Humanities desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 5 >

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 4

Hockey Moms

Question for US people: Sarah Palin is just speaking on my TV at the moment. She seems to be going on a bit about "Hockey Moms" and there's a joke too and proud Hockey Moms in the audience with banners, etc. I'm not American: are these "Hockey Moms" just simply women whose children play hockey, or is there some deeper meaning/identity there? (there's no article on them) Thanks for info, Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not American but it sounds like a variation of Soccer mom. That term is famous in US and I guess Americans would associate to that. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Soccer Mom is a similar creature, but soccer fields tend to be more accessible than ice rinks, because they are cheaper to maintain, for a start. And Soccer Moms have occasions when they are likely warm. A Hockey Mom is always cold. A Hockey Mom is not just one whose children play ice hockey, but one who drives them to practices and games, watches them play, talks hockey with other moms, is part of a car pool that takes several children to "away" games . . . What you may not know is that much of ice hockey happens before school, so it isn't unusual for a Hockey Mom to be picking up kids at 6:00 a.m. and then taking them from the rink home for showers and then to school. It is a big commitment of time and there is a lot of driving involved, especially if you live outside a city and thus have little or no public transportation. Hockey equipment takes up a lot of space and tends to be heavy (helmets, pads, ice skates, sticks) so Hockey Moms are also porters, as well as laundry managers. And these kids start really young, often when they are in kindergarten (ages 4 and 5) so there are a lot of years involved, too. There are also Hockey Dads especially as the children (usually boys) get older. This is terminology more recognizable in Canada than in the lower 48, but hockey is big in Alaska. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like dedicated mothers who are also angry, distraught and less than rational because they are sleep-deprived. Edison (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly worth mentioning that "hockey" means ice hockey in the US, not field hockey. The Wednesday Island (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that for the most part it's an extension of soccer mom. Both these terms tend to imply all-American, non-elite, family-first, unpretentious people. (There's a whiff of sexism, in that "soccer dad" is rarer by far.) I have the totally unfounded impression that "hockey mom" implies more blue in the collar, in the U.S., than "soccer mom" does. Far fewer Americans (children or adults) play hockey, as a percentage of the population, than Canadians do. And see, very tangentially, Michael Melski's play Hockey Mom, Hockey Dad, set in northern Nova Scotia. — OtherDave (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Among other attributes mentioned, I tend to think of Soccer Moms as being susceptible to, and/or users of, "think of the children" arguments. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it is the Alaskan equivalent of soccer mom. Soccer mom is the more recognizable term, but changing the sport to Hockey would be understandable to most people in context. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer moms, and therefore by extension hockey moms, would also tend to drive minivans which can hold a large number of kids plus all of their equipment. Corvus cornix_talk 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the overarching implication is that Hockey Moms, and Soccer Moms are parents who are dedicated to their children (and by extension, families) and who are willing to sacrifice their own time, money and leisure for their children's sport, development, etc. It further implies that a Hockey Mom will be concerned with issues that relate to children, families and suburbia, and therefore probably (although not implicitly) a collection of usually conservative views with regards to family protection, abortion, sexuality and religion. Steewi (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having grown up in Alaska, and living now as I do in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, I have been well-acquainted with Hockey Moms much of my life. As has been mentioned, Hockey Moms are similar to Soccer Moms, in that they drive minivans loaded with kids and equipment all over the place, and are the classic stereotype of a Middle Class housewife. However, there is a degree of difference between Hockey and Soccer Moms, in that Hockey Moms are more noted for their aggressive behavior at games. This difference, I believe, is what Palin refered to in comparing Hockey Moms to bulldogs. Saukkomies 15:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perceived taste relating to expectation

What is the name in psychology for the thinking-something-tastes-better-because-it-should-taste-better effect?:

Lanma726 (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggset looking at something like List of biases and trying to find the best match. I suspect that people would consider these a bias as it seems it would be caused by 'information' influencing the way something is perceived (i.e. marketing, peer pressure, etc.) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds psychosomatic to me... or it would if it were an illness. - Lamba jan 02:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird hearing

