Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 25

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.

October 25

Are contracts copyrightable?

I've read a theory that the text of a contract is in fact not copyrightable in the US because the text is functional rather than being merely an original work of expression. If another party wanted to create a contract that was intended to bind the parties in exactly the same way, the exact same text would have to be used, and, this theory goes, that's fine. Is there any law or court precedent in the US supporting this theory? Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A contract is an intention to be legally bound and as such is a public record. I could imagine that a fill-in-the -blank document could be copyrightable, but how in the world would it be specific enough to cover the desired stipulations? Any real contract binds real individuals, and representing oneself fraudulently is fraud. Seek legal advice if this regards some actual matter before law. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally, no. (But I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice). There is the "blank form doctrine" (or "blank form rule"). In Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), the Supreme Court held that "Blank account-books are not the subject of copyright" - this is because of the idea–expression divide - the expression of an idea is copyrightable, but the theory itself is not (but see )

See 37 C.F.R. 202.1 (here):

Material not subject to copyright. The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained... (c) Blank forms, such as time cards, graph paper, account books, diaries, bank checks, scorecards, address books, report forms, order forms and the like, which are designed for recording information and do not in themselves convey information."

For a relatively recent application of this rule, see Advanz Behavorial Management Resources, Inc., 21 F.Supp.2d 1179 (C.D. Ca. 1998) involved a copyright infringement action involving blank forms used for home health care management ("Medical Social Service Follow-up," "Daily Visit Route Sheet," etc.). The headings and abbreviations in forms were apparent and there was no accompanying text that imparted information to the reader. The Court held that the "blank form rule" denied copyright to such a form, which required the user to supply information rather than itself supplying information.

Here's a memo from the University of Arizona's general counsel's office about the subject. Neutrality^talk 03:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Blank forms are not contracts; the reasoning is fallacious. They are entirely different sorts of documents and entirely different copyright questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Fill-in-the-blank forms certainly can be contracts. See standard form contract. Neutrality^talk 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The form becomes a contract when it's filled in and signed, until then it's just a form.Sjö (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Some contracts may very well be copyrightable. The Contract everyone here agrees to when posting (see CCAS) is copyrightable and protected. The statutory exclusion you're reading is addressing that constitutional gray area about non-creative things like tables of contents, and lists of random numbers. The more recent case on that is Feist v. Rural. Feist is the much more modern statement on Baker btw. As for the OPs more specific question about functional text... that's actually a very interesting legal question. As a general rule the text of a long, specific contract, might be copyrightable, however the intent of the contract, or the idea behind it, is certainly not. And if there's no other way, or easier way, to express that idea, then it can't be either. This is the stuff of law school exams and there's a lot of nuance in it. You should appreciate that nuance to really ever answer this question. I'd give you some law review cites (i know they exist) but i don't have access to them right now. If this is something you're really into leave me a message and I'll try to dig some up for you.

But no, contracts are not public record, not by any stretch of the imagination. While some of these may become public record in court cases, there are often contractual terms, even settlement terms that are either protected by court order or held secret. The agreement you made at the gas station last week to buy gas was certainly just as much a contract as anything else, and yet you wouldn't dare think that "public record" would you? Shadowjams (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant in court cases, that is why they are written down in the first place, to be verifiable to the relevant parties and in court if necessary. That doesn't mean a judge won't seal such matters in cases of trade secrets and so forth. μηδείς (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the fact that they are meant to be legally binding would make them uncopyrightable. It would put limits on the degree to which one could try to use copyright to control them, but that's what fair use is for. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty thoughtful essay on the very question at hand from the New York Law Journal. The basic conclusion of the author is that there isn't any reason to think that contracts are not copyrightable. There have been lawsuits over this for significantly novel types of contract styles. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Contracts have copyright protection in some cases. We regularly copy other lawyer's works.[1]. Most of us use standard form books which are designed to be copied by the attorneys using them. Most contracts are not registered with the copyright office nor do they contain a copyright notice. While they still enjoy a copyright provided that it is an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium, the remedies available are more limited without both registration and notice, i.e. ©. The biggest issue is demonstrating that your contract is original, not that it has more functionality than creativity. The utility of a contract is not the same as the utility of a ledger or phonebook. Fair use is the worst defense to use in this context. It is an affirmative defense, which means that it assumes the ownership of a valid copyright. Fair use claims, "Yes the copyright is valid, but the use is fair." The whole issue of originality, utility and first authorship would be mute with a fair use defense. Contracts that become public record through a court filing still retain a copyright, but fair use would probably allow them to be posted elsewhere depending on the context. For instance, a contract where the position of a comma costs a company millions of dollars might find itself online somewhere based on the public interest as part of a news story.[2] If someone copied that same contract and used it for commercial purposes, the fair use defense would be weak because of the weak 1st Amendment arguments for the use and the transformative use does not weigh in favor. The case taught in most American law schools concerning fair use, mostly because the opinion is masterfully clear on the subject, is Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group.[3] Like all fair use cases, the court passes over the ownership of a valid copyright fairly quickly. Whether a contract will enjoy copyright protection in a particular context will be very fact specific and open to the interpretation of the judge if it gets that far. Gx872op (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I only invoked fair use in the context of someone saying, "you can't reprint the contract I signed to show to others involved in this legal dispute, because it's copyrighted." This seems to be the concern of people who want to claim that they couldn't be copyrighted because they are legally binding. There's no doubt that such a use would be fair use though; in any case, being copyrighted can't exclude something from discovery. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Mr.98 and Gx872op and Shadowjams; I have some very interesting reading now, particularly this PDF which was linked to by Gx872op's first link. Thank you! Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

where is our copiale cipher article?

