Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 17

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 17

A nymph in mythology

would someone mind telling me about the nymph called Adrasteia? I think I heard in a story she fled from Artemis for some reason. Can someone tell me the story of Adrasteia? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no one knows anything at all about Adrasteia. Certainly, there is no online encyclopedia that could tell you about Adrasteia. Sorry, no info to be found anywhere about Adrasteia. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait... I found something... not sure how reliable it is, but it turns out that there is at least one online encyclopedia that has some information on Adrasteia. Hope that helps. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, you're a clever pair. I'm awed. Really. I note there's nothing in the article about fleeing from Artemis, so, you know, you could just AGF and tackle that element of the question. Or you could continue to take the piss. Your choice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Spoilsport...

ok... To try to answer the question with some seriousness, in some myths, Adresteia is equated with the goddess Nemesis... if you go to this website... and do a word search for "Artemis", you will come to the story of the goddess Aura as told in Nonnus's Dionysiaca (48. 375 ff)... in that story, Adresteia/Nemesis pursues Aura at the request of Artemis. In later, religious contects, Adresteia/Nemesis is an aspect of Artemis. Its the closest I can come. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I had run across the same thing when trying to google the subject, and didn't arrive at anything that looked like an answer. There seems to have been more than one Adresteia, as noted in the Adresteia article. The best I could come up with is that when she fled from Artemis, it was probably an arrow escape. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(Groan) :>) Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See the Creature from the Pit. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Barangay

in the Philippines, what are the barangay's components or members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.197.115 (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you read "Barangay"? Gabbe (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Searching for copyright renewal

Some books in the American Guide Series were paid for and copyrighted by entities other than the federal government, but I know that at least some of the copyright holders failed to renew copyright, so I'm trying to learn whether or not copyright was renewed for Cincinnati: A Guide to the Queen City and Its Neighbors — I've never before used any copyright renewal databases. Google showed me a Rutgers page, so I put in "guide to the queen city" and found only two books with "Cincinnati" in the title, neither of which is the book I'm looking for. Does this mean conclusively that its copyright was not renewed? Or is there a possibility that I did something wrong and caused the website to overlook it? Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This renewal database is somewhat more accurate and complete. It seems to me that it was not renewed, which would make it public domain fairly conclusively, assuming no errors in transcription or in the database. This is not legal advice, of course, but there is zero indication that it was ever renewed, and if it was renewed, it ought to be in that database. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office[1] contains a record of such information. For works published before 1976, you will have to search their card catalog in Washington DC. You can pay them to do that for you for an hourly fee and have them send you a report. Should the owners of the copyright have renewed in the 28th year after the publication, then the work is still protected by copyright today. In the 60s, the US Copyright Office did a study and found that only 7% of registered works had their copyright status renewed. The vast majority of works published between 1923 and 1962 are in the public domain (93%). Those published or compliant with the registration process in 1963 or later were grandfathered in with the Copyright Act of 1976 and are protected by copyright. The exception is foreign works after 1923 which had their copyright restored in a special law signed by Bill Clinton. Stanford is not a recognized authority for determining the legal status of a copyrighted work. The authority is the US Copyright Office's card catalog, which you can investigate for free next time you are in DC or you can pay someone to investigate it. A search of the title of the book on Amazon reveals one published in the 80s, so it may have been renewed. Gx872op (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Stanford site (and the Rutgers site) are just databases of the card catalogs of the Copyright Office. So you can skip the card catalog search, etc., if they do accurately reflect the same Copyright Office card catalogs. The Stanford database in particular is pretty accurate, and has been checked and double-checked for accuracy. It is not meant to be a "recognized legal authority" — it's just a digitized, searchable version of the Copyright Office database. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanish language

