Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 October 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.

October 21

explanation of famous picture: lunch during building skyscraper (workmen sitting down on a beam)

Could you give me some explanation on this: http://i.imgur.com/TUm5Bpj.jpg

why were they sititng down, and so close? how? was there a sheer drop below?

I just found our article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunch_atop_a_Skyscraper - but it doesn't say much. Would people actually eat like that? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the Daily Mail (not always the most reliable source, admittedly), it was a publicity stunt. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusion about the Time Line of Events in Hamlet

I am very confused about a particular scene in Hamlet. Any insight is appreciated. In the final lines of Act 2, Hamlet gives his soliloquy that ends with "the play's the thing, in which I'll catch the conscience of the king". In that soliloquy, Hamlet berates himself for not taking action to avenge his father's murder. He is very upset with himself, he calls himself an ass, etc. Then, about half-way into the soliloquy, Hamlet has a brainstorm idea to solve the problem: he will have the players re-enact his father's murder and he will observe Claudius's response (to see if Claudius "reveals" his guilt). So, it seems to me that Hamlet never had this bright idea before, and he just developed the idea mid-way through this particular soliloquy. It was as if a light bulb went off over his head, half-way through the soliloquy. (If he had had this great idea prior to this speech, he would not be so angry and upset with himself in the first half of the speech.) So, here's the source of my confusion and, hence, my question. Prior to this speech, Hamlet had asked the First Player if the acting troupe could perform The Murder of Gonzago the next day. First Player says "yes". Hamlet then asks if he (Hamlet) can write up some 12 or 16 lines of new text to insert into the play; can the troupe of actors memorize these new lines overnight and insert them into the play the next day? First Player says "yes". So, why did Hamlet want to pen 12-16 lines of new text to insert into the Murder of Gonzago play, if he had not yet even had his brainstorm idea, his "light bulb" moment? What am I missing? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We can't know exactly what was in Shakespeare's mind when he wrote the play, but there are two possibilities. One is that Hamlet was intending an improved speech, since they had just been discussing the merits of various lines. The other, more likely, in my opinion, is that this is just dramatic licence (not an accidental continuity error), where Hamlet reveals his thinking to the audience to clarify what has just occurred to him, and he is recalling the "light-bulb" moment a few minutes earlier. There will be a difference in the delivery of the line "Dost thou hear me, old friend; can you play the Murder of Gonzago?" if that is the true "light-bulb" moment. Dbfirs 07:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Also opinion. Remember that in this soliloquy Hamlet expresses disgust at himself over his inability to show his grief and rage and physically revenge his father. In part this is because he's still not 100% convinced that the ghost's message was genuine rather than the devil trying to fool him (or at least, that's his excuse). OK, he's finally doing something with his sneaky little plan to doctor the play and watch his uncle to see whether he betrays himself, but it's more reactive than proactive and is hardly decisive manly action involving tears, shouting and weaponry. If he remains disgusted by his own pussyfooting around, it's hardly surprising that he expresses this for a few lines before confirming to the audience that his request to the First Player did indeed have an ulterior motive. He'd still rather have the guts to howl with grief and stab his uncle, though. - Karenjc (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I see what you are saying. But ... this is what I am having the problem with. That soliloquy essentially has two halves: the first half in which he berates himself for his inability, inaction, and indecisiveness in avenging his father's murder; and the second half in which he reveals his great scheme to get Claudius to confess to murder (i.e., by having the players stage a re-enactment of his father's murder in the garden). The problem for me is the few lines that separate