Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 21

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.

April 21

atlas shrugged

was the book atlas shrugged banned in the former soviet union? and is it banned in china today? is there any reliable information available? --Douploas1254 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You may want to see this. As you can see, Atlas Shrugged is not a very widely translated book. As a matter of fact, it's nearly unknown in mainland Europe. Ayn Rand was a control freak, and wanted to check the translations... It is translated in Chinese, but I don't know if one can find it in China. 194.6.163.234 (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not just mainland Europe it's nearly unknown in, it's pretty much unknown in Britain too, as is Rand herself. DuncanHill (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - never heard of the book or the author before. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting that the titles are so different. Was that also Ayn's wish? Why? — Sebastian 07:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Likely some languages have no one-word translation of shrug. —Tamfang (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, 'Atlas shrugged' is an evocative title that plays off the Greco-Roman myth of Atlas holding up the bowl of the sky and the American dual meaning of the word shrug (to show indifference or to 'shrug off' an annoyance). the first wouldn't make any sense in cultures that weren't well-versed in GR mythology, and the second probably wouldn't translate to non-english languages at all.--Ludwigs2 07:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on some online searches, you can definitely buy the Chinese translation in China. Here is the book's page on the website of Xinhua, the leading government-owned book store in China. A clue in the table referred to above is that the book was published by Chongqing Publishing, a state owned publisher. However, I second the point above that the book is nowhere near as influential elsewhere in the world than in the US, but (from some brief browsing of google hits for the Chinese title) seems surprisingly quite well known in China. Quite interestingly, the "Editor's Recommendation" on the Xinhua page linked above compares the author to (and contrasts with) Karl Marx. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I thought this book would have been banned in China. It is very surprising communists are recommending Ayn Rand!!! --Douploas1254 (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

They aren't really Communists; they are some hybrid of socialism and capitalism, at this point. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they are communists, but I don't recall the failure to ban something being the same as a recommendation.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What would Earth be like if it was 82% more wonderful?

This was already halted at WP:RDS. The reference desks are not an appropriate place for this kind of dicussion. It has nothing to do with being "scientific". This is an inappropriate discussion for anywhere at Wikipedia. No means no.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I first posed this question on the Science Desk several hours ago, whence it was removed by someone who felt that it was not sufficiently scientific, and would find a better home here. I have retained the respondents' replies, which are not bad. When people think of environments much better than those found on Earth, they invariably talk of Heaven and its variants, which are INCOMPARABLY better. Earth is amazing, wonderful, astonishing, charming, exciting and deep, but the world to which I refer is 82% more enhanced in all of these properties. What would such an Earth, one that is better but not incomparably better to the one we know be like? The immediate objection to this question will be that it is not “scientific” because the properties of “amazing, astonishing…etc” are subjective descriptions. This is so, but subjective evaluations can be quantified and measured by psychometric means. We don’t need to do that here; for the time being a respondent can estimate what features such a planet might have that would render it 82% more wonderful in every way to the one we live in. Not 100%, or 200%, but 82% - it is important that the last figure be the one under consideration, although respondents to this query might wish to compare their 82% ideal with what would be the case if the figure were much higher. For myself, I believe the following would be a reality in such an Earth: 1. There would be four sexes, male, female, devotrain and andila. Everyone would be male or female but also be either devotrain or andilian. A devotrainian male could make love to an andilian male without being homosexual. There would be an another entirely different kind of eroticism which would run parallel with the one we know. Human navels would become powerfully erotic organs which, when joined with another’s, would emanate fibres that would extend through the other’s body. When the moment of devotrainian or andilian orgams occurred, it would be felt from head to toe. 2. Humans would have eyes which, when properly trained upon the night sky for half an hour or so, can see the cosmos as clearly as the Hubble Telescope does now. Indeed, humans will be able to see in the infra red and unlta violet, and the brain will be hard wired to see two extra colours. 3. People will be able to glide for considerable distances, and death by falling will no longer occur. To fly like a bird, however, would require an Earth 128% better than the one we have. 4. There will be creatures like vast air ships, 10 times larger than the biggest whale, which will be tame and carry thousands of passengers across the seas in great comfort, requiring only some food and love. 5. The Earth will be 34% larger, but correspondingly less dense so that gravity is largely unaffected. There will be two extra continents. 6. We will share the planet with another species equal to our own in intelligence, and with whom we can communicate. 7. During the night when we sleep, we will be able to join in a universal dream in which all sleeping people of good will can partake, involving vast on-going dramas ranging from passionate love to intense adventure. Can you provide some more background for this world? Myles325a (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Wait, you've invented a fantasy world and now you want us to provide you with more information about it? The world is in your head. You can give it all the background information you want. The reference desks aren't really an appropriate place to try to write a crowdsourced science fiction novel. Do you have a specific factual question we can help you find answers to in Wikipedia articles? --Jayron32 02:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Op myles325a back live. Sigh...sigh...I DID say, above "The immediate objection to this question will be that it is not “scientific” because the properties of “amazing, astonishing…etc” are subjective descriptions. This is so, but subjective evaluations can be quantified and measured by psychometric means. We don’t need to do that here...". And so you go ahead and make exactly the same objection I had already tried to pre-empt. You very well might not agree with this pre-emption, but you could have at least acknowledged that I made it. A couple of other points. One: These questions are not just for people who can't use the Search function in WP. And two: It's not just IN my head. You are assuming that. The reality is more complicated. Myles325a (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC) You may be interested in Leibniz's 'Theodicy', which argues that we live in the best possible world (and hence it cannot be made 82% more wonderful). Or you may be interested in Voltaire's Candide, which was influenced by Leibniz's work, and largely ridicules this notion. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC) And no doubt this world has 82 percent more giant purple mushrooms.190.56.105.52 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC) You realize you've basically described the movie Avatar right? Ariel. (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC) No ariel .I don't think Pandora had any giant air ship creatures that carried people across the seas in great comfort.190.56.105.52 (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming of Windward and Leeward Islands

