Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 January 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< January 21 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 23 >
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.


January 22[edit]

Autobiographies[edit]

What are some autobiographies you have read that are under 300 pages? Grsz11 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Something of Myself, by Rudyard Kipling. DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
My Life and Hard Times by James Thurber (128 pages in the Harper Perennial Modern Classics edition).
Persepolis and Persepolis 2 by Marjane Satrapi. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Fredrick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. It was a delight: good book. Oh, and I second Sluzzelin's recommendation for James Thurber above; that's quite an entertaining read. Antandrus (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Viktor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning, while not a full autobiography, is certainly autobiographical in nature, and is somewhat less than 300 pages. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
That's a superb book; in fact, the autobiographical portion of it (just the first half) is only 94 pages in my edition. Antandrus (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin - Rmhermen (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Erwin Schrödinger's My View of the World (Ox Bow Press, 1983) ISBN 0918024307) is titled My Life, My View of the World in the German original. It is quite short and without chronological order. Schrödinger uses brief and distanced reports on his life as points of departure into philosophical excursions. Killing Time, My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla, A Liar's Autobiography ... ---Sluzzelin talk 09:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Black Boy by Richard Wright. Friedrich Nietzsche's Ecce Homo. Primo Levi's The Periodic Table (combined autobiography and science writing, with a little fiction, hugely critically adored, and all in 224 pages). Harry Crews's A Childhood is focused on his early life, but under 200 pages. Slightly more dubious The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas (it's actually an autobiography of Gertrude Stein). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Ak! the Periodic Table was my first pick. A Season in Hell by Rimbaud is taught enough. On the Road, an autobiographical novel, at 320 pp, is almost there. Five years of waiting is journalled in Zen in the Art of Archery at 107 pp. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
My Early Life by Winston S. Churchill, an autobiography of his first 25 or so years and his most entertaining & readable book. In the U.S.A. it was published as 'A Roving Commission'. AllanHainey (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Goodbye to All That by Robert Graves is slightly under 300 pages in the Penguin edition. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Fun Home by Alison Bechdel. BTW bear in mind that some books purporting to be autobiographies have benefitted from a ghost writer. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Aerated autoclaved concrete[edit]

Does anyone know if Aerated autoclaved concrete is patented?--Elatanatari (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It may not be. But at least one method of manufacturing it is. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The German WP states that it was patented in 1924, presumably by Axel Erikson, who developed the process. Unfortunately, there is no reference. The Swedish WP has an article on him[1] which does not (according to my minimal Swedish) seem to mention a patent. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
did you post this on the sci desk as well? Julia Rossi (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Wish I could read Wikipedia in all those languages. I can only do French and English.Elatanatari (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
No I posted a different question on Aerated autoclaved concrete.Elatanatari (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
sorry elanatari, I just realised that this morning. Julia Rossi (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does Harwich have a much bigger article than Hook of Holland?[edit]

After all, they're about the same size and are both the terminuses of a ferry service between them.--Bak Dat Up (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and just by chance, someone who was interested in Harwich took the time to add content. Go ahead and add more about Hook of Holland, making sure to follow WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Later! Ling.Nut (talkWP:3IAR) 09:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It's the other way round in the Dutch Wikipedia which as you would expect devotes much more space to the place in the Netherlands where they speak Dutch[2][3]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Awards for places serving unhealthy food?[edit]

Why all the awards? Like this by the BBC? Sure, it's local business but if you ate their food regularly it would be really bad for you.

After all, fish and chip shops serve very fattening, oily food. The fish in itself is good for you, but the batter sure isn't and same goes for the chips because they're deep fried, although they might be OK if oven grilled instead. Seriously, does no one consider trans fat issues here?

LOL, no wonder the UK is the third most obese country in the world after America and Mexico. There should definitely be an Obesity in the United Kingdom article. The only saving grace of Britain is the lack of high-fructose corn syrup.

I mean, seriously, look at these news reports. Fat. Fat.