the first half of the soliloquy from the second half. I don't have the exact text in front of me. But, the gist of that mid-point section of the speech is something along these lines (paraphrased). Hamlet essentially says ... "Wow, I am a jerk; I can't believe what a jerk I am; I really need to get off my ass and do something about this; that First Player put me to shame with his reaction to a merely fictionalized scenario", etc., etc., etc. Then (at the mid-point of the speech), he says: "OK, let me wrack my brain now; come on, brain, please get to work for me; come on, brain, please give me some bright idea here; come on, brain, I really need your help right now", etc. etc. etc. So, that is what I am calling the turning point of the soliloquy, in which his anger turns to action. He summons up all the power in his brain to try to come up with a great idea. Then, at that moment, the light bulb goes off. In other words, the great idea about the re-enactment (which will surely reveal Claudius's guilt) had not happened before this; it happened at exactly this moment. That is why the tenor of his soliloquy changes so dramatically. The first half is anger, despair, shame, etc. The second half is joy, excitement, anticipation, etc. He was so pleased with himself that he just had this great idea (at that exact moment). When this light bulb went off over his head, he thought out loud: "wow, this is a great idea that I just came up with; this plan is really gonna work; it can't fail; now I will know for sure if the ghost is telling the truth or if the ghost is just the devil in disguise, leading me down a path of damnation". So, if the light bulb went off at that exact moment, it did not make sense that a few moments earlier, he was scheming with the First Player to insert some new lines into tomorrow's play. I can't reconcile this (apparent) discrepancy. In a nutshell, if indeed the great idea (brainstorm) had really occurred earlier in the scene (before the soliloquy), then the first half of his soliloquy would not be so filled with anger, hatred, disgust, and despair. At least, I think. In fact, the soliloquy itself actually begins with Hamlet saying "OK, now I am all alone, finally. Now, I can think about all this. So, let me collect my thoughts on this situation and on my predicament. Let me get to work here". Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean and I agree with your analysis. The turning-point in the soliloquy would be at the line "About, my brain!" (i.e. "Let's re-think this."). My opinion would be that Shakespeare is using a dramatic technique (common at that time) to replay what has just happened in the conversation, but revealing Hamlet's thinking. Modern playwrights would use a different technique, but the device would have been accepted in Shakespeare's time without criticism. Dbfirs 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the fact that Shakespeare was merely human, and that continuity problems plague all works of fiction from ancient times to modernity. Homer's Iliad, which was far more influential in classical Greece than anyone today can imagine, had various "Homeric nods". The Bible's inconsistencies and contradictions are legendary, literally and metaphorically. Fans of Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and every other popular book you can imagine make a big deal about concocting narratives that explain away logical inconsistencies "in-universe". The simplest explanation is that Shakespeare simply made a mistake, and forgot that Hamlet was not supposed to have this bright idea until the middle of the speech. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your general comments about continuity errors in works of fiction. However, this was a pretty "big" (significant) plot point for Shakespeare to "miss". The whole point of the entire play of Hamlet is his (Hamlet's) inability to move from indecision to action. His attempts to (finally) try to move from the paralysis of indecision toward decisive action is, essentially, the whole thrust of Hamlet's frame of mind and, thus, of the whole play. Being such a significant component of the overall work, I'd find it hard to believe that Shakespeare would "overlook" this (as an error in continuity). Being the genius that he was — not to mention that this is his greatest masterpiece — I have to assume there is some other reason/explanation for the seeming internal inconsistency ... and I am just trying to find out what that explanation might plausibly be. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