Ok, explain this: My younger brother used to have a toy telephone that, when you pressed different buttons, made different sounds. One of the buttons had a picture of an ambulance, which, when pressed, made a voice say "Emergency! Emergency!", which makes perfect sense. My Dad, however, was terribly confused by this button because he was convinced it was saying "Liverpool! Liverpool". After being told what it really said he was, eventually, able to hear it correctly. Similarly, after being told what he heard, other people (myself included) were able to make it sound like that too (I'd liken it to making a Multistable perception image switch between the two possibilities at will). Is this a known phenomenon? --Tango (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mondegreen is a known phenomenon, although that is a recent coinage. I'm not sure how much mishearings were appreciated before that.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of mondegreens too, but that really only applies to a song lyric, line from a poem, or book or movie title etc. In a general context, I'd say it's just a mishearing. People with hearing issues, and their families and friends, would be well aware of this phenomenon, although the auditory interpretation of "Emergency" as "Liverpool" seems an extreme case. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mondegreens seem to be cases where the two words/phrases sound very similar. That doesn't apply here. This wasn't caused by bad hearing, since all of us could make ourselves hear it as "Liverpool" with concious effort (and I don't think it was just suggestion, it took quite a bit of effort and there was a real "oh, wow! So it does!" moment when you did it, just like with optical illusions). It was said in a kind of sing-song voice, which may make the words sound a little more alike. --Tango (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some studies on the mis-perception of words. The McGurk effect is one example. Your example is probably most similar to Diana Deutsch's "Phantom Words" (an example is at [1] From that page: "two words, or a single word that is composed of two syllables ... are repeated over and over again. ... the first sound is coming from the loudspeaker on the left, the second sound is coming from the loudspeaker on the right; and vice versa. ... The words coming from the different spatial locations are offset from each other in time. As a result, listeners are given a palette of sounds from which to choose, and so can create in their minds many different combinations of sounds. After continuous exposure to these repeating words, listeners begin to 'hear' words and phrases that are not really there.") -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive psychologists at one time called this the "Gilbert and Sullivan Effect," as in the observation that if you know what the singers are jabbering in a patter song, you can then recognize the words, but without advance knowledge it may seem like gibberish. Edison (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That toy must have a very, very poor speaker. Phonetically, the only sound shared by the two words is /ɚ/. Otherwise, they have a different syllable count, and the last two vowels of emergency, /ɛ/ and /i/, are so different from the /u/ in Liverpool in terms of articulation. The human brain is "wired" to try and make sense of any string of sounds as language, so I guess this case is more like straining your brain to make sense poor-quality audio, like when people in a stadium misunderstand a PA system with horrible acoustics.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The different syllable count might be accounted for by the fact that it was in a sing-song voice. The fact that the words are made up of completely different sounds is harder to explain away! I wonder if they still have the toy, it might be interesting to do some studies. It seems it isn't a known phenomenon (I thought maybe there was some kind of duality between certain sounds and actually "li" and "em" are in some weird way connected, but apparently not [I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't heard the toy!]). --Tango (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Vowel#Articulation, especially the diagram of the articulation of vowels. Vowels that are located closer on the diagram are similar (if they share the same quality of roundedness). In fact, the first vowel sound in those two words (emergency, Liverpool) is sometime realized as the same vowel sound [ɪ]. Other sounds like [v] and [m] in English are not mistaken for each other except, unfortunately, in toys with poorly-crafted sound systems.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is related to the need for people to guess what a speaker is saying when their articulation isn't clear. People with hearing issues would be particularly prone to this. For example, I occasionally watch NCIS, and whenever Pauley Perrette says anything, I have the greatest difficulty in deciphering just what she said (I do have a hearing loss, though). She has that kind of "rapid-fire squeaky nasal little-kid voice" that's becoming so prevalent among a certain demographic (girls, mainly). That makes it hard for a lot of people to know what they're saying even in ideal listening environments, but when background music is added to the mix (and NCIS has background music playing for virtually 100% of the program), it really does come down to guesswork. (If that reads like a bit like a rant, it wasn't meant to be). -- JackofOz (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for unbiased website to compare US presidential candidate's positions

