Humanities desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28

American journalist who brought the existence of black supremacism to the general public

I remember reading an article about a black american journalist who was amongst the first to bring about the existence of black supremacism to the general American public in the 60-70s, in the form of a television documentary. Any ideas? I'm not sure, but I believe it was a PBS production. It was controversial. Raskolkhan (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are thinking of The Hate That Hate Produced, the 1959 documentary by WNET (a PBS member station) made by Mike Wallace and Louis Lomax, who were white and black, respectively? The documentary brought the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X to nationwide recognition for the first time. Neutrality^talk 07:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder on a plane

Hypothetical situation: I'm a German, taking an American Airlines flight from London to New York. Halfway across the Atlantic, I take a dislike to the Spaniard sitting next to me and beat him to death. Who's got jurisdiction? --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had a similar question the other day about Dominique Strauss-Kahn's arrest in New York. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Air France plane on US soil. The same rules likely apply. Dismas|^(talk) 01:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got diplomatic immunity, then Germany. Otherwise the USA. And maybe also Germany and Spain, depending on what their laws say. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple jurisdiction is common. In this case, Spain would definitely have jurisdiction; and others might have concurrent jurisdiction, depending on their "long-arm" laws.76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Spain "definitely have jurisdiction"? The only thing Spain seems to have to do with this hypothetical situation is the nationality of the victim. If a foreigner is killed in, say, New York City, the government of that person's home country doesn't automatically step in.... Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ministry of Helth"

The topic is langauge, but this is more of a history question: according to the English language spelling reform article,

In 1969 Harry Lindgren proposed Spelling Reform 1 (SR1), which calls for the short /e/ sound (as in bet) to always be spelt with <e> (for example friend→frend, head→hed). For a short time, this proposal was popular in Australia and was adopted by the Australian Government. In Geoffrey Sampson's book Writing Systems (1985) he wrote that SR1 "has been adopted widely by Australians. Many general interest paperbacks and the like are printed in SR1; under Gough Whitlam's Labour Government the Australian Ministry of Helth was officially so spelled (though, when Whitlam was replaced by a liberal administration, it reintroduced orthographic conservatism)".

"Ministry of Helth"? Really? I'm Australian, though a few decades to young for any firsthand knowledge of this one, and I find it hard to believe. It should be legitimate--the quote referenced in the article is real, from an academic book--but I can't find any other references to back it up, and the claim stretches credulity. Can anyone more conclusively prove/disprove it? — maestrosync ^talk — 07:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question, it seems that spelling reform was a pet project of the Minister for Health, Doug Everingham, who may have used the "Ministry of Helth" spelling himself, but it wasn't otherwise adopted widely. In 1981, years after the Whitlam government had been dismissed, he entered a press release into Hansard saying "in its first decade SR1 has been used in published anthologies, a novelette and a government discussion booklet which I issued on community helth policies for the A.C.T"[1]. Notably absent from the list of not-particularly-impressive achievements is anything about the name 'Ministry of Helth' being officially adopted. — maestrosync ^talk — 07:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's complete rubbish, really.

See Minister for Health and Ageing (Australia), which has the sentence: From 1972-1975 under Doug Everingham, the Ministry was named the "Ministry of Helth" in some contexts due to Everingham's support of Spelling Reform. My emphasis added. And I would also add "informally" to make it clear the Helth spelling was never officially adopted for either the name of the portfolio (then Minister for Health) or the department (then Department of Health).

We don't even have "ministries" as such in Australia, so the form "Ministry of He(a)lth" has no status, official or otherwise. Federal ministers are "Minister for ...", and their departments are "Department of ...". Most state titles are similar, except in South Australia, which has "Ministers of ...".

