Humanities desk
< July 18	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

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.

July 19[edit]

Fantasy[edit]

Out of Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Narnia, the J. R. R. Tolkien series, and The Legend of Zelda, which is the order of popularity? 124.176.160.46 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are you defining "popularity"? Total sales of all media types over all time with no intention of trying to correlate unique sales? My guess is that removes Narnia and Zelda right out and leaves you just with Potter and Tolkien. I'd probably guess Potter, because (hot) movie sales usually make book sales look like small time affairs, even over time for "classics". If we went with "sales by people who are still alive" I'd probably put Potter on top for sure, inferior product though it may be, but I don't have numbers to back it up. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This compares searches on google for the terms:http://google.com/trends?q=tolkien%2C+narnia%2C+lord+of+the+rings%2C+zelda%2C+harry+potter%2C+hobbit

As you can see 'harry potter' beats everything, zelda is next; but narnia show an increase in popularity (probably due to the films?), tolkien is last..87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that pre 2004 tolkien was very popular in searches, this no doubt is due to the films.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of book sales see List of best-selling books giving the lord of the rings and the hobbit 150 and 100 million sales respectively. The harry potter series gets ~400million, narnia comes in at a respectable 120million.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling vs. Porn[edit]

Professional Wrestling totally grosses me out in the sense that it appears to be nothing less than gratuitous violence for the sake of entertainment. I can't help drawing an analogy to pornography which can be described in similar terms: gratuitous for the sake of entertainment. Why then is the public at large, not to mention the nanny authorities, so willing to accept and freely broadcast Pro Wrestling, not the least during family hour ? Not wishing to argue the merits and demerits of Porn, I would expect our "nannies" to be far more opposed to Pro Wrestling - it can surely be no more healthy for society !--196.207.47.60 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even real gratuitous violence but fake gratuitous violence. The problem is one could dismiss almost all forms of entertainment as "gratuitous" in some way. For example: Motor Sport - gratuitous pollution of the planet in the hope of a big crash, or Pop Idol - gratuitous laughing at the ineptness of some of the candidates, and so on. Frankly, once people are rich enough to have free time, the vast majority will usually spend it doing something pointless rather than building schools or starting the revolution. Astronaut (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you explained where you're editing from. For instance, European sensibilities allow for explicit nudity and sex in entertainment media, while violence is strictly regulated. In the USA, however, violence in media is much more acceptable, while showing a single nipple for a split second on broadcast TV created an absolute uproar of indignation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that even in the UK violence is regarded as much less offensive, and is subject to less prohibition, than sex/nudity. It's not quite at the level of the nipplegate events, which seem completely bizarre to an outsider. But if you turn on the TV in the UK before 9pm it is quite possible to see people fighting or killing each other whereas you would almost never see nudity. The situation is probably different in the rest of Europe though. 86.15.141.111 (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About two years ago I saw an ad for a no holds barred wrestling match in my town while at Subway. I later found out the match had been canceled. I never found out why. This seems to prove that not all wrestling is tolerated. - Thanks, Hoshie 09:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic to the original question, but a match being cancelled for an unknown reason doesn't prove anything at all, except that a match was cancelled. --LarryMac | Talk 14:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a ton more people watch porn, and it is readily available via the internet despite age requirements for purchase in most countries may also be of influence. Also, basically all visual media kids are exposed to are saturated with violence. Why pick on wrestling? What about TV in general, cartoons, films, video games, comic books.... --Shaggorama (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get in NUS[edit]

YOU NEED TO PASS TOEFL TO GET IN NUS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.2 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which NUS? Astronaut (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP looks up to Singapore, my guess is on National University of Singapore. In answer to the question, have you looked at the NUS website. My guess from a quick look is it depends on what you're applying for, and what your previous qualifications are. For example, if your coming from Singapore applying for an undergraduate programme with the Cambridge A'level as your pre-u qualifications you may not. If your coming from Japan with no previous qualifications taken in English then probably. In any case, I suspect IELTS and perhaps other English language tests would be accepted in place of TOEFL. Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gun ownership[edit]

