Humanities desk
< January 13	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 14

"Wars have begun that way"

In the movie The Hunt for Red October, the Soviet ambassador is warned that the situation with the Soviet and American fleets in close proximity (in a time when each country regards the other as a potential enemy) "is inherently dangerous -- wars have begun that way."

Have wars begun that way? (That is, by escalation from a local incident between military forces when neither side's government, although perhaps ready to fight a war, was interested in starting one.) Which ones?

--Anonymous, 23:30 UTC, January 13, 2008.

War of Jenkin's Ear?--Wetman (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Camlann. Wrad (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Years War which began when Virginia Militia Lt. Col. George Washington and 40 troops had a run in with a Canadian militia ensign and his 35 troops, several thousand miles (and a couple months' journey) from their imperial authorities. Rmhermen (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a more modern example, Gulf of Tonkin incident is something not dissimilar. --03:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.69.31 (talk)

The War of the Stray Dog must rank highly in these stakes. Algebraist 04:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat similar example where military exercises, rheoteric on both sides and various incidents and similar things created a very dangerous situation, albeit one which fortunately didn't actually lead to war Able Archer 83. To some extent the Cuban missile crisis is similar where the buildup of nuclear weapons too close for comfort on both sides (Soviet nukes in Cuba, US nukes in Turkey) nearly lead to war. The Six-Day War highlights a related case where one country effectively 'goads' the other country into war by putting troops on the frontline and otherwise making life difficult for the second country, even though the second country may know the first country was not going to invade it's a convient excuse to deal with a messy situation. Ultimately any situation where two sides who are incredibly antagonistic to each other and too close for comfort is a very risky situation since any mis-interpretation can lead to war. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the case that such proximity decreases the amount of time to resolve a problem. In the Cold War this got taken to entirely new heights with the reduction of reaction times to a missile attack to mere minutes—if the US detected a Soviet launch, they'd only have minutes to respond with their own launch before it would be too late to retaliate. Rather perilous. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue World War I began this way. User:Krator (t c) 12:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the War of 1812. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The French and Indian War (1754-1755) between France and Great Britain began in that way, too. Indeed, none other than the person of George Washington himself was the instigator of this war, which began when Washington, leading a ragtag militia under orders from the colonial Virginian governor, got into a tussle in the Ohio wilderness with a French Canadian military expedition. The result of this minor skirmish out in the middle of nowhere, involving just a few dozen people was the full-on war between England and France. The results of this war was that England defeated France, seized Canada, and insured that the French would no longer seek to pursue a course of colonization in North America. -- Saukkomies 16:35 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rmhermen mentioned that above as the Seven Years War :) Which raises the interesting point of what to call that war! Adam Bishop (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, missed that, thanks for the correction. But yes, in Canada and England, this was known as the Seven Years War, but in the US it is known as the French and Indian War. Either name is okay to use. -- Saukkomies 19:35 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No matter. It's always entertaining to hear a historical event described by someone who learnt about it in another country :P The emphasis is very different, and certainly the adjectives and verbs intrigue. 79.66.24.40 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Russians refer to what most people call "World War II", or at least their involvement in it, as "The Great Patriotic War". -- JackofOz (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers, everyone. I think several of them do not really qualify, but some do, so the answer seems to be yes. --Anon, 09:42 UTC, January 20/08.

How Many Bills has Bush passed into law?

I'm wondering how many bills he's actually passed. A source would be nice with your answer. Rentastrawberry (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to George W. Bush and Federal laws (as opposed to Texas laws). None. Bush never served in Congress. Congress votes on bills to make them laws. They send the law to the President. The President either chooses that the law will be enforced or he vetoes it. If he vetoes it, Congress has the option to override the President's choice and make it enforceable themselves. In the end, the President never, in any way, "passes a law", "votes on a law", or even remotely "makes a law". When people talk about "Bush's (fill in the blank) law", they mean "Congress' (fill in the blank) law that Bush wanted Congress to pass". -- kainaw ™ 04:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the original poster was asking for how many Acts have been passed under the Bush presidency, not a discursive essay on the meaning of "pass". See List of United States federal legislation for links to Acts of the US Congress by year. Matching the dates against the dates of the Bush presidency will give you the answer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very rare that I ever meet anyone who understands that the President does not make laws. When it comes to Bush, there are many people who believe he somehow traveled back in time to create laws in the 70's (such as FISA). Therefore, I find it a huge assumption to read "bills he's actually passed" as "bills passed by Congress while he was in office". -- kainaw ™ 17:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The President can of course give executive orders which sometimes have the force of law and when they relate to national security are often classified so we have no way of knowing for sure how many he (or any other president) has given Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the president's executive departments promulgate (that's the term they use) thousands of regulations every year. Both executive orders and regulations are laws just like any other law. What the president can't do is formally propose statutes, which is the type of law passed by Congress. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver testacles as medicine?

