Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 20

Humanities desk
< May 19	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 21 >

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.

May 20

Translation

Can anybody help translate this? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Discendenza

Pipino I ed Ingeltrude ebbero quattro figli:

• Pipino II (823-864), re d'Aquitania
• Carlo (825-863), arcivescovo di Mayence dall'856.
• Berta (?-874), sposò nell'839 Gerardo di Rossiglione (?-841), conte di Parigi.
• un'altra figlia che sposò il conte Rotari di Limoges (?-841).

I don' t read Italian all that well, but it looks like it's describing the children of Pipin I and his wife Ingeltrude. Pipin II would be King of Aquitaine (re d'Aquitania); Let me check InterTran... OK, best I can get from InterTran and a bit of rewording gives:

Descendents

Pipin I and Ingeltrude had four children:

• Pipin II, king of Aquitaine
• Charles, Archbishop of Mayence (Mainz?!?)
• Bertha, Wife of Gerard di Rossiglione, count of Paris
• another child maried to count Rotari of Limoge

Hope that helps! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If not, try the Language desk. --Tango (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The sons are mentioned in Pepin I of Aquitaine. Yes, Mayence is the French (and formerly English) name of Mainz. Why it's not Magonza here...? —Tamfang (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, after all, Roussillon is given an Italian name pre-translation (Rossiglione) as is Paris. Well, the Italian Wikipedia may just not be consistant on this one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for a mathematical term name

hiiiiiiiiiii i know it is calculated on the basis of wpi and depent upon 435 comodities but i want the mathmatical term if any body klnow pls reply me as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatender singh (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Moved misplaced question to its own section and reformatted it. Sifaka ^talk 02:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You might try the mathematics desk. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP Is talking about the wholesale price index (="wpi") and commodity markets (="comodities"). So it's probably an economic not mathematical question.

Given that the wpi is not commonly used in most countries, I think the answer would be something regionally specific. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless, of course, one is discussing economics, in which case WPI is very, very commonly used.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking a question specific to India. India calculates Wholesale Price Index (wpi) based on a list of 435 commodities. Take a look through the articles Price index and List of price index formulas, and see if anything there helps you. --Zerozal (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The WPI is used to measure inflation, is that the word you are looking for? --Tango (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Bibles

What English translation of the Bible, if any, is favored by the Eastern Orthodox Church? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.215.248 (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This page has a pretty good explanation for why it doesn't really matter; but if one is to be preferred, apparently it is the KJV. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The website that Adam Bishop quotes is full of errors, and was clearly written by a very ill-informed person. For instance it says that the distinction between "thou" and "you" is that "thou" refers to God and "you" to other people, whereas of course the KJV is very consistent (much more so than some earlier writings such as Shakespeare) in using "thou/thee" for the singular, "ye/you" for the plural, whoever is being addressed. Also it maintains that the KJV omits the apocrypha. In fact of course the KJV includes the apocrypha, although admittedly editions of the KJV are often sold with the apocrypha omitted. I don't think the RSV is any different in this repsect. I was also surprised to see legend about 72 scholars producing identical versions still being promulgated as fact. Sorry for coming in late on this: I've only just noticed this discussion. --rossb (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I guess I should read more carefully. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The 1977 RSV edition was one of the first general English translations to include all the books that Eastern Orthodox consider to be canonical... AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheism, Evolution, Human Nature, and Capitalism (cont.)

I am continuing this from my last question.

By "good" or "evil", I mainly mean a natural tendency towards good or evil.

Are there any atheists or evolutionists who disagree with the belief and idea that humans are born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society?

I am asking you all this also because of another passage from The Battle For Truth:

This method of passing the buck-denying individual responsibility for individual actions-permeates virtually all non-Christian psychology.

IS THAT TRUE? I am also asking you all this because I've heard that Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was an atheist and humanist, claimed and believed that humans were born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society.