I was surprised that after the New York Times wrote an article all about "to crack one of the most stubborn of codes: the Copiale Cipher, a hand-lettered 105-page manuscript that appears to date from the late 18th century", there is no Copiale Cipher article on Wikipedia. Where is it? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Trying not be facetious, but it's because no-one has written such an article yet. Wikipedia has an enormous coverage but there are still many notable subjects that are still waiting for someone with the interest/enthusiasm to produce an article on them. Perhaps you would like to make a start? Mikenorton (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Also... is it possible that it has another name? For example: Do we know who created the cipher?... if there is a bio article on that person it could be mentioned there, but not by the name "Copiale cipher" (not saying it is... just that it could be). Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a description of the cipher. Mikenorton (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

While there are currently 3.7 million Wikipedia articles, there may well be or have been even more than 3.7 million people, events, and things which have existed which are notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Thus the encyclopedia's coverage of things is constantly growing. Edison (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

See Copiale cipher, a stub I created, which all are welcome to expand and improve. Edison (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The writing "copiales 3" appears at the very end of the text. Is copiales some German term for for "copy everything?" Trying to figure out why the scribe might have written it at the end of a manuscript about Freemason-like rituals, I Googled it along with "St. Andrews," mentioned in the text as important in the history of the Masonic lodges, and found "Copiale prioratus Sanctiandree;: The letter-book of James Haldenstone, prior of St. Andrews (1418-1443)". So if it is a Latin word, what does it mean? Google translate provides no translation of copiale or copiales from Latin to English, but does translate it from Spanish as "copy them." Edison (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wiktionary, "copia" (1st decl., thus pl = copiae) means abundance (see etymology of copious). Maybe somebody with a somewhat less rusty knowledge of Latin can hint on the suffix "copia-les" ? --188.22.103.39 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's "copiale", plural "copialia", and it means a register, or as above, a "letter book". I don't know the ultimate etymology, but maybe the OED would have it, or a big medieval Latin dictionary (Niermeyer, maybe; Du Cange doesn't have it). I'm not even sure it's from "copia", but I suppose that's likely. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Lucky you're all making sense and speaking nicely, otherwise I'd be accusing you of coprolalia.  :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We are left no closer to analyzing why a copyist, book owner, or book user would write "copiales 3" at the end of a nicely copied and expensively bound manuscript. I could see it being "copy 3" out of an edition of "x." Was "Copiales" ever a name, as of a scribe? Would "copia les 3" make any sense as in instructing a Spanish-speaking scribe to make 3 copies? Edison (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't answer the question, but Niermeyer's Medieval Latin Lexicon has an entry for "copiarium" meaning "register", and I could see how that could become "copiale" in another form of Latin, or in French (although "copiale" doesn't seem to be a French word either). Adam Bishop (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Copiales is a plural form of Copiale, meaning a collection of copies. The manuscript itself (not in the German or English texts) has on bottom of page 68 "Copiales 3? Rth|" (all scratched out) and on the last page "Copiales 3. Rth|". The dot after the 3 is used after numbers in that time (today omitted) and Rth| is the usual abbreviation for Reichsthaler. I would guess that the scribe who copied it received 3 Reichsthaler for copying through page 68 and another 3 Reichsthaler for the rest. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

To confirm this, a journal that appeared in Leipzig in the year 1764 (very close to the manuscript) records a fee of 1 g| (1 Groschen = 1/24 Reichsthaler) per sheet (2 pages) for official "Copiales" by a scribe. 24 sheets would cost 1 Reichsthaler and 72 sheets 3 Reichsthaler. With the complicated text here, the scribe could easily charge 1/24 Reichsthaler per page. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Does reading things which are written in the manuscript count as WP:OR, or can this information be added to the article, per WP:BLUE?  Card Zero  (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Was Albert Einstein a pantheist?

Einstein's religious views are very similar to pantheism, but in the article Albert Einstein's religious views he is quoted (here) saying "I don't think I can call myself a pantheist". What was the difference between his views and pantheism? Did he ever answer this question himself? Or perhaps he was a pantheist after all?