Since we're talking spelling, Gough Whitlam led a Labor (not Labour) government, but it followed small-l labour principles. The government of Malcolm Fraser, which replaced Whitlam's, could not possibly have "reintroduced orthographic conservatism", since it was never abandoned in the first place. For all his labour credentials, Whitlam is a thorough-going classicist and an upholder of conservativism when it comes to the language, his use of which having brought him a certain renown, and imo he would never have permitted this spelling change to be formally promulgated. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that dose of sanity and clarity Jack. I was a "Commonwealth Public Servant" (as we were then known) in the Whitlam days, and exciting days they were. I can vaguely recall some discussion of this idea, and can even remember the term SR1. For those unaware, this was the first non-conservative national government in Australia in 23 years. A lot of long term LabOR stalwarts had to be rewarded with senior jobs, so the government was stacked with loose cannons seeking change. It's no surprise that an idea like this arose, but it definitely went nowhere. I'd like to see a study of all (or at least a lot of) the other "exciting" ideas that arose and died during the short life of that government. Anyone remember Aldonga? HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is like old home week for me, HiLo. I not only remember "Aldonga", I was born there - well, in Albury - and spent my first 10 years there. I'd moved away well before 1972, but any questions about the future of the city were always naturally of great interest to me. I'm visiting there next week for the first time in about 5 years. I also worked for the Department of Health at the time Whitlam was elected, but my area was immediately split off to form the new Department of Social Security, so I had no experience of Doug Everingham and his ways. I had to be content with Bill Hayden, and I can still remember a circular from the new minister, promising us exciting times ahead (yes, but maybe not for the reasons he thought), and how he wished to get around and meet all of us individually (er, that was never going to happen). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

are there people with no citizenship?

Can you renounce your last citizenship? (e.g. US citizensihp), or would they not let you if you don't have another one? 79.122.91.246 (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about your specific question, but there are remote tribes which aren't registered with governments at all, so they of course don't have citizenships. See uncontacted peoples. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 09:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Garry Davis and statelessness. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with TreasuryTag's answer. You don't have to consent to become a citizen of a place, although you can of course renounce it. Many people aren't registered with a government but are nevertheless citizens of the relevant country because, for example, they are born to parents who are citizens. Generally, there is no duty for a person to register a child for that child to be a citizen, unless that child is, for example, born overseas.

An uncontacted tribesman who lives in the Brazilian Amazon is probably a Brazilian citizen (unless Brazilian law makes an exception for certain indigenous peoples).

The concept you want is the one pointed out by Gandalf61 - i.e. stateless persons. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not agree, but it's nevertheless true. Citizenship requires some degree of awareness. If the person is not aware that there is a Brazilian government, and the Brazilian government is not aware of each tribesperson, then there is no citizenship. They couldn't turn up in Rio and demand a passport. They couldn't stroll along to a polling station and insist on being allowed to vote. They're (I'm guessing on this one) not included on population stats.