In this template. At first, when I saw, "Beaver," I thought it was vandalism. But the article on Beaver mentions this. Can anybody confirm this and does anyone know if there's a proper term for beaver testacles as medicine? Zenwhat (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is correct. Ancient naturalists believed that the beaver's testicles contained castoreum. According to Animal Acts: Configuring the Human in Western History, p70 (ISBN 0415916100) tradition held that the beaver "knowing that men are pursuing him just to get the liqueur which is so useful in medicine, will tear off his testicles when he sees himself pursued by hunters and abandon them as a ransom." (Unfortunately for the hunters and the beaver, castoreum infact comes from the nearby castor gland, not the testicles). Rockpocket 06:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see Pliny's Natural History 32.13. Also, the glands apparently contain some salicylic acid.—eric 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stick with aspirin, all other things being equal. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public library use in the UK

What percentage of adults in the United Kingdom regularly use a public library? Tamsen (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council give the following statistics (from Introduction to the MLA pages 20-25)

- 290.5 million recorded visits in 2005-2006
- 48% of adults visit a library at least once per year – that’s over 19.1 million adults

62.136.167.175 (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recipe website that gives recipes according to what ingredients you have?

I'm sure I've heard of websites where you enter what ingredients you have available, and it suggests recipes based on these. What I really want to do is enter the basic things that I normally buy, and get recipes based on these. I'm fed up of trawling through recipes only to be knocked back by calls for wine or some stupid herb or any of the millions of ingredients that I can't afford as a student. I also want to be able to save the list of ingredients so that I don't have to enter it in each time (it's not likely to change much or often). ----Seans Potato Business 15:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not buy some nice Australian Chiraz in a screw topped bottle which you can drink on days you don't cook with it? (And that reply is solely because it was Sean who asked!) SaundersW (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can try allrecipes.com's ingredients search page though you can only search using five ingredients at a time. Alternatively, you can try their advanced search which gives you more options. --Julia (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recipezaar.com has that feature. You can also limit by other criteria like vegetarian or "simple".--droptone (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I have a missing ingredient, I adapt the recipie bu using something "similar" in it's place, or leave it out altogether. Astronaut (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's a major part of the recipe, calls for wine or specific herbs and spices can be ignored. They may make it tastier, but they're rarely vital. 79.66.24.40 (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name

Can the origin of the name "FINEBERG", with this particular spelling be found? I am given to understand that it might be Russian or Ukranian. Ultraeagle (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll forward on the link from the Goldstein question above:[1]. A person who has that name could certainly be a citizen or national or Russia or Ukraine, but the name is in the German language and tends to be associated with the surnames assigned to Jews. It means "Fine Mountain," although it would have originally been spelled "Feinberg" (which is how a German would spell something that sounds like "Fineberg" in English). Googling the name, it looks like there's quite a few Finebergs now in Boston. --M @r ē ino 16:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is no doubt an anglicized version of the (Jewish) name "Feinberg". It is probably difficult to find one origin, because every time somebody named Feinberg immigrated to the USA they may have considered this change - or their immigration officers changed it for them. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian the originally German name Feinberg occurs as Фейнберг (see e.g. Samuil Feinberg), which is romanized as "Fejnberg". --Lambiam 17:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This anglicized spelling is most common among Eastern European Jews who resettled in the United States or Canada (or perhaps in the United Kingdom), generally between about 1850 and 1920. The original name (Feinberg in the Latin alphabet, Фейнберг in Cyrillic) was common among Ashkenazi Jews, who lived before migration to an English-speaking country in a geographic belt extending from Germany across what are today the countries of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, parts of Romania, Moldova, western Ukraine, Belarus, western Russia, and Lithuania. Much of this territory lay in the part of the Russian Empire known as the Pale of Settlement. Within this region, there was a fair degree of mobility from place to place among the Jewish population in search of opportunities for livelihood or trade. So the surname Feinberg (which may have originated in more than one place) would probably have spread to many different parts of the Pale before people with this surname traveled to English-speaking countries and adopted this spelling. Marco polo (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China Factories - Foriegn Ownership

Can Americans or Foreigners own Chinese Factories? --1textloud (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Chinese factories, but I do know that it is common for foreign companies to run factories in China, although the middle management and below will all be likely Chinese. I know of a few people in China helping to run foreign owned factories. Steewi (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India Real Estate - Foreign Ownership

Can people who don't have citizenship of India own real estate there? --1textloud (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Indian High Commission in London website - "Are there any restrictions on UK nationals operating a partnership with an indian national in India? Are there any restrictions on property ownership? Thank you for your help.