Thanks, Oh, well (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's very close. I think panentheism is probably a better description of what Einstein believed, though. The distinction, as I understand it, is that the pantheist says the universe is God. The panentheist believes there is a universe, and there is God, and they are muddled up inseparably. So in the latter there are two entities — the universe and God — but in the former there is only one (universe/God). Theological hair-splitting. If you called Einstein a pantheist, you'd be pretty close to the mark. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I am personally concerned when people attempt to describe my spiritual views with single word labels. Einstein was a far more complex person than me, so I'd suggest giving up on simplistic labels for him. HiLo48 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Both "pantheist" and "panenthiest" are extraordinarily vague anyway. They tell you more about what he didn't believe (personal God, etc.) than what he did believe. They are akin, in Einstein's case, to a vague certainty that there's some order behind the universe, but that's it. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that he wasn't a panentheist. As you said, the difference between the two is that pantheism states that God and nature are one, and that therefore supernatural phenomenons can't exist, whilst panentheism regards nature as part of God, allowing God to perform miracles. Einstein repeatedly rejected the supernatural, and I can't think of any other reason why he would refer to God as more than the universe, but if you know a reason please comment. As for the simplification in labeling him as a pantheist, I agree that his views were much deeper than of most pantheists. However, calling the Pope a Christian is also a simplification, but he still belongs to the category of Christian people, and Einstein's beliefs do seem to match pantheism. Anyway, I want to know what made him say the quote above (maybe because he indeed thought it's too simplistic, and didn't want his beliefs summarized that much). Oh, well (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think belief in miracles is entirely separate from both of those ideas. Einstein obviously didn't believe in miracles or interventionism. I don't think panentheism is at all interventionist, for what it's worth. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Expensive degrees vs. cheap PhDs

How does is come that going through a university degree program can be very expensive, but the working force that can offer a degree (=PhDs) are normally horribly paid? Shouldn't degrees be cheaper or PhDs well-paid? Quest09 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, public school teachers are horribly underpaid. However, university professors are paid a reasonable amount. An anecdote: My private sector computer work nets me around $60k/year. Teaching at a university (without tenure) nets me around $70k/year. If I were to teach at public school like my two neighbors, I'd be making around $30k/year. -- kainaw™ 20:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably you are not teaching something related to humanities. Even in the US, they seem to be meagerly rewarded, unless you are tenured... Quest09 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A beginning tenure-track job in the humanities pays less than half of that, generally. At really high end places (e.g. Ivies) they pay $50K or so. Adjuncting (non-tenure track) varies hugely. At the highest end (e.g. Ivies) it can pay around $35K. At the lowest (most exploitive) end, it's more like $2K per class. I will note though that many humanities degrees are not expensive except in terms of opportunity costs. My PhD cost me basically nothing except six years of my life — all the rest was either paid for by scholarships, fellowships, research jobs, or teaching jobs. But I went to a relatively rich university where lots of job opportunities (i.e. teaching) were always available. People I know who went to poor universities (even highly acclaimed ones, like the UCs) usually had to go into some degree of debt to complete the PhD. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Australia has a homogenous payment structure for academics of all disciplines nationwide (with regional variations depending on union strength post 1990). These are generally in-line with equivalent "ranked" public K-12 teachers. In neither case does the cost of the degree to the individual or the state have a serious influence on the earning potential. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

School teachers really do seem to be underpaid in the US. In the UK, the main scale for teachers has a maximum of £32,558 [www.tda.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/salary/teaching-salary-scales.aspx]. A university lecturer is paid on a "spine" [4], with spine point 44 a ceiling many people reach, £45,155. So there is a definite "rate of return" to a PhD, but also the possibility of getting to the same point in a school teaching career (either by becoming a head teacher - principal - or by being an advanced skills teacher). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The economics of higher education in the US are kind of complicated. Here's a go:

• The main reason the humanities are paid so little is because there's virtually no threat of abandonment. That is, an engineer needs to be paid something close to the industry rate, because otherwise they will simply jump to industry jobs. (They might accept a lot less than actual industry jobs because of the promise of doing their own work, or something like that. But it's got to be comparable.) There is no such threat in the humanities. An English PhD or a History PhD or (god forbid) a Philosophy PhD is not going to be able to make any kind of comparable leap. There is simply no sector out there that is seeking them, no place that they are uniquely qualified for other than the university. I can speak from experience (both mine and my friends') that when trying to jump into the non-university world, a PhD is more often than not a stone around one's neck. Potential employers tend to view on as simultaneously (and paradoxically) over- and under-qualified. Overqualified because you have a fancy degree that makes it clear to all around you that you've got a lot of firepower, perhaps more than their job (or co-workers) need. Underqualified because you have essentially no job experience to go with your level of education. So you've got the education that says, "management," but your experience says "entry-level." That's an uncomfortable paradox for a potential employer and it makes you look like a pretty problematic potential employee. The humanities of course exacerbate this when they use impenetrable jargon (everybody sounding like a poorly-translated French professor), pursue what appear to outsiders to be frivolous topics ("'Shoulda put a ring on it':The Semiotics of Beyonce's Single Ladies"), and generally act like asses in the presence of non-university people (it is an often vocalized mantra in the university system that anyone who is not in the university system is some kind of dilettante or fraud).
• Compounding this is that there are significantly more PhDs produced each year than university jobs, making it a complete buyer's market. This is especially insidious because the universities are the ones who also get to control the number of PhDs there are per year — they are both the producer and the consumer of PhDs. Why do they glut the market? Not necessarily because they love making the world miserable (though one wonders), but because having lots of graduate students (the embryo stage of the PhD) means that you are able to do more undergraduate teaching with fewer professors. Undergraduates pay the bills, in the end. So you get grad programs with huge numbers of entrants, fund them on a pittance, and then force them to do all of the heavy work of teaching (the grading, the sections, the one-on-one interactions) while the small number of tenured professors do whatever pleases them. This might not be awful if they were preparing those grad students for the reality that awaits them once they finish, but they foster the idea — purposefully or inadvertently — that everything will "work out" and the "cream rises to the top" and other such nonsense. This is despite the fact that since 1970 — when things started going decisively sour in the PhD-to-job ratio — there have been endless pleas by various members of the academy to start training grad students to do more than just work in the university. Instead of doing this, the direction of scholarship has been towards increasing specialization, increased insularity, increased retrenchment: the response of a crowded field (and perhaps an inferiority complex with regards to the sciences).