In For Whom the Bell Tolls chapter 17, Hemingway writes "French, the language of diplomacy. Spanish, the language of bureaucracy". I understand that French is the language of diplomacy because of its role as a court language for hundreds of years, but why is Spanish the language of bureaucracy? (I thought about posting this on the language desk but decided the Humanities desk was better, because this is actually more of an historical/cultural question) 72.128.95.0 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is intuition speaking, but I'm fairly sure the first half of the quote is setting up a joke by relating an already commonly known fact and the second half is a cheap dig at some spanish-speaking government(given the context, probably spain). i kan reed (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy Roman Emperor Charles V or Frederick the Great said:

“ I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse. ”

Sleigh (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was Charles V, given his rather multiethnic life. He was born in Flanders, his mother was Spanish, and his father was half Burgundian French and half Austrian. He ruled an empire which included Spain, Germany, and much of Italy. He'd have had cause to make such a statement, while Fredrick the Great ruled only Prussia/Brandenburg (admittedly a powerful nation, but still just a German one). --Jayron32 04:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's one of those quotes widely attributed to someone, yet we don't know for certain whether they ever said it. We do know, on the other hand, that Mikhail Lomonosov said this (in translation):

“ Charles V, the Roman Emperor, used to say that one should speak Spanish with God, French with friends, German with enemies, and Italian with the female sex. But if he had been skilled in Russian, he would, of course, have added that one can speak it with all of them, for he would have found in it the magnificence of Spanish, the vivacity of French, the strength of German, the delicacy of Italian, and in addition the richness and conciseness of Greek and Latin. ”

This article (doi:10.2307/2492939) argues that the quote is much less incisive than it is typically held up to be. Gabbe (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

May have been true back in Emporor Chuck's day... today all them dang furiners speak 'Merican anyway.

Actually, this is not completely a joke... English (and in particular American English) has to a large extent become the language of both Diplomacy and Commerce. Can't say it is the language of love, however. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely not. English law (and therefore British English) still holds sway at least as much as, if not more, in international commerce, given that most English-speaking centres of international finance other than New York are either English or former English colonies.

Likewise, nation states speaking and writing in British English or something more or less akin to British English far outnumber those speaking and writing in American English. The result is that, despite the size of the US economy, in international diplomacy you will still often see British spelling. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Most respected contemporary Muslim religious leaders

Who are the most respected contemporary Muslim religious leaders among Sunnis and Shi'ites? — goethean ॐ 16:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Aga Khan IV is fairly well respected. Officially, he is only the leader of the Ismailism Muslims, but I have never heard anyone speak ill of him, regardless of their particular standing in Islam. --Jayron32 16:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I want to just prove you wrong, but BLP issues would get in the way. i kan reed (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily; I don't see where you couldn't produce, say well respected references which are critical of the Aga Khan, either personally or as a leader... --Jayron32 22:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Every public figure has critics. Jesus, for example, had a few. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Business ethics

Why do the governments of some countries legislate how buisnesses from their country can behave in other countries? It would seem to put them at a competative disadvantage to countries that do not do this. For example, Country A has strict buisness laws that do not allow bribes or inducements to people in Country B. Country C has no such laws and can simply pay the minister who is in charge of selecting which company can do the $10,000,000 contract (in Country B) an under the table payment of $20,000 to virtually guarentee they get the job. Wouldn't that just drive all the business to Country C leaving Country A with a lot of idle workers? Googlemeister (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, just the businesses that lack ethics. My company has very strict rules about such things. You might make a short-term profit but damage yourself in the long term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, unethical behavior may have short term benefits, but it has larger long-term costs. We've seen this in the case of petroleum companies that piss off the natives so much (say by giving that nation's cut all to one corrupt politician instead of to the people) that they become the targets for insurgents. Ultimately this may lead to a revolution and all those facilities being nationalized. However, behaving ethically in a deeply corrupt nation is difficult, and it may be necessary to wait until a more honest government takes power before doing business there. This is what Google ultimately decided about China, where they were being forced to censor the web and spy on the populace. StuRat (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

