Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 10

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.

February 10

Wyszesława

Who was Wyszesława of Kiev? She is the wife of Casimir I the Restorer. Royal coronations in Poland doesn't mention her but Gniezno Cathedral says she was coronated in 25 December 1076. Any known more like when was she born, when she died, when she married Casimir and who was her parents. I guessing she is a Rurikid with the Kievan origin. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Gniezno Cathedral article calls her the wife of Bolesław II the Bold, is that who you mean? --Cam (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I need more than that. I already know that.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, she is Wyszesława Światosławówna. Another spelling is Vizeslava Sviatoslavna. She was the daughter of Sviatoslav_II_of_Kiev. --Cam (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A look at the PL Wikipedia article and a quick Google search, and I got so many additional question marks! Virtually nothing can be told for sure about her – not even who her father and her husband were if she ever existed at all. Let's start with a summary of what the unscourced PL WP article says:

According to Jan Długosz, King Bolesław II of Poland married Wyszesława Światosławówna (Vysheslava Sviatoslavna), daughter of Prince Sviatoslav II of Kiev. However, in 1895, Oswald Balzer proved that Długosz was wrong. Bolesław's wife was probably of either Ruthenian or German origin, but her or her father's name are unknown. She got married in 1069 at latest as this was the year when her son Mieszko was born. She was probably crowned queen of Poland in 1076. In 1079 she found herself in exile in Hungary, together with her husband and son. She was widowed in 1081/82 and returned to Poland with Mieszko in 1086. In 1089 Mieszko was poisoned and she is known to have participated in his funeral. Her further fate, or the date of her death, is unknown.

That's one thing. Now, in this bibliographic dictionary of the House of Rurik, you can find the following entry:

Vysheslava Viacheslavna (died after 1067), daughter of Prince Viacheslav Yaroslavich of Smolensk. After her mother, Oda Leopoldovna (herself daughter of a German count) was widowed, she was taken to Germany, and in 1067 wed to King Bolesław II of Poland.

So regardless of whether she was married to Bolesław or not, there is also a confusion about her father – was it Sviatoslav (1027–1076), the third son of Yaroslav I the Wise, or Viacheslav (1036–1057), Yaroslav's fifth son (see Ярослав I Мудрый at RU WP)? The confusion may stem from the fact that, according to RU WP, both Sviatoslav and Viacheslav were at some point married to Oda Leopoldovna, Vysheslava's mother... I think the short answer to your questions, Little Spy, is: nobody knows. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I found some more info on this Russian historical website:

Długosz calls Bolesław's wife Vysheslava the only daughter of a Ruthenian Prince. Kromer says that her father's name is unknown. Hübner, in his Genealogische Tabellen, calls her daughter Vyslava, which Lomonosov corrects to Viacheslava. In Ruthenian chronicles, Boleslaw's wife is described as a "beautiful girl". Tatishchev believes Vysheslava was a daughter of Grand Duke Sviatoslav Yaroslavich. Not knowing Tatishchev's sources, we have to rely on one Gustinskoy Chronicle, which said that "Bolesław the Bold... married... a daughter of Viacheslav, Yaroslav's grandson [sic]." — Kpalion^(talk) 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oda of Meissen

Was Oda of Meissen,the last wife of Bolesław I the Brave alived when he was crowned in 1025?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jan Dlugosz says she was but it is otherwise uncertain. From the Polish Wikipedia article on her.[1] --JGGardiner (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver, BC as "Lotus Land"

Why does Vancouver have this nickname? There's no mention of it in Vancouvers article. Where does it come from? What is it referring to? I found some answers here but which one is correct?