For my money, Dbfirs' 2nd possibility (in his 1st post at 7:53, 21 Oct) is what it's all about. He is essentially bringing the audience up to speed, by use of what we'd these days call a 'flashback' to an earlier point in his emotional timeline, followed immediately by where he's at now. Just as in a cinematic flashback, the actors are actually acting out events that happened in the past and not just talking about them from the point of view of the present, but to someone who wandered into the cinema late, it looks for all the world like the present, and they only discover they were watching a flashback a little later. That "Shakespeare" guy, whoever he was, was way ahead of his time. But OTOH, the audiences of his day would have been expected to understand immediately what was being presented, without the benefit of the billions of words of Shakespearean analysis that have been written since then, and Dbfirs' 2nd post (at 15:49, 21 Oct) confirms this was an accepted dramatic device of the time. As those billions of words amply demonstrate, it is possible to overthink these sorts of things. Shakespeare's audiences were a mix of aristocracy and simple uneducated folk, and he wrote for all of them collectively (while also writing for each of them separately). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Perfect competitive market

Characteristics of perfect competitive market
Zero transaction cost
Zero exit and entry barriers
Why?

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.129.220 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. RudolfRed (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the question is. You might get a more helpful response if your question was clearer.--Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup> 08:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If your question is "why does the perfect competition model make these assumptions when they are clearly unrelistic ?", then the answer is probably because they allow the construction of a theoretically tractable model. Whether this simplified model can provide any useful insights into the behaviour of real-world markets is then another good question. Our article on perfect competition may help you. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting, I'd like to add a secondary question here. "Zero transaction cost" is in the article, but why would that be necessary for perfect competition? Of course everyone would be better off when all information about buyers and sellers would just magically appear on everyones Smartphone at the exact time they needed it, but it doesn't. You have to pay for that information somehow, which a long time ago created the market for markets, auctions, Yellow Pages, and more recently Craigslist, eBay, Google and LinkedIn. They all make money from lowering transaction costs by providing information. That information isn't free; it needs people, machines, electricity to get it to the consumer. Similarly, a farmer needs information about the weather. If it will be raining for the next few weeks, maybe now it's the best time to gather the potatoes before they rot. It's obvious that a weather forecast costs money. Some farmers will pay for that information, others will find it too expensive. They can choose between more information or a better harvesting machine. Why should information about suppliers, qualities, employees, prices, etc be magically free in a perfect competitive market? A "perfect competitive market" with zero transaction costs would have no advertising, privacy, prisons, HR-departments, or even companies. That sounds like a nice model for eery fiction literature, but not as a perfect model of a competitive market. Joepnl (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the purpose of the model of "perfect competition" is to tell a very simple (and very abstract) story of supply and demand. The law of one price only prevails where there are no transaction costs, because otherwise there will be situations where it isn't worth a buyer seeking out that lower price because it will cost them more to transact to the seller than the difference in price (transport costs over a distance is the simple example). When economists say perfect competition, they don't mean the market is ideal, they simply mean that the market is perfectly (that is 100%) competitive. 124.170.108.225 (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You can find some ideas at User:Wavelength/About society/Holistic economics.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

File:England Adminstrative 2010.png

What's up with all of the different shades/colours for the different districts? The colour scheme isn't explained in either of the articles using the image, and the image description also doesn't discuss it. Note that some counties' districts are all the same colour, while other counties have lots of different colours; clearly it's not an application of the Four color theorem to distinguish counties, and it's also not reflecting something that's present in every county. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It may not be a strict application of the four colour theorem, but at first glance it does look like all the neighbouring counties are in different shades. So I would say they have done it that way for the sake of clarity. --Viennese Waltz 07:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It looks fine to me apart from a few misspellings. The different colours within some counties indicate unitary authorities and metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts (see key at top right).--Shantavira|<sup>feed me</sup> 07:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's about unitaries. So all the districts of Kent are the same shade, except that Medway, which is a unitary authority, is a different shade. Medway is in the ceremonial county of Kent but not in the administrative Kent County Council area. All the former districts in Berkshire ceremonial counties are unitaries in their own right, so each is a different colour. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Washington Coat of Arms Verification

I was watching a documentary called "Secrets of Henry VIII's Palace" and then at the end was advertising for another documentary called "Secrets of Althorp". They explain there was a connection with the 1st president of the United States, George Washington. "In the church yard you'll see the Washington tombs, and in the Isle of the church, if you lift up a wooden shield, underneath is the Washington star, their coat of arms." I was taken aback by them showing the coat of arms and the center star (of 3) is inverted. When I looked up the Washington coat of arms online, the inverted star is turned right side up. In fact there is nowhere else that I can find any evidence of the inverted star besides the picture that was shown of it on this show. Since I can see for myself that it is indeed, upside down, (I can provide a video clip of the part of the documentary if necessary) Can you verify or explain why it was changed & when, etc??

