Humanities desk
< August 14	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 16 >

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.

August 15

Wole Soyinka - Background and Friezes

Could anyone firstly find a complete version of Wole Soyinka's Background and Friezes? It's proving an impossible task. At the same time, if anyone could illuminate me as to the meaning of Jacques d'Odan and which politician this specifically refers to that would be immensely appreciated.

202.156.14.74 (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yakubu Gowon is the answer to the second question, so if anyone could help me with the full poem then I'm grand. 202.156.14.74 (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no free full text version available online (unless it contains typos regarding the lines I googled). Don't know how you can get around looking for A Shuttle in the Crypt in a library, bookstore, or ordering it online (here, for example). Sorry. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Religions

Are Persians the only ethnic group in Iran whose people follow Christianity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.51 (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The largest Christian community in Iran is actually the Armenian Iranians. See also Demographics of Iran and Christianity in Iran. - Eron^Talk 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Series 7 Exam vs. the CSC

I'm trying to determine how close in content the US Series 7, or General Securities Representative Exam is to the Canadian securities course in terms of international recognition. I realize that they are both designed for their home markets, but I'm sure that many developing countries don't have equivalent examinations, and employers would therefore occasionally recognize these courses as useful.

How similar are they in terms of content and/or recognition? NByz (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom defence spending

I've been reading up on defence spendings here on Wikipedia and the UK is ranked 3rd in the World by defence spendings, after the United States and France. The US I can understand having a huge budget judging by the size of their armed forces. However, Britain and France's military in terms of vehicles, troops, ships and aircraft is significantly smaller than several of the lower-listed countries (such as Russia and China). I'd like to know where the money is actually spent to in the UK to require such a large budget for what seems like a relatively small armed forces. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 11:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's exactly huge, the budget for 2005-06 was on 32 billion pounds (~US$55 billion) compared to the USA's US$535 billion. You can find a brief breakdown of where this money went here and the official accounts for 2006-07 here. Nanonic (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in List of countries by military expenditures & [1]. Remember Russia and China's army are both still relatively low tech compared to the UK & France. And their soldiers wages/upkeep would be a lot less. Also, the figures coming from them might be less reliable given they have a less open style of government than countries like the UK & france Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Especially read the caveats to that list. There are substantial areas of spending (such as veterans' pensions) which the UK considers to be military and other countries (such as Russia) do not. Algebraist 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA Factbook aparently no longer includes actual calculated-out military spending, but they do give military spending as percent of GDP (In purchasing power) and GDP. It seems not too far a step in synthesis to multiply the figures and calculate the CIA's equivalent total military spending from the latest CIA Factbook. The figures for GDP*MIL spending % of GDP would be US: $561,904,000,000. China: $300,613,000,000. Russia: $81,432,000,000. France: $53,222,000,000. UK: $51,288,000,000. For China, the CIA gives a GDP (in purchasing power) of $6.991E+12, with 4.3% going for military spending. The Wikipedia article uses a report by the Chinese government, which the very newspaper article says it probably a gross underestimate. The actual figures vary somewhat by budget year, but the China figure is grossly low in the Wikipedia article, compared to the CIA estimate, which itself is of course could be questioned. The Jane's publications might also have figures. Edison (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney aid

My fiance and her 5 year old daughter just got thier visa approved July 7th. I will go there Oct. 30 and bring them to the USA. We have a wedding planned for Feb. 21st, 2009. I want to take them to Disneyworld and then to the beach for a honeymoon Feb 22nd to ? I had to retire on disability 4 years ago, after working for 31 years. Is there any help available to assist me to afford to show my girls a good time and as far as I am concerned, is a MUST experience for thier arrival and happiness in our country, Disneyworld. Paul Streble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.56.150 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um it might help if you specify where you live... In any case, you could try approaching local charities, family and friends. Or even your local paper/TV to see if they're interested in doing a story on you Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope things work out for you, but the whole agenda sounds materialistic. My family got along ok without Disneyworld ever being a "MUST experience for happiness," and at someone else's expense no less. Of course, we could have used a bit more happiness. Please post the information if you find someone who will pay for Disneyworld vacations. Edison (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Olympic Questions

Hello everyone,

I have been enjoying the 2008 Summer Olympics from Beijing, but I do have a few questions. First off, I was wondering if the Falkland Islands or Greenland ever had any athletes in any of the Olympic Games. I understand they do not have an IOC. Would they have to participate under Great Britain and Denmark, respectively? Another question I have is in regard to Handball. I know the United States did not send a delegation in Handball this year. What caused this, and are there plans to revive the team for the 2012 Summer Olympics? Thanks for the help!