Not sure if I'm posting this is in the right place.. maybe Reference desk/Language might've been more appropriate. OlEnglish (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is probably related to the concept of the Lotus eaters. From that article, "In modern usage, the term... is used as a pejorative. It refers to persons who are addicted to illicit plant based or other drugs and who have lost their will to productively contribute to society. It can also mean persons who are insulated from the real-world consequences of their own poor judgment or laziness." As a new resident of the Greater Vancouver area, I probably shouldn't speculate on how accurate a portrayal that is of my neighbours... - Eron^Talk 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard the term, but never considered it to be especially insulting. I knew about the mythological connection, but always interpreted the phrase to mean a pleasant place with nice weather, with some hippie overtones thrown in by envious easterners. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard people refer to Vancouver as the San Francisco of Canada, so the hippie connotation work with lotus-eating as well. You rarely hear Medicine Hat being compared to, say, Berkeley, California. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I've never found the term to be a serious insult; whenever I've heard it used to refer to the Left Coast it's always seemed to me to mix envy and disdain in equal parts. To me it has the connotation of people who are somehow divorced from harsh reality (disdain) because they live in a place where they don't have to confront harsh reality (envy). - Eron^Talk 19:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yaroslav I the Wise

Our article on Yaroslav I the Wise mentions a forensic examination of his remains, carried out circa 1930. Are there any published materials on that? What were the findings? Thanks, --Dr Dima (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC) . NB: webpages/papers in Russian or Ukrainian are OK, I can read both. --Dr Dima (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know but Mikhail Gerasimov did a facial reconstruction in 1938. The source from his book says there was an anthropological examination and a radiographic examination as well."yaroslav+the+wise"+radiographical&dq="yaroslav+the+wise"+radiographical&lr=&pgis=1 So you might want to start there if you want to research it. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

no more room in hell; the dead shall walk the Earth

I heard the phrase "when there is no more room in hell, the dead shall walk the Earth". I would like to know where it came from originally. Is it a Biblical references? ----Seans Potato Business 08:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the tagline for George Romero's wonderful Dawn of the Dead, and I think that's where it came from -- I don't think it's a quote from anything else. (If it is, though, I'd really like to know where it's from as well.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Thy dead shall live ... dead bodies shall arise" is from Isaiah 26. He doesn't mention hell being full though :) --Dr Dima (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Hell doesn't have to be full for a Zombie walk :-) cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I hear, Hell is not overbooked. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a great tag tho, one of the best. Is there a list of great movie tags somewhere? Myles325a (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Romero changes his reasons for the zombie rising from movie to movie. I know that in Dawn of the Dead, the zombies are created when Earth passed through the tail of a comet. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean Night of the Living Dead, not Dawn, I think. That film does have a space-based hypothesis for the zombies mentioned, though it's not a comet's tail, but radiation from an exploded Venus probe. The comet's tail thing is from Night of the Comet, another zombie movie. But it's worth noting that even in Night of the Living Dead, it's not really clear what's causing this to happen -- the space probe radiation is just a hypothesis, not something that has been proven to be the cause. It could be the cause, or it could not, but it's not particularly relevant. So Romero doesn't really change his reasons, because he doesn't state them at all -- none of the zombie movies Romero made later on really comment at all on why the dead walk... with the possible exception of Diary of the Dead, which I just got but haven't yet had the chance to watch -- but I very much doubt it goes into the reasons behind the cataclysm. For example, it's never stated with any authority in Dawn that this is happening because Hell is full; when the movies' tagline is referenced in the dialogue, it's mentioned as a story someone heard -- it's not really even a hypothesis.

Incidentally, since Night is in the public domain, you can easily find it on the internet. Watch and enjoy! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of Parliament

Where can I find the pictures of the parliament of Bangladesh, meaning the seating plan and its diagram of the seating plan where the members of parliament seat? Same thing with India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, and Jordan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.110 (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd think some of them would want to keep that info secret, such as in India where they're the target of terrorists. Also, you seem to assume they all have assigned seats. I don't think that's true in all cases. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's Sri Lanka's: [2]. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It really surprises me that their seating plan is available, given their issues with terrorism. I was over there in 2007 and fully intended to visit the Parliament, but was dismayed to find that, not only can the general public not visit it, they can't even get within a kilometre of it. The best I got was a photo of the building from across a lake, which could have been a nice-looking factory for all anyone knew. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You kind of answered your own question there. The seating plan doesn't really matter (from a terrism perspective) when you can't even get close to the parliament itself. - Akamad (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose. It still seems incongruous to me. But what do I know? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The government of Somalia just lost Baidoa, where it had a makeshift parliament in a converted grain warehouse. The government still controls part of Mogadishu but most of the government fled to Djibouti where the Parliament has been meeting recently.[3] --JGGardiner (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cthulhu copyright?