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As with your earlier version of the same question, the answer is obviously "yes", because you are asking "Are there any...", and as there are several hundreds of millions of atheists, we can safely say "Yes, there are some." There are plenty of atheists who think people are inherently selfish and evil. Also if you would trouble to read Jean-Jacques Rousseau, you'll see he was no atheist. The author is a troll. Tempshill (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This godless evilutionist, for example, is of the opinion that the question "Are people born good or evil?" is itself a sign of muddled concepts. —Tamfang (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the author is a troll. He does, however, use a set of talking and reasoning tools that are foreign to many users here at the refdesk. To the author: The question, as you put it, cannot be satisfactorily answered. People have asked you to elaborate, but you only offer a vague explanation ("a natural tendency towards good or evil" explains nothing - what is good? what is evil?) and a repost of the original question. I hardly believe you will get an answer. I would also like to disagree with the opinion you quoted from a book - namely, that non-Christians have no responsibility. If you saw the infamous Tom Cruise video, you would know that only a Scientologist will pull by when they see a car crash and help the people. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to catch something, I think you took Tempshill's reference to 'the author' to refer to Bowei Huang; I'm pretty sure Tempshill was talking to Bowei Huang and referring to 'the author of the book quoted'. 80.41.33.31 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. A bit poorly worded, yes. The first "author" is Huang, and the second is whoever wrote the book Huang quoted. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I never get the question "non-Christians have no responsibility" similarly "If you don't believe in god, what's stopping you...", as if the fear of god is the only thing keeping Christians back from killing, raping, stealing and preforming abortions, because in reality they really want to do those things. chandler ··· 08:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Or that we actually, as a society, rely on people to adhere to their stated morals. I mean, plenty of Christians commit crimes as well. We don't rely on religion to actually prevent things—that's what we have laws and civil order for. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bowei Huang you should take that book you are reading with a grain of salt. Or at least read some books with different viewpoints to balance it. From the two quotes you have provided it is clear that the author is making gross generalizations to further his own bias. His attempts at descriptions, of what he consider his opponents, does not really match any movements in real life (although they may by chance match a few individuals as Tempshill pointed out), but are tailored to suit his own system of beliefs. It is however commendable that you turn to the help desk to try and verify if reality fits with the claims in the book, it does show you have an independent mind and do not believe everything that you read. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I do think that there is a nature versus nurture aspect influencing whether people turn out as mainly helpful or not to others. Probably an assortment of different life attitudes are favoured by evolution. Being a psycho nutter who just uses others can be a way of getting to the top of a company and having lots of children for instance. I'm quite happy to classify such a person as evil, would he be actually born good or evil by the OPs standards? Then again such people drive others and much of modern society is due to evil corporate bosses and politicians, and personally I think good religious politicians seem overall to have worse outcomes for everyone than the self seeking exploiters. (godless evilutionist - I like that spelling - thanks Tamfang) Dmcq (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If it adds to your data set, I am a godless evolutionist who does not believe that people are inherently born good and then corrupted. I believe that humans are born as humans—creatures with tremendous capacity for malice as well as compassion and social organization. I certainly believe in a functional individual responsibility. (If a dog insists on biting people, do we worry if the dog is making the conscious choice? Not really—we take the steps necessary to protect ourselves, even if the dog "ultimately" lacks responsibility for its actions. The philosophical difference need not have any functional difference.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are people answering this question? It is identical to the last one, just with the addition of a definition for "good" and "evil" which uses the words "good" and "evil". We've answered this question already. --Tango (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that many athiests and evolutionists believe that humans are Social animal animals, and that our sense of right and wrong and our mostly "good" behavior is primarily a result of these instincts.

For instance, penguins live in reasonably civil tribes (colonies? Flocks?) and no one is suggesting that there are penguin cops enforcing the law, or a penguin Moses delivering the ten penguin commandments. APL (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Colonies, I think. --Tango (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a long history of opposing intuitions on this matter by non-theists. There's the Hobbesian concept of the state of nature being nasty, brutish and short then there's the idea exemplified by Rousseau where people by nature are good until society corrupts them (called the noble savage).

So yes, there are plenty of evolutionists who disagree with the idea that humans are born good. Plenty of modern psychologists (not to mention the anthropologists, sociologists, primatologists), who fully accept Darwinian evolution, would agree with the proposition that humans are neither good nor bad by virtue of their birth (which uses an antiquated idea of how nature vs. nurture works anyway). Read any number of books on violence in prehistory (notably, Lawrence Keeley's 'War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage') to find people who may or may not be atheist and who disagree with the noble savage concept. Further reading may want to include Pinker's "The Blank Slate".--droptone (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From the UK (and European) point of view, the bracketing together of "atheists and evolutionists" seems very odd. Most people in this country, including Christian believers, regard evolution as an accepted fact of biology, not in conflict with their religious belief, so much so that the word "evolutionist" is not really in use, and creationists are viewed as a bit weird. By the way on the main point of this article, there have been reports recently in the press that some moral sense may be present in various species of animals. --rossb (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Good" and "evil" under the scientific aspect of evolution?? Killing Baby Hitler ... "good" or "evil"? Crows cheat on other crows in hiding their food. "good" or "evil"? A lion kills all the offspring of his predecesser ... "good" or "evil"? A human does the same ... "g" or "e"? To my knowledge "good" and "evil" can not be defined in the terms of the natural sciences. Functionality in a certain environment, however, yes. --Grey Geezer 07:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Politicians and nudity

An odd question for sure, but one I can't help but ask. As I watched Arnold Schwarzenegger, I couldn't stop thinking about the man's nude scene(s) and pictures. My question: is any of you familiar with a higher ranking official who has appeared fully or partially nude before the public, whether in the US or abroad? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly what you had in mind, but there was an incident a few weeks ago in which a publicity-seeking artist hung nude paintings he had done of the Irish Prime Minister in a couple of art galleries. Of course, we have an article on it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cicciolina, maybe. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Louise Frevert. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jörn Donner. Our article doesn't mention it, but he did some pornographic movies, at least one of them under the name Björn Thunder. Most (but not all) of it was done with a pretty obvious artistic intent, and I don't think it has negatively affected his career, either as a member of the Finnish and European Parliament or as a nationally influential artist. Today, it's entirely a non-issue.