I think that in most countries (certainly the UK) there is a legal requirement to register births, and if one fails to do so within six weeks, one can be fined under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. The child will obviously still be considered a citizen because it's not their fault that their parents were irresponsible. But in the case of tribes, they live their whole life disconnected from government activity, so how can there be citizenship? ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 10:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One question is what you mean by "citizenship" - obviously to consider yourself a citizen requires personal awareness, but to have a government consider you a citizen does not (e.g. imagine if you your parents register you at birth in the UK, but then move you to some other place without ever telling you you were registered with UK citizenship - the UK has you registered as a citizen, and you've never renounced it (because you're not aware of it), so the UK will still consider you to be a citizen, regardless of the fact that you're unaware of it.) I don't know if you are speaking with specific knowledge of Brazilian nationality law, but the article says that Brazil applies jus soli, that is, everyone born in Brazil is a Brazilian citizen, regardless of parental status. My surmise is that uncontacted people, if born in Brazilian territories, would be regarded as having Brazilian citizenship. They *could* turn up in Rio and demand a passport or demand to vote, if they ever figured out what "a passport" or "voting" was. The only limitation probably being having to prove they were actually born on Brazilian soil (e.g. weren't just a Bolivian claiming to be an uncontacted tribesman) and the regular regulatory/registration hoops that any other native-born Brazilian would encounter. (I assume you're not claiming that someone, even an adult, who has never bothered to apply for a passport or register to vote isn't a citizen because of it.) The not being counted in population tallies is because, as uncontacted people, the Brazilian government doesn't know they exist. It's quite possible that once being made aware of them, Brazil would count them in the population. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness requires that laws on renunciation make that renunciation usually contigent on acquiring another citizenship (and also generally forbids countries from depriving people of citizenship if it will render them stateless). Although there have only been 37 countries that have ratified or acceded. I have an idea there was another UN convention that said something similar that was more widely accepted but can't find it and perhaps I'm just remembering wrong (since I can't find mention in any document even in those which discuss the concept). Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have in mind that laws on citizenship are not universal, each country has its own one. Cambalachero (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the 37 countries who ratified or acceded to the convention in theory it shouldn't matter. They are forbidden (by and large) from rendering people stateless whatever their citizenship laws as they have agreed to be bound by the convention. However the issue can arise when countries differ in their interpretation of whether people have acquired other citizenship e.g. [2] although Malaysia would likely be seen as the party at fault here and they have not ratified or acceded to the convention anyway. (And countries may differ in their interpretation of what they ratified or acceded to e.g. as with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it's unlikely the UN Security Council will take up the issue of country X's apparently violating the treaty by depriving Mr/Ms ABC of their citizenship.) As an interesting example, I found out you're supposed to pay a fee if you want to renounce your Malaysian citizenship e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6]. Except that Malaysia discourages dual citizenship (per the constitution) and will generally terminate your Malaysian citizenship if you acquire it (although it isn't automatic) so they want you to pay for something they are trying to do anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the subject-line question is: YES, it is possible for someone to have NO citizenship. Legislation sometimes attempts to rectify this by looking for the relevant loopholes, including some of the loopholes associated with the bogus problem of Obama's citizenship (see the US laws passed in the 1930s or 40s about unwed mothers, etc., and the discussions motivating parts of those laws -- there was a lot of concern about loopholes creating citizenship-less people).76.218.9.50 (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in Australia 20 years or so ago, I met a Scout Leader from Brunei who was a stateless person and had a document from the UN (I believe) to prove it. I think his place of birth was Malaysia but it was a long time ago and I'm struggling to recall the details. He thought there were some advantages to being stateless and seemed to be able to travel around as easily as us everyday folk with passports. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's way cool. I wonder if you can still do that post-9/11. --Trovatore (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why is london on weird time?

why isn't london on normal european time, like Paris? it's right next to Paris (just accross the english channel, pretty much) so why isn't it in the same time zone? 188.156.238.160 (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it the wrong way round. London is on the right time, Paris (only about 11 minutes IFIRC ahead of Greenwich) has gone an hour ahead. DuncanHill (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All time has been historically derived from the Greenwich Meridian, which was – and sort of still is – at 0 hours. (There's a GMT/BST issue. – hence discussions like this which suggest we might decide to have "permanent summer time" which would put us on the same time as Paris for c.half the year. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Mean Time is based on taking noon to be when the sun is overhead at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London. Not all the weird. It has historically been considered more convenient for Great Britain, mainly to the west of London, to all be in the same time zone as London: presumably the French have found it more convenient to be in the same time zone, Central European Time, as countries further to the east. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until the Second World War France and Britain shared the same time zone. During the German occupation, French time was advanced to match Germany, and they never reverted afterwards. On the first day of the German occupation of the Channel Islands they did the same thing there and advanced the clocks by two hours, but unfortunately didn't tell the person who had the keys to the government buildings in St Helier, so they were locked out until the normal opening time. The islands reverted to British time after the war. The plain fact is that the CET timezone is much wider than the 15 degrees one would expect, but from the perspective of solar time the UK is in the correct timezone. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

