Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 1

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.

November 1

Holocaust

Is there a link where I can find a full list of the restriction imposed upon the jews by the nazis, prior to ghettoization? I.e. jews must not own radios, bicycles, cars etc? --Thanks, Hadseys 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This[1] might be a good place to start looking. It concentrates, naturally, on the Holocaust itself, but they seem to have some prewar material as well. PhGustaf (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume you have already taken a look at Nuremberg Laws, which are the framework for any further restrictions. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are American textbooks so verbose?

I've wondered this a long time. Americans with their long working-hours must have the smallest amount of free time in all of the English-speaking world, and yet American textbooks are extremely verbose. Why is this? I would have assumed that conciseness would be valued. Even college textbooks are verbose, but these are dwarfed by the textbooks meant for adults. As an example the textbook Getting Things Done is full of padding and repetition - it is written more like a memoir than a textbook, as the author introduces anecdotes and stories and writes as a first-person narrative. Yet the essentials of it can be got just by looking at the diagram. It also just repeats the same ideas found in other self-help books. Another textbook I've begun reading tells you in several pages all about the authors lifestyle and that of her friends presumably to illustrate the point she's making, which could be fully described in two lines. No offense, but I'm doubtful that books like this would find a publisher in the UK. 78.151.139.162 (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Textbooks (at least in America) are complicated by the fact that there is an immense amount of money involved. Publishers can make huge profits just by spitting out new shiny editions each year. Other companies can make huge profits by buying large amounts of used textbooks for much less than they are worth, and then selling them back to the next batch of students for the typical blown-up price. Couple that with the requirement placed on college professors to mandate their students to get the newest edition of a textbook rarely used in class or for assignments, and you have an industry. —Akrabbim^talk 01:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Textbooks are constantly being reprinted. Perhaps regularly adding material is a way of justifying the new editions? Have textbook page numbers gradually increased over the years? Pollinosisss (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never read it, but judging by our article Getting Things Done isn't a textbook. It is a self-help book. Are you using "textbook" to mean any non-fiction book? If so, that isn't the standard usage. Non-fiction books are often intended to be entertaining and/or thought provoking rather than just informative, that is why they are often more verbose than they need to be. Actual textbooks, intended to educate someone on a subject, are usually only as long as they need to be to get across the information in a way the intended audience can understand. --Tango (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Textbooks are generally written by people with a very narrow focus, the antithesis of a Renaissance man. How many eloquent people do you know who have an esoteric interest, academic or otherwise? Vranak (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Very many. I had plenty of good lecturers at uni (a couple of bad ones, of course). --Tango (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think both the books referred to above were textbooks. Getting Things Done is about how to organise your home office. The second book was definately a textbook. Part of the problem may be writing textbooks in the style of a self-help book, but in any case I am still puzzled by why even self help books should be so very verbose, repetatitive, and simply copy ideas from other books. Calling them self help books is not an excuse. Perhaps they are written by hack authors who merely rehash other authors ideas without having any personal experience or research to contribute. Perhaps the bigger American population means that publishers are willing to print books that would have proportionatly lower sales than publishers in other countries would find acceptable. 92.24.132.67 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

From the beginning of our article Textbook, "They are produced according to the demand of educational institutions.". Unless you know of an educational institution that teaches 'organising your home office' and has set this book as a textbook that they work from, it seems unlikely to be a textbook. If it were a textbook, you are right that it would almost certainly be written in a more concise manner. Self-help books seem to be generally written with very low expectations of their readers, which is why they are written in the manner you have noticed. That people buy them in large numbers I leave you to fit into your worldview however you see fit. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Textbooks in America must be politically correct. That explains a lot.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Even American textbooks, in the narrow sense that 86.142 is using are still very verbose and whaffley and have been for decades. A better definition of a textbook may be books for instruction. They do not have to be used in educational institutions. Arguing about the nomenclature does not alter the problem. 92.24.132.67 (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a genuine textbook that you consider excessively verbose? --Tango (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of American textbooks that are large-format hardbacks. I suppose Americans expect college textbooks to be of this type, and have lots and lots of text with no thought of conciseness. One I have to hand is Customer Behaviour by Sheth and Mittal. Someone could make money producing concise versions of textbooks, like Reader's Digest condesced novels. 78.146.167.26 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason why there would be. I presume there are already many textbooks that are fairly concise in the US, if that's what you want. Students can choose to use these if they prefer. It's not like a novel where you want to read a concise version of the same thing, there's little reason the textbook has to be a concise version of a specific text book. I don't realy know how common this is in universities (or colleges if you so desire) in the US but if the course has a standard textbook (I've seen this in movies/TV shows so maybe it's fairly common there, at the University of Auckland few of my courses had standard textbooks, most of them only had recommended ones) then this could be problematic if the lecturer/whoever tells you to read pages X-Y and you have no idea what that is so that would be the only real advantage I can think of. But it would likely be more effective to simply produce a guide telling you what is covered in what pages. In any case, if the lecturer/whoever sets problems etc from the textbook the student is likely going to need a copy of the text book in which case they can just see what is covered themselves and then read it in their own concise text book. Plus if you are producing a concise version this could easily end up being a derivative work which means unnecessary copyright costs (presuming the original authors/publishers even allow it) raising the price unnecessarily (as opposed to just writing your own concise textbook).