In general, finding Finnish politicians naked isn't that much of a feat, what with our sauna culture. This isn't universal, but in many circles making a big deal of someone being naked in the sauna would be extremely bad form. In fact, a very popular TV show called Hyvät herrat ("Respected Sirs", pretty much, but there's a double meaning, as "herra" not only means "sir" but also "master") featured them on a weekly basis at one point; the show was a political satire, in which a fictional influential captain of industry and his toadying son-in-law invited various real-life political figures to sauna with him so he could try his hand at manipulating them for his own benefit. This inevitably involved various degrees of nudity on part of the guests. And contrary to what you might think, there was no shortage of pretty high-level guests (it was not uncommon to see ministers on the show); it was a popular program, and even though it poked fun at the politicians in question, it also gave them a great chance to freely mouth off on whatever their agenda happened to be at the time to a guaranteed audience of voters that was actually interested in what they had to say -- surely a fairly irregular set of circumstances for most politicians. Parts of the show were shot on the same day it aired, so it was often extremely topical. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bob Rae, who used to be Premier of Ontario and was almost leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, went skinny dipping with Rick Mercer on the Rick Mercer Report. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous depictions of Jesus Christ, none of which show Him wearing a business suit. If He had been into product placement, Raphael (and a few more) would have made millions posthumously from the producers of desiger nappies and loin cloths. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would interpret "partially nude" to include wearing a bathing suit (obviously not a burqini, but the normal sort). Lots of politicians have beach or swimming pool photos in the public domain. Tony Blair got some flack for daring to bare his moobs, for example. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Glenda Jackson, British actor and member of Parliament, in Women in Love and The Music Lovers. RolandR 23:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a politician directly, but Carla Bruni, the First Lady of France, has been photographed nude (NSFW) more times than one could count... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And not for want of trying either?--Radh (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See also Chu Mei-feng. Matt Deres (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In ancient times atitudes were of course different. Even so it was striking when viewing the exhibition about the emperor Hadrian last year in the British Museum, to ses a statue, presumably officially sanctioned, showing him completely naked, especially given that Roman attitudes to nudity were not as liberal as those in Greece. But then he was being portrayed as a god, and gods were perhaps exempted from some of the rules of conventional dress that applied to humans. --rossb (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Monastery on top of rock pillars in Asia?

I was wondering, are there any other monasteries in Asia like the Meteora in Greece? I went through the list of monasteries in China, but just a few of them had pictures, an there were too many to read all of them. A friend of mine said there is one in South China, near the coastline on rock pillars. (The pillars being in the water, so the monastery is practically being on islands.) Thanks. PAStheLoD (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you do a Google / image search on "Tibetan monasteries" [1] you will find some great photos. Greetings from Vienna, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wudang Mountains in China is also one of those perched-in-an-impossible-part-of-a-mountain monasteries. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not on a pillar but part of a cliff—Paro Taktsang monastery in Bhutan. Ericoides (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone with a common surname be of Jewish descent?

I have a surname which is one of the top ten most common in America. My mother had a possibly Jewish first name which she changed to a more WASP one during WWII, before I was born. Somewhere around the same time my grandmother became a Methodist - I do not know what she was before. Looking back at the families geneological records, my great-grandparents and before had very unusual old-testament first names, such as Ezekial, although as far as I recall they all had not-unusual surnames. Like so many other things, I never asked my mother about this before she died. My other relatives died when I was a child. Would Ezekial have been a distinctively Jewish name in the 19th. century? Is there anything in what I have described that is inconsistant or consistant of being of Jewish descent? 89.242.109.25 (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Names like Ezekial, Zebidiah, Caleb, Nehemiah, etc. were quite common among protestants in rural america during the 1800's. When reading novels from this era and from the early 1900's, we frequently see the names (and derived nicknames such as Zeke or Zeb) used for characters who are backward or rustic. -Arch dude (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Puritans insisted on using only names found in the Bible - and since there weren't so many names in the New Testament, they had to resort to Old Testament names too. As a result, Old Testament names that sound rather Jewish to modern ears (like Abraham) were popular in 18th- and 19th-century America among non-Jews as well (like Abraham Lincoln). Surnames are a better indicator of Jewishness than first names, but still not ideal since Jewishness is passed through the mother's line and surnames through the father's. +Angr 10:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(P. S.: Samuel Fuller, the film director is an example for this puritanism.)--Radh (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. See Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barebone, aka Praise-God Barebone, and Increase Mather. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Some good comments above. Note also that surnames are a relatively recent innovation and Jews have been around a heck of a long time. Finally, many Jews in regimes were doled out surnames willy nilly by local officials; some were appropriate, commonly place names or professions, and in oppressive regimes, some were even jokes (one of my ancestors was a "Grossbard", ie "Big beard" - and that's quite tame, compared with some I've heard) --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am unhappy with the redirect at willy nilly. See Talk:Willy nilly. --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the only way to know for sure, is to trace your genealogy. -- role^player 11:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See Crypto-Judaism. There were Jews who passed in society as Christians, but secretly remained Jews.This was a survival technique which worked for hundreds of years. Someone changing a Jewish sounding first name to a more Anglo one during World War 2 sounds consistent with the practice. There was a story on National Public Radio (U.S.) about a young man who was serving in the Army, who noticed that the mess hall supplied Matzo at Passover. He commented that those were the kind of crackers his family ate around Easter. The Jews he was were intrugued and with asked some questions like, did they also have special rituals about lighting candles, and did the older family members have secret customes, and told him that his family were probably crypto Jews, which was confirmed when he asked them. A method of survival which dated back to the 1500's got a new lease on life during the Holocaust. Some of your mothers relatives might know. Edison (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are Jewish people with the surnames of Green, and I worked for a Jewish woman whose name was Robbins. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Like in School Ties :) TastyCakes (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The third-most-common Jewish surname in the U.S. (behind Cohen and Levy) is Miller, which people wouldn't consider a particularly Jewish name. A look at a Jewish cemetery will reveal plenty of non-"ethnic" sounding names. Remember that a lot of people took new surnames when they came to the U.S. Both my grandparents' families Anglicized their names after immigrating. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways in which an American Jew could end up with an Anglo surname:

• many changed their names when they immigrated, either to better fit in, because they didn't much care for the country they came from, or simply because the immigration official couldn't pronounce it
• many Jews and non-Jews Anglicized their German surnames during World War I when anti-German sentiment was high. (eg. a large number of Millers in the U.S. are descended from German Muellers)
• there are some Jews with deep roots in Britain who got English surnames just like everyone else there
• other personal reasons (in the movie Avalon, Jewish cousins with the surname Kryczinski change their names to Kirk and Kaye because "it's just easier to say")

The crypto-Jew answer seems unlikely. Crypto-Jews were largely a phenomenon of the Inquisition which didn't extend to English-speaking countries. They usually have Spanish or Portuguese surnames, not English/American ones. —D. Monack ^talk 06:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Be careful though: if you find an example of this it does not mean the person is of Jewish descent. In the UK last century it was very common for people with Germanic sounding names to change them - a prominent example being the Battenberg family who changed to Mountbatten, and later to Mountbatten-Windsor. OR I have a friend whose father settled here after the war, and changed his name to Gibson because it was similar to the first thing he saw when he got here (an advert for Gibbs toothpaste). Neither of these two examples were Jewish, simply Germanic.--TammyMoet (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Marquess of Milford Haven might quibble with that "and later". —Tamfang (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jewish people or those of Jewish decent are 1 of 12 tribes of Israel.It's more likely you are decent from one of them.Try checking out the Scottish Declaration of Independence and you will come up with many sir names who claim to be from Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prprd (talk • contribs) 02:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a cool cat named Davis, as I recall. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Economical crisis = business school crisis?

Could we associate the economical crisis with a crisis of the business school way of thinking (or lack thereof)? Capitalism could just be fine. The problem was that the wrong people were on the top. --Mr.K. (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the cause from the perspective of how people think was thinking far too short term, primarily because of bonuses based on short term results. Does that have anything to do with business schools? --Tango (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The economic crisis exposes the myth of business-school expertise. The training allegedly offered by biz schools has always been overblown. Mr.K. (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know if the myth has been exposes recently. I always found them quite lame and expensive and nothing compared to a liberal education (art, science, language). --80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps this is just part of a continuous economic cycle and that currently we are over-stating the bad points, whereas previously we were guilty of under-stating the risk. People are panicking like the world is about to end because, shock-horror, we might have a few years where growth goes back/slows dramatically. Of course it's a serious situation but this occurance is not particuarly convincing evidence that the way our economies are setup is inherently bad (though, of course, improvements could be made). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But aren't most Business schools still in denial about natural economic cycles? The current crop of business leaders certainly didn't seem to understand why this bubble burst, just like every other economic bubble in history. Are these not taught in business schools:Template:US recessions? If business leaders only plan (and get rewarded) based on short term profit, then they are either learning that in business schools, or business schools are not teaching anything of use.YobMod 13:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Economic slowdown + CEO bonuses * Media hype = worst economic disaster in the history of mankind, panic, looting, riots... you get the idea. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your association between the financial crisis and business school crisis is right in different sense. Corporations have financed such business schools. They served as a training quarter of its employees and marketing tool for their "expertise" and ideology. Now that corporations have way much less money, biz schools will also get less.--88.6.117.202 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I well remember my irritation at seeing all those Wired covers promising eternal spring for the stockmarket. Capitalists like communists tend to believe in hard rock candy mountains--Radh (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I’d be much more inclined to blame it on the lawyers, since much of the problem has been in the area of finding ways to legally avoid doing what the law intended (full disclosure: I’m an economist). If the lawyers said, “Sorry, although it might be technically legal, it goes against the spirit of the law,” we’d have had a whole lot fewer problems. As for the notion of a “natural business cycle,” there is no evidence either way. Much easier just to assume that one is very good while the bubble is expanding, and unlucky when it collapses. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Pursuit of low inflation one of the causes of the economic crisis?