Is the name Cthulhu or the phrase "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" which are both widely used by horror and sci-fi fans everywhere, especially in genre parodies or as homage, copyrighted or trademarked? Is it possible for an author to use them in her work? --Sonjaaa (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice, I'm afraid. You'll need to consult a lawyer. --Tango (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a request legal advice by any reasonable definition to ask if something is thought to be currently in copyright (or if there is an unambiguous reason to think it is not copyrighted). The Wikipedia article (below) discussing the competing claims is not legal advice either. And it doesn't really matter either (for reasons below). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a surprisingly long discussion of this at H.P. Lovecraft#Copyright. -- BenRG (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Names and phrases cannot be copyrighted—they can be trademarked. General plot outlines/ideas can be copyrighted, sometimes. Parody is a special exception to copyright law in any case. The name "Cthulu" is certainly not copyrighted; you can check in the US trademark database to see if it is trademarked and in what context. The usage of such a small phrase is almost certainly fair use, but in the context of a larger homage might be a little too much evidence of a derivative work. It's very unclear whether the Lovecraft work is still copyrighted anyway, though. ---98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WWII

During WWII, Hitler hoped the alliance between the USSR and the Western Allies would collapse. This, of course, didn't happen. What I am curious about is what would have happened had the alliance broken down immediately after the end of WWII and a full shooting war had erupted? IOW, who would have won? I know that for Operation Sea Lion, the British conducted a wargame to see if it would have worked Operation_Sea_Lion#Post-war_test_of_the_plan. I know that we have lots of articles about WWII and the Cold War but I don't think we have anything on this topic. I'm especially curious about the time period before Eisenhower started pulling out American troops. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Americans and British seemed to think that most of Europe would be quickly overrun. You might be interested in Operation Unthinkable. NSC-68 came to the same conclusions in 1950 (see esp. Part V). But it is always hard to say. Contermporary theorists also often said to have underestimated the capabilites of nuclear weapons which only the Western Allies could make at the time. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had completely forgotten about Operation Unthinkable. I wasn't aware of NSC-68, thanks again. As an aside, I'm an American in my mid-30s and I was taught that we won WWII. It wasn't until recently that I realized that the Eastern Front was larger than the Western or that the war was lost (from Germany's perspective) prior to D-Day. Of course, I worked with a Bellarussian (around the same age) who told me that they were taught that the Soviets had won the war but they were never taught about Lend-Lease. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question, my friend. You may be interested in the book What If? by a host of authors (Google Books link)...it just has a bunch of "what if this happened instead" scenarios....quite interesting. (I'm reading it now. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to keep that book in mind. There's another one, sort on the same theme called Almost History. OK - I just opened up the book (I've had it for years) and there's a section on Operation Unthinkable! As another aside, I remember an incident in a high school history class (supposedly for advanced students) where a student asked a "What if" type question and the teacher chastisized the student saying that was basically a stupid thing to ask. I forget the exact words, he may not have used the word "stupid" but his meaning was clear. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If it really happened right after the collapse of Germany, which was before the US had nuclear weapons available, I'd suspect the Soviet Union would have easily taken all of mainland Europe, and the allies would be back to the situation of only having control of England and Ireland, which they could defend with the combined American and English fleets and air forces. However, once nuclear weapons were produced in numbers, they would be used against the Soviet Union to retake Europe and demand an unconditional surrender from the Soviet Union. This would require at least temporary air superiority, but a massed air attack could provide that for long enough to deliver each weapon on target. Perhaps the German V-2 missile technology could also have been adapted to deliver the bombs, but they only had a range of about 200 miles. StuRat (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons really throw a huge question mark over the situation. This made me wonder why Stalin just didn't grab all of Europe. At first I considered admistration costs or the greater likihood of a guerilla war (In terms of public relations, Stalin could legitamately claim to have liberated Eastern Europe from Nazi tyranny but Western Europe). I would guess the most likely reason was a war with the western allies would have meant perpetual war since there's no way he could have conquered the US. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Though be aware that the number of US nuclear weapons was blindly small at that point and the ones they had were inefficient and manufactured in a one-off process. They could maybe have produced one a month from August 1945 onward at full swing. While they could be quite useful, they would not necessarily be decisive in the way that Cold War ideas about total destruction might imply, and depending on the strength of the Soviet army (and how rapidly they deployed), it's quite possible that the USSR could have taken over Europe (suffering a nuke or two here or there, likely deployed somewhat tactically), and then said, "OK, enough." It seems rather unthinkable that the USSR would imagine invading the USA, nuclear-armed or not. 1945-vintage nuclear weapons are not that different from, say, a firebomb attack. They would not necessarily have broken the will of a victorious and powerful USSR the way they did an almost-defeated Japan. I suspect Stalin would have retreated to Siberia and the war would have lasted through quite a few atomic bombings... I very much doubt the Americans could have adapted V-2s for nuclear use in that span of time (the first comparable thing wasn't developed until 1950 and it was no ICBM.. keep in mind the weight of a WWII-era atom bomb was approximately 10X that of the V-2's max payload). The US could strike Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other cities near the edges of the USSR assuming they had their overseas bases available, but more likely they'd be striking European cities occupied by the USSR or troop formations, etc. Again, I think Moscow could still give the US a run for their money even with a US monopoly on the bomb, assuming that Stalin only wants Europe/Asia and isn't trying for the American mainland (which again seems infeasible no matter what—far too much land to try to invade from such a distance). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the rate at which US nuclear bombs could be produced would have increased with each passing year. If we imagine this war going on for at least as long as WW2, that would take us into the early 1950's. By then the US would also have had at least mid-range rockets adapted to carry them and would devastate all major cities inside Russia, until an unconditional surrender occurred. Only the early development of a Soviet nuke would have brought about a cease-fire. During a hot war the security on US nuclear technology might have been controlled better, and the Rosenbergs and others may not have been able to give the secrets away to the Russians (or they may not have been as willing to commit high treason during a time of war). StuRat (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that US bomb production was pretty much locked in place for the first few years — to increase the production rate means building more plants, which takes years to get online (US bomb production is basically WWII-level until 1948 or so). I don't imagine it taking as long as WWII, though, for the USSR to sweep across totally-ravaged Europe, and I don't necessarily see the atomic bomb as decisive here. One atomic bomb every few months against a massive empire is going to kill a lot of people, but no more so than firebombing would, and would result in similar countermeasures (moving away from centralized cities, for example). As for security, it is irrelevant—the most important leaks to the USSR occurred during WWII, not afterwards. The Rosenbergs were always irrelevant from a security point of view; Fuchs was far more important, and he was giving things away from 1942 onward, and the US had no clue until 1949 that there was even a leak. By the time the US used the war on Japan the USSR already knew the US had a bomb and already knew the salient factors of its development and design; even if the US had cut off all espionage info then (by, say, locking up every Russian in the country, which would have done quite a bit to stifle the couriers), the USSR crash program would still have probably taken the same amount of time (4 years after the first US bomb; the limiting factor for the USSR was not bomb design, but understanding how to use very low value ores, which was their primary uranium source). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's possible to move an entire population out of the cities. The last time this was tried was by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, with disasterous results (some of which were intentional). StuRat (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever makes you think Stalin wanted to grab all of Europe? Algebraist 11:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Stalin's basic belief after WWII was that he should never let any country get in the position to really hurt Russia again. I think you're probably right that in practice that really means he wanted to cripple Germany most of all. I can see him deciding France might be a nice plum too, though, but I agree it doesn't fit so strongly into his security question, except perhaps as a staging point for the US. The more space to the West available, the harder it is to hurt the Russian mainland. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Stalin had to trouble whatsoever 'grabbing' all the bits of Europe available to him. It's reasonable to expect that had more been available he would have taken it.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union was at least as war-weary as Europe; it's easy to imagine why they wouldn't want to take the chance on more years of war. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are different styles of Marxist theory, some which involve the exportation of it to other nations, and some which don't, not that Stalin was particularly Marxist, of course, more Stalinist. It is also worth considering the strength of Russia during the war was depth of defence rather than offence (prior particularly to lessons learned fighting the Germans). Also, I wonder whether Russia would honour an alliance with France after Germany had been knocked out and the two-fronts idea been made redundant. SGGH ^ping! 15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth questioning the assumption made early on here that the Soviets would quickly overrun Europe in a non-nuclear post-WWI conflict. According to our article Eastern Front (World War II) the Soviets had about five million men fighting in Europe in 1945. I can't find equivalents for the Western Allies, but given that there were over a million by late 1944 I would estimate 2-3 million. 2:1 isn't much of a ratio if the Western troops were better equipped.

