Miscellaneous desk
< February 7	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 8[edit]

Early transgender[edit]

Odd question but prior to the 20th century which is the earliest known human society which did not treat transgendered individuals in a negative manner? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll have to clarify the question. "Society" is a mixture of people with a mixture of attitudes -- do you mean the majority or a significant minority? And what do you mean by transgendered? Do eunuchs count? Men who dress in women's clothing? Women who disguise themselves as men? Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look up berdache and shaman. There are plenty of prehistoric neolithic siberian and native new world societies that treated people living as the opposite gender matter-of-factly or even as magical.

For example, Transvestite Shamans among the Chukchi. There are also accounts among the Paleo-Siberian peoples by Russian explorers of people who "changed sex" after what was often described as "an illness" during puberty and took up living as the opposite gender with a companion of the same biological sex whether they were shamans or not. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify on some points,I meant a society where transgender were not seen treated negatively by the majority culture, and I do mean opposite gender mannerisms and clothing choice as opposed to mere lack of gender specific charcteristics. Also for clarifcation I did mean FtM as well as MtF Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as society. There are men and women, and intersex people, and transgendered people, and very confused people, and there are families (paraphrase of Margaret Thatcher - original quote: [1]). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

If intersex people were to gather at an intersexion, would that be redundant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize Intersexuality is a medical condition? μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I wasn't born yesterday. Hence the small print in my previous comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small type usually indicates a joke, not acknowledgment of an often difficult medical condition. What's next, asking whether people with wooden legs squeak around at Cripple Creak? μηδείς (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is anti-semitic?[edit]

The day pages for each date has holidays and observances from Burundi, Somalia, Buddhism, Bahai, Scientology, etc. -- but NEVER lists Jewish holidays or observances.

I'm sure the editors can explain away their anti-semitism, and will jump thru many hoops claiming why ignoring one of the world's major religions is really my fault, not theirs --

really, this is what all that hoo-ha about Philip Roth was about, wasn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mover2100 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can explain away why an absence of some Jewish information automatically translates to "anti-semitism". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that your assertion is true, but, even assuming that it is, it hardly proves bias. Presumably there are many ethnic groups who have not yet been included, just because we haven't gotten to them. StuRat (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right -- Jews are so inconsequential you "haven't got around" to acknowledging their existence.

Could it be because most Jewish holidays don't happen on the same day every year? If you need to know the dates of Jewish holidays, you'll want Jewish and Israeli holidays 2000–2050. I don't think the most likely explanation is that Wikipedia is anti-semitic. It would be difficult to be anti-semitic with this many Jewish editors. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way the OP seems to be saying it, Easter wouldn't be there either. Nor would Thanksgiving. Nor would any holiday that's based on the solar calendar and/or a particular day of the week, rather than on a fixed month-and-day. ←Baseball Bugs

Exactly right -- but don't expect any anti-semite to even recognize this point

^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Jewish holidays announced on the Main page whenever they occur, so that would counter the OP's presumption of lack of coverage due to anti-semitism. I don't know what a "day page for each date" is, though. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I suspect the problem here is that Jewish holidays (as with many other religions) are on a different calendar to the widely-used Gregorian calendar, and thus tend to move around a bit when viewed on that calendar - for example Purim is on 24/Feb this year, but 16/Mar next year and 8/Mar last year. It thus wouldn't be particularly useful to list it on the general pages covering February 24, March 8 or March 16 - these pages are meant to list events specific to the day in that calendar. There are no specific articles for individual days of the Jewish calendar, but there are collected pages by month, eg/ Adar (which does indeed list Purim, and does not list any events not recorded in that specific calendar.

This problem is common to other religions, not just Judaism - August 7 does not list Eid al-Fitr, and March 27 does not list Holi, because these are not going to occur on the same Gregorian date each year. You mention Bahá'í, which is an interesting case - the Bahá'í calendar is synchronised to the Gregorian calendar, so events in it do map directly to individual Gregorian days and thus can be reliably listed. The Buddhist calendar is lunisolar, so I'm surprised to hear religious holidays are being listed - perhaps these are specific Gregorian dates used for celebrating Buddhist holidays in some countries? I haven't found an example in a quick poke around, so I;m not sure what's going on here.

Why are you "surprised"? Why don't you just go to the pages and see what's listed -- LOTS of observances that fall on different days of each year are listed, but NO JEWS ALLOWED. I mention BaHai because wikipedia tries to have a beneer of o-so-political correctness to list any holiday important to less than 1% of the world's population -- but one of the major religions gets IGNORED, and pointing this out just leads to idiotic attacks from those who appear o-so-defensive when they're finally called on their prejudices.

The reason for the relative prominence of Christian festivals and secular holidays (Burundi, Somalia, etc) is simply that these do run on the Gregorian system used for these articles, and so can reliably be linked to specific days. You'll notice, though, that some movable holidays (eg Easter, undeniably a major feast in Christianity) are not listed; it's only the ones with specific immovable dates.

Hope this helps explain things... Andrew Gray (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite confused by the OP's assertion that Wikipedia doesn't recognize Jewish Holidays. Rosh Hashanah was noted on the main page of Wikipedia on September 9 2010 September 29, 2011, and on September 17 2012. I've not looked back any farther, but you can also find many other Jewish holidays announced on the main page. Just for 2012, the main page recognized Purrim on March 8, Rosh Hoshanah as noted above, Yom Kippur on Sept. 26, Hanukkah on December 8, and at this point I think we've comprehensively disproven the OP's assertion that Jewish holidays are never recognized at Wikipedia. Any conclusion about Antisemitism drawn from such an assertion doesn't even need to be addressed as the basic premise, that as the OP said "NEVER" list Jewish holidays, is demonstratably false. If he's going to accuse Wikipedia of systematic antisemitism, he's going to need some other basis to hang it on. --Jayron32 23:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

above assertions are all DEMONSTRABLY FALSE by any who care to go to the pages in question -- while every and any CHRISTIAN or BIZARRE holiday is listed, you refuse to recognize Jewish holidays and observances -- THEY DO NOT APPEAR on the "On this day" pages -- altho other, lesser known holidays (Easter, Lunar New Year, Orthodox observances) which ALL FALL ON DIFFERENT DAYS from year to year DO APPEAR ON YOUR MAGICAL "ON THIS DAY" pages.