So there's the basics of it. Nobody can really threaten to leave, and they're dispensable anyway. It's an awful racket if you ask me. When you're 22 or so it seems like a good way to avoid jumping into a cubicle, but when you're in your 30s on the other side of it, it starts to look a lot more dismal, and the "learning for its own sake" suddenly looks like a very poor personal economic strategy. I say this as someone who has managed to make his humanities PhD pay the bills, but I've seen a lot of people flame out, too. If you'd like to read more depressing discussions of the current state of the university system, the most depressing place of them all is The Chronicle of Higher Education, which includes, even amongst its "positive" columns, recommendations that new assistant professors refrain from having children, cut their own hair, and steal furniture out of the trash of universities with rich students in order to make ends meet. I'm not even exaggerating. (I'll show you the life of the mind!) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

While the above is true; it doesn't fully or adequately explain the poor salary rates of Engineering PhDs. (let me get out my table of skill relativities from 1940 for comparison... yes I've seen this argument before a wages tribunal... it worked out about as well as expected). Academics face a number of simultaneous problems in using industrial muscle to force management's hand. One is the deliberately cultivated glut in labour market supply. One could speculate that the triumphalist claim in Australia is correct, where in the 1950s employers declared that the high school skills shortage was solved as declining wage rates indicated, onto the graduate skills shortage; and extend this forward in time. But I don't think the glut is sufficient. Other glutted skill groups manage fine. There's the diversity of cultural identifications and skill differentiations within the shop, and this causes problems as Taylor and Ford demonstrated. There's a worker mentality that they're not workers, but even as white collar workers in the 1940s, 50s and 60s were being proletarianised, their consciousness changed to reflect their material being—I've seen some examples of this in contemporary academia, but it isn't nearly as successful as Nursing unionism. However, the largest problem is the turn-around time on the production process. The seven year academic production cycle is still a serious element of the humanities. The fantasy of the 3 year book project is quite often just that. The sabbatical cycle, and the throughput of Undergraduates to PhD graduates in a straight through movement (3+1+3 in Australia) is indicative. Even in areas where turn around times are faster, and greater capitalisation is evident, the sunk costs of labour or "General Intellect" if you want to get all Virno, mean that the production process as a whole is very slow. Obviously individual papers fall due periodically, and withholding this labour is not effective. Withholding labour in student graduation (the classic "marks ban") is a fraught process.

I also suspect that a PhD catering to non-University employers will fail to cater adequately to University employers. Of course, I've never seen a boss reduce the quality of the product to increase throughput... Fifelfoo (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, I just realised that I implicitly accepted that academic workers shouldn't marry, have children, buy furniture or get haircuts for money. Then again that's good advice, "What keeps a man alive?...". Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding — and I don't have the statistics in front of me at the moment — is that an Engineering bachelor's degree is among the most lucrative one can acquire; a master's adds to lifetime income significantly, but an Engineering PhD does not. I suspect there is some other dynamic here regarding the labor market. What I would be interested in knowing is where the engineers with PhDs end up. If they are primarily in academia, then that's the source of the wage decrease right there, because even if engineers are going to be at an academic pay grade, even if they get paid a lot more than historians. If they do not — or cannot — jump into better private industry jobs with a PhD (which I suspect in the case), then the additional degree adds little in that department, either. This strikes me as a separate dynamic from the glut, and a totally separate situation from the humanities. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Back in the 1980s, starting salaries for chemical engineering topped the bachelors degrees. Dualus (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Are Northern Ireland's murals going to be replaced?

According to this murals in Northern Ireland are about to be replaced. Is that confirmed? I can't believe they will destroy Northern Ireland's most distinctive feature. --Belchman (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the murals of Northern Ireland are a notable tourist attraction and part of its cultural history. They give tours throughout the city where some of the worst violence and sectarian killings occured, so it's stupid and hypocritical to replace the murals in a vain attempt to sanitise the recent past. Belfast has already lost a lot of its old Victorian buildings through urban renewal, if they paint over the murals, there will be nothing left for tourists to photograph!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I'll have to hurry if I want to see Northern Ireland in its true beauty in my lifetime. --Belchman (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, those of us who have to live there are less happy having to put up with murals glorifying gangsters and thugs. In any case, most of the murals have always been regularly redesigned and repainted. Since the ceasefires, many of them have gone in a less paramilitary direction. There's one on the (loyalist) Woodstock Road celebrating great footballers from Belfast. The side of the (nationalist) Short Strand bus depot is a virtual bulletin board, repainted every time there's an election coming up with murals supporting the Sinn Féin candidate of the day. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

They don't have to replace the murals with white painting. They can just replace them with other murals, which do not condone violence. Quest09 (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Identifying my philosophy

I am unable to sort out this one philosophy I hold. I know it, but I can't put into words or explain it to others. One part of it is if you consider a spectrum of options given to a certain question, my response might be orthogonal to the choices given to me. It isn't necessarily middle of the road. Some examples:

• The March 2011 SAT essay question asked whether reality television was helpful or harmful. I said that it was neither and depends on the situation.
• Gordon Gekko's "Greed...is good.". To an extent, my response would say it is neither good nor bad.