Then we need to consider three other factors. First the West was still supplying the Soviets with a huge amount of equipment. According to our lend lease article two-thirds of Soviet trucks were US built by 1945. Without trucks an army grinds to a halt very quickly. Then the Soviet infrastructure was nearly as war-damaged as Europe, whereas the US infrastructure was virtually untouched. If it wasn't supplying the Soviets that gives it even more capability. Thirdly the Soviets have all their forces in Europe. If the they haven't overrun Europe by August then the West can redeploy from the Pacific.

Finally let's not forget that the effect of a nuclear bomb isn't really about the destruction done. The Hiromshima bomb didn't destroy the Japanese war effort any more than Dresden destroyed the German, but the psychological effect of seeing two cities destroyed in days is huge. Neither the Soviets nor the Japanese knew whether the US could keep dropping an A-bomb every week, and that tends to deter any military ambitions. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Soviets probably could have come up with a pretty good estimate of American atomic bomb production rates if they didn't already have it. Since all of the bombs were still at that point assembled by hand at Los Alamos, a Klaus Fuchs or David Greenglass would likely have been able to estimate not only the development schedule but even deployment—surely there would have been a lot of "hurry up and wait" at the lab before the plutonium arrived for machining, testing, etc. As for the psychological effect, it's unclear to me that an atomic bomb at that stage would really have caused capitulation. It certainly served to top-off the Japanese government's feelings on the matter, war weary, about to suffer an invasion from the USSR and the USA, almost out of food, etc. But if it had been used in the middle of the more active conflict? I doubt it would have ended things any more than the firebombing of almost every Japanese city did not end it. Once you start using atomic bombs with any regularity they lose their special importance, when they are only of the WWII-era strength. (Something like a hydrogen bomb, where you can wipe out hundreds of square miles, could potentially be quite different. It's the difference between killing, say, a 100,000 people in New York City and the ability to wipe out all five boroughs in one instantly. They're both horrible options but one had become sadly more commonplace in WWII than the other.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll play. Your question asks what would have happened if war had broken out between the Soviet Union and the rest of the Allies while the armies were still face-to-face. The first thing that comes to mind is that it's usually not a good idea to fight a war when you have no navy, and the Soviets had only a handful of aged capital ships and some other junk that would have been on the bottom in the first few days. It might seem like they didn't need a navy, but remember that in their war against Germany they had a single, albeit huge, front and interior lines of communication. In a war with the Allies, their endless border would have been undefendable, and the Allies could have made amphibious landings anywhere from Kaliningrad to Kamchatka and shelled their ports. Imagine thirty-five aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Finland, which brings up that it's also ballsy to go to war without an air force. Twelve percent of the Soviet Air Force was loaners. How many Yak-3s would it have taken to shoot down the 100 P-51 Mustangs escorting the 300 B-29s America sent to pulverize their aircraft factories? The Soviets would have fallen on the Allies like a buffalo stampede on the ground. That aspect of the war would have been brutal and bloody, and they would have done well; their tank was far superior, and their infantry tactics, combining suicidal aggressiveness and intelligence in equal measure, would have knocked our infantry for a loop at first. But they wouldn't have gotten far with no supplies, no ammunition, and no prospect for getting any.