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.174.58.243 (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it the Church of St James the Less, Sulgrave? If not, could you give us a clue? Alansplodge (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms of George Washington has a list of about a dozen English churches that display the Washington arms. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's likely that there never was an authorised (by the College of Arms) change to the arms, as in heraldic symbology and practice such a minor difference to a minor part of the blazon would be meaningless, to my knowledge. While this variety of "star" (technically a mullet) is conventionally depicted with one point uppermost, inverting it might have been simply a stylistic decision on the part of the artist who created that particular representation, whether or not it actually exceeds the (rather loose) limitations of artistic variation permitted — mistakes are sometimes made! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Titanic violin fetched £900,000 in 10 minutes at auction - why didn't they wait for the price to go up further?

I was reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-24582739 where a violin that was played on the titanic fetched £900,000 in ten minutes. My question is why didn't they wait even longer so that the price would go up even more? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The report says bidding ended at £900,000 after fierce bidding between two bidders. Presumably one of the bidders gave up at that point. Auctions are not normally timed out. --Viennese Waltz 13:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ten minutes is actually quite a long time to spend on auctioning any item. If bidders can't make up their minds whether to give a higher bid in 30 seconds, then the auctioneer usually assumes that they are not going to bid any more. Dbfirs 15:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, real-life auctions are not like those on eBay, where there is a time limit and the trick is to get your bid in just before the deadline, possibly with artificial help. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The site's use of the phrase "just 10 minutes" is inaccurate; auctions are extremely quick affairs. I've seen paintings get knocked down for $50,000 in much less than a minute. My guess is that there were a large number of phone bids, which can sometimes cause delays. Matt Deres (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Idle speculation: I wonder if waiting longer would reduce the proceeds. Someone might get "caught up in the moment" and go over his intended maximum bid in a quick auction, or in a long one two bidders might go out for coffee and come back with the affair settled by a coin toss or a private payoff... Wnt (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Since when did the French language drop out of the English tongue?

Back in the olden days, it seems that English-speaking peoples used to learn and speak in Latin, French, and English. Latin makes sense, because it used to be the liturgical language, and medieval manuscripts were written in this language. French makes sense because of the Norman French conquerors who probably expect the conquered people to speak their language. And yet, Latin and Greek persist to be used in scholarly literature, but French is dropped out? Why? 140.254.227.76 (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I must add that nowadays Spanish seems to have a growing influence on English, but I think it may be due to the Spanish-speaking immigrants that come to the primarily English-speaking United States. One example that I can think of from the top of my head is the word aficionado and its plural form, aficionados. 140.254.227.76 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

French was more the language of the aristocracy, I guess that it was primarily retained for diplomatic/political relations with France during the post-Norman period. Greek and Latin persists because they were universal languages used to communicate between scholars across the western world. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

140.254.227.76 -- I'm not too sure what you mean. The heaviest French influence on English was probably in the 14th and neighboring centuries, but there has been some French influence on English in every century since the 11th, and things that were borrowed from French into English in previous centuries do not usually "drop out" of the English language... AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I originally thought the OP was asking more along the lines of, "Why don't English speakers learn other languages as much anymore?" I'd say more English speakers learn French than do Latin or especially Greek. French is still one of the two or three most useful languages to have in terms of communicating with the maximum number of people on Earth in various places; Latin and ancient Greek are not particularly useful outside of the Vatican and university language and history departments. In other words, while each of the two ancient languages at one point served as a lingua franca either academically or in general, they were largely supplanted by French. In recent years (since the Second World War or so), English has come to be used for diplomacy the way French was for several centuries; it's likely that there are other English speakers who live and work in most places you could travel. So there is much less incentive than there used to be for native English speakers to learn any other language at all; for those that do, however, French and Spanish (not necessarily in that order, depending on country) are by far the most common. Due to changing geopolitical circumstances, I'm sure Arabic and Mandarin are steadily increasing as second languages of native English speakers, but I have neither citations nor anecdotes for that. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"French is still one of the two or three most useful languages to have in terms of communicating with the maximum number of people on Earth"