Dear Sir, Please refer to your email of 28/07/04. There are no restrictions on UK Nationals having a partnership with an Indian National in India. They can also own property with the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. For further information you can visit the RBI website which is as follows. www.rbi.org.in With regards, Commerce Section". Hope this helps, DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buyouts by GM & Ford

Why are GM & Ford paying money for the employees to leave when they can be fired or dismissed? --1textloud (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have to consider many factors...1) The staff-morale of those who will continue to work for you 2) To avoid potential bad publicity 3) There will doubtlessly be rules and regulations regarding the removal of staff who have not acted outside of the terms of their contracts 4) To ensure good relations with your previous-staff... rehiring of previous staff is quite common so you should try to leave on good terms as possible 5) Strong unions. Think about it...If Ford just fired 1,000 employees without giving them a penny, what would the media do? What would the general public backlash be if it were dragged out infront of the entire press? They would risk those staff who didn't get sacked going on strike, they would risk a boycotting of their products, they might see a downturn in sales etc. I suspect that cost-to-benefit wise it is better to give modest redundancies payments when removing noteable chunks of the workforce than it is to just get rid of them. Also a lot of times the amount of 'redundancies' that make it into the newspaper headlines ignore the amount that will be lost through natural attrition (think that's the word - basically people leaving the firm and the firm not re-hiring anybody so as to reduce the number of people forceable made redundant) ny156uk (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with the above answer, but the most important word in that answer is unions. GM & Ford have signed contracts with the unions guaranteeing their members severance pay. If GM or Ford tried to break these contracts, they would likely get sued and lose. --M @r ē ino 19:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Ford agree their employees to being members of UAW and allowing UAW to negotiate for them. The Battle of the Overpass says about 1 incident, but that did not conclude with Ford allowing UAW unless something major happened afterwards? --1textloud (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because historically a large amount of the potential 'talent pool' were union members and thus it was hard to not hire them? Companies are not all powerful (as some people consider them to be). They 'offer' jobs based on salary and terms/conditions of employment. If that salary/terms/conditions are not sufficient to ensure a steady supply of staff they have to reconsider their practices. Similarly the unionised-staff have to ensure that their own demands are not so much that they make it unappealing for the company to hire them in the first place. The 'power' can switch very quickly and both sides will almost always take advantage of their bargaining power. Be it scarcity of reliable/skilled workers driving up the price paid to each worker, or an over-abundance of reliable/skilled workers making it possible for the company to drive down wages. Unions are often seen as trying to 'limit' the workforce to drive up standards, but this can come at the expense of non-unionised members being 'frozen out' of the sector. Suffice to say it's all very political and as always in politics there is no definitively correct answer. ny156uk (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Buckingham Palace

Was Buckingham Palace reportedly built by the Duke of Buckingham ever known as "Buck House" or was it always called "Buckingham House"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.113.34 (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is colloquially known as "Buck House" - I doubt if it has ever formally been known as that tho'. DuncanHill (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and did you know that the paint on the railing is called "Invisible Green", it is not black.--88.110.104.193 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't everyone have tea with Betty and Phil at Buck House of a Sunday? Bielle (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By Betty I assume you mean Brenda? Algebraist 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have ever seen "Private Eye" in Canada. Here, our reverent irreverence (or irreverent reverence) comes out as Betty, or Liz or even Lizzie. Bielle (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't realise you were from one of the other Realms and Territories. Interesting... I, of course, could never countenance disrespect to ol' Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, as he is the Chancellor of my University. Algebraist 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada recognizing independent states