Nuclear weapons wouldn't have made much of a difference, at least at first, because they were so slow in coming and because delivery would be a lot iffyer than it had been over a prostrate Japan. Also, I think there would have been a reluctance to use them tactically on European soil. Of course Stalin would have taken Europe if he could. The communists' avowed intention was to make the world communist; it was a crusading movement. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Now THERE is an interesting point. Heck, the British has some monster carriers that were going to come into play too - the Malta Project I think - it wouldn't have been only American carriers lol. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

members of parliament

How many of our MP's (Westminster House of Commons) are qualified lawyers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafron (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not many. I think most MPs are career politicians and have never done anything else. It's not like in the US where it's common for a politician to have had a real job for a while first. I'll see if I can find some statistics... --Tango (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I must say I disagree slightly with the above - the  % with other careers (take Heseltine's publishing as an example) is probably quite high, and law's got to be the most popular of those. Less so than the US, I would have to admit. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite. A number of the architects of New Labour are qualified lawyers, for example, including Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, Alistair Darling, Keith Vaz, Paul Boateng, Barbara Roche, as well as peers such as Lord Irvine, Lord Falconer, Baroness Scotland... There are bound to be plenty of other examples on both sides of the House. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul Boateng retired from Parliament at the last election, and so doesn't count here.--TammyMoet (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This paper[4] (pdf) from the Library of Parliament has numbers from 2001. 11 percent were barristers and eight percent were solicitors. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The graph on page 23 makes for very interesting (er) looking. One wonders how the figure changed in 2005 and how it might look like in 2010. Probably fewer lawyers and more "political organisers"! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Indian cinema etiquette

Granting that India is a big place and that there's likely to be some regional variation, how are moviegoers expected to behave there? I'm especially curious whether heckling is common. Thanks. Lantzy ^talk 23:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't heckling done during a live performance? What would heckling be in a movie theatre? Jay (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can heckle a movie. People do it all the time in my part of the world. It takes many forms. Sometimes it's just people yelling 'penis' at the top of their lungs. Sometimes the comments correspond to what is happening on screen ('Don't go in there!'). I use 'heckling' as a blanket term for all that, but maybe I'm being imprecise. Lantzy ^talk 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor sure if heckling is the appropriate word. I've asked this in the language ref desk. Jay (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't say anything about India, but in some parts of the middle east there has been a tradition of loudly commenting on the movie, shouting advice to the characters on-screen, throwing sunflower seeds, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just remember that when they wiggle their heads at you after you do them a favour, it means thank you! That's the main thing I had to teach my parents about India. I suspect avid discussion of the movie might be common at some point, rather than heckling. SGGH ^ping! 15:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really limited to India; depending on the audience and the movie, there is plenty of annoying behaviour in North American theatres too (watching Twilight with a theatre full of 12 year olds, for example). For India, there is a study about Indian theatre behaviour but it seems to be from a business perspective; this is sort of a blog posting about one person's experience at an Indian theatre which gives the sort of info you're looking for, at least for one theatre in Calcutta. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam! That blog posting is just what I had in mind. Lantzy ^talk 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That blog is about the screening experience of a Hindi film in a region where Hindi is not the first language. There would be a lot of regional variation as there are regions where Hindi is not even the second language, although Hindi films (Bollywood) are targeted for a national audience. Indian film industry is highly localized with each having its own industry, culture and audience, see Jollywood, Kollywood, Mollywood, Ollywood, Punjwood, Tollywood Bangla, Tollywood telugu, Sandalwood, and others without a nickname! Jay (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I spent a bit of time around India and went the cinema plenty. My experience is that it's much more acceptable to talk through the film than it is at home (England). I saw Titanic in Mumbai and when the ship went down (about two thirds of the way through the movie) half the audience got up and left. I guess they were only there for the main spectacle. Also, being British I enjoy a good queue but there was no such luck. Just a compacted throng of punters pushing to the front to buy tickets.91.111.108.123 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)