Humanities desk
< March 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 30 >

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.

March 29

watch trials in florida online

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17544660 IT looks like this trial was filmed Where can i watch the whole thing online?? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.8.118 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a specific legal term

Let's say that I go out and commit a horrific crime, and then I write a book about it that becomes a massive bestseller; when I'm released from prison, I'm instantly a millionaire, and I live happily ever after on the royalties. In much of the world, this would be impossible: many jurisdictions have laws prohibiting one from profiting from illegal activities, so I wouldn't be able to take possession of the royalties. What's the standard term for this kind of law? It runs in my mind that it's Latin, but I don't have any better idea than that. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually its called a Son of Sam law.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not quite what I was looking for. The context is copyright — I've seen such a law used as an argument against the idea of photos of graffiti being potential copyvios: the argument was that this kind of law prevents graffiti vandals from benefiting from rights over the image they created (and thus wouldn't have grounds to sue the photographers) because the graffiti was illegal. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various countries have laws stopping criminals being able to receive what they call "the proceeds of crime".

We have 2 articles on such laws: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (UK), Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 (Ireland). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to your royalties, if you're a writer before you commit the horrific crime?
Sleigh (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're unaffected (though you might be a little hard pressed to spend them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found Ex turpi causa non oritur actio which fits the graffiti copyright example, but doesn't fit the mass murderer's autobiography. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there could be an equity principle that would apply... not allowing someone to benefit from crime, or to use the courts for that purpose. That certainly exists in the contract law context as a matter of law (I think) and also in an equitable sense. I'm not saying it wouldn't, but I'm unfamiliar with it in the copryight context. Now there is a provision of the U.S. Copyright Act that prohibits infringing works from gaining copyright themselves... as in infringing derivative works. But as far as a a classic latin term to apply, I don't know of one that's not associated with the broader concept of Equity (law). Shadowjams (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The maxim in Equity that you refer to is the maxim of "clean hands": "equity must come with clean hands", or "those who seek equity must do equity". It applies only in the context of equitable remedies, and is not directly relevant to criminal law.

As JackOfOz said, the law depriving criminals from enjoying the proceeds of their crime is usually called a "proceeds of crime" law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about criminal law? Unclean hands is one of those... there are others too. Shadowjams (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The opening words of the question are: "Let's say that I go out and commit a horrific crime ...". That's where criminal law gets into this discussion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... but what's stopping him from publishing is presumably civil law... I give up. Seriously though... Shadowjams (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for inciting all the confusion — Tagishsimon found the article that I wanted. Murdering lots of people would stand out more than minor graffiti, and I thought that the legal treatment would be the same; that's why I went with a horrific crime to get at the copyright law question. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

humor production under Marx

in the transition toward Communism, during the Socialist period things are mostly state-run. Under this system what is the supposed means of production of humor - a National Joke Institute?

(This is a theoretical question, of course - in practice every government agency was a joke institute) 188.6.83.253 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Marx was too concerned with idle entertainment of the masses. --Jayron32 14:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends... are we talking Karl... or Groucho? Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See "The humour of Karl Marx". [1] I'd also recommend The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte for an excellent insight into the part played by the garlic sausage in the history of france:

