Humanities desk
< June 14	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 16 >

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.

June 15[edit]

Wikipedians: only paraphrasers of references?[edit]

How many computer programs are there now capable of paraphrasing references? -- Taxa (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your question doesn't make sense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first word should be "How". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thanks. -- Taxa (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as "Are wikipaedians only people who paraphrase references, and since computer programs have been developed which can perform this act, are wikipedia's users now redundant?". Fribbler (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedians are only allowed to paraphrase references and therefore since Wikipedians are people and computers can paraphrase sentences, people are redundant. -- Taxa (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing a reference is only one part of writing an article, and just about the only major one that can be automated. Firstly, a Wikipedia article is meant to have multiple references, so you need to be able to combine information from all available sources without significant redundancy. You also need to be able to make a value judgement about what belongs in an article, since your average reference will include many things to aid in understanding, whereas a Wikipedia article would just wikilink it. An exceedingly large fraction of comments made that "Computers/machines can do X therefore people who do X are redundant" have been proven wrong due to the gap between the automated capabilities of a computer and the judgemental capabilities of the human brain. We have computer translation, so why do we need people writing Wikipedia articles in every language instead of writing them in one language and just translating them all? We have automated theorem provers, so why are there still so many mathematicians in college faculties? We have ELIZA, so are psychiatrists redundant? (I may even stoop to asking, what's your point?) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That I may use a hand saw to cut one or two 1" by 2" furring strips, but not 500 and if I am not going to be allowed to utilize the higher capability humans are said to have because that would be considered original research then I may as well assign the task to a computer and save my own time for myself? -- Taxa (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "Don't feed the troll". 80.254.147.52 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, "Do not heed constructive criticism" for doing so will most likely require you to change. -- Taxa (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is mind truly in the brain?[edit]

It seems that some people have incredible will. Always centered, always aware. These same people can drink a 24 pack and/or take LSD and not let it affect them. I'll bet some people can get parts of thier brain surgically removed and still function.--Dr. Carefree (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mind truly is in the brain. It is possible to lose some aspects of consciousness or senses when the brain is damaged. You might find the book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat interesting. --bodnotbod (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Man with a Shattered World: The History of a Brain Wound by Alexander Luria is another interesting book. It describes the case of a man called Zasetsky who suffered severe brain injury but tried to keep on functioning. DAVID ŠENEK 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Ryle addressed this question. He said "the mind is what the brain does". In other words the brain is an organ, the mind is a process. Lev Vygotsky came up with a similar answer. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Golden Horde called Golden?[edit]

Why was the Mongol Golden Horde had the word, "Golden"? Why was the White Horde called White Horde and the Blue Horde called Blue Horde? Sonic99 (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From one of the references in our article:

The origins of the name Golden Horde are uncertain. Some scholars believe that it refers to the camp of Batu and the later rulers of the Horde. In Mongolian, Altan Orda refers to the golden camp or palace. Altan (golden) was also the color connoting imperial status. Other sources mention that Batu had a golden tent, and it is from this that the Golden Horde received its name. While this legend is persistent, no one is positive of the origin of the term. In most contemporary sources, the Golden Horde was referred to as the Khanate of the Qipchaq as the Qipchaq Turks comprised the majority of the nomadic population in the region (the Ulus Jochid).

Algebraist 15:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral[edit]

what is collateral?80.160.23.178 (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Collateral. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll even use it in a sentence for you: "The bank robber was reluctant to use explosives to open the safe, since he feared the collateral damage this would cause". StuRat (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there's also: "He was refused the loan, since he had no collateral." See also wiktionary:collateral. Gwinva (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Eterni[edit]

In my haphazard research on 16th century Venice, I've come across references to a governmental group called the Compagnia delle Calze, also called the Eterni - can anyone tell me what they were, who were they - anything about them at all?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Italian wikipedia's article:[1], if anyone can read Italiano. Fribbler (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that well, but it says that they were companies of young Venetian noblemen who organised shows (plays?) at Carnival time. There were different companies with different names. I think you can ask to have an article from a foreign-language WP translated. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a translation here. Fribbler (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great - thanks very much - I think I was barking up the wrong tree - thought they were a political entity more than entertainers - will check it out.Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction[edit]

when Lebanon was having a political crisis, how did Syria's Maronite, Sunni, Shi'ite and Druze community react to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.29 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which crisis? There have been a few. If you can get a date then you/we can look up some regional newspapers and find the answer. Fribbler (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can some lists be copyrighted?[edit]