Can someone please help put this view into words. --Melab±1 ☎

Pragmatism? Quest09 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Relativism? --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it might be partially relativistic, but I do hold absolutes, like killing someone is a violation of their rights. --Melab±1 ☎ 22:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wimpyness? Looie496 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? --Melab±1 ☎ 22:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You're concerned about nuances. Could be called pedantry, though I think there's a fine distinction. 213.122.36.164 (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comes off as kind of negative, to me. --Melab±1 ☎ 00:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is not a philosophy. Just differentiating among situations is just plain common sense. There is no way of answering at a SAT essay if reality TV is good or bad and the examiners don't expect that you state one or the other opinion. They want to know how you defend an idea. Quest09 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I approach things orthogonally and hold the belief that the issue at hand has other options, if that makes sense. --Melab±1 ☎ 00:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Skepticism?  Card Zero  (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I can describe your philosophy only as "different from theirs". Whenever people try to get you to describe a class of things as good or bad, it depends on you accepting their belief that the class is significant, i.e. a conclusion of their philosophy. Now with more information one might try to describe your philosophy, but that is all that I think can be done with the information provided. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This may be of help. I hold the idea that Ayn Rand believed egoism was a virtue, whereas altruism is immoral. Supposedly altruism always leads to death. I agree with the idea that an individual hold's no obligations to others and vice versa (primarily because of pondering unrequited love and scenes in movies where someone does something that ends in someone not loving them anymore). She would probably agree with me their, however, I also dislike her idea the egoism is necessarily a virtue and extend my statement to one has no obligations to themselves or others. This is probably where she would go berserk. --Melab±1 ☎ 22:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, is this compatible with "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"? Wnt (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article, and it talks about some True Will over the ego. Doesn't make much sense. My English teacher commented "Nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." after I had tried to explain my philosophy to him. --Melab±1 ☎ 23:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a "philosophy" at all, rather a sensible reaction to badly constructed multiple choice questions. I hate it when I have to answer questions like that--when the answer should be "it depends", or "none of the above", etc, but those aren't answers you can pick. Wanting to pick "it depends" but not being given the option isn't a philosophy. It's just a badly worded multiple-choice question. (just to note, I was responding to the original question, not the ones asked later in this thread) Pfly (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading the later bit, about Ayn Rand, egoism, altruism, etc--I'm not sure I quite understand. Which beliefs are hers, which are yours? What does "obligation" mean exactly, also the terms egoism, altruism, virtue, and immoral. These words can have many shades of meaning. Pfly (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the way I view these things that is a philosophy. --Melab±1 ☎ 00:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but it is hard to say what other philosophies yours is like without knowing what those terms mean to you. Given the mention of Ayn Rand, I assume egoism means Rational egoism, altruism Altruism (ethics), and obligation Moral responsibility or Moral obligation. What exactly virtue means is less clear, other than "good". I know very little about Ayn Rand, but in general I'm reminded of Nietzsche. I haven't read very much of his work, but Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a rather amazing book that delves into these kind of concepts--morality, obligation, good and evil (virtue and vice you could say), self and others, in ways that might be similar to what you're talking about. The book gets into many other things too, like "God is dead" and Übermensch, which may or may not resonate with your philosophy about morality. It is also written in a highly metaphorical poetic style, unlike most philosophy books. I have only browsed Beyond Good and Evil. It also explores issues of morality, virtue/vice (good/evil), moral responsibility, and so on. Personally, I don't think anyone has an absolute duty to do or not do anything whatsoever, for others or themselves. Things like virtue, vice, moral, immoral, obligation, even self and other, are meaningless except within some context or framework, I think. But then, contexts and frameworks arise whenever we perceive and understand reality in any particular way. There are many ways of perceiving and understanding, so notions like morality and responsibility arise meaningfully in a variety of ways, none of which is absolutely true and right. On the far side of nihilism I find boundless altruism, at least until regular life as a zombie kicks in again. But that's just me. (hmm, it might sound like I'm describing perspectivism, but while it's a fairly close match, I don't agree with the idea that "there can be no knowledge of a thing in itself.") Pfly (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Casuistry? Not a philosophy but an approach to thinking by considering each case as it comes up, ie a form of reasoning. (In the article) utilitarians & pragmatists use the form. It's also described in this section[5] as "applied ethics" or moralist reasoning. I like it because it avoids emotionalism, attitudes of the times, and social brainwashing in considering certain questions of behaviour, ethics etc. It would be nice to see a tickbox named "Other" in tests. Does "orthogonal" mean you like to see statistics of a thing? Manytexts (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds accurate, but I believe some absolutes need to held in order to be applied. --Melab±1 ☎ 23:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your assumptions about the definitions are correct, Pfly. --Melab±1 ☎ 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutes are usually determined by consensus within the pertaining culture, I wouldn't assume they don't exist as a bottom line, but I didn't get that was the thrust of your original question. Are you testing us? because I get that you pretty well do know what your philosophy might be. Manytexts (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am in now way testing you. I understand my philosophy, but I thought I didn't have the words to explain it and I am trying to figure which philosophy it is closest to. --Melab±1 ☎ 01:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I get you. Thanks for your patience. Have you checked out phenomenalism? Manytexts (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Phenomenalism comes off as a bit like solipsism which I do ascribe to. Phenomenalism doesn't seem to fit. --Melab±1 ☎ 16:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarian? Dualus (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that but I place individual rights before any kind of utilitarian action (like kill 1 to save 1000). --Melab±1 ☎ 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are Republican murals of better quality than Loyalist ones?

