Humanities desk
< April 3	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 5 >

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.

April 4[edit]

International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and Off-Shore Tax Havens[edit]

The CBC in Canada today broke this story, naming at least one high-powered lawyer, the husband of one of Canada's Senators. One of the other big papers supposed to have been involved in the year-long project of analysing the leaked data is the Washington Post. I can't find the story in any U.S. source. Was it posted and withdrawn? Can anyone find an American report on this, aside from the ICIJ? Thanks. Bielle (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC) I found this report at the Herald Online, but it does little more than identify the report. Any other reviews? Bielle (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Nicholson Negro Achievement Award[edit]

Where can I learn more about the Jeremy Nicholson Negro Achievement Award? Wikipedia's articles on Edward Brooke, LeVar Burton, Rick James and Harry Belafonte all mention this honor. 173.29.132.240 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It ~~looks like~~ was a sneaky hoax. ~~I'm looking into it further.~~ I've reverted that and other "contributions" by that particular person. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that person's contributions [1] it looks like they have a history of malicious edits. Did you go through them all? I don't have time to do so right now so where would be the best place to mention this? --Viennese Waltz 08:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've checked them all for 216.134.248.174. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have missed a few in Rick James. Ack, I see what's going on. Rick James' "award" came from a different IP: 216.185.46.70. Not sure if I'll have time to check more than James' article tonight. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found another one in Redd Foxx and reverted it. --Viennese Waltz 10:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah nuts. That one was added by 216.134.251.242. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've checked the other two. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US citizen[edit]

Are citizens born in a territory before US rule eligible to be president? I know the US usually grant citizenships to people in area they officially annex. Like the US missionary descendants of Hawaii in the 1890s or a Russian settler around time of the Alaska Purchase.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best we can do is probably Natural-born-citizen clause. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)

You might check out the article Natural-born-citizen clause.

Basically ... we don't know. But there are a lot of theories.

The reason is that the law doesn't go into any detail. Usually in cases like that the issue is made clear by case-law. (The outcomes of court cases and the written opinions of the judges.) However, the only thing "Natural Born Citizen" status confers upon you that regular citizenship does not is the right to be president. So there haven't really been any court cases either.

John McCain might might have caused such a court case, had he been elected. (He was born in the Canal Zone before being born in the Canal Zone automatically made you a citizen.) However, it didn't seem like anyone seriously believed that he might get elected and then not allowed to become president. APL (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McCain's parents were natural born citizens, and as I recall, some inquiries were made before the nomination process was completed, and he was considered eligible. That's not common law, but it's a precedent that could be argued in case a similar situation arose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are they eligible, this actually describes about a fifth of all past presidents! 72.128.82.131 (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Constitution specifically allowed for the founding fathers to be eligible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you don't have to be a Natural Born Citizen to become president. Your other option is to have been a any sort of citizen on March 4, 1789. (The day the US Constitution went into effect.) APL (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory before it became a state, and there was minimal questioning as to his eligibility, but it wasn't followed up on. RNealK (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The operative word being citizen, not "within the United States" (let alone a State). Or as APL says, citizen at the time of the adoption. Shadowjams (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a US possession, though. The OP's question is like this: Suppose we were to purchase Canada from the British Commonwealth somehow. Would any Canadian born prior to that annexation be eligible for the presidency? As APL said, we don't really know. Logically, it would be unfair not to declare all Canadians to be U.S. citizens at that point. But I would think that the annexation agreement would include something about that. Now that I think of it, prior annexation agreements (such as the Gadsen Purchase) might have had language addressing that issue. Not sure where we would get hold of the text of it, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a tangent, but Canada is not a possession of the Commonwealth of Nations; it's a sovereign state. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to figure out exactly how we would obtain Canada seemed like even more of a tangent. Let's just suppose it's possible, for the sake of the example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that we may have already had a Canadian President. --Jayron32 12:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Austin, Texas[edit]

Recently, a number of news websites have shown photos of Kim Jong Un planning missile attacks on the US (bizarre tactic - "While you are using real weapons and personnel for your wargames, here is a picture of me with a map"). Most of the targets were heavily built-up areas of major strategic importance, but one target displayed on the map behind him showed Austin, Texas. I know Google and Apple have some interests there, but what other reason could there have been to choose that particular place? Or, was his map basically showing the maximum distance his missiles could reach and this just happened to be there? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea does not (yet) have missiles that could reach Austin Texas. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example of such a map? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim is targeting our supply of slackers? Deor (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph says it on this page, plus Googling 'austin texas north korea' gives a few hits. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the assumption is that by attacking Austin (the capital), the Texas government structure will be disrupted (causing economic and social chaos, which would severely hurt the rest of the country).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think North Korea's leaders have been a dark world version of Unn, Ooo and Eee and their plans are just as realistic as the rest of In the Night Garden. Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Austin City Limits inexplicable snubbed Kim Jong Un, who, among other things, is the best bluegrass musician in the world, at least according to the (surviving) citizens he asked. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

It's really not clear what the map is targeting — the general's hat is in the way and the resolution is too low (even on the higher-resolution versions that are floating around). There are many possible military, industrial, and infrastructural sites in the region of Southern Texas obscured by the hat. It is hard to know, without much other evidence, what the thinking is behind any potential targeting scheme — there are lots of different ways to decide what targets are the most valuable to one, ranging from the highly analytical to the highly idiosyncratic. (Recall that Kyoto was taken off the atomic bomb targeting list during World War II merely because the Secretary of War liked the city a lot.)