No, not even close. The first three are Chinese, English, and Spanish. French only comes in at 11th. See list of languages by total number of speakers. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, these tables on second language ability suggest that French is a more popular choice than English as a second language (I suspect that is because English is often a third language choice, after a person’s local language and national language). Some more data on second language use: In Canada, about 32% of the population speak more than one language; 17.5% are bilingual in English-French. In the UK, 38% of the population have two or more languages. In Australia, the number is about 15%. In the USA, the number is about 18%. And according to that same source, in Europe the rate is about 53%. In Africa it’s about 50%. Taknaran (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Bowlhover, thanks for pointing out the numbers. I overstated the case somewhat (and struck out what's clearly false). I should say, French is still perceived to be among the most useful languages one can learn, at least in the U.S.; and I shouldn't have framed it in terms of number of speakers, but in terms of number of countries in which it is spoken. Obviously it's not as prevalent in official terms worldwide as it used to be, and it certainly won't help you on the streets of most cities in South America or Asia. While it may be in decline proportionally, though, for the moment it's still in use among the world's diplomats. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Medieval manuscripts were written in Latin because Latin was the language of universities England.
Sleigh (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There are, of course, also plenty of medieval manuscripts written in French and English (and Irish...and German...etc) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is some information on this topic in History of the English language, particularly the section Middle English – from the late 11th to the late 15th century, though it isn't very clear on the reasons for the changes. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Grand tour, military prostitution (now there's an article we lack). "French makes sense because of the Norman French conquerors who probably expect the conquered people to speak their language." nope. History of English. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, see Anglo-Norman language#Trilingualism in Medieval England. An early 14th century writer recorded; "Children in school, contrary to the usage and custom of other nations, are compelled to drop their own language and to construe their lessons and other tasks in French, and have done so since the Normans first came to England. Also, gentlemen's children are taught to speak French from the time that they are rocked in their cradles and can talk and play with a child's toy; and provincial men want to liken themselves to gentlemen, and try with great effort to speak French, so as to be more thought of." [2] It was during that century that English began to be used at court, the Provisions of Oxford being the first legal document to be written in English since the Conquest. Exactly why this happened seems to be something of a mystery. Alansplodge (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Correction, the Provisions of Oxford were in 1258, but the drift of my comments still stand. Alansplodge (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A bit more digging reveals that two Cornishmen seem to have been responsible for restoring English as the medium of education. According to a third Cornishman, John of Trevisa (1326-1412): "For John Cornwall, a master of grammar, changed the learning in grammar schools and construction of French into English; and Richard Pencrych learned that manner of teaching from him... so that now, in the year of our Lord 1385, the ninth year of Richard II, in all the grammar schools of England children leave French, and construe and learn in English... The disadvantage is that now children of the grammar school know no more French than does their left heel..." From A Short History of Education by John William Adamson, which goes on to say that the Black Death may have been the turning point, although this is far from certain. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Alan, Schooling was far from universal and its purpose was the getting of clerks for the state and clerics for the state's interests. In contrast continental war and the circulation of nobility (by war, hostage, wardship or Touring) were general forms of acquisition. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that people stopped using French in England because they were visiting Europe? Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying your evidence relates to such a fragmented fraction of society, that the "School" is restricted to pre-clerical and clerks, that it proves nothing about generalised French use or acquisition in England. That your example isn't demonstrative that French inhabited the English tongue. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Difference in "right-wing" definition stateside and across the pond

Does WP have an article that really addresses the differences between the American right wing and the European right wing? I've searched a few articles but my curiosity was not squelched. I couldn't really find much online outside of WP either. It seems there are subtle differences that confuse me. I would prefer a pointer to an article (or even a book) rather than a user's interpretation (no offense!). Rgrds. --64.85.217.225 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if you've already seen this, and don't know whether it will really satisfy you, but the best I could find on Wikipedia is Left–right politics, with sections "Usage in Western Europe" and "Contemporary usage in the United States". Duoduoduo (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, monarchism, that's something that is foreign to me that was tripping me up. Interesting. Thanks for the pointer. Now I know where to start digging. Rgrds. --64.85.217.225 (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But don't get to carried away - most European constitutional monarchies enjoy support from the centre-left as well as from the centre-right. King Juan Carlos I of Spain almost single-handedly overthrew a right-wing military coup against a centrist government. In France, the monarchist party Renouveau français is clearly camped on the far right lunatic fringe, while Nouvelle Action Royaliste "are sometimes described as 'royalists of the left'". So not as clear cut as you might think. Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a specific article, but see Front national, Golden Dawn, and Jobbik for examples of extreme-right European parties that enjoy far more support than Renouveau français (which, as Alansplodge said, is on the lunatic fringes). Needless to say, such parties don't exist in the US. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I think you mean Golden Dawn (political party). Alansplodge (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In very broad strokes, I think the biggest single difference is that the American right is more in favor of the free market than the European right. The strongest free-market supporters in Europe tend to be among parties that are not really seen as particularly right-wing (e.g. the Free Democratic Party in Germany, a certain tendency within the Italian Radicals, even arguably the Orange Book faction within the UK Liberal Democrats). --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Name these stories - two Chinese and the other Spanish