In English, the "Leeward Islands" are defined almost opposite to other languages. (See Windward Islands#Terminology.) In a discussion at WP:RD/S#Windward Islands and trade winds, it was proposed that "windward" and "leeward", in this case, mean "nearer" and "further", respectively. Since that wouldn't make sense for ships coming from Britain, the hypothesis emerged that that is so because the British engaged in the triangular trade, so the ships that came from Africa would reach the "Windward Islands" before the "Leeward Islands". Could that explain why the English nomenclature is different from the German, as Germans did not engage in the triangular trade, and would therefore come directly from Europe? This sounds like a bold hypothesis; what do other editors think? — Sebastian 07:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The labels windward and leeward clearly date from the age of sail. When sailing, windward simply means upwind, while leeward means downwind. I think that it is just something of an accident that the English used the term leeward to refer to the northern Lesser Antilles whereas other Europeans did not. You may be right that it was related to their experience of approaching the West Indies from Africa in the triangular trade. Also, the English had less to do with the islands off the coast of present-day Venezuela than, for example, the Dutch, who founded colonies on those islands. By contrast, unlike other European powers, the English had a number of colonies on both the Windward and the Leeward Islands (as defined in English), so it might have been more important to the English to distinguish between the islands farther upwind and those farther downwind within the eastern Lesser Antilles. Note that the map that you linked is somewhat in error in suggesting that the islands known as "leeward" in other languages are known as "windward" in English. In fact, the islands known as "leeward" in other languages are not known as "windward" in English. Instead, as in other languages, the word leeward is sometimes used. (See Leeward Antilles.) Marco polo (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am still incredibly confused by this. Sailing from the east/Old World, at its most complicated the winds from what I can gather blow southwest (from the north) and northwest (from the south). In either case, that would seem to point to ALL of the Lesser Antilles being considered "leeward" (downwind) of either Europe or Africa. When were ships ever sailing into the wind to get to the Lesser Antilles from the east? --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Suppose you were to coast on a bicycle from the top of a tall hill, past one park, then a few block later past a second park. You may choose to refer to the first park as the uphill park, and the second park as the downhill park, even though the both parks are downhill from your starting point. -- ToE 13:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but then this should be made clear on each of the pages for these islands. As it's written now, it seems to imply the starting point is the Old World for both definitions. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I looked into this a bit more, and it seems that the Leewards were named relative to the Windward, which I imagine must have been the first reached. The sources I found spoke more to the winds from south of the island blowing northward and the winds from the Old World shipping routes blowing more south-southeasterly than I thought meaning they probably reached the Windwards first. So, it would mean that the Leewards are windward from the perspective of being on the Windwards, not necessarily the Old World. I guess it would help on each page describing more specifically which way the winds are blowing, because the way most of us first understand it it sounds like they are nearly blowing straight west, which is what confuses so many people. Perhaps it would help to make clear that the islands are named in relation to each other, and not in relation to Old World. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone has any information on this? --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

UK: trial in secret

In trashy spy fiction, you occasionally read about particularly sensitive spy/terrorist trials being held in secret, without juries, and the subjects being sent to absurdly well-guarded offshore prisons. I know that the latter part is drivel, but is there any legal provision for British criminal trials to be held in secret? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 14:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the last "secret" court in the UK was the Star Chamber, and people lost their heads over closing that one down. I don't beleive there is any provision in the modern UK for a true secret court. I think what the spy novels are counting on is the belief that, if it is truly "secret", then you would have no reason to even know they exist. I.e., its not just the proceedings that are secret, its that the entire court is unknown, so you would have no cause to even suppose it existed. --Jayron32 15:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

According to In camera (not a very good article), "entire cases may be heard in camera when, for example, matters of national security are involved", though it doesn't actually specify what jurisdictions this applies to. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly secret courts, but the Diplock courts held trials without jury between 1973 and 2007 for terrorist/paramilitary cases, and there is still provision for trial without jury in exceptional circumstances in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Supergrass trials weren't exactly secret, but the ordinary rights of defendants were greatly abridged.... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