In the UK the Bank Of England was a few years ago told to keep inflation at a target of 2%. In past decades inflation was much higher than this. I assume things were similar with other national banks. Has this pursuit of low inflation been one of the causes of the current problems? If the target rate for inflation had been set at say 5% or 10%, would we have avoided this recession? A healthy inflation rate of 5 or 10% would have reassured mortgagors (or is that mortgagees?) that their house debt was eventually going to be paid off, and make them feel better-off financially. 89.242.109.25 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mortgage rates are always going to be above inflation (barring short term fluctuations). If you increase inflation, banks put their rates up. --Tango (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would inflation at 5% make anybody more comfortable that their house debt would eventually be paid off, than at 2%? Yes higher inflation would erode the 'worth' of what they borrowed, but unless wage and interest rate on savings increase inline with that inflation - it would just see their wages and savings reduce. Perhaps i'm missing something? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In past decades in the UK, wages and house prices would increase more or less with inflation or more. Inflation would decrease the real value of your mortgage debt, and thus increase the real value of your equity, making you wealthier. I understand that much or most of the capital for business start-ups came from house equity, so without the equity, far less new businesses created, and hence less new jobs created. In addition, with inflation it is easier to pay off debts, so people are more inclined to borrow, so they spend more, so the economy keeps wizzing around. Perhaps the current inflation target is too low to deal with economic crisis without dipping down into deflation, like a jet fighter that tries to fly only a few feet above the terrain and is at great risk of crashing. 89.242.109.25 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider that if your mortgage payments are 33% of your gross pay. Then if the inflation is less then 33% higher then your wage increases, you are better off regardless of the rate of inflation, ignoring taxes anyway. Things do get a bit hairy at really high inflation since you probably don't get paid everyday at your job. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but wage increases are determined based on inflation, so increasing the target inflation rate wouldn't change anything. --Tango (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Inflation does not target all sectors of society equally and simultaneously, unfortunately. Furthermore, wage rates should be based on increases in productivity, not increases in the general price level. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I make no judgement on what "should" be the case, but in reality wage increases are generally based on inflation (among other factors). --Tango (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I am not a monetarist, Schwartz and Friedman gave very good empirical evidence towards the fact that there was economic growth during periods of deflation (specifically, a decrease in price levels). This is the outcome of sustainable growth through capital accumulation. As an Austrian economist I lay the blame for the current economic crisis at the feet of inflation (that is, an increase in the money supply, not just an increase in the general price level); in other words, I blame fractional-reserve banking. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm correct me if I'm wrong, but most developed economies are still not in a state of deflation, are they? So the argument that having low inflation helped trigger the current downturn because it allowed deflation easier seems incorrect, since deflation hasn't occurred. Whether having low inflation can be a bad thing for an economy in general is another question, and a much more complicated one, I think. I think it is true that high levels of inflation can be very damaging to national economies and is a much more common occurrence than deflation. So the Bank of England was probably well supported in its attempts to keep inflation in a small, narrow band, it seems to be the idea behind most central banks at least. TastyCakes (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the OP is making the argument based on the perils of deflation, but rather on the apparently benefits of 10% inflation, which I serious question the accuracy of. The OP seems to be neglecting the fact that if you have 10% inflation, interest rates would end up greater than 10% in order to keep the real rate positive (otherwise everyone would borrow as much money as they can and simple supply and demand would drive up interest rates - see arbitrage). As for the deflation arguments - as far as I can see, deflation would be a good thing because the cure is printing money which is exactly what you want to do in a recession. There is a danger that you won't be able to get the money supply back down enough quickly enough afterwards and you'll end up with massive inflation (probably not full blown hyperinflation in most developed economies, they are too careful for that), but quantitative easing is being used by several central banks that think they can do it safely. --Tango (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There was an interesting article in the latest Economist about deflation here. According to the Economist, deflation is (in this case) not a good thing. It is not caused by increased productivity, it is caused by lower demand and lower wages. It means that while the nominal cost of debts remains the same, the real cost increases. Paying the debt therefore requires the debter to spend a larger portion of their money on it which removes that money from the economy, deepening the recession (ie if the economy is deflating at 2%, a 5% mortgage will be 7% in real terms, while if the economy is inflating at 2% a 5% mortgage will be 3% in real terms). It is worse than inflation because the government is limited as to how it can deal with the problem - central banks can only lower their rates to zero (which many have already done to diminish the threat of deflation), while to contain inflation they can raise the rates to anything they want. Getting stuck in a deflationary trap is therefore a serious problem, as was experienced by Japan in the 1990s. I think it is fairly widely thought by economists that deflation is a greater threat to modern economies than inflation, but a far less common one. TastyCakes (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Deflation is bad, but you can avoid it by just printing money (which, if done correctly, also boosts the economy). You just have a weigh up the risk of high inflation once the economy recovers. I'm not entirely familiar with what happened in Japan. I know they tried quantitative easing, why didn't it work? --Tango (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OP, the goal of controlling inflation is but one of many issues and policies that may have had something to do with the current Mother of All Recessions. But, much as it would simplify life, there is no single cause except, perhaps, lawyers.