The “Society of December 10” was to remain the private army of Bonaparte until he should have succeeded in converting the public Army into a “Society of December 10.” Bonaparte made the first attempt in this direction shortly after the adjournment of the National Assembly, and he did so with the money which he had just wrung from it. As a fatalist, he lives devoted to the conviction that there are certain Higher Powers, whom man, particularly the soldier, cannot resist. First among these Powers he numbers cigars and champagne, cold poultry and garlic-sausage. Accordingly, in the apartments of the Elysée, he treated first the officers and under-officers to cigars and champagne, to cold poultry and garlic-sausage. On October 3, he repeats this manoeuvre with the rank and file of the troops by the review of St. Maur; and, on October 10, the same manoeuvre again, upon a larger scale, at the army parade of Satory. The Uncle bore in remembrance the campaigns of Alexander in Asia; the Nephew bore in remembrance the triumphal marches of Bacchus in the same country. Alexander was, indeed, a demi-god; but Bacchus was a full-fledged god, and the patron deity, at that, of the “Society of December 10.” [2]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In market economies, humorous books are produced by privately owned publishers, comedy plays are produced by privately-owned theaters, comedy films are produced by privately-owned movie studios, etc. In command economies, humorous books are produced by state-owned publishers, comedy plays are produced by state-owned theaters, and comedy films are produced by state-owned movie studios. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) In the Soviet Union, literature was never state run - there was always room for freelancers, although there were censors and it was very hard to get published if you didn't write in the Socialist realist style. Nevertheless, comedy writers did get published - the most famous being Ilf and Petrov. The film studios, which were government run, also produced lots of comedies. Indeed, Stalin's favourite film was supposedly the musical comedy Volga-Volga. Soviet TV also produced comedies, such as Yeralash and Fitil (and jokes could also travel by word of mouth, of course - see Russian humour). In other words, humour was produced in the exact same way it was in America, it's just that the people telling the jokes worked for the state, not private companies. See Soviet film, Soviet literature. Smurrayinchester 14:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely as close as we'll ever come to an excuse for me to link to an article I developed a couple of years ago. It's about a film called (in English) the forgettable Bed and Sofa. You could probably picture a Hollywood movie being made today that featured marital infidelity and abortion. You could probably even see it being released as a comedy. What you probably couldn't see is it being a Soviet silent movie whose proper title is more properly translated as Ménage à trois that was released in 1927. Featuring abortion, polygamy and the harsh realities of the Soviet working poor. And was a comedy. Matt Deres (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube

I understand one could possibly earn money off one's YouTube videos. How does that work? Is there a good chunk to be made with so many views?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See YouTube's partner program also see the YouTube creator page, the section near the bottom titled "Monetize your content". --Jayron32 14:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya but, does anyone REALLY make any money with their videos? How much? How much does it pay for how many thousands of views? Need some simple answers for an airhead blond. Thanks guys.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was asked and answered before, but here's a Telegraph article listing the top 10 for 2010, with 22-year-old Californian Shane Dawson as the top earner, making $315,000 for nearly 432 million views. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So that's roughly 7 cents for every 100 views. In my experience though it does vary quite a bit with ad programs as they usually pay you differently for "click through" and things of that nature (e.g. does anyone actually interact with the ads, much less buy anything). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be hard to research since the advertisers may not be very forthcoming with actual numbers. I know I never look at the ads on YouTube videos. Though I've been conditioned to move the mouse over to the right side of the video to click the "X" to get rid of them as soon as they pop up about 30 seconds in. Dismas|^(talk) 01:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beryl Cicely Cholmeley Tyacke

I recently bought something from the South African Painter Beryl Cicely Cholmeley Tyacke. If I google him, I can see some info on artfact.com, but nothing more than the birthdate; 22 februari 1929. How can I find more info on this painter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.133.55 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the given names Beryl (a decorative mineral) and Cicely (a flower) suggest this person is a woman. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: from the name, I'd think the painter is a 'her' rather than a 'him', but otherwise, if Google draws a blank, you are unlikely to find much more online - though this looks likely to be a genealogy of close relatives: [3]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all planets shine, right?

