Humanities desk
< December 20	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 22 >

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 21

African Tribe With Bright White Teeth & Eyes...

Hello: I've looked all over and can't find the info, so I turn to you.

I'm looking for information and the name of an African tribe whose men court the women by wearing tribal makeup and costumes, but most noticeably show off their bright, white teeth and eyes, flashing their mouths and eyes while dancing. I know that this tribe is well known, as I've seen it many times on various documentaries, so it's not an obscure, hard-to-find people.

I would like to know the name of the tribe and if possible, a link to a Wikipedia article related to them.

Thank you in advance! Siouxdax (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of the Wodaabe. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 01:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is the tribe I've been looking for. Unfortunately, there's little information about them online. Thank you so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siouxdax (talk • contribs) 06:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search the National Geographic site. NG has been photographing the Wodaabe over many years, both stills and footage. Possibly the sites that show up on Google Images hits would be informative too. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map request

Does anyone know of a map that shows the administrative divisions of Romania after the Second Vienna Award? Wikimedia has got a good map for the Hungarian side, but I've been unable to find a corresponding map of Romania anywhere on the Internet. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an "Atlas of Romania" on Wikipedia Commons here [1]. These images could be of use: [2] [3]. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 03:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Science Fiction recommendations please!

I've read Vonnegut, some Asimov, Hitchhiker's, a bit of Ring World, Ender's Game, and a lot of Neal Stephenson. What I'm looking for now is some stuff from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. This was prompted by the mention of Forever War elsewhere on the RefDesk. Any and all ideas are welcome. I'm not picky! I'll just sort through what's listed and keep what sounds good. Thank you! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two obvious candidates that aren't on your list are Heinlein and Dick - but I'm sure there'll be plenty of other suggestions forthcoming... :) Tevildo (talk)

Phillip K. Dick tends to be a little on the weird side. I know that's sort of interpretive when it comes to sci-fi, but stil... The Legacy of Heorot and its sequel are good. Solid Larry Niven stuff. Peter F. Hamilton is nice, too, but that's ahead of what you're looking for and his books are huge. HalfShadow 02:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dune, but ONLY Dune specifically, and ONLY the novel specifically. Don't, under any circumstances, read ANY sequels of Dune, and don't, under any circumstances, attempt to view the David Lynch film. It will ruin your life. Dune is great though. --Jayron32 02:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassing brainfart, definitely have read Dune... and too much of the subsequent books :-/ 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's anyone alive who hasn't read it. After the first book, it just becomes a mess, though. HalfShadow 02:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bought the book back in about 1974, but for some reason I could never bring myself to read it. I finally either gave it away or sold it about 20 years later, having never opened it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American SciFi in those decades was dominated by cold war sentiment. Get some authors from the other side of the iron curtain: Stanisław Lem and Strugatsky brothers are my favorites. Staecker (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who like Asimov also like Arthur C. Clarke. And, as already mentioned, there's Robert A. Heinlein -- but in his case I'd say to skip anything he wrote after 1968. You've read Ringworld by Larry Niven; try his earlier works in the same series (Known Space series, which included most of his works before Ringworld). --Anonymous, 02:45 UTC, December 21, 2009.