I can't find the source of these stories. I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone can find the source of these stories.

1. Once upon a time, there was a child. (To be honest, I have no idea if it were male or female, because the Chinese pronunciation for "he" or "she" sounds identical.) This child lived with his/her parents. One day, a bear told the child that he/she was going to eat the child up. The child became frightened. The child went home and made preparations. The parents were not at home. The bear arrived at night. Then, it followed a plotline that involved the bear's making a series of misfortunes inside the house and eventually learning his lesson. The protagonist lived happily ever after. THE END.

2. Once upon a time, there was a poor family, a husband and wife living together, in a poor village. The husband somehow left home and sought his fortune elsewhere. He came to a cave with some devils/demon-monsters. The devils were extremely powerful and tried to terrorize the man, but the man was clever and used his cleverness to overcome the devils' brawniness. One example was when the devils taunted the man that they could make the earth tremble. The man replied cleverly that he could make the ground flow out liquid by hiding an egg underneath loosened soil. Then, the devils taunted the man that they could pull out a tree while they presumed that the man couldn't. The man cleverly wrapped a rope around several trees, and the devils asked the man what the man was doing, to which the man replied that he was trying to pull all the trees of the forest. The devils became afraid and begged the man to not pull out their home. The man spared the devils their home. At the devils' home, the devils served meat and told the man he could eat some while the devils mined for gold and silver. The man ate some and buried the rest of the meat underground. When the devils returned, the man lied to the devils that he ate everything and shocked the devils beyond belief. At night, the devils tried to do a stealthy attack on the man's body. The man overheard this, and at night, he put stones in his bed so while he slept below the bed. The next morning, the man told the devils that he felt rain on his body and completely frightened the devils who then made him a compromise. The man took gold and silver home and gave some treasures to the villagers. Then there was the fox who told the devils that they were being scammed. One devil became angry and followed the fox to the village. The man had another trick up his sleeve and asked the fox why the fox only brought one devil and not the others. This made the gullible devil to turn his attention to the fox, thinking that the fox was trying to trick him, and killed the fox. The devil left for home, and everybody else lived happily ever after.

3. In a short Spanish play, two lovers tell each other how much they love each other. Then, one lover - Juan - goes into the forest. There is a gunshot. And then, the woman shouts, "Juan. Juan. Juan. Juan! Juan! Juan!" until the end of the play. 140.254.227.69 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me guess: With soundtrack by Philip Glass. ←Baseball Bugs <sup>What's up, Doc?</sup> carrots→ 23:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you remember any Chinese at all from the Chinese story? Names, quotes, cheng yu, or anything else in Chinese that you remember would be very helpful. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Which bible version has the most contributions to literature?

Which bible version has the most contributions to English literature and would be recommended by serious academics of the Humanities departments? 140.254.226.201 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The influence of the King James Version, and the earlier English translations that contributed to it, on the English language is discussed by the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary in this posting. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Recommended" depends on the purpose. For studying ancient history and theology, a more modern translation with annotations and apparatus is more appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's fair to say that the KJV is more like literature (as per the OP's question), while more modern translations such as the RSV are better for ancient history and theology. ←Baseball Bugs <sup>What's up, Doc?</sup> carrots→ 23:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)