided, which detail very precisely how notability is defined for Wikipedia. The original comment by DOR (HK) is regrettable, and could have been phrased much more civilly, so, to the extent that I can, I apologize for that. --LarryMac | Talk 15:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to reading about what books are considered important or "notable" enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, please also read Wikipedia's rules about Conflicts of Interest. In general, You are not allowed to add links to books you have written yourself.

And finally, please refrain from doing things like this. This is uncivil. APL (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you define civil ? So Im not allowed to do so I should be quiet I do not belong to the "Civilisied " World and as such been said I have no regrets I still consider you should read it And decide for yourself those this match your taste first as of that article i thought that would be Awesome but seeing the reply of an "civilisied" wikipedist I feel only disquist hm interesting how can an Encyclopedia gather information if its not allowed ! If my town page does not exists I cannot create it (Why do you think i gived a link Don't you think I could have made an article my self !) First of all Im interested in your opinion on my Novel If Im not allowed it is like Im not allowed to gather Information !! Isnt that going against the principity of the Encyclopedia which is gathering information this is how this look in reality I gaved you a source a material for you to look and decide can it be used in this encyclopedia and yet you decided to do nothing So is that what your rules say ! ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be compounded problems here. 84.205 either does not understand English well enough to know the difference between, for example, the meanings of the words "civility" and "civilization", or the non-financial meanings of the word "generous", or he is seeking out conflict by reading offense into the words of others where no intended offense exists. Wikipedia policies such as WP:N are difficult to understand for new users since "notability" takes on a different quantifiable meaning at Wikipedia that does not exist outside of Wikipedia. However, I am not finding this dicussion terribly productive, given the numerous instances that 84.205 has refused to assume good faith of others... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(After Edit Conflict) -- You know, a couple people have pointed the policy guidelines to help you understand this, but you still want to take every comment as some kind of insult. That's not going to help the situation. You also seem to want to continue to make assumptions about what Wikipedia is and how it operates. Perhaps a review of About Wikipedia would be helpful. In a nutshell, and copied directly from that page - "Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited." We have already tried to show you the criteria for "notable". It is not for any of us, as Wikipedia editors, to read your novel and form an opinion, because that would constitute "Original Research" which is (as noted on the About page) not permitted. Other, external sources would have to do that, publish their own findings in reputable source, and then possibly an article would be created. Those are "our rules", and you are encouraged to read the provided links for more specific details. --LarryMac | Talk 19:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To possibly clarify even further: Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of all the information in the world. We do not have an article about every book ever written, we never will, and we don't want to. Instead, we have specific rules about what can have a Wikipedia article, and what can't have a Wikipedia article. Please read the links which have been provided in this discussion, and you will see for yourself that your book does not fulfill our requirements. It might be a very good book, but that doesn't matter, because our requirements have nothing to do with being good or well-written. This is nothing personal against you; this is about rules that have been decided on by hundreds if not thousands of people, working together over a period of years. There are many places on the internet where you can publicize your book, and I wish you luck, but Wikipedia is simply not one of those places. I'm sorry if you've found this process confusing or upsetting. And incidentally, "civil", as used here, basically means "polite", and we have a rule about that, too. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Offended me so Ill offend you but let me make a comment here Im not a number but s human being you offended me calling me a number ! a simple courtesy should allow you to go to the link and adleast check the authors name !! Second Youre rules are like water they can be changed be glad you stopped me for now but you won't be able to do so in 2012 ! whpipe yourself you know where with these rules Youre not collecting the information so what are you doing you lazy Bubms ! writing propaganda ! Everything you so work for and belive will end in 2012 Ill make it end than (the hysteria from that prophecy will help me ever wondered how many people belive this stuff) see you in 2012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See you then! --Tango (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've really missed BJAODN, or however that was spelled .... --LarryMac | Talk 20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not a number—I am a free man!" Deor (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quoi? --Fullobeans (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right forum for this... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

84.205.25.63,/ I’m sorry if I offended you; my comment was out of line and inappropriate. However, it does appear that you really wanted to be offended, at least in your persistence in coming back and rehashing the same points over and over.

Other people have explained what kinds of works are likely to be included in Wikipedia, and that authors are unlikely to be successful in promoting their own material here, so I will bow out of that discussion. Oh, and for the record, I did read your work, but couldn’t follow the story after the first page.