Maybe the OP wants every article from September 5 to October 5 to say "In some years the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashanah falls on this date". That would be silly, and many dates would get mention of multiple Jewish holidays which never fall on the same day. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the OP is just trolling. Take a look at the quality of the handful of edits he's posted in the last few years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHY IS WIKIPEDIA ANTI-SEMITIC by ignoring Jewish holidays and observances? You IGNORE them all, even the most important that butt their way into your white christian world view. When PURIM starts on February 23, IT IS IGNORED on the "On this day" events page for the 23rd & 24th ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_23 ) ROSH HASHANAH is IGNORED on the "On this day" page -- every unknown, mythical Christian saints day is mentioned but NO JEWISH HOLIDAYS OR OBSERVANCES are even mentioned on the days pages they fall on -- EASTER fall on different days each year, yet somehow this anti-semitic group is able to list it no matter that the VAST MAJORITY of the world cares NOTHING about EASTER BUNNIES -- and despite the foolish assertion above that it is ALSO not mentioned, to try and prove you're even handed in your prejudices -- but it IS THERE, on both the Western and the Orthodox days, despite the fact you won't go to the page on your own ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_8) Same with The Lunar New Year and all other orthodox calendar dates -- they all fall on different days of the Gregorian calendar, yet they still get listed -- but clearly NO JEWS ALLOWED reigns at your great experiment, because Jewish observances are NEVER listed on your "On this day" pages, despite the ignorant assertions that this fact is considered "demonstrably false" by your good, christian oriented editors

What are you talking about? Purim was on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 7 for 2012. It hasn't been updated for 2013 yet. Not only that, but Purim gets listed twice: once again on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 8: other religious holidays don't get that special treatment. This the same for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur as well. —howcheng {chat} 02:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sublicensing[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suppose a program's license prohibits modification, but allows sublicensing. Is it permissible to sublicense it under a license that does permit modification, and then modify it? Pokajanje|Talk 23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the license is well written, it will impose the same terms on sublicensing as are imposed by the original license. There is, of course, no guarantee that every license across the world is well written. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

assignatus utitur jure auctoris there are not many situations in life where I can use that phrase so I'm going to put it out there now, even if inappropriate :) ---- _nonsense ferret 02:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, here's the license I have in mind. It gives me the right to "without limitation...sublicense...the Font Software", which would seem to indicate I can sublicense it under a more permissive license. It doesn't appear to be very "well written", as you say. Pokajanje|Talk 02:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't give legal advice. If you want clarification on what the license allows, talk to your lawyer, or send an e-mail to the address in the license. RudolfRed (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what he said ^ but in general principle you can't give someone a better right than you have yourself. ---- _nonsense ferret 03:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The license you linked to says "The above copyright and trademark notices and this permission notice shall be included in all copies of one or more of the Font Software."...which means that your sublicense is required to contain all the terms and restrictions that you agreed to - so, no - you can't duck out of your responsibilities. SteveBaker (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...Oh, and BTW, the word "sublicense" means: "a license granted by a licensee to a third party, under the authority of the license originally granted by a licensor to the licensee". The whole meaning of sublicensing is that you're giving your licensee the same license that you were granted in the first place. What you're proposing to do is not "sublicense" but "relicense" - and you definitely haven't been granted the right to do that. SteveBaker (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The license requires that the permission notices appear with the software. It doesn't require that the software actually be under them. Pokajanje|Talk 16:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The permission notice is not centrally relevant to the question: inclusion of a disclaimer on the goods being passed does not without more modify the legal rights attaching to the underlying intellectual property.

The correct answer is as User:nonsenseferret said in Latin (which the OP does not seem to have understood) and what User:SteveBaker explained in a different way but in English immediately above: you cannot pass on rights which you do not have. As a licensee you only have the rights to the property granted to you by the licensor, and so the rights to the same property you grant to a sublicensee is limited to what was granted to you. Any purported grant in excess is not effective, just as it would not be effective if you tried to transfer a whole building to a buyer when you only own one floor of it.

In this case the relevant property is the intellectual property in the software. You were granted a licence that does not include a right to modify it, so the sublicence you grant cannot exceed the licence you hold. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - USLegal.com says: "Assignatus utitur jure auctoris is a legal maxim that is related to principals and agents. This means an assignee is clothed with the rights of his/her principal. An assignee when assigned with rights not only becomes entitled to the rights but to the actions at law by which the right can be enforced. In some cases such actions can be specially assigned."...in other words - no, our OP can't do this. (A very good thing IMHO!) SteveBaker (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What they said ^ there was also the phrase "nemo dat quod non habet" - nobody can give you something they don't have - which is highly appropriate but wasn't proper roman civil law, as it was just a made up phrase by english common lawyers ---- _nonsense ferret 18:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please do not ask for or post legal advice. i kan reed (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of legal concepts in the abstract is not offering legal advice. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed legal advice if it provides concrete instruction on what kinds of action are and are not legal. The format of this question is "is it legal to do x in circumstance y" and the wikimedia foundation could be found liable of providing misleading legal advice should anyone act on the answers given. That's why it's not allowed. i kan reed (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]