Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 October 6

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 6

New Photographic Genre (style), undeclared, as such, anywhere...

...according to three days of extensive research, truly searching all available internet means to find such. The term and the supporting examples of that term are not to be found anywhere on the internet. OK, granted, I am a newby here at WIKIPEDIA, however, I have also read all of the information regarding submissions, and am still unsure that I may not be submitting an article that may be considered "self-promotional".

It is NOT my intention to be such, nevertheless, the term for the style of imagery that I have developed and practiced is, in my opinion legitimate and unique and deserves to be brought forward to be added to and further explained, as I believe that there are a good number of photographers practicing this artistic style, though, not heretofore spoken of as such, and to date not named. What I would like to find out is how I may go about submitting such an article and claim the declaration of the naming of the style, absent the risk of pissing anybody off in doing so. Jaybiss (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm is appreciated. Wikipedia carries articles on what can be verified by (generally) reliable, third-party sources. See WP:RS and WP:V. You would need to wait until your style and terminology were generally in use before they would be appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia also (generally) tries to dissuade people from writing about themselves, their relatives, their business, inventions. It is difficult to find and keep the right neutral point of view if you are writing about something close to you. It is not so much that you might piss someone off (and, even if you did, we should be kind enough not to show such feelings to a newcomer) as that you would likely find your article up for a "speedy delete" either on the basis of not being verifiable or on the basis of a conflict of interest. If you would like more information, please add a note to my talk page and I will try to help you myself or to direct you to someone who can. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Short story called "The Mnemone"

I am looking for a science-fiction short story by Robert Sheckley. A friend of mine read it in a collection but has since lost the book, and now we are both in search of this story. I know little of the plot, except that it concerns a future in which there are only a few people who have memories, and they are called "mnemones" (a word coined by Sheckley). I have tried to search the Internet, but I have gotten literally one relevant hit: a link to the German Wikipedia's article on Sheckley, but I don't know German. I would really appreciate it if anyone could find out the name of the collection in which this was published, or anything, really. Thank you so much for your time! Cheers, Alitheiapsis (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's its Internet Speculative Fiction database entry. Looks like it's been included in four collections. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Political careers

I've been thinking lately that there might be some more stability in the US, economically and such, if politicians in appointed positions stayed in office longer. So, I looked through the cabinet of GWB and could only find one person who had been in their position for more than 5 years. That seems awfully short to me. If one were to compare this with people, maybe more specifically company executives, who aren't in politics, would both groups fall into a similar pattern or is there a difference? Dismas|^(talk) 05:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Successful directors move roles/companies a lot too, there is a lot of head-hunting and shuffling for positions. This link (http://www.cio.com/article/153600/Average_CIO_Tenure_Slips_But_Still_More_Than_Four_Years) suggests an average of around about 5 years. The politician is not a specialist knowledge in the area they head-up, that isn't their role - behind the scenes and in the committee groups there will be knowledge specialists, advisers and people with vast amounts of specific experience. The same is true for company directors. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There are civil servants that hold their positions far longer. For example, "permanent secretaries" in the UK - the clue is in the name! --Tango (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the members of the president's cabinet are not politicians. Cabinet posts are not elected positions, and if a member of Congress (who is an elected official) is appointed to a cabinet post, he or she must resign the seat in Congress. Since the term of office for the president is set at four years, with a maximum of two terms, it's hard to see how someone could stay in a cabinet post.

As Tango points out for the UK, in the U.S. there are many career civil service positions, even at the highest levels. As this article notes, in 2004 there were just over 9,000 positions in the federal government into which a political appointee can go -- out of 2.7 million.