By the way, what was the threat about 2012 all about? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC) PS Thanks to LarryMac and others for covering my back.[reply]

It's the end of the world!!!. Or not. --LarryMac | Talk 13:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well something will end in 2012 thats certain don't worry nothing will happen to you ....The world will end in 2012 meaning the world as we know is coming to an end ! You see it in the news the financial crisis thats overflowned the world well Im living in the only country not affected by the finacial crisis (meaning our economy is not affected but our foreign deals suffered a bit) (Im from Poland) in 2012 Poland and Ukraine will host EUEFA Soccer tournament (If were able to ready everything on time) our economy might become one of the biggest if not the biggest economies in the world (replacing althought only for like few years the USA in the first place ) Buts that trivial ! In Eu currently there's no borders EU is becoming a super federal state that might be able to compete with the US however I think US at some point will want to merge it into its own alliance (All the members are already members of US lead NATO) If Russia will Join the EU and than EU will merge with the American union the first step of Globalisation will be ended ! Also some current institutions are loosing power (Like The church)and will have to move aside and not intefere with politics being simple faith organisation ! IM NOT SAYING IT WILL HAPPEN Exactly in 2012 but in my opinion than it will be quite visible thats something of this sort is happening ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US economy is 34 times the size of the Polish one - it's going to take more than a minor recession and a football tournament to make a dent in that! --Tango (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I got what I wanted an apology from the first person that offended me so Ill leave it at that ! Try to read all the chapters and you should follow however I guess it can be good if you post things you didn't get they might be trivial (remember its a little bit grotesque especcially the way character narrates and its also an satire as well !) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would indeed be a trial. Like DOR (HK), I couldn't get through the first page. You need help from a native speaker with spelling, grammar, punctuation, style and flow. I promise you it will go nowhere without this. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not a native speaker I just want a clear answer is the plot understanable by the way Im Polish and could use some grammar tips first of try to read more than one chapter than You'll be less confused ! By the way this was a direct Polish translaition and it is a trial I can guarantee you that if you force yourself threw the first three chapters the story will be much easier to understant also Watching an Anime show would be great this story and the way I wrote it its inspired by the Anime now answer me did you understand the plot becuse the plot is here the most important if you're looking for characters information you need to read the whole 10 chapters ! Also try reading Dziady if you get a chance you might be able to understand the style better sorry for all the troubles ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting your readers to "force themselves" to read your works is asking the impossible. If it doesn't interest them, it doesn't interest them, and there's no power on Earth (short of a re-write) than can change that. It's not like they're set texts at a university or school that people have no option but to read. In the real world, most people adopt the John le Carré philosophy: As a reader, I insist on being beguiled early or not at all, which is why many of the books on my shelves remain mysteriously unread after page 20. But once I submit to the author's thrall, he can do me no wrong.

I'd say le Carré's an over-achiever; there are books on my shelves that I never got past page 2. In some books, you're lucky to have anyone even finish page 1. It's the writer's job to make the writing so interesting that the reader can't put the book down. In that sense, the only "forcing" that goes on is the writer forcing the reader to read because he's written the story in such an irresistible way. For that, you have to be able to stand in the reader's shoes and imagine what it would be like if you were browsing in a bookshop, picked up the book, and glanced at page 1. You've got a way to go, but with help, I'm sure you can do it. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

obviously youre right in both I need help thats why Im here I need your ohnest Opinion did this interest you or not did you get the plot also there are some people who like my way of writing and thus who do not understand ! Im not to sue about Le carrie but there are some books and storylines worth to force yourself "Master and Margaritha" "Solaris" if you didn't read any of these two than you can have troubles im still in opinion that my novel is well written but I could use some grammar opinions also were you intrigiated by the plot or the story ? if not this is not the title for you Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC) I dint mean sue but sure !!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from the humble position of a person who only speaks one language, I think I agree with Jack. In order to make this a workable piece of English fiction, you'll need help from a native speaker. Definitely more help than this reference desk (in all it's terrible and condescending glory) can provide. Publish in Polish. If it's successful, you should have no trouble hiring a someone who can devote the time to translate it. Then you can sell it to these capitalist American pigs and extract the last last vestiges of their once-mighty empire.NByz (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Eplanation : Unless a newspaper or magazine talk about your story, Wikipedia will not have an article on it. That is how Wikipedia works. APL (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC) <Sure, a little over-simple, but this guy is obviously not a master of english, and assumes everything he can't understand is a personal attack.[reply]

But Ill still make you post it one way or another and come on talk loudly so people can hear you its impolite to talk quiet when in company XD:) IM BACK

the word Egypt

Is there any reference or encyclopedia that might state that the word Egypt, means an stat of slavery ?--Lookinforgod00 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Michael r. lewis--Lookinforgod00 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)raymont260@msn.com[reply]

Well, Egypt#Etymology makes no mention of such an origin - it says the word comes originally (via lots of steps) from "Hat-ka-Ptah (ḥwt-k3-ptḥ), meaning "home of the ka (soul) of Ptah", the name of a temple to the god Ptah at Memphis." --Tango (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While (as far as I know) Egypt does not mean "slavery', The Bible frequently uses the word Egypt as a metaphor for slavery, as the Israelites were slaves in Egypt and were delivered out of there by God. Jeremiah 34:13 is an example randomly chosen out of many. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one looks more literal than most metaphors. —Tamfang (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]