Tango, if deflation could be corrected by just printing money, the recent economic history of Japan, China and Hong Kong would have been vastly different. It wasn’t, for the simple reason that it is not possible to defeat deflation by merely printing money. Very rapid monetary easing (slow in Japan) and a willingness to let the exchange rate adjust (not done in China or Hong Kong) seem to help. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

history recomendations for non native speaker

I am learning English and want to read some history books in English to improve my reading comprehension. I am interested in any period from ancient Egypt to 18TH century (about any country) - please recommend interesting books in relatively easy English. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.96.139 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, a rather daunting proposition, and given your rather wide range of subject, I'd suggest finding some broad histories to familiarize yourself with a range of areas. The first thing that comes to mind is Norman Davies History of Europe, which is broad-ranging and can be quite difficult to get through, but covers a considerable period of European history in the English language. Hope that helps. Skinny87 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could try children's books. Some good ones are in the public domain and can be obtained online - try International Children's Digital Library (also in Spanish) or the archives collected at the Online Books Page. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with most children's books on history is that the history itself is seldom scholarly. Think of what each of us learned about the "Indians" and the "Redcoats", for example when we were children. Often when the language is simplified, so is the history. I would think recommendations about well-written histories for adults would be the most useful. I have nothing to contribute, however. // BL \\ (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You could try A History of the Modern World by Palmer and Colton, despite the title nearly half the book deals with 18th century and before (it's mostly about Europe). I remember it as fairly accessible though it is not written specifically for non-native English speakers. It has come in a lot of editions over the years so you might be able to get an old edition relatively cheaply from your favourite online bookstore. You can view the contents and perhaps some text pages at the Amazon link I gave. Jørgen (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think reading the short stories of Ernest Hemingway should be great because of his simple, direct prose. Tempshill (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I recommend A Little History of the World by Ernst Gombrich. He wrote it for children in the 1930s. Perhaps more was expected of children then! The book certainly does not come across as childish, but as a lucid one-volume introduction to the subject. The language is clear and elegant. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've always enjoyed the writings of Barbara Tuchman, which are as scholarly as they come in terms of sources but are written for the general reader. The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam was a very good read. Practising History is an excellent introduction to the historian's craft, as well as providing some good general historical essays. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are more than 50,000 articles on the Simple English Wikipedia. They are supposed to be written using simple words but without making the content simple. Some of these articles are about history. -Arch dude (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend the Cartoon History of the Universe books by Larry Gonick. Don't let the title fool you; the books are very well researched, as well as being easy to read and extremely wide-ranging. The language is kept lively and straightforward and the pictures aid the comprehension. I would recommend them to anyone, but they seem very well tailored to you. Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

They are fantastic (and hugely influential on me), but remember that the first was written in the 1970's. The sections on early hominids I know to be outdated, and I suspect many other sections are too. This isn't a reason not to read them, just to keep your mind 'switched on'. 89.168.85.22 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The querent might wish to consider the phrase in the OP: "relatively easy English". See readability. What oes "easy" mean to you? Most history books for adults will be written for those who have completed a high school (or even a college) education in English. If reading at that level is a struggle and a hindrance, then easier options are wise. If reading at that level is slower thn in your native language, but possible, then persevere. One way to help yourself learn or improve a language is to choose to read about a topic you already know a lot about. That way your brain can concentrate on the grammar patterns and vocabulary input, because the basic facts are already in your mind. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Try the book of Exodus,its farely easy to read, and you may be able to also find it on audio,this will help greatly haveing the words in print while another reads as you follow along.--Prprd (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The man with the rifle shoots...

Did the scene in Enemy at the Gates, where the troops were only given one rifle to every other man and were told to pick up the fallen weapons of killed comrades, actually happen in the historical battle of Stalingrad?--91.84.213.250 (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot be certain about this specific battle, but it is more then likely. The army russia has during the second world war was largely based upon having a mass of conscripts with no real training charge the enemy while trying to win trough their sheer amount of numbers (This was called the russian steamroller). This was one of the reasons russia fared so bad in the decond world war: Troop loyalty and skill were absymall, and the only reason there was no mass amount of deserters was due to the use of Commusairs (sp?) which were highly trained and disciplined troups mixed between the regular soldiers. Their task? Shoot every soldier that tried to retreat or that did not act brave enough. Just call it a movivation for the troops. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I'm sorry, but the above isn't really true. The whole 'Soviet mass conscript army' is a myth largely fostered on the world by bitter German officers trying to explain away the Third Reich's defeat, and taken up by the West as a convenient way to demonize the Soviet Union. The Soviet military, from about 1943/44 onwards, was actually a well-organized machine, particularly in terms of the use of armour and combined-arms tactics. To the ip and Excirial, I'd recommend a few books to read up on the subject. Anything by David Glantz is a goldmine and should be read on the subject, and I'd also suggest 'The Operation Employment of Soviet Armour in the Great Patriotic War' by C J Dick in Harris and Toase (eds.) Armoured Warfare.