In addition, most cabinet secretaries can and do earn far more money (usually with far less grief) outside of government. That said, I'm not sure Alberto "I Can't Recall" Gonzales, the previous attorney general, is raking in the big bucks. If he were, would he remember? --- OtherDave (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been some U.S. Cabinet members who have served over multiple administrations, even for presidents of different parties. For example, Norman Mineta served as Commerce Sect'y under Clinton, and was retained by GWBush as Transportation Sect'y. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Public Service was modelled in many ways on the UK Civil Service. The heads of our departments used to be called "Permanent Head"; they're called "Secretary" these days. Their jobs often come to an end when there's a change of government, if the new government thinks the individual is too closely aligned with the policies of the previous government. In some cases, it's very obvious why they would think that - the person had formerly been on the previous PM's personal staff, had strongly influenced that government's policies for a significant period, and had then been given a Secretary's job to ensure the policies they helped draft on the political side of the fence were being implemented on the apolitical side of the fence. So much for the promises not to politicise the apolitical Public Service, which serves the government of the day whatever it's political colour, withour fear or favour. In other cases, it's just a matter of their personal style, or having made public statements that were seen to be overly supportive of the previous government's philosophies. The new Howard (Liberal) government in 1996 sacked a whole swag of Labor-appointed Secretaries. The Rudd (Labor) government didn't immediately sack any Liberal-appointed Secs when it came to power in 2007, but I think there's been some reshuffling and departures since. Many of them are outside appointments these days, although public servants can still rise through the ranks and achieve a Secretary's job. But even back when there were "Permanent Heads", they were not appointments for life, or till the then mandatory retirement age. They did tend to stay in their jobs longer than they do these days, but they were often shuffled between departments. In that sense, "Permanent" meant having attained that level (the First Division) of the Public Service, not necessarily being permanently the head of a particular department. When it was felt their usefulness to the Public Service had expired, they'd be appointed as an ambassador or high commissioner, perhaps to an out-of-the-way country, and I'm sure that UK "permanent" heads were sometimes also accorded such "honours". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

companies for $0.99c

Where can I buy a company for less than a dollar? Mr.K. (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bankruptcy court. Once they've liquidated all the assets you can offer to buy everything that's left (which will be lots of debts) for whatever price you like and they'll likely say yes (they've no reason not to, although you may need to pay some admin fees as well). Of course, the company will be insolvent, so you can't actually do anything with it, but it would be yours. --Tango (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Going off at a slight tangent, Mr. K., I saw an interesting newspaper article a few days ago about a group of Germans who make their living by owning one share in every major listed German company. It seems that Germany´s laws are very protective of the rights of all shareholders, even the very smallest, and every time any German company makes a technical mistake which affects shareholders´rights, these people begin legal actions which the company needs to settle out of court, and that rarely comes cheap. Buying just one share is a relatively expensive thing to do, of course, thanks to trading costs, but if you buy and sell stocks and shares from time to time you can always sell all but one or two (two is a better number, for reasons I shan´t go into) of the shares you own, and over time you will build up a portfolio of these very small shareholdings. Strawless (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is called a strike suit. -- kainaw™ 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, however I suppose it is more of an urban legend. Germans tend to think that investors are better off in the US. Anyway, I could buy 7-8 companies just with the brokerage's costs of buying two shares. Furthermore, shares of companies like Porsche cost some thousand dollars. Mr.K. (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2008 UTC)

FYI, shares in Porsche specifically, manufactured by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, are currently trading on Deutsche Börse and FWB Frankfurter [1] at about 60 Euros (about $90 US/CAN). ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. My information was not up-to-date. After Porsche stock split (10:1) in March, its share price was not worth less than 100 Euros. Mr.K. (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

hindu

my daughter has a homework question which is . Are there any jobs hindus are not allowed to do which maybe against there religious beliefs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.95.246 (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Butcher, bull fighter, mice control?Mr.K. (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pope? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, we should not help you with homework questions. Even if it is for someone else. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well. Allegedly for someone else. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, assume good faith. Mr.K. (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This isn't a "give examples of" question. It is a "yes/no" question. The answer is obviously "yes." -- kainaw™ 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