This is a well-executed Loyalist mural. I took this photo in Ballymacarett, East Belfast in 2001. I believe the mural is still there

That's a general tendency that I've noticed. Compare both here for example. Republican murals shown there are much more elaborated and colorful, and the portraits generally resemble more the people they portray. --Belchman (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many elements to art appreciation and art critique. Particularly in terms of political art the standards vary. The famous George Lukacs once presented an apologia for socialist realism on the basis that actually existing socialism had existed for far less time than capitalism and so socialist realism would necessary be inferior to grand realism—his apology is more than a little hollow. From the examples you posted I noticed that republican murals displayed more advanced graphical design techniques: however, this could simply indicate the commodification of republicanism and the alienation of republican elites from their constituency. (Consider how "slick" US politics graphic design is, and simultaneously, how alienated the US working class is from the US political process). In contrast the primitivism of the loyalist works could indicate a local and popular meaning. If we examine some of the political claims in the works, many of the loyalist works on the site you showed had a very local (brigade specific) context. The republican works made claims to more general, society wide concerns. To be honest, I find the execution of both works (from this level of "detail") to be very similar: the medium is sparsely populated with content, and the subjects are generally displayed for who they are rather than the graphic content of the work. (The number of works, and the community dedication to the form, are certainly greater than in my neighbourhood where block-end murals are highly stylised and influenced by the New York Graffiti style). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the Spanish civil war as recounted by Tom Lehrer: "Though [Franco] may have won all the battles, We had all the good songs!" I would guess that Republicans/Nationalists have diverse resources of Celtic historical art and world-wide left-wing propaganda posters to draw on, while Unionists might tend to stick more to tried and true Orange Order / British Empire iconography... AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a photo of a Loyalist mural I took in Ballymacarett, East Belfast quite close to the Harland and Wolff shipyard. It is well-executed and depicts Captain James Craig and Major Frederick Crawford of the original UVF and Squeaky Seymour and Joe Long, who were volunteers in the contemporary UVF. Needless to say, the area was staunchly UVF when I visited it ten years ago.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've often thought that while republican murals often resemble political cartoons, loyalist ones look more like naive folk art. Probably has something to do with republicans being politically better organised than loyalists, with correspondingly more thought being put into style and message and perception. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

One can also compare the superior quality of republican ballads to those of the loyalists. Here is an example of a typical loyalist ballad: The Men of the UDA. It just does not compare to the The Broad Black Brimmer!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Underdog rebel" is an inherently more artistically interesting position than "defender of the established order". I think this is fairly independent of the actual merits of the respective cases. I have never listened to the Horst Wessel Lied, but I'll take a flyer and speculate that it's quite stirring. --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Sash My Father Wore is probably the most famous of all loyalist songs but even that doesn't invoke the warrior spirit like the Irish rebel songs. On the other hand, the lambeg drum makes more of an impact than the bodhran!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Kyrie

How is Kyrie pronounced? --75.33.218.167 (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

[6] as in Kyrie--Aspro (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that as Kyrie#pronunciation notes, a trisyllabic pronunciation is far more common, though it doesn't elucidate what that pronunciation is. Wherever I've sung it, it's always been trisyllabic /ˈkɪ⋅ri⋅ɛ/, except when singing the Byrd 4-part mass, when it was mostly /ˈkɪ⋅ri/ as on the howjsay site. --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical sing-song Greek via Latin is is a little different from Koine Greek or classical pronunciations (Attic etc.). The OP did not give any context as to why the query arises so we're all guessing.--Aspro (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In English, kee-ree-ay. In Greek the first vowel was like a French u or a German u umlaut. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ancient vowel sounds are notoriously elusive. The sound of the "υ" changed in Greek and probably went through the stage of sounding like the German "ü". (Isn't this a question for the language desk?) Moonraker (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In singing, the "kee" may be more of a "kih" and "ay" should have no diphthong, per several US choral conductors with MAs or PhDs in choral conducting. Edison (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no controversy over this. See Ancient_greek#Vowels. The letter y was used in Latin only to express this sound which was called "Greek i" and still is so called in French and Spanish. The IPA symbol /y/ is used to represent the Close front rounded vowel for this very reason. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But as Moonraker said, the sound of Greek vowels (and diphthongs) changed throughout the centuries. Since "kyrie" is typically associated with the Christian hymn, it wouldn't be pronounced with the "classical" vowels. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Kir, with a short-i vowel sound, to rhyme with fear and mere, is the only way I've ever heard it pronounced in this neck of the woods, in or out of church: as witness this once well known song. Textorus (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, I wish Wikipedia had been around when I was trying to learning Classical Greek, as it is possible that it wouldn't be all-Greek-to-me now. -or maybe it would. Still, its not as impossible as American English. Have you noticed how clever they are – even their little kids can speak it, just like those South Park characters .--Aspro (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian right of return