According to our article, the purpose in the case of the US was “to bring a halt to the bribery of foreign officials and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American business system.” See also, Convention against Corruption, The UK Bribery Act, Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Waste in healthcare systems

The Economist today ran this graph which shows waste in the American healthcare system and $600–850 billion, or $2,000–2800 per capita. Something like that. This surprised me a little because "efficiency" is usually the positive, where I am in the UK, for the US system – it might not be fair, it might not be particularly cheap, but it is efficient. (Avoid debating those categorisations.) However, I don't know what a comparable figure is for the UK, or perhaps the French. There's certainly been a bit in the press about poor sourcing contracts in the NHS, but I don't think it's in the £80–110 billion range. Are there some figures somewhere? This suggests a scale of more like tens of billions (if non-'scandalous' waste and private services are considered). What can you find? Are there other things to consider? Where does my money go? suggests that the NHS costs in total £119 billion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not find answers to your questions in the article "Medical waste".

—Wavelength (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. That would be in reference to refuse-waste rather than unnecessary-expenditure-waste which is what I'm after. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is to define "waste". For example, the US system now uses disposable catheters for home patients, instead of re-using them. This seems wasteful to me, but not everyone agrees. Then there's profits made by insurers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. That money doesn't directly benefit patients, so is that "waste" ? If different defs are used in the analysis of waste in each nation, then the comparison is invalid, obviously. However, even if the same standard is applied to all, some defs will show more waste in one nation, and other defs will reverse the results. For example, if profits are considered wasteful, the US will lose by that comparison. If they aren't, then the US will fare better. StuRat (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best to avoid trying to pin down specific waste. Instead, just look at the total amount spent and what you get for that. Health, by most measures (such as life expectancy) is pretty similar in the US and the UK, yet the US spends far far more per person on healthcare. That suggests the US healthcare system is much less efficient than the UK system. --Tango (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that kind of analysis is that health is affected by many things other than healthcare. By the measure you're proposing, two countries ("A" and "B") of the same size could have identical healthcare spending, but with the population of "B" living substantially healthier lives: eating well, regular exercise, less exposure to toxic fumes, less gun violence, etc. In that case, even if "A" were to have better doctors, more well-run hospitals, and so on—it would still have a less healthy population and therefore (by your definition) a less efficient healthcare system. Gabbe (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that a really efficient healthcare system would concentrate on preventative medicine, which is cheaper and more effective in the long run, so a more efficient healthcare system would do something about the unhealthy lives of the country's inhabitants. It would identify the toxic fumes, draw up cost estimates of how much treating the problems cause will cost, and aim to reduce that cost as long as reducing the population's exposure to toxic fumes is cheaper than treating them for exposure. It would look at what was costing them most (in terms of money per person-year, or whatever they're using), then tackle it. This is what has been happening with smoking in the UK, and I can see them eyeing up alcohol. It would look at why the population had unhealthy diets and took little exercise, then try to change it. I'm well aware that this disturbs some people, and that such people are especially widespread in America, but it would certainly be more efficient. So, I think mostly you can just look at outcomes versus money spent. Unless some country has a population genetically disposed to die earlier. 86.164.66.52 (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points. However, someone came up with something for the Economist to base their graph on, is there no similar study to other systems? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Atheist-turned-Christian

Why would someone skeptical or even critical of religion return to it? I'm interested in hearing views from both sides of the issue. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes people abandon a religion because of the actions of their religious leaders, and figure "How can this be the right religion when they do that in its name?". But then sometimes, they figure that the principles and teachings of the religion are what really matters, and whatever fallible humans do is not really the point. "The just man sins seven times a day", but is still a just man. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Fear of death, senility, to please a potential partner, to convince potential voters of niceness... I've seen all four of those reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

People can return to religion after disappointment with secularity which they may have explored thoroughly before reconsidering religion. By the way—are we discussing religion in general or Christianity in particular? The section title indicates "Christianity", but the participants in the discussion seem to be referring to "religion" generally. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Religion within the context of Christianity (like the header implies).