How many people in the US own guns and do not work for the United States government, local, state, or federal?
How many of those people carry in public? Mac Davis (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone will be along with the statistics in a moment, but I'll note that I've lived in the states for 25 years and never seen a person carrying a gun in public, with the exceptions of cops, gun shows, and rifles in the rear windows of pickup trucks. --Sean 76.182.119.200 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you know of... I have lived here my whole life of 30+ years and know several. Not trying to one up you, just pointing out that you probably just don't see them. Dismas|^(talk) 23:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what you probably want are information on concealed weapon statistics. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some states, concealed carry permits are very hard to get, but there is (or at least a few years ago was) no prohibition against carying a rifle, or wearing a pistol in an exposed holster like in the Wild West. Edison (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, it's common for city ordinances to prohibit things like that in many locations, meaning that if you leave the city limits, you're welcome to cowboy up if you like by the laws of the state, if you have a license for the weapon, but if you carry a gun within the city, cops are going to take a pretty hard look at you and possibly get you in trouble. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While a few of the largest cities (New York, Chicago, Denver, others?) ban open carry, I don't think nonconcealed carry is regulated in most cities -and sometimes state law preempts the restrictions (Nevada, Colorado except Denver, etc.). On the other hand some states entirely prohibit open carry. See more on this in Gun laws in the United States (by state). Rmhermen (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a great map on the Open carry article you might like. There's actual something of an movement going on in some places, which sorta scares me. bad things have already happened. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

drug crop areas[edit]

My (DK) atlas has miniature maps of land use for the countries, but none of them indicate land used for growing drug crops. This strikes me as somewhat inaccurate, because I would have thought major parts of Columbia and Afghanistan were given to cocaine and opium respectively. Do they leave this out for diplomatic reasons, or is it simply because it is unverifiable (as far as the actual areas of drug cropping are concerned)? Are there any atlases that mark drug cropping in land use patterns? thanks in advance, 203.221.127.240 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine any atlas would have separate colors for every crop that could be grown. There would be way too many colors. If it's a world atlas with one page per country, it probably just has a single color for all cropland. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there are different kinds of drug crops. You need to look for a much more specialist atlas or map to find this sort of information.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The maps (one per continent) indicate cropland by colour, and individual crops (or other land uses) by little icons. So a mini oil barrel for an oilfield, a cow for cattle farming etc. Columbia is mainly coca, Afghanistan opium, so I don't think there would be any problem with indicating this. The trouble is whether they don't because of a lack of specific information about the areas under cultivation, or so as not to offend the locals (my original question). Mapmaking can take diplomacy to the level of a sport at times. I'd still be curious if anyone out there has any info on this. Thanks again, 203.221.126.187 (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typically atlases may include maps of major crops for different countries, but these crops would be legally produced. As cocaine and heroine are not legally produced or exported, nor are they part of any nation's GDP, it is not surprising that their locations would not be found on a map. Kristamaranatha (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and a little tobacco leaf? Tobacco is the largest drug crop.--Wetman (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What were 5 challenges that Christopher Columbus faced?[edit]

What were 5 challenges that Christopher Columbus faced, including actual perils or even ones encountered by navigating several ships through strange waters? And how did he overcome them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.197.56 (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Columbus:

Did not have the internet available, so had to learn navigation via charts and instruments.
Failed to anticipate that so many people would not use his actual name.
Did not, for most of his voyage, have any idea of his longitude.
Cooked the books -- at least the one his crew saw.
Did his own homework.

OtherDave (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the cannibals, pirates, and sea beasts! And the general problem of moral degeneracy! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to "rum, sodomy and the lash"? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"How do I convince everyone including myself that this is China when it is so obviously not?" Adam Bishop (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Where's the bling?" -LambaJan (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Yo, yo, yo dawg. This ain't India—where's the muthaf'n curry and elephants?." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like homework. · AndonicO ^Engage. 11:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]