As to the specific question, ip, I wouldn't be surprised if such comments were made during Stalingrad; for much of the time the Soviets were desperate to ensure their bank of the Volga didn't fall, and although much of the movie is sensationalized, the Soviets did at times just send in waves of conscripts as they had little other choice. However, please don't think this was the limit to Soviet tactics, as it wasn't; I'd suggest Glantz and Beevor's books on Stalingrad as a good starting place to read up on the subject. Commissars, the Soviet political officers, also had much of their power stripped away from mid-1943 onwards, as the movie rather fails to communicate, as it was found what positive impact they made to morale was often more than compensated for by the military difficulties they created. Skinny87 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Many years ago i actually wrote a long essay about operation barbarossa .; However, I think that thanks due to haste posting my responce I wrote the section about an army of conscripts in a way that made it seem as if the section about “The army of conscripts” would indicate that every single man in Russia willingly joined the army. What I was actually referring to what that the bulk of the Russian army was badly trained, equipped and demoralized. The Russian steamroller applied to the tactic that Stalin was following – Direct counterattacks with as many men as possible as often as possible, in turn trying to bulldoze over the german army like a steamroller would.

However, all this is from a report I wrote years ago and from which I foolishly did not source in any way. Hence, your comment just made me doubt the truthfulness of it. Is this rewording closer to the truth? Or is it still hubris? (In that case I should ask a refund from my history teacher that checked that essay! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'd demand a full refund :) That's an extreme oversimplification, and one as I said primarily derived from bitter Wehrmacht officers trying to explain how they lost. The Soviet military in the first few years might not have been the best, but it rapidly improved and by late 1943/early 1944 was a superb fighting force. Not brilliant, and it had its flaws - certain senior officers were more than happy to throw lives away at a prodigious rate at times - but it certainly didn't triumph because it was a 'steamroller'. It had superior numbers at times, especially towards the end of the conflict, there's no denying that, but numbers alone didn't win the Eastern Front for them - that took skills and tactics, combined with excellent weapons and equipment. Skinny87 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I will give the teacher the benefit of doubt since i was around 13 at the time i wrote it; My guess he was glad that it were 50 pages of research with some basic quality. Also it seems that i managed to skim (though very basic) the truth with that essay. I believe i remember writing that initially the soviet union army was mainly build using outdated T-37 tanks that were later in the war replaced with T-41 version that proved to be much more of an issue for the German army.

(Apologies to the IP user for hijacking this question) Actually if you don’t mind I have 1 more question myself: I remember stating that the soviet war effort was seriously hindered by the 5 year plans the soviet union made. These plans would have included such high quota’s that manufacturers seriously lower quality just to reach the demanded amount of items produced; Tanks were mass assembled and would break down in the field with no enemy near, and steel sheets used to produce them would become smaller and thinner over time as factories frantically managed to meet their quota. Is this also a myth or did I also over simplify this? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I was told in a high school history class that the Red army used to clear mine fields by sending lines of men with arms linked marching across the field, because the tanks were held as being more precious. In hindsight, this too seems somewhat suspect, I'm not even sure if troops would set off German antitank mines by just walking over them. The Barbarossa article is quite interesting on the subject, particularly Causes of initial Soviet defeats. It seems the Soviets, while painfully unprepared for the initial battle, were able to mobilize far more men than the Germans anticipated. Further, they knew the Japanese were not going to attack them in the east and were able to transfer troops to the western front as a consequence. TastyCakes (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to the OP's question. Not sure if it specifically happened at Stalingrad, but such an desperation tactic was not unheard of. During the Paris Commune days at the end of the Franco-Prussian War, the Communards lacked enough weapons to defend the city against the Government forces. As a result, during several of the assaults on the city, the defenders were known to have to rely on picking up the guns of their fallen comrades. Strangely enough its not mentioned in our article specifically, but I do recall a professor in college driving the point home during the lecture on "Bloody Week". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in the battle of Stalingrad, I recommend you watch this. It's in German, but you should be able to understand what's happening, even if you don't speak German. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup of Stone Age peoples?

Are there any theories that try to correlate genetic haplogroups to Stone Age peoples? The genes tell us a story of human migration, and the technologies and cultures like Aurignacian and Solutrean tell us another story. Has no one tried to connect the two?--Sonjaaa (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheddar man... AnonMoos (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Behavioral modernity and Great Leap Forward?