Mike MAP91 (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have an IOC? Don't you mean a NOC? As for handball, no idea, are you sure they even qualified? This suggests the women's team didn't even qualify for the Pan-American games[2] and although it says they still have a hope to qualify for the olympics given that the Americas AFAIK are hardly the world leaders in handball (I believe that honour goes to Europe or perhaps Asia) it doesn't bode well for their Olympics qualification hopes Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions some of the problems US's handball governing body faces (evidentally it was decertified by the US NOC 2 years ago) [3] which may partially explain why they US performed so poorly despite winning the Pan American games in 1987. Then again, if you believe the blog post, it's also because Americans are too stupid to understand that sports have different names in different places (evidentally handball means something else in the US, see American handball), the author suggests the sport be renamed (um yeah, rename the sport likely recognised by most of the rest of the world for a country which couldn't even qualify in it for the olympics?). However I wouldn't give much credance to the author, he doesn't even seem to realise that the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with the name. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The general comment that Americans don't know what handball is, is a bit unfair. Sports that are popular in one area of the US can be near unheard of in another (example neither field hockey nor lacrosse are school sports in the Midwest yet both are popular in New England). Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Americans, "handball" is a game like squash without rackets; "team handball" is what we call the other game. That's not stupid, that's just another US/British English difference. Until the last couple of Olympics, they didn't even show the team handball on TV, so you can understand that most Americans have never seen the sport. I'm sure that if it was as big as basketball in the U.S., the Americans would have a good team. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the second question: Greenland sent three participants to the Nagano Olympics (and they seem to have a ok handball team, too.)[4] Rmhermen (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the Falklands has never competed at the Olympics, but has competed as a separate "nation" at the Commonwealth games. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the info everyone. I wasn't sure if the Falklands ever competed in the Olympics, but I'll look at the stats on the Commonwealth Games, as you mentioned Grutness. I did not know that Greenland competed in the Games also. Were they their own country, or were the athletes represented under the Danish flag? The handball issue is a little clearer for me now as well. Thanks again! Mike MAP91 (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third olympic question