As the subject says, I'm looking for an unbiased website to compare the US presidential candidate's positions on the issues. Any suggestions? I'm looking for the sort of thing that could be given to both (open-minded, uncommitted) Liberals and Conservatives as an antidote to the spin, something that is clear and straightforward and not with a particular axe to grind. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out our articles? Barack Obama and John McCain. I'm not sure they have exactly what you're after, but they'll give you some idea. --Tango (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, we have an article that looks like exactly what you're after: Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008! --Tango (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site seems to be really good. It quotes from the candidates themselves with a minimum of editorializing. --Sean 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The political compass is a wonderful website that shows the 'position' of the main candidates (though we now know who these are) on the scale. You can take the test and find where you fall too. It's pretty interesting and it'll show you wish you align to more closely based on your responses. It takes about 15 mins to complete though and asks some pretty tough questions! Anyhoo I expect they will update to have a comparison for the election itself once things get underway. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like On The Issues. It lists each candidate's (and pretty much everyone else in office) position on a slew of different topics, backed up by either their voting record or a direct quote. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I go to the League of Women Voters (lwv.org). Unlike other women's organizations, they seem to me to have no political agenda per se. The site for California is http://www.ca.lwv.org/. --KNHaw ^(talk) 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did an online IQ test at http://www.iqtest.com

And I got a score of 132, apparently putting me in the lower end of the category "Gifted (2.3% of test takers)". I'd just like to know how reliable people think online IQ tests are, and to what extent that score can be considered accurate (it was a relatively short test with questions answered in a 'true or false' format). Would this possibly be better? The thing is, that many people on a forum that also took the test generally received high scores as well, and we can't all be that smart... can we?--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The true "IQ test" is "are you willing to pay $10 for an IQ score from some web page?" If you truly want to know your IQ, look up your local MENSA group. They take IQ tests seriously and will happily give you a real one. -- kainaw ™ 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pay any money. It emails you a score without a fee, whereas you only pay to see an 'in-depth profile', which I never considered going for as I felt it would be a waste of money.--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the ton of SPAM you will also get, now that they have your email address for their 'free' service. They have to make money somehow, mate.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK; I just used a throwaway hotmail account for it which is already full of spam.--Lost in kyoto (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is a 'throwaway account'. Hotmail does not provide that service. They only have regular accounts. Actual 'throwaway accounts' are email accounts that expire, typically after 15 minutes. I seriously doubt you have got 5GB of SPAM in your hotmail account in 15 minutes. That would be a world record.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Throwaway accounts are accounts that can be "thrown away" after use - that is, they are used for a specific purpose then forgotten about. To say it is "full of spam" does not imply that it has 5GB of spam in it, just that it has a lot of spam in it. If you have any further difficulties understanding the English language, I suggest you try the Language desk. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Duncan, I was referring to the term 'throwaway' account as generally used on websites that advertise this service. The '5GB' I was referring to was the 5GB that hotmail gives (unless that has changed). I do realise that 'full of' something can also mean 'having a lot of XXX in it', but it does typically mean 'having far more than I would like to bother with/can handle, etc.' Try the language desk yourself, mate. We have lots of fun and games there.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Saucer of milk for table 5!" Meow, lads. :-) Getting back on topic. The questions are, a) Are these tests reliable? I have taken numerous web-based IQ tests since they first appeared on the Internets and they have all agreed a score to within about 5 points. So we can conclude that either they are accurate or they are all equally flawed (they could have motivation to inflate scores so people would pay for the trophy certificates they offer, but it is odd that they all, being quite different , agree). b) Can we all be that smart? Yes you could be. There could be a bit of selection bias at work. People likely to try the test probably have an inkling that they are going to do well. If we were to offer a gruelling fitness test to people, my guess is that we would get those people who already knew they were fit as participants rather than your average couch potato. Fribbler (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of British people would know the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia?