Seriously, these people should get to the gym.--Bak Dat Up (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a serious question there or is this a case of soapboxing? Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the serious question is why are awards actually given to places which serve such obviously unhealthy food? It seems totally out of line with healthy eating initiatives.--Bak Dat Up (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware the BBC has a healthy eating initiative or that the government has annouced they are not allowed to broadcast anything that is not in line with the government's initiative. I'm not British though, so I may be wrong. Besides that, most initiatives don't ban unhealthy food completely, they just call for it to be heavily restriced. If you are going to eat fish and chips once a year, you'd probably prefer to eat high quality fish and chips, which also tends to be healthier then some of the junk you get from the lower end places anyway (actually indirectly healthier likely places a part in selection since a lot of people don't find extremely oily fish and chips nice) and also likely more expenvie so probably not the sort of stuff you'd want to eat every day anyway. Ultimately though, the reason why they do it is because it's something that interests their viewers (at least in their opinion). If you feel they should consider other factors, I'm pretty sure there is complaints process you can go through. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It's also worth considering that a lot of these awards, including the one in the article, are industry awards - corporate backscratching if you will. Nanonic (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple: Unhealthy diet is what makes people fat or obese, not an individual meal. An award for quality is not an award for healthiness, it is an award for taste, or experience or whatever. The world of food doesn't revolve around healthiness, so unsurprisingly many awards are given to places that serve food that, if eaten for every meal and depending on exercise, might make you fat. People are a bit lazy, they seek to blame an individual item for their obesity rather than accepting that it is their overall consumption (and their physical activities, and some genetics) that decide whether they will be obese. A meal of greasy chips, fried fish and chocolate for dessert won't make you fat of itself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok thats enough Fish and Chip-bashing! Ok so its (really) bad for you but is that really so bad? As a scot, I'm proud that fish and chips followed by a deep-fried mars bars is part of my national cuisine. Its called personal responsibility people! Do we really all have to be so horrified that not every one eats Tofu burgers and skinny Soy lattes? (ok rant over..)86.6.101.208 (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides, decent fish and chips will be cooked in beef dripping, rendering the concern about transfats rather alarmist. 79.66.79.21 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
As a seasoned old Brit I can tell you that fish and chips have been around much, much longer than the national obesity problem. Too much money, too little exercise, poor parenting and unscrupulous marketing have all contributed to the problem. Richard Avery (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

mansur hallaj[edit]

was mansur hallaj a shiite sufi or a sunni mystic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.253 (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

does the article Mansur Al-Hallaj help? Julia Rossi (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The wording of your question is a little odd, since Sufis are not typically Shi`ites... AnonMoos (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I would assume there's a missing comma between Shiite and Sufi. The lack of capitalization in the question is a clue that the poster probably doesn't bother with things like commas, either. StuRat (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The OP is from Pakistan, and may be unfamiliar with western methods of punctuation. Please let's not bite enquirers after knowledge. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any dialect of English that doesn't use commas in lists (some do and some don't use commas before the "or" or "and", but that's all). --Tango (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Many users of English as a second or third language find our usage of punctuation difficult. DuncanHill (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Many users of English as a first language find our usage of punctuation difficult. Not that it's conceptually difficult, but it's something that needs to be taught, or at least read about. If you've never been taught it ... well, the results our language education systems speak for themselves. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's time people re-read the punctuation-nonchalant Gertrude Stein. Julia Rossi (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Going back to the originally inquiry, Mansur Al-Hallaj is a teacher of Sufiism. Livewireo (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
He was a Sunni but it would be a mistake to characterize him as such. His mystic ideas place him in an altogether different genre then Sunni/Shiite altogether. Anyway the differences between Shiite and Sunnis were not sharp in his period.--Shahab (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

obama's staff or advisers[edit]

where can I e-mail any of obama's staff or advisers? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought it would be very difficult to contact individuals, but to "send questions, comments, concerns, or well-wishes to the President or his staff" go here. Cycle~ (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Prosecuting hate crimes against women[edit]