@Kainaw: although you are right, remember that homework questions are normally poorly written, and that the teacher doesn't expect that you simply answer 'yes'.Mr.K. (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This particular homework question is very poorly written. Indeed, if I weren't Assuming Good Faith, I'd suspect that the OP is not a (barely literate) parent helping with her offspring's homework, but a child herself. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The questioner could look at Caste system in India. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Politics and Tribalism

I read this statement in the comments section of a blog today, and as it's something I think about fairly often, and as my political friends just seem to roll their eyes whenever they point it out, I was wondering if it had a name:

"People on both the left and right tend to only accept facts as reported by the people on their own side, because "the other side are liars." And I think it's just as likely that Palin is simply deluded herself (all politicians start their lives in the rank and file) as that she's deliberately treating the people with contempt; in other words, those "facts" that have been pointed out to her aren't really "facts" at all because they come from people she doesn't trust."

MelancholyDanish (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

A strong case of confirmation bias and selection bias, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It may sound amazing given what they say, but I believe politicians do normally believe what they say rather than ever deliberately lying. As an aside (or just ignore this as own research) an interesting thing I've observed is people tend to point out their own faults in others, even if there's something far worse they could say. I wonder if there's a term for that. Dmcq (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is simply called democracy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite that far, Dmcq. Very often, probably the majority of occasions, they really are speaking the truth, or what they believe to be the truth. But very often, they're publicly supporting a position of their party which in private they criticise and try to change. There are good reasons for a party to have a unified public position on an issue, even if behind the scenes there's all sorts of squabbling going on. And there have been many, many, many cases where politicians utter outright lies - there's no better way of putting it. They know it's not truthful, but they say it anyway because it suits their purpose and they think they can get away with it. This may not be true of any one politician chosen at random, but it's certainly true of them as a whole. (Later comment: It's also true of human beings as a whole, not just politicians.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget, too, that in the old days, you could run for national office and tell a group of farmers in rural America one thing, and union officials in cities something else; that changed with mass media and reporting of national campaigns, of course. (Not sure which was the first reported on - Truman's 1948 whistle stop campaign, perhaps?) So, what you might be hearing, too, might just be a case of telling supporters what they want to hear - or think they want to hear - and it gets reported now whereas 75-100 years ago it didn't. And, int he case of national interviews and speeches, they have to make the choice to tell their supporters that or not.

Which also explains why politicians don't seem to hit on any real issues or what specific plans they have - at least from what little I've heard, though I'm disenchanted enough not to listen much anymore. (Though I will vote - maybe for Mickey Mouse :-) Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sort of off topic, but that sort of statement is very similar to the type of statements Karl Popper made in one of the first papers in 'Conjectures and Refutations'. The claim basically goes that people tend to think of those who believe differently as either evil or ignorant. They either know the truth and are ignoring it for personal profit or are too dumb to know the truth. He claims this is the result of a conception of truth where truth is obvious. With this conception, if someone is exposed to some situation then the truth of the matter will result from any fair-minded individual. Needless to say that he thinks this conception of the truth is wrong.--droptone (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Clock painting

What's the name of the famous painting with a bunch of melted clocks in the desert? I had thought it was like the Essence of Memory, but I couldn't find anything with that name. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You were close: The Persistence of Memory. Deor (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Afro-Desi

Is there such word called "Afro-Desi"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.187 (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There's aphrodisiac, meaning something that arouses (or is believed to arouse) sexual desire. Is that the word you had in mind? --- OtherDave (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He probably means someone of mixed African-South Asian descent. Desi refers to people from Pakistan, India, and I think Bangladesh. That article has other terms that include African countries but I don't know if anyone has ever used "Afro-Desi" specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also the title of an album by Martin Denny and [2] Afro Desi, on the Liberty label, in the late 1950s. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help picturing Desi Arnaz with an Afro instead of the Brylcreem look which was typical. In fact his bongo music could be considered Afro-Cuban. Babalu! Edison (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)