I've seen lonely older folks begin to attend (or return to) church for the social aspects too. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking Christianity when I composed my answer, since that is the milieu I'm familiar with, but it can be applied more generally. Also, there's often a disconjunct between the words in a header and the actual content of a question, so I tend to answer the more general question. Big picture - good; small picture - depends. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The second half of my last sentence (up above) is actually incorrect, so I'm going to strike it through. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_peter/2-12.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That page is still seriously missing a plain English translation that has meaning for non-Christians and people not familiar with the jargon of the church. I can't get past "day of visitation" and the various alternatives given there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and most religions simply offer hope. It promises a reward for good behaviour (a future life in heaven) and offers forgiveness for past sins (who also enter heaven if they truly repent). It also threatens those who don't repent or believe with hell. Basicly it is the old carrot and the stick. This becomes quite an issue when you reach old age and are afraid of death. We know that we are all going to die but we don't know what's beyond death.

Atheism simply isn't a religion; it simply doesn't make any (empty) promises at all. I'm certainly not going to judge someone who is near death, truly afraid and finds hope and refuge in religion. I will rather be happy for him and hope that his new faith helps him in his last moments. Afterwards I may point out that he was simply afraid, but who am I to judge? AFAIK I'm far from death and I like to think that I will remain an atheist until death, but who knows? I might become afraid and become a Christian. However I'm proud of those atheists who face death and who don't turn towards religion just because they are afraid. They keep their dignity without giving in to fear. Flamarande (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC) PS: And if a good atheist dies and it turns out that God and heaven truly exist after all, then a true and fair God would accept him in heaven regardless of the atheist's lack of faith. Certain self-righteous hate-filed Christian/Muslim/etc preachers paint Him is a narrow-minded bigoted evil mass murderer who will punish you if you're not pleasing to His sight. Something like that is truly a pitiful deity and not a GOD of Justice, Mercy and Love at all. I would rather join all good atheists, pagans and heretics in hell than to bow before a prick like that. AMEN.