Has there been any research on how many Palestinian refugees would actually return to Israel if given the chance to do so? Would it be enough, as Israel claims, to destabilize the country? --140.180.26.155 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the research is by town planners and not so much about destabilisation but about how to fit more people into what is really quite a small country. In particular, the availability of water for agriculture, horticulture and domestic use. It's certain that not every Arab person with a historic link to the area would actually return; the proportion who would must depend on precisely what was being offered. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How many would return depends on the circumstances of their current location. My guess is that most Palestinian refugees in Lebanon would opt to return, given that Lebanese society rejects and largely despises them. Of those in Jordan (where they're far more "settled" and integrated into society) a far smaller proportion would likely opt to return. As an aside, some Palestinians have fought for (and, in some cases, won) residency in Israel under "skilled migrant" "student" and "family reunion" categories. (They are, however, exceptions). I'm sure some gay Palestinians from the west bank have (paradoxically) sought "refugee" status in Israel, though I'm not sure how the immigration ministry and courts have viewed such applications. 58.111.224.157 (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

140.180.26.155 -- I don't think that anyone knows or can know at this point what the number would be. However, one thing is clear -- the louder and the more insistently the Arabs talk about how the right of return must be absolutely unrestricted and without any limitations whatsoever, the more a significant portion of the Jewish Israeli public becomes correspondingly convinced that the whole thing is really not about humanitarian concerns at all, but rather about malicious plans to try to destroy Israel the long way around... AnonMoos (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask a question? Does a Jewish person born and raised in say, the US or Europe, have more right to live in Israel than a Palestinian refugee who wants to return to what he or she believes is their rightful homeland? It also amuses me that there is concern that the Palestinian refugee only wants to return out of malicious intent to destroy Israel. jewish people from around the globe who are now domiciled in Israel may not have had any family connections to Israel anywhere in their past. This could be construed as propping up Israel as a Jewish state and any Palestinians coming back to Israel may not go down very well as it would begin to eat into the Jewish majority, depending on the number of Palestinains who choose to return to Israel. Would having a Palestinian majority destroy the Israeli state? I don't think so. Would it diminish a Jewish state? Perhaps. Carson101 (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When or if the Palestinians get leaders who will put an end to the suicide bombings, the problem will fix itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. Israel's Arab citizens are outbreeding their Jewish citizens and will have a majority in a couple decades without any Palestinian returns. If only it was that simple. Dualus (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Integrating West-Bank and CisjordaniaGaza into the respective Arab country

Would it be possible? The former would be part of Jordan and the latter of Egypt. Is that a tragedy? Quest09 (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean "Gaza", since the "West Bank" and "Cisjordania" are synonyms. In any case, Jordan annexed it from 1949-1967, but only a few other countries formally recognized the legality of this measure (some sources say only the U.K. and Pakistan), and Jordan decided to relinquish all claims in the late 1980s... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Right and thanks for the answer. I am amazed that this is not discussed as a route to peace. Quest09 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Jordanians did much more than any other Arab country during the 1949-1967 period to integrate "their" Palestinians into the fabric of Jordanian society, but it didn't insulate Jordan from the political currents sweeping though the Arab world, and it wasn't enough to bring about Arab-Israeli peace. In early June 1967, the Israelis were telling Hussein of Jordan through all channels that they wouldn't attack Jordan if Jordan didn't start hostilities, but Hussein felt that he had to initiate hostilities against Israel or be publicly considered a vile traitor to the cause of pan-Arab nationalism by the so-called "Arab street" -- even though Hussein was very well aware that initiating hostilities against Israel would be far likelier to have overall negative results for Jordan than positive ones.

So Jordanians might say that they've already done more than their fair share , while Palestinians might say that they didn't go through decades of struggle to be ruled over by somebody else... AnonMoos (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. We have a Wikipedia article on Three-state solution, but historically that's mostly been advocated by right-wing Israelis (though this may be changing after the Hamas takeover of Gaza...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The West Bank was occupied by and treated like an integral part of Jordan from 1948 until Israel won the Six Day War in 1967. Jordan continued to claim it until 1988, when it renounced all claims to the territory (in favor of the PLO). By that time, the idea of a separate Palestinian nationality had gained sway. The whole argument of the Palestinians is that they are a separate nationality from the other Arabs, so they need their own state. As far as Jordan goes, the last thing the non-Palestinian rulers of that country need is 3 million more Palestinians. As for the Gaza Strip (occupied by Egypt from 1948-67), Egypt apparently didn't want it back when Israel withdrew from the Sinai in the 70s, and Egypt would have no interest in that hotbed of violence and radicalism now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Egypt's and Jordan's positions 1948-1967 were very different. The Jordanian monarchy annexed the West Bank. Egypt on the other hand always maintained that Gaza would be part of a liberated Palestine and that the occupation was temporary. Mail to Gaza was sent to 'Gaza, Palestine' between 1948 and 1967. --Soman (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Closest political party (US) to ideology