What would you estimate? I'd say it'd be fairly low. If ignorance is widespread enough to allow for things like the grocer's apostrophe to be in common use, then I doubt that many people would know the difference between these two based on their similar-sounding names and relative proximity in location.--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick check and I found no studies on this. Please keep in mind that this is a Reference Desk, not a What is your opinion on something I just thought about Desk. If you want to have a discussion, use one of the many (MANY) online discussion forums. -- kainaw ™ 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the majority of educated British who have some sort of reason to know would know the difference. After all, there was never such a country as 'Czechoslovenia' and we have just spent a decade fighting two wars in the Balkans. People who don't know don't care, just like most Brits don't need to know the difference between Japan and China. --ChokinBako (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that very hard to believe. Not knowing the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia, maybe, but most people know the difference between Japan and China! --Cameron * 14:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my mum didn't know the difference and she has a degree.--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Slovenia is the only EU member from the former Yugslavia and seems the most progressive, although Croatia seems to be catching up as well. It's only further southeast that the major wars in the Balkans were fought.--Lost in kyoto (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia is next door. Bosnia is next to that, then Serbia. Not very far away, and ~~Slovakia~~ Slovenia (whoops! I made the very mistake we speak of!) was in the news during that time, anyway. So was little Macedonia and all the rest. I don't see the relevance of your answer to mine, though. It sounds more like a complaint against your mum.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the United States, many people I talked to did not realize that Russia had invaded Georgia, the country, not Georgia, the state in the US... -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! No wonder the U.S. rallied around Georgia. (Oh, and maybe some lingering feelings from the Cold War.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? They actually thought that Georgia (state) includes an area called "South Ossetia"? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, a separatist region called South Ossetia - I can just imagine parts of US states declaring independence and their citizens all getting Russian passports! Now, that would be worth watching American news channels for! --Tango (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as knowing the difference? Just knowing that they are two different countries? I would expect most people know that - if it has a different name, it's a different country (Myanmar and Burma aside!). Actually knowing anything about either country is probably more rare. --Tango (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, most people in the UK thought they had invaded a part of Scotland. We couldn't get our heads round why they thought it was part of their territory!--ChokinBako (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I knew where they were, and don't recall any of my schoolmates suffering from that confusion. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whilst i take your point about the grocer's apostrophe, its maybe a little unkind to then assume all my fellow compatriots are brainless dum-dums. At the risk of coming across all 'henry higgins', I would imagine that despite our national inability to speak our own language (or anyone else's for that matter) we're quite good at world geography, having conquered most of it as some stage or another.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.4.63 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Hungary, Finland and Estonia anomalous in Europe as well as Romania?

The former three have Finno-Ugric languages, which are not part of the Indo-European language family. This in itself is anomalous for Europe, but even more strange is the fact that these languages are found in Northern Europe and then in a small pocket in Central Europe, with areas of Slavic and Germanic tongues seperating them. Also, why is Romanian a Latin language when it is largely surrounded by Slavic ones? How can these enclaves be explained? Also why are the people of a nation considered to be representatives of their language families? There are Germanic people, Latin people and Slavic people, but this doesn't seem to be a worthy categorisation of people, just as white people and black people are in my opinion crude and outdated Americanisms which would be better replaced with European people and African people (Sub-Saharan).--Lost in kyoto (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finland and Estonia are right next to Russia, which has literally hundreds of Fenno-Ugric languages in the area near to these countries. Romania is not very far from Italy. Hungary may seem isolated, but then that may explain why its language is so different from other Fenno-Ugric languages.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer: People move. For more information, see History of Europe. As for describing people by the language group they speak - it is merely a characterization of the person, not a judgement. For example, saying that a guy is wearing brown shoes is a characterization used to identify him. It is not (necessarily) a judgement about him. -- kainaw ™ 13:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Finnic languages in the general Baltic area have more or less remained in place as far back as we can trace with any certainty. However, Hungarian was imported from hundreds of miles to the east in the Hungarian migrations of ca. 900 A.D. Also, there are some enigmas about the survival of Rumanian -- the main area of Rumanian was presumably generally north of the Jireček Line, yet it's far from clear where in general Balkans region a substantial Romance-speaking society could have been hiding out during the 7th-century A.D. and for several turbulent centuries thereafter -- when the Slavs had overrun the western Balkans as far south as the Peloponnese, while the eastern Balkans were initially split between Byzantines and Avars, and then suffered several further waves of invasions from Bulgars and Magyars (Hungarians)... We have a whole article on Origin_of_the_Romanians...AnonMoos (talk)