And The Mote in God's Eye. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much stuff... I've just finished a very enjoyable collection of short stories by James Tiptree, Jr.. My personal favourites are quirky surreal writers like John Sladek, but going by the lisrt you've mentioned I'd try Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, some Alfred Bester (excellent, especially The Stars My Destination), Robert Silverberg, Harlan Ellison, Philip Jose Farmer, R. A. Lafferty, Vonda McIntyre, Roger Zelazny, and Kim Stanley Robinson. That should keep you busy for a while :) Grutness...wha? 09:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, Zelazny. I strongly recommend Nine Princes in Amber. It has a wonderful sort of noir feel to it, while being speculative fiction of the most speculative kind. (I'd probably have classified it as 'fantasy' if I had to pick, but it seems other people are happy to put it in Scifi. Not that it's a particularly useful distinction.) 86.176.191.243 (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite Zelazny is Lord of Light. amazing. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to suggest Alfred Bester, but I see you beat me to it. I especially liked The Stars My Destination and The Demolished Man. Sjö (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Besides the already mentioned Heinlein, Clarke, and Asimov, I also liked Richard K. Morgan's Altered Carbon. And so far, Singularity Sky by Charles Stross is pretty good.~~ Sorry, just re-read and saw that you were looking for older works. Dismas|^(talk) 11:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read this classic short story by a famous writer http://manybooks.net/pages/forstereother07machine_stops/0.html Do not look up the Wikipedia article about it, as the article plot summary is so detailed that it spoils the story. I like the Stainless Steel Rat series by Harrison, as they are light hearted, as is Bill the Galactic Hero. Dune I found dull. There was another SF question that had many suggestions here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_November_23#Science-fiction_novel_with_literary_merit.3F 92.24.103.234 (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of more outliers for you: Riddley Walker by Russell Hoban; has deservedly won awards. And the first three books of The Dancers at the End of Time by Michael Moorcock, as enjoyable as SF gets, IMO. Slightly off-target, but Gormenghast by Mervin Peake is well worth pursuing - the first 100 pages are hard to get through, but very well worth it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second Gormenghast. 92.24.103.234 (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The masters are well covered, but there are others worth discovering. Just skimming Category:American science fiction writers, some of my favorites are: Daniel F. Galouye, Philip José Farmer, Roger MacBride Allen, Poul Anderson, Nelson Bond, Leigh Brackett, Lester del Rey, Theodore Cogswell, L. Sprague de Camp, Samuel R. Delany, Alan Dean Foster, Leo Frankowski, Keith Laumer, Ursula K. Le Guin, C. C. MacApp, Dean McLaughlin, Mike McQuay, Richard C. Meredith, C. L. Moore, Alan E. Nourse, Lewis Padgett, Mike Resnick, Mack Reynolds, Fred Saberhagen, James H. Schmitz, Clifford D. Simak, E. E. Smith, George O. Smith, James Tiptree, Jr., A. E. van Vogt, A. E. van Vogt, Manly Wade Wellman, Paul O. Williams and I am still a big Edgar Rice Burroughs fan. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You like van Vogt twice as much as the others? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I recently had a similar interest and Googled "top science fiction books", as a way of just trying to figure out what was "canon". I found this site to be pretty useful in that regard. (This is where I came across The Forever War, incidentally.) It turns out the canon of "good" sci-fi, for those of us who aren't interested in either highly derivative works or more Star Wars hackwork, is quite small. Of the biggies that I don't see mentioned above in my skimming, is William Gibson, in particular Neuromancer. If you are interested in something fairly current, the latest Margaret Atwood books (Oryx and Crake and The Year of the Flood) are both pretty interesting. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the other post linked to above, I've read Neuromancer and one or two other things by Gibson and they seem average and unremarkable to me. 92.24.103.234 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, um, I still don't see where you mentioned Gibson, but anyway, to each their own. You asked what is classic... it's definitely "classic"! --Mr.98 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth paragraph from the end. 78.147.27.40 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although neither is always classified as science fiction, Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four are both excellent books. Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is in the same vein. Slaughterhouse-Five is technically science fiction as well, but it's very... odd. As a side point, Neuromancer is no longer unusual because all of the ideas have been hijacked so many times and are almost tropes by now. SDY (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Brave New World and 1984 are both definately science-fiction, unless you have an idiosyncratic definition of what SF is, 78.147.27.40 (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More clichés than tropes. OMG, cyberspace! It's almost painful to use Gibson phrases, colored as they are with the early '90s web enthusiasm. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The web only became available for public use in 1993, and I expect it only became commonly known some time after that, so the "web enthusiasm" you are referring to is more likely to be enthusiam for, and the greater availability of, computers. 92.24.34.242 (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it was web/net enthusiasm, not general computers. I recall it quite distinctly. As with most enthusiasms, it was about what could be rather than what was. Information superhighway was another buzzword at the time. A lot was made about MMORPGs and MUDs and how we'd all be constantly making and remaking our identities constantly. "Cyberspace" was the term de jour (see, e.g. A Rape in Cyberspace—1993). And in the end, it was kind of right, but much less exciting! The 1990s were a time of lots of rhetoric regarding the web and the net—things took off rather quickly once it was opened up. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could I skip Lloyd Biggle, Jr.. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's mentioned Jack Vance or Cordwainer Smith yet? Chun the Unavoidable will be paying you a visit. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cordwainer Smith was definitely the first on my recommendatory list. If you don't mind going even older, there's a lot of good stuff by William Tenn and Theodore Sturgeon.