Personal experiences: I went to church as a kid and thoroughly disliked it. I wasn't very social at Sunday school, and I couldn't sit still in "the big congregation." As I saw family members study with Jehovah's Witnesses (at around the age of 12) I decided to look into it as well. At that time, faith was a choice, and so was fame and fortune, and the latter seemed quite seductive. At around 13 I moved to live with my father, who had the big house, the nice car, the blonde trophy wife, the works. This, in turn, eroded my weak faith and led to a spiral into an intense love of music and psychoactive substances. I indeed called myself an agnostic. In college, I lived nearer my mother, who discreetly dropped 'Christian-isms.' I went from 'agnostic' to 'Theistic Fallabilist (whatever that meant). Socialism came in there somewhere too. The drug use at the time did not help my seeming wanton of purpose, and, one day, I drove by a book store and decided to buy a Bible. I started in Proverbs and I quickly read Chapter 1 Verse 20 through Chapter 2 verse 7. Next month was Easter, and I decided to attend both the Methodist service and The Memorial of Christ's Death held at the Assembly Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. This was in March/April 2010. The differences are indescribable, sorry (one of which was the method of voluntary contributions). The next week I started a Bible Study with the JWs and have been reestablishing my faith since. I find the Kingdom Hall to fit me better. I have the opportunity to do research and share it with my brothers and sisters. Above all else, I get to share it with others from door-to-door; the most tremendous pleasure one can ever have indeed. Today, I am drug free (over a year now) and am intensely loving life and wanton for the next day's purposes. If this has sparked your interest at all you can have one of Jehovah's Witnesses contact you personally using this form here. It will take about one week. I hope this is enlightening. Schyler (one language) 03:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting story, but it doesn't answer the OP's question of "Why?" In your case, maybe we can blame the drugs. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure schyler was ever really an atheist, so even with a reason the story wouldn't help the OP. Schyler uses the word "agnostic", which I think it the correct word for what he describes. He drifted away from his faith, but never made a conscious decision to reject it. --Tango (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hound of Heaven (Francis Thompson) might provide one poetic answer to the question - it certainly ties in with my personal experience of the issue. Tevildo (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My mother (born 1950) and grandmother (born in Austria in 1920, left in '38) both blamed Judaism for the deaths of their family members in the Shoah (Jewish portion of the Holocaust), but I think my mother is starting to return to Judaism again now that I have reintroduced the faith to our family (my dad is Presbyterean btw). So I guess in this case you have a calamity that caused them to turn away, but later in life, either as a result of thinking it through or through a family member showing you the beauty of the rituals once more, you have a return to the old beliefs. It caused my mother to become more Christian btw, not an atheist. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You have mentioned an interesting aspect of religions there - the rituals. They, along with the architecture and the music, can be very compelling. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, yes. Islamic architecture, Mizrahi Jewish spiritual music, all incredibly beautiful. Religious fervor has been known to cause horrible horrible things, but it has also been known to create incredible beauty. As for rituals, it is definitely the case in Judaism, as most of our rituals are very happy celebrations of life. Especially ones like shabbat dinners (having a day set aside each week when the family is supposed to dine together and discuss only happy things is a relief in this day and age) and the celebrations of various high holidays except Yom Kippur and Tish B'Av of course. Search for khematz, seders, singing, dancing, all very fun for everyone! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the claim that Jewish holidays are mostly "very happy celebrations of life" to be an example of a very selective look at the issue. Of course, you can choose to be cheerful about anything, but the stuff itself is not inherently merry by modern standards at all. In fact, a cursory look through the meaning and essence of the most important Jewish holidays shows that they usually have rather dark themes and what joy there is results only from the contrast between the contemporary relatively tolerable condition and the gloomy nature of the subject matter - much like the paradoxical uplifting effect of horror movies or of witnessing an execution (of someone else). Pretty much without exception, the holidays commemorate either bad things that eventually ended, or bad things that nearly happened, or just straightforward bad things, and/or fairly explicitly remind one of one's weakness before God and the potential threat coming from God. I even made an actual list for fun, but it's too off-topic and would belong in a blog.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Antony Flew is a very prominent critic-turned-convert. He even wrote a book about it: There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Gabbe (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather a presumptious subtitle when one considers he's up against O'Hair, Dawkins and Myers... Tevildo (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm Muggeridge was another. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice that both of them were quite old when they converted. Who knows if their fear of death had any relation with that. Atheists converting to religion is nothing new and neither is religions ppl reaching the conclusion that there is no God at all. AFAIK atheists are slowly increasing in numbers and are on an all time high and that's new. Flamarande (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer to the OP's question is that they discover something in religion that appeals to them, that has value to them; so they embrace it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See List of former atheists and agnostics.—Wavelength (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question seems to presume that the atheist was raised in a religious environment and "returned" to religion. This suggests a more general explanation that I've heard for other things as well - as people grow older, they often begin to "return" to various aspects of their parents' lifestyle and world view. Possible reasons: they may have reached an age at which they identify themselves with their parents instead of rebelling against them as they did previously, or at which they are somewhat disappointed with their own adult life and feel nostalgia for their childhood.

Apart from that, I can easily imagine how any great suffering could make the atheist world view insupportable and drive a person into the embrace of religion: after all, the world is really quite a terrible place in ways that are difficult for a human to accept (think mortality, injustice, randomness, meaningless suffering, ultimate loneliness...), religion offers comfort ("it'll all turn out just right in the end"), and is an option if you have the mindset necessary to believe what offers you comfort. At some stage in their life, a person may feel strong and optimistic enough to abstract from the tragic side of the world as viewed by an atheist and instead enjoy the pleasant sides such as the rebellion against their parents and the absence of religious interdictions; but at a later stage in life, one may begin to feel the tragic aspect more immediately and, perhaps, find it too uncomfortable. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)