so the Greeks, who named them Venus, and Jupiter and so on, and Mars, though I guess these are Roman, not Greek, because the Greek names are Aphrodite, Jove, and Ares. So anyway the Greeks or Romans or whoever named these planets - to them they were just bright stars, right? I mean during the day you don't see rock there or gas or whateve,r do you, just like the moon never looks like a rock, it always shines or is totally dark (crescent, to the point that superstition attached significance to a star inside the horn of the crescent moon - an obvious impossibility). So, did the Ancients think these were the same thing as a star, just a God? what were the Stars then? Smaller Gods? Or, did the Ancients know that these are astronomical things ('planets') by calculating their movements (like in the copernican view of the solar system) with Earth at the center, and just as mnemonics give them the name of Gods - in fact having quite distinct ideas of who the Gods were and what these planets were. (i.e. the same as naming them after the seven dwarves, but still knowing they have nothing to do with the seven dwarves and are kept totally separate in the mental landscape). To the ancients, what was the connection between the planets and the Gods bearing their names? Were more Gods thought to have planets that came with them, but just couldn't be observed yet? Or maybe were thought to only come out during the day, when they were too faint to be seen? Thanks for any (historic) insight you have onthis subject. I'm mostly interestedd in past attitudes and how we come to have plaents with the names of Greek or Roman Gods and Deities. 149.200.72.244 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classical planet has a partial answer. They were a little bit confused to the nature of planets, but not so far to confuse them with any star, since they certainly noted that they moved differentlyXPPaul (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek word Πλανητης literally means "a wanderer"; in the broadest sense, anything which moved relative to the the background of fixed stars could be a "planet" (including comets, etc.). However, persistent entities whose recurrent motions could be partially predicted mathematically were perhaps considered most deserving of the name, eventually resulting in the meaning of the modern word "Planet"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greek astronomy is probably your most useful article. A few things to take away:

1. There isn't one classical Greek understanding of the planets. There were lots of different ideas about them floating about. It's hard today to say which was most popular at the time because we don't have tons of sources on that. But one shouldn't necessarily search for one "classical Greek" model — there isn't one.

2. The reason the names of the planets in English are based on Roman rather than Greek gods is because the Romans picked up the Greek system and renamed it, and they were, on account of their empire-building efforts, fairly influential.

3. You seem to be thinking of this is strictly mythological terms, but this is fairly misleading. Their astronomical and philosophical discourse on the cosmos was a lot more sophisticated than thinking they were literal gods or anything like that. There is also astrology, though, which was not distinct from astronomy until relatively recently.

Hope that helps. Again, the Greek astronomy article is useful both in describing the various currents of thought, but also making it clear that you're talking about literally centuries of highly sophisticated thinking when you say "ancient Greek understanding" — and unsurprisingly there is a lot of variety there. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wait - let's get something clear. Did Greeks believe their Gods existed? Did they think the planets were these Gods? 188.156.249.197 (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Mr 98 said, "ancient Greece" is a long period involving many people. Some clearly believed in their mythology, others clearly did not. Pfly (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well we all shine on, like the moon, the stars and the sun John made no mention of planets, however!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been kind of hard to work "and the planets" into that rhyme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some ancient Greeks believed that "the classical gods" existed. Indeed, they often also believed that many other gods of other places and people existed, sometimes identifying them with Greek gods and goddesses, and sometimes accepting them as independent neighbours. Many of the more enlightened Greeks did not share this view, but believed in no gods or very abstract concepts like that of a prime mover. Socrates was convicted for propagating some kind of atheism ("not believing in the gods of the state" - that phrase has something positively 1984esque to me), and Plato suggested a perfect abstract being emanating lower gods (this entered early Christendom as part of gnosticism, where the god of the Old Testament is one of the lower gods, and Jesus is send by the original perfect being to reclaim the splinters of it that formed the souls of some humans). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

completely not answering: did they equate the points of light with the Gods? like, for weekdays obviously "NO"

You guys are completely not answering whether the Greeks equated the points of light with the Gods. (OP here). The linked WP article says that the days of the week were NAMED AFTER the Gods. Nobody thinks saturday (latinate form) actually IS the God Saturn. So as for the Planet SATURN did they look at it and say "Look, there's the God Saturn!", in a way they would not point to a calendar and say "Look, there's the God Saturn!" pointing at Saturday. Or, was it exactly the same as Saturday: Look, there's the point of light called Saturn!! (And not "Look, there's the God Saturn!"). WHich was it? "Named after" or "Look, there's the God!" 188.6.83.253 (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Mr 98 precisely answered. If you are expecting somebody to give you a simple "yes" or "no", then you will not be satisfied. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. 98 did not so much as HINT at whether the planets were considered TO BE the God's (by ANYONE, even a single adult). Obviously NOT ONE SINGLE ADULT IN ANTIQUITY CONSIDERED ANY WEEKDAY TO ACTUALLY BE THE GOD UNDER QUESTION.