OP HERE. I'd like to sincerely thank everyone for taking the time to share their favorites and a bit of background as to why. My Amazon.com wishlist is now bulging at the seams, and for that I am very grateful. I hope you all have a happy holiday season, however you choose to celebrate it. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the first book of the series, The Sword of Shannara, is practically plagiarized from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and is a slog to read through, I found the sequel The Elfstones of Shannara to be one of the best books I have ever read. I'd also recommend Off Armageddon Reef—it starts off an oft-unused premise in sci-fi...what if humanity fights and interstellar-war...and loses? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Word for the unintentional stealing of ideas?

During a session of intense Wiki surfing, I remember coming across a specific term for the phenomenon where someone thinks that an idea they came up with was their own unique concept when in reality it was inspired by an outside source. I'm pretty sure it started with a C. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyket (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Nevermind. Just found the answer deep within my browser history. Its "Cryptomnesia."[reply]

Wish I got here just a little quicker. That is a term I hear a lot. A common fear among PhD students is that they will spend a few years studying a certain topic that they think they came up with all on their own, only to find out that it is already well-covered by others. It is referred to as cryptomesia - they didn't "come up" with the idea. They got it from being exposed to research as they got to the PhD program, but forgot where they learned the information. -- kainaw ™ 15:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an unwarranted fear. I run across this constantly in my own work—once you start learning at high volumes, it is easy to internalize that knowledge and lose the memory of how you got it. In fields like graphic design I suspect it is really common—you start with one idea, and then gradually modify it again and again until you get it to the "perfect" (self-satisfying) state, and only later realize that the "perfect" state is actually something you saw a year earlier, more or less. I suspect that when people complain about movie posters being verrry similar to previous posters, that is a large part of what is going on, not deliberate copying. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article: Cryptomnesia. --Jayron32 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While not exactly similar, I wonder if Zeitgeist is also involved here? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In our modern times, with the availability of electronic texts, it should not be a hindrance to save every piece of information that you read and keep track of the source. At the end of your work - PhD, writing a book, developing software or a patent - you could always check that you didn't copied something without intention. ProteanEd (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as easy as that, in practice. The problem is not having everything, the question is being able to recall everything. We are not talking about searching for a single equation or phrase here, we are talking about much more abstract issues. The movie poster analogy is, I think, telling—can I really keep an archive of every poster that I see? Even if I could, is there a reliable way for me to check that I am not inadvertently copying something I saw a year ago? In written work, I use hundreds of sources, PLUS the ideas I get from conferences, newspaper articles, talking with friends and colleagues, etc. Even in a hypothetical universe where all of that is archived, how am I going to restrospectively go back and make sure that I didn't pick up a turn of phrase from someone else? Am I going to run my entire book through a diff algorithm? Is said algorithm really going to be able to parse my language (and their language) for deep semantic resemblances? I see no reason to suspect that this will be the case anytime soon. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Subconscious plagiarism" perhaps: This link, though the web designer needs spanking for choice of background texture, covers this issue that was litigated over the George Harrison song My Sweet Lord and says: Harrison conceded that he had heard HSF prior to writing MSL, and therefore, his subconscious knew the combination of sounds he put to the words of MSL would work, because they had already done so. Terming what occurred as subconscious plagiarism, the judge found that the case should be re-set for a trial on the issue of damages. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Ya beat me to it. "My sweet Lord (doo lang, doo lang, doo lang)..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you both beat me to it. That opinion is standard in every copyright course in law school. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Source amnesia. 195.35.160.133 (talk) Martin. —Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Intelligence service of Jordan

Hello!

Is there an article about the jordanian secret intelligence service on wikipedia? If yes, where can I found it? Greets, Hohkl 13:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.33.168 (talk)

From the list of intelligence agencies, it is Dairat al-Mukhabarat al-Ammah. Warofdreams talk 14:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several redirects, including Jordanian secret intelligence service. That's part of making Wikipedia work. --Wetman (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]