France definitely seems to be in the weirder time zone, since it's still light outside at 10 pm. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the big tourism industry. 2.101.10.190 (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One noticeable effect of Paris being on CET and not GMT, is that it is a long way west in its time zone and sunsets are around 50 minutes later than you might otherwise expect as 'normal'. This gives Paris long summer evenings with it still noticeably light until around 10:30 pm. The same effect is even more noticeable in cities even further west, eg: Madrid. Astronaut (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This time of the year, it is still light at near midnight in the Highlands of Scotland and it never really gets dark, however it's a very different story in the winter!85.211.169.124 (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cost and time between London and Paris

If I wake up at 3 AM in the morning in London and decide "Today I'm going to Paris" how much will it cost me to go to a train station and buy a ticket for that day? How long will my trip take? 188.156.238.160 (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to imply that I will do it right away - I can go back to sleep for a few more hours. I just mean, without booking in advance... 188.156.238.160 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

£179.00, one way, London St Pancras to Paris Nord. And you won't be able to leave until this afternoon. If you had booked at 3am, there might have been tickets available earlier! Book here. --Kateshortforbob _talk 10:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about the second part of your question. The first available train takes 2 hours and 25 minutes, the shortest seems to be 2h 15m.--Kateshortforbob _talk 10:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, French people travelling to London no longer have to ask for a ticket to Waterloo. It was a great gag while it lasted ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TIPS and U.S. Sovereign debt