In Malaysia reference books are quite commonly used by secondary school students [2]. These are rarely used in class (although many subjects didn't use text books that much either). They are primarily intended to aide in rote learning particularly for exams, and are therefore very concise using bullet points etc. Because rote learning is common and the curriculum (and the important exams, not dissimilar from the UK there) are standardised they are a rather big market.

BTW do universities in the UK really always use textbooks from the UK? Here in NZ we obviously don't produce many text books for the university level (at least not for most general science subjects) so many text books were from the US and some from the UK. Indeed when I was doing A-level in Malaysia I'm pretty sure one of the recommended textbooks was from the US as well. I would expect UK text books would be more common at UK universities but would be surprised that they use them exclusively. At such high levels I don't see any reason why you specifically need a text book written by authors coming from the same country, most stuff covered will be the same and most textbooks will cover more then you'll learn.

Edit:

This last part is perhaps an important point. Many textbooks will cover more then you wish to learn or are learning at whatever university course. This doesn't mean you have to learn it or it's a bad book. Text books are rarely intended to be read from cover to cover in fact there's often no harm in skipping whole chapters or certain sections if it's something you don't wish to or are not learning. Also making notes of what you read is a good idea, it's generally considered a good way to help you learn and your notes could easily be better then anything someone else writes since you hopefully know what level of detail you need. (If you are studying for an exam you'd usually rely more on your notes then a text book and I suspect this is fairly universal.)

One more thing, looking at [3] I see it says "producing a new text that is tailored specifically to upper level 4-year programs, or to graduate level programs. Its managerial approach focuses not only on the household consumer but also on the business customer market. This text goes beyond the conventional subject matter of consumer behavior textbooks, focusing not only on the role of customers as buyers, but also on their roles as users and payers". It sounds like this book is intended for fairly advanced business students. Is that you or do you otherwise have sufficient experience that you would expect to understand something to that level? If not, perhaps this 'lots and lots of text' is actually quite important stuff you just don't understand very well?

Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone came here to intentional argue over nomenclature, rather your definition is rather unusual and not used by most people here nor supported by our article nor I suspect most dictionaries. For example OED: 2. A book used as a standard work for the study of a particular subject; now usually one written specially for this purpose; a manual of instruction in any science or branch of study, esp. a work recognized as an authority (cf. TEXT-WRITER 2) (none of the others are particularly relevant); or M-W a book used in the study of a subject: as a : one containing a presentation of the principles of a subject b : a literary work relevant to the study of a subject. Although both of these don't limit textbooks to those used in educational institutions, it's doubtful that "Getting Things Done" (or how to get things done or whatever you can to call it) would normally be considered a 'subject' people study nor is the book really intended to study the 'subject' nor that it can be called a 'standard work' in any way. You can't complain when people are confused by your question because you use rather unusual terminology. BTW, since your IP looks up to the UK, try going to a large book shop and asking them for the text book section and see how many self help books you find in the section. Edit: In case anyone believes this is a British English/American English thing, I don't believe so as we have at least two people living in the UK here who found 78/92's (same ISP and I believe same person) definition odd, Tango and 86, one living in Canada and one (me) Kiwi Malaysian. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line: a book like Getting Things Done is long because nobody's going to shell out $16/£10.99 for a two-page pamphlet. As for American vs. UK enjoyment of such piffle, I note that the book is ranked at #203 on American amazon.com, and a lower -- but still very high -- #747 on UK Amazon. --Sean 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And interesting thing there, notice how it isn't in the textbook category? Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguing over what is or isnt a textbook misses the point: American instructional books (call them what you will) are very verbose. Another point is that they are either blatantly written in the first person, or something very near to it without actually using the word "I". Why cannot they just give the facts without having to wrap them up in stories? 78.151.90.163 (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never read a text book written primarily in the first person. It would indeed be rather odd. "My understanding is that the nucleus is is a membrane-enclosed organelle found in eukaryotic cells" "When I look at most cells under a microscope I see the following organelles"? Perhaps in some fields it would be appropriate but not for text books in most science fields. And it doesn't miss the point. Textbooks and self-help books fill largely different markets (there's obviously some overlap, as there is with many things but it's usually not that large) and comparing the two makes limited sense. If you think American textbooks are excessively verbose that's one thing, if you think American self-help books again that's another and both are valid POVs. But if you tell us you think American textbooks are excessively verbose and then give us a self-help book as an example of course people are going to get confused. P.S. I've personally never been a fan of self help books however I strongly suspect you'd find that the "personal stories" are in fact a big selling point. Self help books are frequently not intended to be primarily facts. Just giving people facts is often not enough to motivate people to change themselves or do things differently. (I'm not saying self-help books do a great job, but they at least get people to think they help so they buy them.) Feel good stories are of course something that often sells well. You mentioned Reader's Digest earlier, while not the magazine. However considering the magazine, it's been a while but my memory of it was that it has quite a lot of feel good stories (and American propaganda). Or Chicken Soup for the Soul a high successful (in many countries) series of nothing but feel good stories. P.P.S. You're welcome to complain about me using too many examples or writing in the first person perspective if you wish but it's not going to help anything. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll really have to give us a few concrete examples from such books before we understand what you're getting at. It would help if you had a similar example from a non-American published book to compare it to. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

May You Help Me?

Hi, I watched on T.V. the case of Eric Walber, a teen murdered by a gang in 1998 in Louisiana, USA. All of those involved were convicted and one of them, Michael Weary, was sentenced to death. I want to know if he was executed or if he's still in prison. I just found a pdf. of Louisiana V. Michael Weary, but nothing more. Well, thank you. --190.50.100.174 (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The crime was committed in 1988. Weary was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in March 2002. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana on 24 April 2006. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on 27 November 2006. Weary's appeal for post-conviction relief was denied in district court in February 2007, which ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and the Capital Post Conviction Project of Louisiana (CPCPL) took over the case on 1 April 2008. On 26 June 2009 the Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a writ of Certiorari to the Twenty-first judicial district Court and granted 180 days from the date of enrollment in which to file a supplemental application for post-conviction relief.

26 June 2009 + 180 days = 23 December 2009.

So he's still in prison (probably the Louisiana Penitentiary (Angola), and there's a lot more litigation that would have to happen before he could be executed. - Nunh-huh 03:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much Nunh-huh. --190.50.100.174 (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

An easier approach: notice he is not listed on [Searchable Execution Database] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And a rule of thumb: it takes between ten and twenty years for someone to go from "sentenced to death" to "executed" in the US prison system. --Carnildo (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cats, drawings of

Can anyone point me to an article about these cats or the artist thereof? And I'm not talking about the lolcat. Dismas|^(talk) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The most famous cartoonist of cats (after Garfield's creator, of course), is likely Kliban. The ones on the comforter have less black line than Kliban tends to use, but you should take a look for yourself. Bielle (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The comforter in the picture appears to be this one, so I'd definitely say the artist in question is Kliban. --LarryMac | Talk 14:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both! Dismas|^(talk) 18:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

New York Times Crossword

Heads up to Wikipedians: we get a name-check at 21 down in Sunday's puzzle :) - Nunh-huh 04:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the spoiler. PhGustaf (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone care to share for those of us who don't get the Times and would have to drive at least a half hour to even find a copy?  :-) Dismas|^(talk) 14:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to Google that for you: ta-daa! (spoilers, btw.) The third result. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