I took the Political Compass political ideology quiz, and my result was [7]. Given that I know nothing about where US political parties are on this scale other than Democrat and Republican are in the top right quadrant, what are a few (notable and preferably non-local) political parties in the US that most closely match the political ideology position I got? I would also be interested in where the Socialist Party of Kansas would be placed on this chart given that I have a friend who affiliates with that political party (FWIW, his political compass was [8]). Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably the anarchist or left wing of the Libertarian Party (United States), see Mary Ruwart, and Noam Chomsky, or the Democratic party (United States) (although they are practically the Communist party in terms of nationalization of wealth and the Insane Clown Posse in terms of policy and civility nowadays) or maybe the Green Party (United States). μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky is not associated with the LP, and is in fact sharply critical of it, somewhat to the disappointment of some LP members who see him as a potential ally. --Trovatore (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, I did not mean to imply it. He calls himself a libertarian lower case. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Political Compass" must be taken with a grain of salt. Anyway, you don't appear to be too radical of a leftist, and while the Democrats would be considered a center-right party by international standards, it is a "big tent" and includes "bottom-left quadrant" folks like Dennis Kucinich and Sherrod Brown. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When in opposition to the Republicans (whom I assume the OP would not align with) the Democrats are usually position themselves as the party of tolerance against Republican anti-gay, anti-immigrant policies, which he might see favorably. But for the last several years the Democrats have driven the size and intrsuiveness of the state through the roof. That doesn't sound left libertarian to me. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, I am registered to vote as a Republican due to the fact that I feel I can have more of an impact all in all voting in Republican primaries in Kansas versus Democrat primaries. And to be honest, I can actually tolerate Republicans like Jerry Moran just fine, it's when they start getting the likes of Jim Inhofe or even somewhat Sam Brownback that my tolerance wanes. However, you are correct that the "tolerance" stances of the Democrats tend to appeal to me. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you'll really 'love' Tom Tancredo, J. D. Hayworth and Rick Santorum then. Your strategy of registering to vote in the primaries is impeccable. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Medeis characterization of the Democratic Party in the U.S. does not actually match their positions or actions in any real sense, but it does closely match the characterization of the Democratic Party by their primary political rivals, the Republican Party. That is, such a charactization is what Republicans, who are trying to get elected want people to believe about the Democratic Party, and does not actually match how the Democractic Party actually behaves. --Jayron32 03:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Free and universal education, a highly progressive income tax, death taxes, a central government bank, government control of the roads and the media, nationalization of capital and employment? Those are the planks of the Communist Manifesto. I didn't make them up, nor did I force the Democrats to adopt them in the main or the GOP to adopt them in part. The implicaation that I make the comparison for partisan reasons is false. Read the original Marx. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The awesome thing about your response is that, it its very rediculousness, it obviates the need to present any actual response to it. That is, the comparison of either major American political party (or, as you have done above, oddly, both of them!) to the ideals of Communism/Marxism is so absolutely and totally rediculous, no one has to actually respond to it. It stands up as one of the most patently silly theses I have heard that I don't see the need to refute any of it. It wonderfully refutes itself by being so rediculous. --Jayron32 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Red-iculous. Brilliant pun, Jayron, love it. Textorus (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm seriously interested in the attempt to portray the CPUSA as communist, or the Communist Manifesto, written due 1848—prior to the majority of Marx's serious work on capitalism—as communist. The Manifesto doesn't discuss the abolition of value or the centrality of working class self-emancipation. Critique of the Gotha programme is more representative of a mature programmatic assessment in Marx. Then, of course, there's the problem in assuming the attempts to influence statist parties by a 19th century political economist from a petits-bourgeois background is a sufficient representative of "communism." The very American Preamble to the IWW constitution is a far better representation of communism, having been written by workers who intended to use industrial weapons to immediately reduce the boss class to a historical memory. The incidental fact that none of these positions (with perhaps the exception of the nationalist and pro-"class peace" CPUSA) has any relation to the Democratic Party's politics is incidental.

To answer the original poster, supposing the political compass adequately represents your views, you may be interested in "social democracy" (not to be confused with "democratic socialism"), "progressive" or "labourite" policies—you can either be permanently isolated on the "left" of the Democrats, or investigate third parties. You may find some agreement regarding socio-cultural freedoms with the libertarians, but at the moment the most influential style of soft-left centrism (your position in the chart) tends to be associated with the pro-capitalist greens parties. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an obviously dumb/jingoistic comparison, one that conveniently ignores all of the myriad of ways that the comparison doesn't work. It's not a comparison which is even remotely useful for the OP, and it was clearly meant to just spark a debate on here, like many of said user's posts. The invocation of the ICP makes its frivolity even more apparent. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline to State and/or independent. What is their mascot? Dualus (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)