Sovereign debt can be inflated away, inflated away, inflated away...
Of course, any move by the U.S. government to inflate away its' liabilities ("printing money") would crash the dollar, and with it, the U.S. economy. But if the alternatives are worse, it may be forced to do just that.
My question is, what about the part that can't be inflated away, however much money is printed? Yes, I'm talking about Treasury Inflation-protected Securities and other Inflation-indexed bonds. How do they feature in the equation? They may compose only a small portion of the debt, but do they have any significant ramifications on U.S. Sovereign debt repayment calculations? Of course, one factor is the link between the US Consumer Price Index (to which the bonds are indexed) and the "money printing". How strong is this link? What's the correlation factor between the two? And do the TIPS affect the U.S. debt problem?
Also, as a somewhat separate issue, I see many people posing a theoretical return to the Gold Standard. But precious metal prices can be Shorted away. At least until someone with the money says "Stand and deliver the metal" - then all hell breaks loose. So how could a "gold standard" ensure stability, if it, too, can be (and has been) manipulated?
Thirdly, also on currency matters, the U.S. hates the weak yuan. but if Black Wednesday could force reality into an artificially overvalued currency, why can't the reverse be done to the Yuan? I know the Yuan isn't supposed to trade on world markets, but how about a non-chinese-approved "black market" smuggling Yuan out of China? Could it force a collapse of the artificially low Yuan?
(I hope I don't cause a storm here - I know U.S. economic policy is a controversial subject). Eliyohub (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This format is not really suited to handling three difficult and largely unrelated questions all at once. Could you please isolate the one you would most like us to deal with? Looie496 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to inflate away the debt. You can just print money and use that money to pay off the debt. That act will cause inflation, but that's just a by-product. The inflation caused by printing the money won't usually be enough to make the government poorer overall. During hyperinflation, that can happen though. --Tango (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Apologies. Lets' focus on the first question, then. Do TIPS present a kink in the strategy of "printing money" to cover the debt? How big a kink? And what is the correlation factor between "money printing" and the consumer price index? (This is relevant, as TIPS are indexed to the CPI). Eliyohub (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you don't need inflation to get rid of the debt. You can just pay it off with the printed money. The inflation is a by-product, not the goal. --Tango (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the inflation is a by-product, not the goal. But I'm not sure if that answers my question with regard to TIPS. Remember, TIPS are indexed to CPI, (plus a low coupon rate). Would the "money printing" be able to "overtake" the inflation it would cause? Otherwise, printing money won't enable paying off the TIPS, or other inflation-indexed bonds. (With bonds that aren't inflation-indexed, this isn't a problem). Eliyohub (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, there is a lag between printing money and CPI increasing so you should have time to pay off the debt before it increases (there may be some issues with debts of long duration that you can't pay off early, though). Even without that, inflation shouldn't be so large as to be self-defeating. You would need CPI to double when you printed the current amount of the debt. I'm not sure exactly how much CPI would increase for a certain amount of extra money being printed (a significant issue is the money multiplier, which means the increase in the money supply can be significantly greater than the amount of money printed), but I don't think the total value of all TIPS is very large at all relative to the total money supply (although I can't find any numbers for that total value) so there shouldn't be a problem. --Tango (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question which arises is, in printing money to pay off TIPS, will you be chasing your own tail, even if you will eventually catch up, as you suggest? True, you would need CPI to double for it to be totally self-defeating, but the damage to the economy from this tail-chasing game would be massive, wouldn't it? Eliyohub (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the damage would be massive. It would be massive from just printing money to pay off non-index-lined bonds, though, due to the sheer size of the debt. --Tango (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would not devaluing the US dollar be good for the US economy in the long run? American exports would increase. Imports would decrease, encouraging US home industries and employment. 2.101.10.190 (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Americans would find their life savings becoming worthless. A weak currency is a mixed blessing, I'd say. In the euro-zone, Greece wants a weak euro, Germany wants a strong one. The result is something of a compromise, with "strong" Germany propping up "weak" Greece. Eliyohub (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer imports and more exports may be good financially, but it's not good for quality of life. Those things are imported to America because they improve the lives of Americans. Making those imports unaffordable would mean Americans have to do without those things. --Tango (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were unemployed and then got a job (or a better job) as a result of a lower dollar, you'd be better off. Currently China has a lot to thank Americans for. 92.24.191.98 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the US could lower the value of the dollar (devaluation or depreciation, which are not the same thing), and no other significant trading partner did the same, the cost of US exports to foreign buyers would be lower in their own currency terms. However, there are several problems with this kind of a competitive devaluation policy. First, it is highly unlikely that others would fail to respond with their own currency adjustments, thus neutralizing to a degree the impact of the US action. Second, the price US importers (and ultimately, customers) pay for foreign goods and services would rise, fueling US inflation. Those higher prices would raise the cost of doing business, which in turn, would raise the cost of US exports, again partly negating the policy choice. Third, foreign institutions who buy US financial instruments would see the value fall (or, rise less) in terms of their own currencies, and therefore would seek higher earnings. This would most immediately be felt in bond prices, with the resulting increase in interest rates paid on those bonds. Other interest rates would also rise, further raising costs and thus inflation. The more responsible policy action would be for my country, the USA, to learn to live within its means. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would benefit the US to raise its exchange rate therefore? 2.97.220.135 (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentalism

I'm looking for a news source dedicated principally to environmental issues. Does anyone have any recommendations? 74.15.138.241 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find some at User:Wavelength/About Earth's environment/Sources and User:Wavelength/About Earth's environment/Electromagnetic fields.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—Wavelength (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grist is quite good. Neutrality^talk 07:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Calligraphy Help