Romania was, at least, part of the Roman Empire, but as Kainaw says, people migrate. The whole of the Balkans and Central Europe are a linguistic jigsaw puzzle, and you can only understand it by looking at the way one wave of migration and conquest has followed another all through the region's history. On a larger scale, the same must be true of the whole world. Strawless (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romania was a frontier during the latter part of the Roman Empire (circa roughly 300 to 400 AD). It was a wild and unsettled area, yet it technically belonged within the Empire. To address this problem, as well as to solve the problem of rewarding lands to retiring Roman Army soldier (after putting in their allotted time), the Empire gave away tracts of land to these newly made Roman citizens (upon leaving the Army, Roman soldiers were also made citizens). Most of the men in the Roman Army at this time were from far-scattered lands throughout the vast Roman Empire and beyond. The language they all had in common was Latin, but it was a rather earthy, vulgate form of Latin. The soldiers would learn this "Creole" Latin as a second language, for the most part. So, when they retired to their farms in the new settlements being created in Romania, it was the "Army Latin" that was spoken the most. From this foundation we have the beginnings of the modern language of Romanian. I have been told (although this is unfortunately for me unverified) that of all the Romance Languages (Italian, Spanish, French, etc) that Romanian is the closest to what Latin would have sounded like, as it was spoken by the average person on the streets of Rome. Saukkomies 15:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spies?

I remember hearing this story, possibly on the radio, about some Americans that by some strange turns of events ended up spying for the Japanese in WW2, but I can't find anything more about it now.

Here's what I remember of the story. A couple of American men go to Mexico where they end up with money troubles and have to sell their car, but then they're stopped when trying to come back to the US because the border guards want to either see their car or have some record of its sale/destruction. This causes them to be stuck in Mexico, but at some point they hop a boat to Japan shortly before Japan's involvement in WW2. Now in Japan and citizens of the enemy, they are convinced by the Japanese to go back to the US and spy. When the guys reach the US shore they turn themselves in, but are still tried for spying anyways.

I've tried to search for more about this, but I've got nothing. Laenir (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer, but we do have a List of Japanese spies, 1930–45. Unfortunately none of them seem to match your description. --LarryMac | Talk 17:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several German-American spies invaded the US via submarine in WW2 as part of Operation Pastorius and were captured when some of them turned the others in. They were tried and most were executed after appeals to the Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin. Herbert Haupt had the adventure you speak of, and got executed by the US government. He made their way from the U.S to Japan to Germany, was trained with the others as a saboteur and sent to the US via U-boat. Edison (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's it. Thanks, Edison! 206.83.160.121 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link. Correct is Herbert Hans Haupt. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

France, England and classical music

Considering the cultural, financial and military importance of France and England for the last 400 years or so, it startles me that there are so few reknowned French and English composers and (as far as I am aware) almost no operas written in those languages. Is there a historical/cultural explanation for the domination of music by Italy, Russia and the Germanic nations? Thanks 90.192.223.228 (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay that touched on what he termed (iirc) "The German Composer Disease". That might not be quite it, but it's close. Basically, the question becomes, "Why is it that, a few notable exceptions aside, every well-known piece of "classical" music was composed by a German speaker between the years 1700 and 1900?" There will be short term explanations that deal with funding, etc. but it still seems odd, and he didn't come up with any kind of compelling answer that I can recall. In a way, I suppose the question makes as much sense as asking why German speakers between 1700 and 1900 produced very few hard rock performers. Matt Deres (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember the essay title or the book where you read it?--droptone (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but I must have a dozen of his books kicking around. If I can't find it reasonably quickly, I'll drop you a line at your talk page. Matt Deres (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch!--droptone (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French opera spans the centuries between Lully and Poulenc. Giacomo Meyerbeer was actually a French composer. Chamber music by Franck, Debussy, Fauré, Ravel is central to the repertory. Not all music is orchestral music for the big concert hall. --Wetman (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about operas written between 1700 and 1900, I wouldn't regard the enormous mass of operas written by Italian composers as "a few notable exceptions". (By the way, questioner, the 2nd syllable of "renowned" is pronounced like "now" - not like "know" - and is spelled accordingly. I wouldn't normally nitpick, but this is becoming an increasingly common error, so others may benefit from this comment.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would I, but I don't know of any classification system where opera and classical/romantic music are combined in such a way. Everyone knows opera is the one with the big lady wearing steel lingerie and classical music is one with the shaggy-haired conductor waving a baton. ;-). Matt Deres (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harold C. Schonberg’s answer (which should be taken with a grain of salt) to the question of why so few British composers emerged until the twentyish century “British School” of composition arose, is that Handel literally chilled British innovation in composition for hundreds of years by giving the English a sever obsession with choral music, particularly sacred choral music.

