Humanities desk
< June 7	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 9 >

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.

June 8

Masha Gessen gay marriage

What are Masha Gessen's views on gay marriage?50.26.127.149 (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Masha Gessen? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am.50.26.127.149 (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of how to indent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 07:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(In a thread, it is customary to indent one space from the comment you are replying to.) StuRat (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] Given that the article on her clearly indicates that she has been married at least twice to other women, it would be reasonable to assume that she's in favour of it. You might try exploring some of the 55 references at the foot of the article, a number of which link to pieces written by her. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.208.38 (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And also of importance, what are her views on fox hunting? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus does she stuff beans up her nose and what are the effects? Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<small>Why does she look so miserable in the main pic in our article on her?</small> Eliyohub (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though initially displayed small by the commenter, @Eliyohub:, I'm treating this as a legitimate query about the WP Page Masha Gessen and replying where it's dealt with, at Talk:Masha Gessen#Photo for infobox. Because this is what we do here in creating a free online encyclopedia. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that being in favor or opposed isn't the only possible aspect to a stand on gay marriage. Other issues include whether such a marriage is considered equal in all ways to a traditional marriage, such as for tax purposes, adoption, and, in the US, so they don't have to testify against their spouse in court. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The legal aspects are precisely the point of pushing for same-sex marriage. Couples with a willing minister have always been able to get married. But it had no legal status. Until now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I'm asking,guys, is because I remember reading somewhere that she said something about gay marriage being some sort of lie, but I don't remember where it was.50.26.127.149 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a Google search by typing 'Masha Gessen gay marriage a lie' into the search box of your browser you get for instance [1]. You can see how easy it is to do simple searches like that. Dmcq (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, such searches are excellent for confirmation bias. The first few sources uncovered by your search are all right-wing stone-age-morality platforms which very much use quote-mining and unjustified generalisations to present a very particular narrative of the event that is only tenuously connected to reality. Googling for information on politically sensitive topics is a bit like using a Santoku knife - both are excellent tools, but if you don't know what you are doing, you can easily cut off parts of the world that are probably important to you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in principle, but in practice I think this sort of advice will simply lead to people looking for sources they agree with rather than simply reading the first couple of returns. That will exacerbate the problem. This is the sort of thing that probably needs a bit f training for in schools rather than that people will do it right because of some exhortation. Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced English

Which English news websites use difficult words?

Most Indian news websites general English, and I don't learn any new difficult word. There is also American English and British English. Which one to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.135.127 (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In India you are probably better off using the British sites - try the BBC or any of the serious newspapers like The Guardian or The Independent (which are free - The Times and The Telegraph charge for access). Wymspen (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I feel you need to learn the basics first. There are a number of errors in your post, which I will correct, in the hopes of teaching you some of these basics:

Most Indian news websites use general English, and I don't learn any new, difficult words. There is also American English and British English. Which one ~~to follow.~~ should I learn ?

StuRat (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an answer intended to help the OP improve their English, which appears to be their goal. The boxed material does not help the OP improve their English or help in any other way.

StuRat (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Some more complex words Stu has inadvertently taught the OP include "patronizing", "condescending", "supercilious". A good start.--Jayron 32 20:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just try and correct StuRat's own errors and see how far you get. Add "hypocrisy" to the list. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

There's a difference between not knowing the recommended grammar and choosing to use alternate grammar. StuRat (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It will do more to improve the OP's English to learn the basics than to learn big words. If anything, using big words when you don't know the basics makes you look worse. StuRat (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks yon lean and hungry Rat protesteth too much (to mix my "Shakespearean" allusions). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I would say that Calvin and Hobbes utilizes a larger vocabulary than any newspapers. 107.179.230.142 (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When trying to learn another language I like to look at children's books and TV shows. They use simple words but they are careful and precise about how they use them, so they are easy to understand and learn from. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For learning English, I suggest country music. It is slower and easier to sing along with. I personally hate country music, but it has been very helpful for coworkers from India and China. They not only learn words, they also learn the natural pattern of native English speaking. It isn't my idea. A doctor I work with said he got it from Jackie Chan. Now, he sounds like he's from Texas, not India. I personally think he purposely tries to sound like that. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LyricsTraining.com is a free website with recordings and lyrics of popular songs for learning English and other languages. It's quite a challenge and rewards your study. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for varieties of the language, see Comparison of American and British English. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward the Exile

The article states: "This turn of events left the throne of England to be disputed by Earl Harold and Duke William, ultimately leading to the Norman Conquest of England." — But what about the role of Harald Hardrada? If I'm correctly informed, he was the third rival contesting the throne and was defeated by Harold. Shouldn't he then be mentioned, too? What do the experts say? (I'm German and do not have that sound knowledge about English history) Greetings--Erdic (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simplification in a short article which is primarily about something else. If you read the full article - Norman Conquest of England - you will find it is described in the appropriate level of detail. Wymspen (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Wymspen, we can't reproduce the entire narrative on every single article that is related to it. Hardrada's claim to the throne was distinct and different from that of William and Godwinson's dispute, which is more central to Edward's narrative. --Jayron 32 20:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, I understand that, of course. I just still found it a bit too simplistic, if you ask me. I might just add a qualification like "among other things". I guess that should be a practicable compromise. Best--Erdic (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]