I am just beginning my study of this art form and I have a few questions. 1) Every text I've read insists that one should learn Chinese calligraphy, painting, and the language at once to be proficient at calligraphy. Why study painting as well and what benefits does learning the language impart? I can understand from a practical point why learning Mandarin would enable a student to further his studies, but what aesthetic advantages does learning the language supply? 2) There are some characters that are printed and brush-written differently (復, for example). Where can I find a list/more information about these? 3) I think I may benefit from professional instruction. How can I locate a teacher?Calamus Fortis 23:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer, but you might be interested in a book called "How to Write Chinese Characters" by Johan Björkstén, Yale University Press, copyright 1994, ISBN 0-300-05771-7. RJFJR (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the book has only the basic principles of Chinese calligraphy and I already have a decent book on the basics. I appreciate the thought, though.Calamus Fortis 01:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the question #2, difference of what? Simplified and traditional in the infobox? Or script differences like this? Oda Mari (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, answering 2) isn't as simple as Kai Shu vs. Hsing Shu or simplified vs. traditional; Chinese calligraphy uses traditional characters, with simplified being easier for everyday writing and printing. The only way I can clarify is to refer readers to this YouTube video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kq044ZQRC0. Note that the first two characters inked by the artists look different from how they are written in the video title. Only a few characters here and there are modified for the brush and I'd like to know both which ones and the reasoning, if any exists beyond tradition, for the modified shape.Calamus Fortis 08:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab at this.

1. Learning Chinese language helps you to understand the cultural context of characters. Since Chinese calligraphy emphasises the ideas and emotions being transmitted by the characters, and not just purely aesthetics, it's important to understand what you are writing. For an elementary example, kuang cao (狂草) might suit the poetry of Mao Zedong, but it probably would not suit an auspicious couplet for new year celebrations. I'm not sure it is possible to write good calligraphy if you don't understand the characters, since you wouldn't be able to understand what you are expressing.

Less sure about the importance of learning calligraphy and painting together. Of course both are expressive artforms and so are connected. Learning Chinese painting probably also train you in the traditional Chinese sense of aesthetics. However, I feel that calligraphy is more essential to someone studying painting - a painter who cannot also write well (and appropriately for the particular painting) would not be highly regarded, and any good Chinese painting would have some writing on it which helps to express the philosophical ideas being expressed by the painting; by contrast, calligraphy can stand on its own without any illustrations.

2. You are probably thinking of "variant characters" (异体字). Both the mainland and Taiwan publish dictionaries on variant characters, these may be of use to you. Older or more comprehensive character dictionaries may also help - e.g. the 古汉语字典. Another useful tool, since you are learning calligraphy, is a comparison list or dictionary showing the six main scripts for each character - there are various versions but look for something like 六体书字典. This would help you to see the difference in shapes between the different scripts.

3. Depends on where you are. From your romanisation practice ("hsing shu" instead of "xing shu") it sounds like you are in a traditional part of Taiwan, but I could be wrong. If you are in Taiwan or mainland China you should have no problem finding a calligraphy class at any local school or community college, or painting and calligraphy academy. If you are outside, there may be local painting and calligraphy associations, or you may need to get in touch with a local Chinese school or Chinese community organisation who may be able to put you in touch with an expert. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) I guess I can see what you mean. It does sometimes bother me that I am unable to write and practice in calligraphy my own poetry since I know nothing of Chinese.

2) "Variant characters" sounds right. I know I need to look for a calligraphy dictionary, but I've been having difficulty locating an affordable one. Also, being unable to read Chinese doesn't help either.

3) I'm actually from the U.S. and I still live there. I guess I will really have to do some digging to locate a decent teacher here in the U.S. Thanks for all your input.Calamus Fortis 04:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You mean variant Chinese character. There are too many of them and beginners do not have to think about it. As for 復, see this. 能 was first described as the standard in this book and still is. The variant in the video was described as the acceptable in the book and not always used in caligraphy. It depends. See these IE only pages too.[7] and [8]. BTW, as far as I know, elementary schools in China teach caligraphy with simplified characters. Oda Mari (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that last point anecdotally - elementary school calligraphy classes do indeed use simplified characters. They are also usually restricted to standard script. But it should be noted that once you start using the more free-form scripts it becomes meaningless to talk about "simplified" or "traditional" script. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hepburn: miner, unionist, social reformer

Hi there, Looking for some information on Thomas Hepburn, the wiki article is unreferenced and I not seen anything really helping me on my way. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by MedicRoo (talk • contribs) 23:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]