Schools of composition move in cycles. Someone somewhere will come up with something pretty neat and everyone will rush to try the new style. The French and British have had some extremely famous composers, mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries. They are perhaps not as familiar to you because there is currently a strange obsession with playing the very old music ad nauseam.

For French composers there are the composers named by Wetman above. Add to that Olivier Messiaen, Edgard Varèse, Francis Poulenc, Darius Milhaud, Arthur Honegger, Finally, of very special note, there is Nadia Boulanger who is known as perhaps the greatest and most famous composition teacher of all time; a woman who guided the development of American music itself and taught nearly all the greatest American composers for half a decade. (See List of French composers for many more names).

For famous British composers there is Benjamin Britten, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Edward Elgar, Peter Maxwell Davies, Michael Tippett, and of course Arthur Sullivan (See List of British classical composers for many more names). Hope this helps. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which books did Sarah Palin seek to ban from a local library?

Willy turner (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a link to an alleged list of books that Palin wanted to ban, but even on the original page with the link, there's a great deal of skepticism as to whether the list is accurate or not. It is true that Palin tried to get the head librarian at the Wasilla libary fired for "not giving full support to the mayor": [2]. Corvus cornix_talk 18:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not accurate at all. Please don't get confused by it and spread misinformation—it makes everyone look bad.

It's not clear that Palin ever gave the librarian a list of books—from the articles it sounds like she just sounded out the idea of getting some books removed. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the coverage so far indicates no list was produced, but you might be interested in the American Library Association's list of 100 most frequently challenged books from 1990-2000, which is probably quite representative of the sorts of books people don't want others to read: [3]. I was going to go see if "Daddy's Roommate" was available at the Wasilla public library, but their server is down. :) --Sean 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's back up now, and SCORE! :D --Sean 17:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very recent Time Magazine article on Palin briefly mentioned this happening, though there were only one or two sentences about that. Apparently, the censorship was intended to satisfy people wanting to avoid swearing in books. Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 09:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to factcheck.org, Palin never tried to have any books banned, and the phony list in circulation contains books that hadn't even been published at the time. 24.210.252.153 (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When British police take the cars of people charged with motoring offences; why dont they sell them rather than crush them?