As for capabilities, in theory the Unha-3, if it worked ideally, if it was adapted for weapons use, could reach pretty much wherever, but all of this is "in theory", and reaching such a place within the accuracy needed for their warheads is probably not within their capabilities at the moment. (The lines drawn are not great circle paths and so are not showing missile paths, theoretical or actual. On a great circle route from North Korea to the US, though, the distance between Southern Texas and Washington DC is about the same — ~6800 miles or so) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three Wise Men[edit]

Where in the KJV of the New Testament does it speak specifically of "three" Wise Men?--LordGorval (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere. The tradition that there were three may have been based on the mention of three kinds of gifts that they brought (gold, frankincense and myrrh, Matthew 2:11). - Lindert (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not, at least not directly. The account of the magi, or wise men, is in Matthew 2. The number of magi is not specified, but three gifts are named, and so tradition has equated the number of gifts with the number of magi. — Lomn 13:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise tradition has assigned names and appearances to them. None of that stuff is Biblical, any more than the notion that the "forbidden fruit" of Adam was an apple, or that Satan has a red body with a pointed tail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that, as far as I know, no translation indicates that there were three wise men. Such a thing is not unique to the King James Version, which it must be remembered is but one English translation. There are dozens of other translations into English, and into many many other languages, and as far as I know, there's no reason to suspect that any faithful translation would indicate that there were three magi. Three gifts, yes, but the number of magi, as noted, is unspecified. --Jayron32 16:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See List of common misconceptions#Christianity.—Wavelength (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there were three: Larry, Curly and Moe. I think it was Moe who brought the gold, nyuck, nyuck, nyuck. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Weren't they Dismas, Gestus of Oz and Medeis? μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it was Dewey, Cheatem & Howe. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

dry media and liquid media definitions and lists of both[edit]

I am trying to find the definition for liquid media and dry media and then I must list them all. this is for my art class and I am having trouble with a definition on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.97.200.194 (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean, for example, colored pencils vs. paint? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article List of artistic media, which lists media for various artistic categories. As B/Bugs implies, the difference is fairly intuitive. --91.115.57.179 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Oops, I forgot to log in. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discount bank (finance)[edit]

I can't find an article for 'discount bank' which apparently is a British term for a bank which buys and sells financial instruments at a discount (may have something to do with getting government bonds into circulation too). Is there another term for this? RJFJR (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the term in the U.S. is a discount brokerage, as firms that deal in investment interests are usually called brokerage firms in the U.S. Of course, some banks also do the same thing, though they often deal with institutional investors and large personal investors rather than the average person, such banks are called Investment banks. The lines in the U.S. between brokers, investment banks, and commercial banks used to be rather stark, but in the past 15 years (since the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act), such lines have become increasingly blurred. --Jayron32 21:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is possible that you are looking for a 'discount broker' which gives a discount on financial products to those who do not require financial advice. The article Discount brokerage is almost totally US focused while Fund platform is about the UK situation. This article from the Daily Mail is aimed at starters and the three red links explain the various "non-advised" options. Sussexonian (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the term I meant to write was "discount house". Is that the same thing? RJFJR (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's at the retail level, probably the same thing. If it's referring to a wholesale activity, I don't know. When you get into merchant banking and credit swaps, CFDs, spread betting, shorting, googlewhacking, futures trading, all that stuff, there's probably a "discount house" somewhere in there. I don't think their bonuses are discounted though. Sussexonian (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Actually, a discount house was a specialist bank in the City of London financial market. More information at Britannica - discount house. They no longer exist. The Georgian era at the Bank of England says; "The Bank (of England) ended the privileged position of the discount houses in 1997 by switching its daily open market operations to a gilt repo system open to all comers, and the following year the last discount house returned its licence to the Bank." However, according to The Scotsman, the last one closed in November 2000. I'm not really sure that I understand all of that; I can try to find a simpler explanation tomorrow if required. Alansplodge (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly more layman friendly explanation from a discount house in Ghana is here. Alansplodge (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bill brokers of discount houses in the City of London (mentioned in the link above) used to wear a top hat when on their way to the Bank of England, a tradition that continued into the 1990s.[2] Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An institution that buys a letter of credit at a discount engages in factoring. DOR (HK) (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics, law, female French philosopher[edit]

4-4-13

I recall that some years ago (in college) I read about a (female) French philosopher who wrote using a man's name who said something to the effect that "a man is not ethical if he just follows the law'. He/she wrote about this several HUNDREDS of years ago.

I'd like to read more. Who was this person?Dtansik (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only several hundred years ago? I'd be shocked if many of the classical Athenian philosophers didn't write the same thing, over 2400 years ago. In fact, I'd be shocked if this wasn't a common belief in the first society with a law code. If you can remember any less trivial claims, it would help us look for the philosopher. --140.180.248.141 (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's specification that it's a Frenchwoman writing under a male nom de plume narrows it down a lot. Dtansik, does anyone on List of female philosophers or List of women philosophers look familiar? 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many sponsors salons during the French Enlightenment were women, this sounds like the kind of thing one would hear from an Enlightenment philosopher. I can't, off hand, recall any such women who went by a male nom de plume, but Category:French female salon-holders may also be a good place to start researching this. --Jayron32 04:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a philsopher, but George Sand is the most famous French female author who wrote under a male name. The first half of the 1800s is not quite hundreds of years ago, but it may appear to be more distant than it actually is. --Xuxl (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]