This cleric in Australia [4] apparently said that a) women should be forced to have sex - ie. raped by their husbands if the man wishes and b) women should be beaten (for "disobedience"). I'm sure that there have been prosecutions (eg: in the EU) for hate crimes due to racism, that is - instigating violence against groups due to their ethnic/racial background (please correct me if I'm wrong there). My question is: Would it be possible to prosecute this man for hate crimes against women (in Australia/NZ, or also EU or USA/Canada), as surely he is publically calling for physical violence against a group? (PS: This is not legal advise, just curious as to the extent of legal possibilities in cases of misogyny, esp. in above-mentioned areas of the world). Thanks --AlexSuricata (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In the United States, abstract theoretical statements, which are not a direct incitement to commit a crime in a specific concrete situation, cannot be prosecuted under prevailing interpretations of the first amendment to the U.S. constitution. Some other countries have hate speech laws, and it would depend on the specifics of the laws in each country... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe the UK has new laws against such hate speech, as do several other EU nations. In the UK case, these laws were a response to Muslim radicals demonstrating with placards calling for the murder of "infidels". StuRat (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Rape is not necessarily a hate crime. There are laws in the UK against rape and violence. A rape charge is very difficult to prove though if they are not separated from the husband and domestic violence has to be quite grave for police to bother about it. Dmcq (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The substance of the OP's question seems to boil down to whether misogynistic encouragment to rape is hate speech (more than whether rape is a hate crime as such)... See also Spousal rape. -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. It certainly sounds like incitement to rape, but you can rape your wife without hating women. --Tango (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The man appears to be an utter shit, and preaching something quite unlike any form of Islam I have personally encountered. Why give him any more publicity? DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, since you asked, even though it's probably a rhetorical question -- personally, I like to be aware of utter shits, and I prefer to point out their utter shittiness on the principle that we should speak out against things we find to be evil. I don't think it does any good to just ignore people like him, because that is so often taken as silent acceptance. One reason why bigots always do so well is that people often don't call them on their crap, and that makes people who listen to them think that since no one is objecting, these guys must be on to something. Which is stupid, of course, but then again, it's not like reasonable people are the group most susceptible to this sort of thinking... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's a fair point, and on the whole I would tend to agree with it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Consensus (and lack of it) has to be expressed to send a message. Negative attention can be a form of education, a reality check for someone like that. It also gives courage to those around him who might silently disagree. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What is this double standard bullshit. In Great Britain, it is impossible for a Husband to rape his Wife because "But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract." And this is TRUE until 1991. Just because some stupid head of some stupid mosque of some stupid religion is behind the times is no reason NOT to cut him some slack. Read Spousal rape. And how far behind the times is he? 100 years? 200 years? NO! He is only 18 years behind the times. Slack man! Cut him some slack! 202.147.44.84 (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And? 18 years is too late. Chop. He's making these pronouncements against a background of social change. Those laws pioneered that change so that it's too bad about history because they're in effect now due to some kind of prevailing concensus. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope legislation reflects social change more often than "pioneer"ing it. —Tamfang (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, this whole thread reads rather more like a load of soapboxing than it does any legitimate question. I don't accept "how is he able to get away with this?" as anything more than rhetoric to garnish a rant. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whom you're quoting with "how is he able to get away with this?", but Alex's question was "Would it be possible to prosecute this man for hate crimes against women (in Australia/NZ, or also EU or USA/Canada), as surely he is publically calling for physical violence against a group?" I see it as a legitimate question, though difficult to answer without specific legal knowledge. What we can always try to do in these cases is refer to similar cases, motions, precedence, legal discussions etc. It might not answer the question in an absolute and binary way, but it certainly helps him understand this legal question and its ramifications.
Once again, the question should not be blamed for subsequent personal opinions, expressions of moral judgment and meta-discussions (such as my post now). Initially, a couple of people distinguished hate crime from hate speech, and tried to address the substance of the actual question, maybe someone else will add some more relevant info. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

First Regius Professor of Greek (Oxford)[edit]