Willy turner (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{wild speculation) I would imagine that it is because the police are not allowed to make a profit from these types of crimes, also by crushing the car they are providing a deterrent to further crime whilst also removing what can be a dangerous vehicle from the streets (positing that uninsured and untaxed cars may be damaged/unsafe). They are allowed to liquidate the assets of someone to recover the value of any fine or damages assessed by a court via intermediaries but only in certain cases. They have no objection to selling cars from other crimes or even recovered stolen goods (in fact they have their own auction website for this at http://www.bumblebeeauctions.co.uk ). Nanonic (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably they don't have their own crushing facility but use a commercial one. That suggests that someone is profiting from crime. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Police officers, lawyers, gaolers, newspaper proprietors, burglar-alarm salesmen, they all profit from crime. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed out "criminals"! ;) --Tango (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mentioned newspaper proprietors. DuncanHill (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a fundamental structural flaw. It's just so unfair that anyone can profit from crime, except the perpetrator. Without the perpetrator, all the others would be out of a job, or at least have a severely reduced income. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe criminals should unionize to secure for themselves the true value of their labour. DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, getting back to the tedious business of answering the question, I read in Hansard for 8 Nov 2005 a reply from Alistair Darling, the then Transport Secretary, who said "and the police now have the power to crush or sell cars that are not claimed or insured within two weeks." I guess crushing sounds more compelling in HMG's advertising. From a 19 Jul 2005 debate in the house, this time on the subject of annoying moto bikes, it is suggested that "there is a view locally that if they have been used illegally, they should not only be confiscated but crushed and taken out of the market so that the young people who are buying them might begin to focus on just how serious offence they may have committed". The Select Committee on Public Accounts Twenty-Eighth Report mentions DVLA crushing operations in 2002/3, commented that "The Agency conceded that, in the main, it is the very oldest vehicles that are wheel-clamped which go unreclaimed by the keeper, and which ultimately have to be crushed at the Agency's expense", and one can see why the powers that be may well think it a good thing to get old bangers out of the market entirely rather than, to be cynical, being sold at auction for £50 to exactly the sort of person who would then go out and drive it uninsured again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen and heard of Police auction where the police sell recovered items that haven't been 'claimed'. In my local area you can go along to these 'auctions' and buy yourself a bicycle for (sometimes) bargain prices. I would be surprised if similar things didn't occur for motorised vehicles too. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the US such auctions are necesitated by the shear number of vehicles of all sort which are impounded, however, nowa days inthe town where I live the task of auctioning has been tunred of to an online auction house that psecializes in practically fraud since you can not touch or feel and returns are not allowed sorry. In other words if you can't touch or feel then forget it. The local governments then dispose of property periodically that does not sell even though the administrations are in need of cash. However the real reason cars are crushed in the UK is because cars are thought of there as living agents fully capable of causign there owner, whomever it might be. to engadge in crime. These cars are bad card and must be estroyed in order to rid the UK of such agents of the Devil. Trust me, I know I am right on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.227 (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a Deodand? Llamabr (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of CliffsNotes, etc

It's sometimes argued in FAC discussions that CliffsNotes and similiar guides are not "reliable sources". I can understand why Cliffsnotes would be considered unscholarly or anti-itellectual, but are they really unreliable? Can anyone give a specific example of something included in a CliffsNotes guide that is incorrect, or even just misleading? Zagalejo^^^ 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are plenty of factual errors in CliffsNotes, however, that alone would not make them not WP:RS. Rather, and this is my HO, the summary nature of these notes is what limits them as a source. An encyclopedia should contain all acceptable viewpoints, not just the ones that will get you through the midterms! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I agree if you're saying that CliffsNotes & similar are more prone to factual errors than the average academic journal. I'd say the opposite, if anything, and I'll make that case more fully here if anyone really wants me to. Like the original poster, I tend to resist the thinking that books like that are not WP:RS. Sometimes when you are trying to source the basics about a topic, doing so from a book designed to discuss the basics is using the best source. AndyJones (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that they are more prone to factual errors. Rather that factual errors are not the point. The summary nature of cliffnotes and the fact that they are not necessarily assembled by established scholars in the field, makes them less than reliable for anything other than main ideas. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well (a) we're a general-purpose encylopedia: the main ideas is what we do; and (b) although I don't have any CliffsNotes here, I've a number of York Notes, Cambridge Notes and Brodie's Notes and at a quick glance it seems to me they're all written by University lecturers. AndyJones (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that it has nothing to do with errors. It has to do with the fact that CliffNotes is not the original source (unless one is writing an article *about* CliffNotes). Wikiant (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're meant to use secondary sources, aren't we? DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the only acceptable sources, but they're the ones we mainly use. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for just any secondary source about a literary work, then CliffsNotes are a reliable source. But if you are trying to write a featured article about a literary work, then I would consider CliffsNotes to be a mediocre source and not worthy of use as a source in a featured article. Any literary work which has CliffsNotes of it probably has been the subject of scholarly commentary which is worthy of being cited in an encyclopedia, whereas CliffsNotes are commentary on the work aimed at high school students who either had difficulty understanding the work or didn't even read it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I'm not specifically planning to use CliffsNotes as a source in an article; I was just wondering if anyone was aware of any bonafide factual errors in the guides. Zagalejo^^^ 07:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet plot query