See also the Superinjunctions in the UK, when the press is prohibited from reporting that there is something it cannot report. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A cousin, perhaps, of DA-Notice. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Although a DA notice prohibits nothing at all. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What justification is given for superinjunctions ? I have a hard time seeing how such a thing serves the public good. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What about Extraordinary rendition...though the UK's program isn't as active as the US.Smallman12q (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's champagne time

I was watching the Chinese Formula One race last weekend and at the end the three drivers on the winner's podium were given huge bottles (magnums?) of champagne with which to shower their colleagues. Is the liquid in the bottles actually champagne? It looks fizzy enough to produce a nice white foam, but when the winner took a swig from the bottle and spat it out again, it looked very much like plain water to me. Also, if it is real champagne, can a F1 driver get arrested soon after for driving with excess alcohol, or being under age in some jurisdictions? And is spitting it out again usual practice? Astronaut (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how they drink champagne after the race, I'm not sure drunk driving is an issue. Mingmingla (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Though if they are spitting it out, it may mean they are intending to drive some more. Wine tasting, for example, usually involves spilling out the wine, because you aren't trying to get drunk off of it. It seems extraordinarily unlikely that they would be serving anything other than champagne (or a similarly sparkling wine) at such an event. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically, the liquid in those bottles could only be called Champagne if it actually came from France. If it were bottled in China, perhpas they are worried about the lead content, seeing as humans prefer unleaded fuels. Googlemeister (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically (arguably) it should only be called champagne if it came from a specific region in France. That's why I mentioned "similar sparkling wines". --Mr.98 (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It certainly used to be: Moët & Chandon very successfully set up the entire idea of celebrating with champagne like that. Not sure if it still is, though. It's unlikely to be "made in China", given it's probably provided by teh F1 organisation. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The pictures from the Shanghai race clearly show the champagne bottles marked "Moët et Chandon", which is a longtime F1 sponsor. Typically, the drivers will take a sip or two and then hand the bottle to their pit crew, who will enjoy the remainder. I doubt the drivers do much driving on public roads after a race: they're usually rushed to the airport so they can fly to their next destination, plus the quantity they drink is minimal. As for Lewis Hamilton spitting out a watery-looking gulp: I've seen the picture and I agree with the OP that's its quite unusual; someone will need to ask him what was going on. Other things to note about the champagne ceremony: they don't use champagne in places where alcohol is culturally or legally unacceptable, they tone down the ceremony if there's been serious accident during the race. Very few drivers, and even fewer race winners are under 21 years of age, so the issue of underage drinking is fairly rare (in the few places where the drinking age is that high). --Xuxl (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If my memory serves me Lewis Hamilton is teetotal (non-drinker) but he likes to have a taste of the champagne so has a sip and spits it out. I seem to recall them discussing this with him when he was on Top Gear ny156uk (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and apparently it is real champagne, at least according to this (http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00274.html) ny156uk (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Where you do find younger winners in similar ceremonies is in motor cycle racing. Often there the majority would be under 21. But I do remind our American cousins that in most of the world the legal drinking age is younger than in their country. At a personal level, I've always regarded those champagne spraying exercises as simply a waste of a good drink. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, in Britain we don't have a "legal drinking age" - it is illegal to give alcohol to a person under 5 except on medical advice (but that's an offence committed by the person giving the alcohol, not by the child), 18 is the minimum age for purchase, and in licensed premises people under 18 may not consume alcohol (unless they are at least 16 and it is wine, beer, cider or perry and accompanying a meal) - but there is no law setting a "minimum drinking age". DuncanHill (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally, in the US, it's illegal to sell alcohol to anyone under 21 (each state sets its own laws in that regard), and that's the "legal drinking age", but as a practical matter, there's nothing to stop someone from sharing it with someone under 21 in the privacy of their own home. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much the case in Australia too, although the age is 18, not 21. But I see the Victorian government has introduced a new law that would prohibit an adult providing alcohol to a minor in a private home, unless approved by the child's parent.[1]. This means that an uncle could be in big trouble for giving their 17-years-and-11-months-old nephew a shandy, but a parent can still get away with giving their 12-year-old child a bottle of vodka. Hmmm, methinks this law does not go far enough. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As a secondary teacher, I see another perspective on this. It's very common for kids who have turned 18 (just) to buy alcohol for kids who are not quite there. That is now illegal and worth 7 years in prison. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Champagne is pretty expensive. I'm not sure many lower racing categories use it. Famously, the Indianapolis 500 gives milk to the winner. --Xuxl (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Something I always wondered about is getting champagne in the eyes. It must burn, and presumably a racer wouldn't want red eyes for his next race, so I'd think they might want to avoid pouring alcoholic beverages on each other. StuRat (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

When the race is run in an Arab Country, the bottle is of fizzy-perfumed water. MacOfJesus (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)