...Hold on, he doesn't give the questions! Well, I suppose he'd get in trouble, since they charge. Woops. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here we go... 21D: Like online medical advice for kids? (Wikipediatric) - the theme was fake portmanteaus. (portmanteuax?) Vimescarrot (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes (sort of). Portmanteaux is the French spelling. In French, all -eau nouns (including eau itself, "water"), take the plural -x, hence portmanteau > portmanteaux. But whether French plurals belong on naturalised English words is another question. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on that: English plural, the section on Irregluar plurals#Irregular plurals from other languages. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Err ... I think he was referring to a portmanteau of "portmanteau" and "faux". -- 128.104.112.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

Excuse me-- it's not "portmanteau" in French, but "porte-manteau". Rhinoracer (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Racial attitudes toward children

I guess the humanities topic this fits under is "society". Does anyone know if there is a name- or anything else- for the phenomenon of people of one race finding all the babies/small children of another race automatically "cute"? Americans would be most familiar with the now taboo idea that all black babies are cute, but I have reason to believe it extends beyond that. Thedoorhinge (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a so-called "race" specific phenomenon. "All babies are cute," is a belief supposedly held by some. Newborns who arrive by Caesarian section are believed to be cuter than those experiencing vaginal birth as their forms don't such any of the birth trauma or stress, like misshapen heads, for example. The paler the basic skin tone of a newborn, the more likely it is to appear mottled, which is not usually considered attractive. Is this what you mean? Bielle (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Allow me to quote my friend, a white American who lives in Japan and caused me to wonder about this: "I was talking with a Japanese teacher at work the other day and explained to her that all the foreigners who I've asked have agreed with me that Japanese kids are adorable and virtually all of them are handsome or pretty. She immediately disagreed, and insisted that many are quite ugly and it's foreign babies with their blue eyes, rosy cheeks and cute little faces that are the cutest. She said she'd never seen an ugly foreign kid. I'm wondering if there is a term for this phenomenon." Add to that my own knowledge of the cliche of white people saying "black babies are all so cute". Thedoorhinge (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the taboo here in the United States is with ANY sentence that boils down to "all people of a certain race have a certain trait in common." I would also add that many cultures across the world treat babies in a way that's almost diametrically opposite to the universal fawning that babies get in America. I've heard a lot of people say that, back on the shtetl, superstition dictated that you not praise your baby to strangers, with explanations varying (someone might kidnap or hurt your baby, demons would give the baby misfortune, etc.). It's possible that Japan has a variation of that, but I'm not as steeped in Japanese culture. --M@rēino 18:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect what you are describing is just a baby variation of the common "they all look the same" approach people have to races they have less direct contact with. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Do a thesis on it and then it could be called Thedoorhinge's foreign baby effect. ;) Vespine (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

multiple names for Middle Eastern figures

Mahmoud Abbas (Arabic: مَحْمُود عَبَّاس‎ Maḥmūd ʿAbbās) (born 26 March 1935), also known by the kunya Abu Mazen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halcatalyst (talk • contribs)

Arabic name explains pretty well. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -- there's also good explanations at Kunya (Arabic). Note that Kunya is hardly a uniquely Middle Eastern practice: before the modern age it was very, very common for powerful or influential people (the sort of people who end up in history books) to have Honorifics, Epithets, and Noble titles. --M@rēino 04:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Who in the Obama Administration determines U.S. WTO policy?

I was recently at a conference during which a speaker commented that Obama blocked Palestine's bid to join the WTO as an observing member. This caught my attention, as I had once heard another speaker mention that the amdinistration is considering offering Iran an updrade to full-member status (it is currently an observer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wto#Accession_process).

My question is the following: whose traditional job is it in the executive branch (that is, the presidential administration) to determine/advocate WTO policy? I'm not sure if this would be an offical position or a part of someone's portfolio -- perhaps unofficially. Possible departments could be State or Treasury. This is further complicated by the hush hush nature of WTO negotitions, as the US's influence in the organization is used largely at closed door meetings.

Thanks for your help!

Dan 130.64.34.185 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's generally Ron Kirk in the Office of the United States Trade Representative, although of course you can bet that non-routine stuff (particularly things Israel/Palestine and Iran) it's mostly a function of the overall foreign relations policy regarding that matter, so State will really be in charge. In practice they'll sit down and have an inter-departmental chinwag, but you can bet HRC is the one doing the wagging. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)