Hi guys, this has been annoying me for a while now. I ask this question purely out of curiosity. Why does the United Kingdom compete in the olympics under the name "Great Britain"? It seem absurd. All other countries compete under state names not island names. Another thing I noticed is they actually use the United Kingdom flag. Why is this? Because Great Britain (as an island) never had a flag? Is it too difficult to register under the state's proper name? --Cameron * 15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess, but I suspect it's because only the island competes in the Olympics. United Kingdom would include offshore islands. This would answer the above question too. As I said though, only a guess. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 16:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom would not include Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man. It would include Northern Ireland, the Shetland Islands, the Orkney Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight. DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Great Britain at the Olympics, the United Kingdom competes as Great Britain because the IOC says so. DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And according to Ireland at the Olympics, "Athletes from Northern Ireland can choose to compete for either Ireland or Great Britain, per an agreement between the Olympic Council of Ireland and the British Olympic Association." DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still rather illogical in my opinion but thanks for the answers! :) --Cameron * 19:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made some comments about this only yesterday at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Australian Olympic attire. I've also long wondered why they use "Great Britain" to refer to a political entity that includes more than Great Britain. (It's a little like calling the Bosnian and Herzegovinian team "Bosnia", the Trinidad and Tobago team "Trinidad", or indeed the Australian team "Tasmania"). The team was called "Great Britain" back in 1896, when the name of the country was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so it's always been a misnomer. Although sub-demonyms (English, Scottish ...) exist, the general demonym for these people is British. That may help to explain where the name originally came from, although "Britain" would have been a far better choice than "Great Britain". Many NOCs have changed their names, to accommodate mergers with and splits from other countries (Czechoslovakia > Czech Republic and Slovakia), or straight name changes (Ceylon > Sri Lanka). When the UK lost most of the island of Ireland in 1922, or even when they got around to changing the name of their country in 1927 to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that would have been a good time to change the NOC's name to "United Kingdom". It's still not too late. How about it, guys. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NOC is called the British Olympic Committee. The team name (Great Britain), is, I believe, assigned by the IOC. DuncanHill (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the IOC needs a lesson in history, geography and politics. I'm available for a reasonable retainer. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar thing about .gb vs. .uk as the Internet domain name -- if ISO-3166 was strictly followed, UK internet addresses would end in ".gb". And there was a flag of Great Britain (used before 1801), but it wouldn't be appropriate in the Olympic context... AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. They're called Great Britain, but they use the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definitive answer to why it is 'Great Britain' and not United Kingdom for the Olympic team goes back to the 1908 London Olympics. Until the 1906 intercalated games, Olympic competitors had been individuals. In 1906 they competed for national teams, and that was also followed in 1908. However, the issue of whether Ireland should have home rule was a very live one in politics and many Irish athletes objected to competing for the United Kingdom. A boycott was threatened, which might also have led to Irish Americans withdrawing in sympathy and the games being rendered uncompetitive. To pacify the Irish and rescue the games, Lord Desborough agreed to call the team 'Great Britain and Ireland' which was accurate in geography. (Despite this, in some sports Ireland entered as a different team to Great Britain) The same arrangement held at subsequent Olympics until the partition of Ireland, when it was presumably decided that 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' would be too long and that unionist Ulster athletes would not object to competing for Great Britain. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense, Sam, except for the last sentence. The choice of possible names was not limited to 'GB & NI' and 'GB'. Surely they would also have considered 'United Kingdom' as well. If Unionist athletes had no objections to competing for the inaccurate 'Great Britain', they would have been even happier with the accurate 'United Kingdom', which has only one more letter, and a whole 17 letters shorter than 'GB and NI'. OK, the Irish partition happened in 1922 and the country didn't change its name from the 'UK of GB and Ireland' to the 'UK of GB and Northern Ireland' until 1927. In those intervening 5 years, I can understand athletes being very touchy about this, and it was probably better to come up with a workable solution, however technically inaccurate it may have been, than risk jeopardising the 1924 and 1928 Olympics. But all that was a long time ago. The legacy of not correcting that temporary solution is that a huge chunk of the sporting world (or the entire world) thinks there's a country called "Great Britain", which there ain't. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drink to that. Try telling that to Americans or Europeans! :) --Cameron * 10:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Just did a brief survey of the interwiki links on the UK page. Of the names I can interpret, about a third seems to be Great Britain rather than UK or UK of GB and NI. The majority of languages using GB seems to be germanic and slavic. It is somewhat understandable since, as far as I know, the expression United Kingdom can be rather clumsy in some languages, and quite unsuitable for everyday use. That's no excuse for the IOC, though. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, here on the continent that is especially the case. Take Germany: If you say "Vereinigtes Königreich", people will ask you what you are talking about. Even politicians and newspapers use the word "Großbritannien", which mean Great Britain. But, as you said, that is not really and excuse. --Cameron * 12:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're really only talking about super-official uses here. There are Olympic competitors from the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", but that country is generally referred to, even in a lot of formal writing, as "Macedonia". Often in formal writing it's FYROM, but it only gets the full name where it's really crucial to use the full name. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To confuse matters further, one of "Great Britain"'s top cyclists is Mark Cavendish, who isn't even from the United Kingdom technically - he's from the Isle of Man. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a scot, i'm flattered and amazed that the world thinks they ever use Great Britain (or the UK for that matter) in any context ever (apart from when its dictated by the IOC)! 99.9% of the time the land mass stretching from Lands End to John O'Groats is called England. Whilst it may be (slightly) technically inaccurate, i love the fact that the Union Jack is linked to a country which i can say i belong to. (if you think i'm being over-sensitive, witness the supporters of the England cricket team, the so-called 'barmy army' who to this day, fly the union jack where ever they go...it makes me so angry!). For those of you who aren't aware, what makes it even more fun is that for the commonwealth games, we compete as seperate countries. Why, i have no idea.