The source I followed in expanding the article says it was Nicholas Harp(e)sfield (1519-1575). (In agreement with: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]) But several sources repeat that it was his elder brother John.[12][13][14][15][16][17] Can anyone trace, assess, or dismiss the claim that it was John? Also, is the spelling Harpesfeild more correct or authoritatively attested? Wareh (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything specific on this person, but it should be noted that standardized spelling is a relatively new addition to the English Langauge. While doing some research on the article on Plymouth Colony, 17th century writings, even by the same author showed wide variations in spelling. Most people just spelled things fonetikalee. Even with personal names, (for example Myles vs. Miles Standish) and even with the person using it themselves in their own writings there was variation. So your best option is to pick a spelling that seems well represented and stick to it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is generally reliable, and should have a fair idea of who held positions at Oxford. They state that John Harpsfield (standardising to this spelling, in line with most of the works they cite) was the first Regius Professor of Greek. During the same period, according to the ODNB, Nicholas was the principal of White Hall in the city. Warofdreams talk 12:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the sources for Nicholas are learned or internal works on Oxford, too, which one would expect to be able to rely upon. Thanks for the pointer to ODNB; I now realize I have online access to it (John, Nicholas). Unfortunately, the crucial sentence ("Harpsfield became Oxford's first regius professor of Greek, and lectured there from 1541 to about 1545.") is fishy: the Regius Professorship by all accounts was established in 1546. A glance at ODNB's sources shows that this could well be an error inherited from R.W. Chambers' 1929 biographical essay (in my list above[18] and widely available in libraries). I may look up Chambers and see what source, if any, he cites, but I'm skeptical. Could Nicholas' greater notoriety as a Catholic controversialist have aided the confusion? (Yes, I agree we can pretty much set aside the spelling issue.) Wareh (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
A word of caution: the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is usually reliable, but I shouldn't call it generally reliable, as it has a well-deserved reputation for being much less meticulously sourced (and proof-read by authors) than the old DNB. Frankly, the ODNB has a lot of mistakes in it, including some 'schoolboy howlers', and I am cautious of relying on it alone. Later, I'll check the standard history of the University for you, which is more reliable, but I have a meeting now. Xn4 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I tracked down the EETS edition (#186, 1932, repr. 1963) of Chambers' life of Nicholas. He points out that Anthony Wood's brief account in Athenae Oxonienses (1691) was the basis for "various other biographies, which for the most part merely repeat Wood's facts." Wood states that Nicholas was appointed Regius Prof. of Greek in 1546, but Chambers considers this a mistake (pp. clxxviii-clxxx). His reasoning seems pretty sound:

  • "Unless his scribes have done him very great wrong, it does not seem as if Nicholas had any very exhaustive knowledge of Greek." But John's translation of Simplicius' commentary on Arist. Phys. I was dedicated to Henry VIII, and when imprisoned (as ODNB mentions) it was he who appealed to humanists with letters in Greek.
  • T.F. Kirby's roll of Winchester Scholars is the one source Chambers found for John as Reg.Prof. This information independent of Wood "was probably depending upon one of the MS. books preserved at Winchester College." And indeed Chambers reports information from the archivist, who confirms the MS. has Joh.s Harpisfield as Graecae Linguae Profess. Regius. And confrimation "beyond doubt" comes from further information in the archives of Westminster Abbey, which not only has John as "reder of Greke" for 1542-43 and 1543-44 in an account of the ten Regius Professors (Divinity, Law, Medicine, Greek, and Hebrew, in both universities) whose payment was in the charge of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, but even proves that all the Regius Professorships date back to 1541 (not 1546 as commonly supposed).

