Humanities desk
< January 18	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	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.

January 19

Myth? Legend? Folklore?

An article in the journal Tennessee Anthropologist discusses Old Town (Franklin, Tennessee), and I'm using it to expand the article somewhat. The author notes that the location has long had "a central role in the 'mythological history' of Middle Tennessee". In the context, the author quotes local oral tradition about the site, written descriptions throughout the past couple of centuries, and sources that mention the site without studying it carefully. Since the topic is archaeology, not cultural anthropology, I'm not sure whether "myth" is best, or "legend", or "folklore", or something else — I'm trying to talk about the place this location holds in the minds of the locals; should I say that it's important in local legends or folklore, or important to local mythology, or something else? Part of the local story includes some of the old-style Mound Builders conceptions (thoroughly discredited decades ago), which seem rather superhumanish compared to the Indians whom the storytellers say supplanted them; however, it's not exactly foundational to local culture, or I'd use it without asking. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think "folklore" sounds the most neutral. StuRat (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or "oral tradition" - as long as nobody has written it down! Alansplodge (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which must not be discombulated with the "oral tradition" of the neighbouring state of Arkansas. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it has been written down, I'd call it "oral tradition" if it still propagates mostly orally. —Tamfang (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Local lore" and "local tradition" are rather neutral phrases I sometimes use for this kind of thing. "Oral" is sometimes not quite accurate. —Kevin Myers 11:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture discombobulation assistance needed

Nevermind. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am attempting to sort out problems relating to two articles that have become problematic due to previous editors confusing the two. I have been attempting to fix it using authorative sources, with some success, but have hit a brick wall. It is my hope that "somebody" with more experience with Art / Sculpture sources could help with this.

Maman is the article that I am working on, the other is Spider (Bourgeois) — both by Louise Bourgeois. The fact that the sculptures tour regularly complicates things; (another complication is the fact that there is a 3rd similar traveling Bourgeois spider: [e.g.]). Currently, I am trying to nail down which permanent collections contain Maman. This shouldn't be too difficult, since there is only one steel casting and six bronze, however... Any assistance will be greatly appreciated, ~thanks, ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Company logos

Hod do rival businesses get away with using each others logos to compare prices, especially in retail, without infringing copyright or trademark laws? Clover345 (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is very jurisdiction-dependent - in some countries they can, in some they can't. See Comparative advertising. Tevildo (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guiding principle of much of trademark law is that what can be reasonably expected to cause confusion in the mind of the public is forbidden. This doesn't necessarily mean a blanket ban on using a competitor's trademarks... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, being specifically named in the "leading competitor" spot, rather than generically, can be beneficial. It's not only publicity on the enemy's dime, but an acknowledgment of Company B as a threat worthy of attacking. Whether it's Coke vs Pepsi, Burger King vs McDonalds, Mac vs PC, Democrat vs Republican, Nintendo vs Sega, Ali vs Frazier or mayonnaise vs Miracle Whip, a good feud sells more for both brands than either could sell alone, while leaving the "third-best" brand and behind in the dark.

AnonMoos and Tevildo are also right. Trademarks are filed for certain uses only. Others are only restricted from using the words or images in that same context. So while Coke can't label their cans with a Pepsi logo, fair use includes use for criticism and commentary. I'm certainly no lawyer, but I'd bet that's often invoked (and also dismissed). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this sits with UK law, but in TV adverts the 'big four' supermarkets use their rivals colours in comparative advertising making it quite clear who the rivals are without showing their logos. For example, see this from Asda comparing themselves with Morrisons (yellow), Tesco (blue) and Sainsbury (orange). Astronaut (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shas becoming pro-settlement party

When did Shas become a pro-settlement party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.66.66 (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their website (linked from our Shas article) mentions it in their 'Statement of Principles' (מסמך עקרונות); in the 'Devloping country' section (פיתוח הארץ). But when that was adopted is not specified. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew phrase pituakh haarets means "the development of the Land", where haarets without further specification generally refers to the holy land or land of Israel. It does not mean "developing country" in the ordinary sense of that English phrase... AnonMoos (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For context, in part from section, the statement talks about the "perifery" (הפריפריה); beginning with... (Google translation):

Shas supports the development of all parts of the Land of Israel: Judea and Samaria, Galilee and Negev Development. Shas will thus be promoting the following topics: Continued development of settlements in Judea and Samaria under the decisions of the Knesset and the government. Development of the Negev and Galilee to strengthen the periphery ...

(My knowledge of Hebrew is minimal; and am relying on Google translation) ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know quite a bit about Hebrew grammar, etymology, and historical linguistics, but my ability to read long passages of Hebrew text without intensively consulting a dictionary is very limited. The passage from the current Shas platform seems unlikely to provide the answer to the particular historical question you're interested in, so I don't see any real reason to try to get to grips with it. Why not try searching through Jewish Telegraphic Agency archives, or other similar relevant on-line newspaper/magazine archives? -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]