p.s. two thumbs way up for cameron and his (almost) all-inclusive compatriots.. now if only we could get those pesky French to stop calling us Anglais we might me on to something..82.22.4.63 (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's something I never knew till now, 82.22.4.63. Thanks to the presence of the Union Jack, I always assumed that, despite the name, the England cricket team represented the entire UK. In fact, it also represents Wales (but not Scotland or Northern Ireland). I vote the UK government set up a Nomenclature Committee, which would regulate the use of these sorts of names to make them say what they actually mean, and any infringment (including the flying of the wrong flag) would be punishable by death. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, England and Scotland played their first ever official one-day international yesterday (it was held in Scotland and - guess what? - it was washed out). As to the French calling them Anglais, it may interest the Scottish patriots writing above to know that the official Chinese name in use for GB at the olympics is the transliterated "Ying-guo" (Guo is country, but guess what country the "Ying" sound represents!). Grutness...wha? 01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will this committee also insist England gets its own anthem? Gwinva (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so - they use the far superior "Land of hope and glory" at the Commonwealth Games, but perplexingly use GSTQ for other sports internationals where they compete separately, such as football. GSTQ's not much liked north of the border anyway, with it's (now avoided) verses about crushing the heathen Scots... Grutness...wha? 01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were using Land of Hope and Glory, while the music and first verse are fantastic, you'd have to make some subtle changes to the second verse. I propose "Nicer still and nicer/May your people be./God, who made thee pleasant,/Make thee lo-ve-ly." I do like the grassroots origin of GSTQ, and many other countries get by with unused or 'forbidden' verses of their anthems. When England needs its own anthem, the crowds normally seem to improvise Jerusalem anyway. What can you do? 217.42.157.143 (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of verses overlooked by other nations, I particularly like the Aussie verses which claim "Brittania then shall surely know / Beyond wide ocean's roll / Her sons in fair Australia's land / Still keep a British soul." (As for Jerusalem, I've always wondered why that is considered patriotic, since it seems to condemn England, not praise it.) Gwinva (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Gwinva, you know that's not true, you naughty girl. Those verses were part of McCormick's original poem, and I'm sure that if British-to-the-bootstraps Bob Menzies had been the PM who declared Advance Australia Fair to be the National Anthem, he would have included all the verses. But the relevant PM was Bob Hawke, who arranged for the anthem to include only the first 2 verses, which make no mention of Britain. To his credit, he also changed the first line from "Australia's sons, let us rejoice", to "Australians all, let us rejoice". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic doesn't have to mean saying or believing that your country is a perfect place. The first verse, depending on your interpretation, either says that England was chosen by God and is touched by the divine even in its present everyday grubbiness with wonderful things built in unpromising surroundings, or (if you think the answers to the questions are 'no') that England has had no advantages and was not marked out specially, making the second verse perhaps more effective. The second verse swears that the singer will fight endlessly and constantly, with a passion, to create paradise in England. And the two verses also contrast the urban, industrial side with the pastoral idyll, presenting a diverse and whole view of England. How is that not patriotic? It isn't rejoicing as many anthems are (such as Land of Hope and Glory), but it's passionate. Does have the downside of being explicitly Christian though, so will never be chosen as an 'official' national anthem.