How soon are we likely to make discoveries that will solve the Great Leap Forward vs Continuity Hypothesis? I'm curious how likely I am to learn the answer to this question in my lifetime, with at least 85% certainty of one hypothesis over the other. If I understand correctly, there is no clear winner between the two theories as of today, right?--Sonjaaa (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The riddle of Behavioral modernity is that early humans attained an anatomy which is basically indistinguishable from that of modern humans (as far as can be told from skeletal remains) many thousands of years before they started manifesting a range of cultural traits similar to those of modern hunter-gatherer peoples. So it's assumed that the transition happened in the brain, and was probably associated with the development of something approximating modern human language. Since fossils are not very directly helpful, determining the exact chronology of the change is rather difficult... AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

gold coins

The US made gold coins intended for actual use until 1933 I believe. What is the latest a country produced gold coins with the intent that they were spent? Not like the 1oz special coins that are still produced. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

According to our gold coin article, South Africa issued bullion coins in 1967, however they didn't have a fixed value. As for modern currency coins, I believe no later than World War 2 would be the most recent time a gold coin was issued. Livewireo (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, they're still being made. The Perth Mint in Australia has issued a series of 99.99% pure gold coins. They're legal tender and anyone is entitled to pay for their groceries with one, but nobody other than collectors have ever seen one because their legal tender value is only a fraction of their value as gold. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OP wanted to know about coins that had been intended to be spent. I think several other countries' current gold coins are also technically legal tender. Tempshill (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One question could be: when did the price of gold rise to such an extent that making one that's worth its value would make it too small to be practical? (--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

This issue could be dodged by creating a gold coin that's about an ounce in weight and whose face value is, say, US$2,000. Tempshill (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a table of yearly gold prices. Seems like it started taking off around 1972. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps an additional condition should be some upper limit on face value. We don't normally have $2000 bills in circulation... When did a, say, penny-sized gold coin become more than, say, US$100 in value? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As to what Livewireo referred to, the Krugerrand is still a popular form of investment because they have no face value - thus they are, as legal tender, worth their weight. However, also because they have no face value, they are not regarded as currency. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Are they legal tender at all? As you say, they aren't regarded as currency. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they are regarded as. If they are legal tender i.e. defined as in law as such, then they are legal tender and someone would have to accept them in payment for a debt in South African regardless of what they may think of them. Whether they are or not, I don't know but our article does say "The coins have legal tender status in South Africa but are not actually intended to be used as currency; thus it is regarded as a medal-coin." but it's unsourced Nil Einne (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gold had a fixed price of $35/toz until 1971 under the Bretton Woods system. Technically, the US also makes 1 oz gold coins with a face value of $50, but one would have to be insane to use it for a purchase at about 5% of its value. And while the question could be dodged by making a 1 toz coin with a face value of $2,000, are there any countries that actually did so? I am looking for a factual answer, not a hypothetical. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if you find another country which meets your objective there is a reason why U.S. Gold and silver is sought after world wide and thats Trust.If tested, U.S. coins are what we say they are.Be careful with other purchases.

One other thing when compareing dollars to gold,its a sign of how strong the dollar is.Think what a ten dollar Gold coin would buy you in 1900 and look at what a 10$ bill will buy you now.A 10$ gold coin(if sold) will still get what it got you then or a lot closer to getting it anyway.The more money thats is on the streets the more things cost because if everyone has a pocket full of money they will not sell you anything at a bargain price.But if their money gets tight they will deal.

They use to have 1000$ bills but they say they can't make them anymore because it was to easy for someone with wealth to sneek to much money into a poor country, it messed up things some how or another undermining their currency or something, or possibly hiding it from taxes.And if some one could counterfiet a 1000$ bill that would be awful for the unsuspecting seller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prprd (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe most internationally recognised mints producing bullion are well trusted. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been some attempts to revive the Islamic gold dinar, largely unsuccessful however they have been produced. There is also odd private currencies like Liberty Dollar. I'm not sure if they ever issued coins (the picture shows some and the beginning mentions rounds but I don't see any mention if these were ever actually produced) although the currency is supposed to be backed by real metal.Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

BJP Anti-Sikh

Isn't Bharatiya Janata Party an Anti-Sikh? If they are, why do they need candidates in Punjab and Haryana in order win some in the parliament? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the second sentence in Bharatiya Janata Party reads "[BJP is d]esigned to represent ... the Sikh population in nature", but I'll leave the question to someone familiar with India.F (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the BJP see Sikhism as being related to Hinduism, and has traditionally aimed to promote co-operation between the two religions (in contrast to its views on Christianity and, in particular, Islam). The party opposed the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, and there are BJP politicians who are Sikhs. Warofdreams talk 14:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bharatiya Janata Party is not involved in any anti-Sikh activities or propaganda. It is in an electoral alliance with the Shiromani Akali Dal which is a strongly theologically motivated Sikh political party in Punjab. However the BJP, and especially its parent organisation RSS often make pronouncements to the effect that Sikhism is a subset or sect of Hinduism, which many Sikhs resent as an attack on their independent identity and an attempt at assimilation. -- ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)