Let me do it line by line: "1. There isn't one classical Greek understanding of the planets." -- okay. Did anyone consider the planet to BE a God?

"There were lots of different ideas about them floating about." Any evidence that ANY of these views is that the God is himself/herself the planet in the sky?

"It's hard today to say which was most popular at the time because we don't have tons of sources on that. But one shouldn't necessarily search for one "classical Greek" model — there isn't one." Not popularity question. Did ANYONE consider the bright 'star' e.g. Jupiter to BE the God himself?

"The reason the names of the planets in English are based on Roman rather than Greek gods is because the Romans picked up the Greek system and renamed it, and they were, on account of their empire-building efforts, fairly influential." Here you hint at: "the reason the NAMES of the Planets". So are you saying that we are talking about stars that were NAMED AFTER Gods, as opposed to having (by anyone at all) being formerly considered to BE Gods?

" You seem to be thinking of this is strictly mythological terms, but this is fairly misleading. Their astronomical and philosophical discourse on the cosmos was a lot more sophisticated than thinking they were literal gods or anything like that." So NOBODY at ANY point thought that they were Literal Gods? (Like they see the bright Saturn in the night sky and think that it is literally the God Saturn in the night sky. I'm not asking about sophisitcated understanding, but rather the man in the street - or rather ANYONE AT ALL.

"There is also astrology, though, which was not distinct from astronomy until relatively recently. Hope that helps. Again, the Greek astronomy article is useful both in describing the various currents of thought, but also making it clear that you're talking about literally centuries of highly sophisticated thinking when you say "ancient Greek understanding" — and unsurprisingly there is a lot of variety there."

Fine. Astrology developed into astronomy. In the past 2000+ years that Saturn has been named after a God, did anyone in any culture think that they saw Saturn-the-God when they looked at Saturn?

To make an example. Obviously no one at any point said: "Every seventh day Saturn turns from his usual shape into the shape of a day. That's why you can never see Saturn on the night sky on a Saturday." because nobody EVER thought that Saturday was literally a God, Saturn. Everyone always knew it was a question of naming. Now, as for the PLANE T Saturn, did anyone ever think it was LITERALLY the God Saturn, and if you saw him up there ,he couldn't be anywhere else?

I'm asking about the time since the planet has been called Saturn. Not asking about ancient egypt or mesopotamia or whatever.

my question is super-simple and you are not addressing it in the slightest.

my question is literally as simple as the question "We TALK ABOUT the sun moving across the sky - but did anyone ever think the Sun moves across the sky? Until it dips under the horizon in the west, whereupon it changes direction, travels all the way to the east under us during nighttime, - west to east - and reaching the eastern edge of the world rises up, changing direction again, and once more goes east to west?" The answer to that question is, Yes, yes some people used to think that, even adults.

I don't care if it's a few people.