Or, in brief, it may not praise England, but it also refrains from burying it. 217.42.157.143 (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was slightly inaccurate. McCormick wrote his song in 1878; it contained 4 verses. For Federation on 1 January 1901, different words were substituted for the third verse. At both these times, Queen Victoria was on the throne (she died 3 weeks after Federation). In 1984, it was decided to make Advance Australia Fair the national anthem, but to include only the original first verse (with a slight wording change) and the 1901 version of the third verse. These make no mention of Britain. What you're talking about are words that were in McCormick's original lyrics, but have never been part of the national anthem. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Brown, I trust you're taking note of all this. Is there any other place on Earth that's as chronically unable to make up its mind whether it's a single country or a collection of different countries, and where the names used for those various entities and various sub-sets of them, and the symbols (flags, anthems etc) they use, are as utterly inconsistent and confusing? Terminology of the British Isles explains some of these issues, but it doesn't say much about flags and anthems. I know the solution: since the constituent countries of the UK compete separately at the Commonwealth Games despite the fact that none of them is a member of the Commonwealth in its own right, Australia should field 8 separate teams (for the 6 states and 2 territories), and Canada et al should do the same. Maybe that'll make a few people sit up and take notice. The only analogy I can think of (and it's not a very good one) is that when the USSR had a seat at the United Nations, 2 of its constituent republics, Ukraine and Byelorussia, also had seats (although in no other forum on Earth were these 2 republics accorded sovereign status); this gave the USSR 3 votes to every other country's 1; and Ukraine and Byelorussia effectively had 2 each. That was universally seen as an unfair arrangement, although it lasted for 45 years. Now Russia has 1 vote, and the now-independent former Soviet republics also have 1 vote each. I look forward to the day when the other Commonwealth countries can compete at the Commonwealth Games against the United Kingdom, not against England, Wales, Scotland and NI separately. What they do in internal domestic competitions is entirely a matter for them, and it makes sense to have county cricket and inter-country footy etc, just as we have the State of Origin and the Pura Cup; but for international competition, let's have a level playing field. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, who also compete separately at the Commonwealth Games. But, Jack, don't forget Norfolk Island does as well. Gwinva (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, until the matter is resolved, NZ can declare the North and South Islands to be separate countries for the purposes of international competition. That's fair, isn't it? :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, to be truly fair I think we need to split into groupings of roughly equal size. With a population of 4.2 million, that pits New Zealand against, umm, Sydney. How will the medal standings look then? :) Gwinva (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion of England and Britain is everywhere. In supermarkets they describe Scottish food as Scottish and English food as British, there is now even a campaign against it. http://www.fairflags.org.uk/blog

Breuner Airfield

I need help finding more references for this article. If anyone could track some down for me or give me some pointers of how I can alter my search terms, in addition to any sites that catalog old news articles, particularly the Oakland Tribune, Richmond Post, Richmond Globe, West County Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner or East Bay Express. I know for sure there will be something concerning the proposed airport and the community opposition to it in the 1970s and also history of the site and it's connection to the Breuner Family.^MY♥_INchile 17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

technology and its impact on unemployment

Is there any consensus among economists about whether technology will, in the long run, lead to higher unemployment, by simply making people redudant? 202.89.166.179 (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about a consensus but you would need to consider the knowledge economy. The most technologically advance nations in the world are not the ones with the highest unemployment, nor are they the nations with the lowest average-incomes/median incomes. Technology allows for increases in efficiency and in the short-term it will result in job-losses as machines replace people, but in the long-run it will move people into positions where technology isn't able to replace humans... Think about something as technologically advanced as the internet - how many people are employed solely with the purposes of designing, developing, reviewing, maintaining websites? It may be that the internet has eaten into some areas of employment (perhaps bricks and mortar retail - e.g. independent travel agents) but it has created others. Sorry this is 'original research' i'll try find something online about it to link to. ny156uk (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the greatest technological unemployers in our lifetimes was the automatic teller machine. Another was the mobile phone (not many public phones around anymore, few printed phone directory, etc). A third would be the personal computer (just think of all those typing pools fired and adding machines no longer needed.) A source for further reading would be Luddite. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is short-term unemployment specific to sectors of work/specialisations of work. Technology is disruptive to the employment market - it can quickly make an occupation type obsolete, but that is entirely different to creating, in the long run (as per original question) higher unemployment. ny156uk (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]