My question concerns Canada and who (whether Parliament, Prime Minister, or someone else) decides to accept a country as being independent? Would Parliament need to decide, or would the Prime Minister have that authority? Or do we have to go to the Governor General (Queen's representative)? Maybe something else? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.132.70.59 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that diplomatic recognition (the term for accepting a country's independence) requires legislation, so Parliament would not need to act. I think that existing legislation gives the government, led by the prime minister, the power to establish foreign relations, including diplomatic recognition, with other countries. In practice, the minister of foreign affairs would probably recommend recognition. I would think that diplomatic recognition (particularly of a country as controversial as Kosovo) would need the approval of the prime minister. Once recognition was approved, it would be the job of the minister of foreign affairs to announce diplomatic recognition and arrange for diplomatic representation. This is based on some deduction on my part, and hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Marco polo (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's the same in Canada, but in Australia the power to conduct foreign relations, including establishing diplomatic relations or signing treaties, are part of the royal prerogative, and thus exercised by the Governor-General in Council, i.e. in reality by the Prime Minister and executive government. See also the royal prerogative article and its discussion of foreign affairs.

Of course, the prime minister and the executive is ultimately answerable to parliament and rules while it enjoys the parliament's confidence, so ultimately the parliament does have some influence.

See, for example, the case of Bill Skate, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, who resigned in 1999 owing to parliamentary non-confidence, at least one of the reasons for which was his decision to recognise Taiwan instead of China as the government of China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the usual practice is for governments to recognise other governments, not other countries per se. Governments have no easier a time deciding whether a particular foreign entity constitutes a "country" than we here on Wikipedia do, or whether or not it is "independent" (another very fuzzy term), so they avoid these issues entirely and just recognise (or not) the government of that entity. But if the government did decide to recognise a government it had not previously recognised, I cannot imagine the decision being made by anyone lower than the Prime Minister, or at least with his/her agreement. That's because, in countries with Westminster-style governments, all government decisions are, in theory at least, made by a Cabinet, which is chaired by the PM, and not by any one minister, including the PM. The reality is that the PM often decides matters and the Cabinet goes along with it. The decision is still announced as a "government decision", not a "prime ministerial" or "foreign ministerial" decision. That's apart from cases where a particular minister has a prerogative under a law to make a certain decision; but recognition of foreign governments is not controlled by domestic law, rather it's a matter of government/royal prerogative.-- JackofOz (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sultana disaster 1865

Where would one go to find the cemeteries where the bodies of the 1865 Sultana disaster are buried? Is there a searchable database of these burials and where a certain person might be found that was killed in the explosion? That part of the story seems to have been left out of the Sultana (steamboat) article and I am having trouble finding references to this.--Doug ^talk 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, many were buried in mass graves in Memphis. Here is a list of Sultana memorials. Here is the passenger list. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some would have been shipped back home for burial (or reburial) as well. Rmhermen (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy plain white rice

Sometimes in Japanese anime etc, you see people going crazy over "delicious" plain white rice. What's that all about? Plain white rice is pretty bland and boring, and not all that nutritious... ----Seans Potato Business 22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In East Asian countries (China, Japan, etc) "good" rice is prized for its unique "rice fragrance". I doubt many people eat plain rice by itself, but appreciating the smell and taste of the rice is certainly part of the culture. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been near east Asia, but I've certainly had white rice which I would rank as 'delicious' on its own. </OR> Algebraist 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basmati! And while it's cooking, it fills the whole house with its nutty fragrance. Catrionak (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but good plain white rice can be pretty dang good, not that dry crap you find at Chinese restaurants. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes just with a good soy sauce – yum! (Some people get into the quality of rice, choosing a product without those white marks in the grain for instance.)Julia Rossi (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love the steamed rice that comes from a Chinese restaurant. I love how it plops out of the little box still in cube shape. Most Westerners don't know how to make rice. They think all the rice kernels should be individual. That's dead rice. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear Bibliomaniac15 patronizes the wrong Chinese restaurants. Algebraist 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never used to like white rice until I was roommates with an Asian guy. He really knew how to make it! Wrad (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in an Indian grocery store yesterday, and they had an aisle of nothing but rice in 20+ lb. bags, all different kinds. --Sean 01:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many restaurants use long-grained rice, which, if not freshly cooked (e.g. left out for too long), becomes "dry crap" as Bibliomaniac would put it. But it cuts both ways - long-grained rice is also less glutinous and thus has better presentation (depending on your view) when served. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rice is nice, that's what they say [2]. Edison (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for the earworm! But it's OK, because I had forgotten they sang anything besides "Green Tambourine." Catrionak (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earworm, you said? [3]. Edison (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I am old enough to remember it without the help! But thanks (I think!).Catrionak (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]