I'll make the necessary corrections and citations at Regius Professor of Greek (Oxford), but I'm sure the corrections need to go in the other articles on the original ten Regius Professorships. Obviously, I was very hasty to speak of Chamber as a source of "inherited error" above. Wareh (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. In fact, it seemed eight of the articles on the original Regius professorships had accurate information about the chairs' existence prior to 1546. I corrected the Oxford Greek article and Regius Professor of Medicine (Oxford), so as far as I know the basic job I referred to is complete. Wareh (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
There clearly has been confusion on this point for a very long time, and perhaps we should say so in the article. To add to the confusion, the accounts of the newly reconstituted Christ Church for 1546 show payments to George Etheridge as Regius Professor of Greek. Xn4 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's discussed in Chambers (p. clxxx) and is taken into account in my latest revisions at Regius Professor of Greek (Oxford). Despite my evident great confusion above, I think if you look at Chambers' essay you'll see that it would be misleading to advise the reader that the basic facts are suspect. Of course, I won't be surprised if someone comes along and tries to reinsert the bogus factoid, but I'll watch out for that. As it turns out, ODNB was right in this case, on who and on when (the years 1541-1545 that I supposed "fishy" above). Chambers is really cogent on this, and OBNB relied on him. Wareh (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I see I wrote (with some footnotes, which you might like to look at) in Regius Professor of Civil Law (Oxford) "The exact date of the chair's foundation is uncertain. Some sources say that John Story, the first professor, was appointed in about 1541, while others say the chair was founded in 1546. No foundation document survives, but in 1544 Robert Weston was recorded as acting as Story's deputy." And later "Payments to Story as professor of Civil Law are found in the accounts of the Treasurer of the Court of Augmentations for the periods Michaelmas 1546 to Michaelmas 1550", so it may be that those accounts might be able to throw some light on this matter. Xn4 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
"Others say"--but the only reference there is to the same 2005 Oxford news release that was cited in the two articles I've corrected. I put no stock in it at all, and, quite frankly, I'd be plenty comfortable deleting while others say the chair was founded in 1546.<ref name=news/> at Regius Professor of Civil Law (Oxford) (the news office doesn't deserve to be mentioned alongside real historical sources and scholarship), but I'll leave that up to you. Wareh (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
No doubt you're right. It would be good if formal statements by a great university could be given some credibility, but of course there's no contest between a press office and The History of the University of Oxford. I'll revise what's said there. I think I may have included it because I thought there were other sources quoting the later date, but I couldn't find them at the time. I'll look again. Xn4 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If your experience is like mine, you'll find no shortage of repetitions of the date in scholarly publications and university registers. But if you raise the bar to writers who show some awareness & consideration of the contrary evidence (which you've provided and cited in the article), the number of sources may suddenly shrink to zero. Thanks for your interest & good work on that article. Wareh (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use of Education Resources[edit]

There is a website[19] that hosted informative/speculative articles on counseling transgender people but the articles have been taken offline. I duplicated them on my own site[20] saying I would remove them if the copyright holder objected (a la Internet Archive). She did and I am in the process of removing them or making them fair use. However, I cannot find even a ballpark estimate of how much I can post. As I understand it, there are 4 factors of fair use:

  • Purpose (Commercial vs education) The purpose of my site and hers is entirely educational. Her materials were/are not for sale. I am not selling anything at all, although her client offers therapy services. My own purpose is to let others see what her client has to say, the same as hers.
  • Nature of the original Everything is factual, not creative at all.
  • Amount Of the original website, I was duplicating ~25%. But the duplication was in chunks of either an entire article or nothing.
  • Effect The material was presumably a catalyst to paying for the therapy. By hosting it again, I am, if anything, getting him more clients because the resources are not available elsewhere online. On the other hand, my website contains rebuttals to his therapy in general and a few articles in particular. Does the law refer exclusively to the marketability of the content itself? Or does it also include markets that are directly related?

I know the law is purposefully vague. There must be many precedents that I can use to gauge myself. Also, is the legal burden of proof on myself or the copyright holder? Thanks! --Ephilei (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC) PS, Yes, I realize all comments are unofficial advice, not legal counsel.

You won't even get unofficial advice here - you need to ask a lawyer. --Tango (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
We really can't give you specific legal answers here, which is what analyzing your own situation and application of the factors would be. However if you are looking for precedents by which to make your own reasoning, check out the Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center. It has lots of brief descriptions of case law online (esp. here) and is probably the best overall site to consult when making determinations like this. As for burden of proof, it varies for each of the factors, but on the whole it is on the plaintiff (copyright holder). See Fair_use#Fair_use_as_a_defense. Lastly: if you are planning on making a fair use defense against someone you think has a more-than-zero chance of filing a lawsuit against you, get the advice of a qualified lawyer first. Lastly lastly: note that "educational" in a legal sense can be very strict—it can even preclude a lot of uses at educational institutions! Just a warning that legally even that phrase is problematic... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)