Plea for help for any Shakespeare experts... during the later stages of 'Hamlet', Hamlet is banished to England by Claudius. His ship is attacked by pirates, and Hamlet alone is captured. But why do Rosencrantz and Guildenstern continue on the ship to England? Their objective, given to them by Claudius, was to escort Hamlet to England and pass on the letter demanding Hamlet's execution to English authorities, etc. However, since their escorting duty has gone so badly wrong, surely the bumbling and timid pair, R&G, should return to Denmark for advice and further orders from Claudius. They have no need to go to England, and would probably have avoided their deaths in a 'real' situation simply by returning home. I have done research online and from books, and there is no answer. So why DO R&G bother to continue to England? Or have I missed something? 87.114.133.121 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are they supposed to do, swim? Or somehow compel the captain of the ship to turn around? Corvus cornix_talk 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the OP is under the impression that a private ship was hired for the sole purpose of taking Hamlet to England. This is extremely unlikely as three passengers, even with an entourage, would make a poor payload for the captain and/or the owners. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the OP's impression I don't think there's anything in the text of the play which makes it demonstrably wrong. Kings command naval vessels, and can commandeer merchant vessels. Besides, OP's question is still a valid one if you phrase it as "why do they bother to visit the English King?" I could suggest a number of answers to that, of course. AndyJones (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. Thanks guys. 87.114.133.121 (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you bumble a task given to you by a tyrannous king, it is best not to appear in front of said king for a (long) while. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Hamlet is a work of fiction. There wasn't any prince; there wasn't any ship; there weren't any pirates; Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern didn't go anywhere because they were not in fact real people. Shakespeare has all kinds of inconsistencies and loose ends that he fails to tie up. In any case, in Act IV Claudius has R & G take Hamlet out of the country purportedly to protect him from the consequences of killing Polonius, though mostly because Hamlet is "loved of the distracted multitude." Claudius's letter to the king of England was sealed; R & G's orders were to deliver the letter. Hamlet found it, read it, and replaced it with his own version requesting England

...That, on the view and knowing of these contents,

Without debatement further, more or less,

He should the bearers put to sudden death,

Not shriving-time allow'd.

--- OtherDave (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't be such a spoilsport :-) Of course it's fictional; it's our job, as fans, to to explain inconsistencies, not just complain about them or push them aside. That's what real fan fiction should be, not just stuff for people who only want to write about sex.

Now, you could pull a "The reference desk is not for speculation" and that would be fine; it does call for a bit of speculation here, because Shakespeare doesn't tell us, since they're not consequential tot he plot. However, since inquiring minds want to know, I would suggest that Claudius may well have sent them because they were known for bungling things, anyway; sort of like Laurel and Hardy. I mean, as a tyrant, you're not going to send your most trusted people there. You're going to send red shirted ensigns, which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were the first of. (Star Trek reference - surprised there's not a page for that.) If Claudius did call them "trusted," then perhaps it is in a satirical way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTF955 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but was it really a work of fiction? The Oxfordians among us would argue differently. Various parts of Hamlet, such as the encounter with Fortinbras's army and Hamlet's brush with buccaneers, do not appear in any of the play's sources, to the puzzlement of numerous literary critics. These might be explained by reference to actual events in the known life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Just as Hamlet's review of Fortinbras's troops leads directly to an ocean voyage overtaken by pirates, de Vere's meeting with the German duke Jan Casimir (who was leading troops towards Paris) was followed by a Channel crossing intercepted by pirates. He had met Jan Casimir on his way back from Italy (his known travels in that country are all exactly mirrored in references in the plays; Shakespeare is not known to have ever left England). In April 1576, de Vere boarded a ship in order to cross the Channel back to England. The ship was attacked by pirates, his luggage was ransacked, and he was stripped naked. They were allowed to continue on their way to England, however. But he had another experience with pirates. In 1585, he sent a boatload of apparel, money, wine and venison back to England from the Lowlands. The ship was intercepted by Spanish pirates off Dunkirk and was looted. The pirates discovered a letter to de Vere from Lord Burghley appointing him commander of the horse. De Vere transformed this 2nd experience into something useful: Hamlet contains not only an encounter with pirates but also an analogous plot twist involving suborned letters at sea. (I've quoted liberally from Mark Anderson: Shakespeare by Another Name.) If one sees these plays as an ongoing coded autobiography of de Vere as much as pure fictional entertainment, many of the loose ends and unsourced references make sense. Then, you don't have to worry too much about the apparent illogicality of R&G continuing on to England. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]