In the United States, what are the criteria if a certain list is copyrightable? And if it can be reproduced in whole an or in part? I found this in the archives, but it didn't go into the detail I would like. Thank you. --Rajah (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, though I'd have to agree with MGM on this. Also, if the list was compiled by, for instance, a magazine then it is copyrighted by that magazine and it cannot be reprinted without their permission. If they are simply reprinted publicly accessable data from the government or something like that, then that list cannot have a copyright put on it. Dismas|^(talk) 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm not sure how I hit edit, didn't see the edit below, made my remarks, hit save, and ended up being three minutes later in my response without encountering an edit conflict... Dismas|^(talk) 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened to me a few times, though I haven't seen it documented. Some kind of software feature that notices that both edits just add new text at the bottom after linebreaks and decides it knows how to resolve the conflict? Algebraist 09:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Mgm said in that Help desk thread, creativity is generally the yardstick - so pulling the first 100 names out of the phone book, or getting the top 100 singles sold last week, will not involve copyright, but reprinting a Rolling Stone "Top 10 Songs About Pineapple" list will since creative work goes into determining (and generally writing a paragraph about) the reasons why "The Pineapple Song" is better than "Pineapple Love". Standard disclaimers of IANAL and copyright law is an extremely complicated thing apply. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then by that yardstick, does this list, AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies violate copyright? (Not trying to be a spoiler, but different lists, all of which are "creative", are treated differently on wikipedia it seems.) --Rajah (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page there. They could be copyrighted but the AFI let us use them. Rmhermen (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Thanks. --Rajah (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to clarify that the AFI says the lists are public domain on Talk:AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies. I'm not sure if they are that way because of US laws (such as the one regarding Federal employee works), or that they released them into the public domain. But, the bottom line is that those particular lists are not under copyright. Also, most subjective list of "Top 10" of whatever are under copyright in the USA, because the choices made (and explanations thereof) are "creative." --Rajah (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right to life without work[edit]

I am healthy and able to work, however presently I am in a country that guarantees a right to life to every one under every circunstance. Do I have a right to live leeching off other people? Since they cannot let me die under no circunstances, I was just thinking that I could live without working. GoingOnTracks (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you find people to leech off (parents, social service and such), however you will not be GoingOnTracks anymore, but GoingByFoot 217.168.0.33 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after 2 ECs) Well, that's up to you. European (and other perhaps) countries will support you to stay alive without working. But people rarely wish to "just exist". Unemployment Assistance or it's equivalent will let you survive, but not neccesarily "live". My family lived off "benefits" for a number of years during a recession. It's not "cushy", it isn't "leeching" (there's often no choice) and it's far from pleasant (the experience, such as no christmas presents, is harsh and degrading). For that reason I would never look down at the unemployed. It is not a good life, believe me, and people who think it is "money for wasters" don't know the reality. Fribbler (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you understand 'right to life'. In most countries if you arrive at a hospital/medical facility poorly/dieing then you have a right to the staff making their best efforts to sustain your life. However you can starve to death/die on the streets without that necessarily affecting rights. Society lets thousands die a year in this manner, and thousands die due to doctors/medical professionals making informed decisions about the effort/resources you take up if you are extremely ill in hospital. Your 'rights' to social-welfare are also limit-based and there are many that are not entitled to them. Virtually all rights are limit-based in some manner. Rights are very closely linked with responsibilities, and most governments are moving towards a rights-responsibilities based system where to get you must do...So to get job-seeker welfare you might have to be actively seeking employment, or to get income-support you must be provably earning under or to get disability benefit you must have ailment/disability Y as proven by medical professionals. In short - your right to life is within a very narrow legal framework and you can easily fall outside of it. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most Western democracies there are social security payments that you can claim under pretty much all circumstances. They are frequently very small, but usually enough to prevent you starving to death. The prerequisites are very minimal (having some form of address), although a certain amount of bureacracy is required so yes, you can probably live off the charity of others if you want. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]