Did anyone ever think "That bright point is Saturn, the God himself. If you can see it, that's where he is at the moment." Super-simple question here. I don't care how many people thought that way, I'm asking if anyone did. (Just like the question "every seventh day the God saturn turns into the form of a day, and can't be in any other shape for the duration of Saturday, since he's a day" has the answer No, not one adult ever thought that, maybe a confused five year old.--188.6.83.253 (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. People think all sorts of things even now, but without extant sources it is all just hypothetical. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a shame nobody has deciphered ancient Greek or Latin. Like some runic mystery, perhaps the world will never know what those people thought or wrote. --188.6.83.253 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was made quite clear to you above that none of the extant sources contain any specific evidence of that kind. By the way, good work on the arrogant attitude, I am sure it has made all the ref deskers eager to answer all your questions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking, "are there any writings preserved of Latin/Greek scholars which indicate that any of them believed that literally the planet called Jupiter/Zeus was indeed the same as the god Jupiter/Zeus?", the answer, so far I know, is "no." (I could be wrong — I'm no expert on ancient history. But this was certainly not the common view and the vast output of ancient astronomical writings did not believe in this.) They didn't believe they were the planets. At their most literal, the believed the planets were sacred to these gods (which is similar to the days of the week issue). But not that they were the gods. See also Planet#Mythology_and_naming which describes how the naming system of the Greeks is actually borrowed from earlier cultures as well. Now it's a very different situation between the planets and the sun/moon, for example, which had more literal mythological importance. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The practice of naming planets after gods was actually borrowed by the Greeks from the Mesopotamian civilizations and ultimately from Sumer. For example, Venus was known as Ishtar in Babylon. The planets were associated with these gods and perhaps considered sacred to them, not identified with them. Marco polo (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THank you for taking the time to read my frustration, sorry for the tone, and thanks for finally answering the question. I would have liked it to be a bit more broad than what the scholars thought, i.e. if anything points to the population thought, but I will take this answer. Thank you. 188.6.83.253 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The is a source limitation for talking about the opinions of those other than scholars — they weren't carving Gallup polls into tablets. (I'm a historian of much later periods, so I consider 99% of what we claim to know about ancient Greece to be probably nonsense and based on the sheerest of evidence, but that's just me.) The odds are that over those centuries there were no doubt a few people who thought they were literal something or another (there are probably people TODAY who believe the planets are gods of some sort, just because people believe nearly everything imaginable), but again, I don't know that we have any evidence of that. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but everyone knows what the planets look like - we have closeups from probes that landed. back then, they were shiny points of light ONLY at night when the sun reflected them, much bigger than stars and not simmerinjg. Calling THAT jupiter is much different from calling what everyone knows is a big round planet jupiter... so thats why i wondered if it was a namesake or a personification. Don't be silly: not one person on Earth believes that any planet is LITERALLY its namesake God, just as literally not one person on Earth believes that every 7 days, Saturn takes on the form of 1440 minutes. as for whether astrologically saturday has significance associated with saturn, that's an entirely different question. but we all know that it's just a namesake thing, not literaly a god. everyone knows that about planets (that they aren't LITERALLY the namesake God in specific; not "a god" but Jupiter in specific, i.e. the deity himself.) I guess I got a pretty conclusive answer however that nobody believed this in the past either. 94.27.164.10 (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who deny that the closeup photos are even real, so I don't know if you can make sweeping claims about what "everyone" believes today. There are some people who think the Earth is flat, despite a rather large body of evidence to the contrary. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can deny the photos, deny the Earth is real, but anyone who thinks these planets exists has been used to them being called 'planets' since Birth, and in no culture is Saturn personified anymore in current usage. Sorry, not one person calls the planets the individual Gods they're named after. This makes sense if you think about it, since Greek mythology has such little pop culture currency that you pretty much have to be literate to know who Saturn even *IS* and by that time you are thoroughly in our own culture of planets with fixed orbits, and absolutely no mention of them turning into the form of a...a nd coming down to Earth, disappearing from their orbits for the day. You will not find one person on Earth who is not a child and thinks that Mars the Planet is a God: the God of war, taking on the form of a planet. You can Google all day long, you might find people who think Mars is a God, but nobody who thinks that Mars is "mars" (ares). 188.157.21.8 (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bet they didn't think of talking about the planets as Gods. If you write to them, you can get at least some people to SAY they think so. You can get them to say that NASA is sending probes to this or that God, and how does the God of War feel about us landing on Him? If they are very committed to this fake movement, maybe 10 years from now one will have a 5 year old child who actually believes this, not realizing that her daddy doesn't believe any of the BS he's spouting. But I'm 100% sure that at the moment, it hasn't occurred to them that NASA is sending the God of war anal probes, and maybe that's why we've had so much war in the past ten years. Write them, they'll eat this stuff up. (correlate American Mars probe with American wars). 188.6.83.253 (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]