Humanities desk
< October 28	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 30 >

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.

October 29

Statue on the Zeil in Frankfurt Germany

I recently took a trip to Europe and took a picture of this statue located on Zeil in downtown Frankfurt, Germany. I would love to know the name of it! Any help would be appreciated. This is a link to a picture of the statue.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/2155356410_33b3603a9e.jpg?v=1200433263 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.229.125 (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's "David and Goliath" ("David und Goliath" in German) by Richard Hess. With Google image searches I found more images [1][2][3][4] with no name but enough info to then find [5] and finally [6]. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chair not allowed to vote?

Is it common that the chair of a meeting should not be allowed to vote? In at least two student associations I know of, the chair is not allowed to vote and is not allowed to chair if they have an interest in the topic being discussed. Why? How can the chair influence decisions? ----Seans Potato Business 09:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chair of a meeting has a lot of power to influence a vote. One who even inadvertently misuses that power is a menace. They should take great care that they solicit opinions properly. They should very clearly say of any of their contributions whether it is purely personal or on the spot or whatever. Being a good chair is a skill an perhaps also requires some talent. Otherwise very much less than optimal things are done. Their not voting except as a decider is a very good idea as it emphasises that they should act neutrally. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my past experience of student affairs, it was not at all common, but perhaps I am out of date? Surely, a casting vote should always be within the rules, so that you can break a deadlock?

On your statement "the chair is... not allowed to chair if they have an interest in the topic", do you mean a financial interest? That may generally be a good idea, but even with financial interests you sometimes find that everyone in the room has the same interest in a discussion, so a rule like that needs to be carefully written. Strawless (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some bodies, the chair isn't allowed a casting vote and a tied vote always fails. --Tango (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always 4 years between US elections?

It seems that there are always 4 years between each US presidential election. In the UK, the prime minister can call an election at any time during his term in office (I notice that this can be done, and recently was, in Canada too). Can that happen, and has it ever happened, in the US? WAYB (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are always 4 years between US presidential elections. No, the president cannot call for an election. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is set forth in Article Two of the United States Constitution. Dismas|^(talk) 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it does not say that the Vice President shall serve the full term as President in case of vacancy; the Framers might have expected/intended a special election in such cases, or simply not thought about it. As it happened, the question didn't arise for 52 years. I wonder whether it was debated in 1841. —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Twelfth Amendment changed the field of such a debate. —Tamfang (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily difference between a Westminster system and a presidential system. Grsz ^Review! 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, part of the complaints about the "Westminster" system that led to the writing of the U.S. Constitution was that (especially in the 18th century) it largely depended on the whim of the Monarch as to when to call election, and that the Monarch (executive) could also dismiss Parliament whenever. The U.S. system was based on the idea that regular elections would lead to increased accountability to the people. It was also based on the ideas of seperation of powers, and on checks and balances and other principles which are entirely absent in the Westminster system. The Federalist papers, written by the framers of the U.S. Constitution, are an excellent discussion as to why the U.S. government was created as it was. It gives all the details and justifications for every aspect of what would become the American system of government. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it should be noted that there aren't 4 years between elections in the U.S. The "Federal" elections run every two years; Presidential elections run at every-other election cycle. State and local elections may or may not run at the same time as Federal elections, it is up to the smaller jurisdictions as to how they organize themselves. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Where annual election ends, tyranny begins" was a phrase often quoted by Founding Fathers of the US, although in writing the Constitution they decided that Federal elections every two years were more practical. (Many state officials, including governors, continued to be elected annually, although this changed over time.) The point of course was that elections should be regular, and that the executive should have no power to alter this. —Kevin Myers 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a debate now in Canada over whether to switch to "fixed" election dates. The Canadian federal government did so, but recently, the ruling party declared that Parliament wasn't working and called a new election, essentially ignoring the fixed-election law. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that there’s nothing about this at Canadian House of Commons#Elections or Parliament of Canada#Term. I wonder what could explain this. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion of it at Canadian federal election, 2008, Jack. In reality, yes, the government did ignore their own new law before it could ever be implemented, but obviously they can't really fix an election date when they are not legally the head of government. The Prime Minister could advise the Governor General to call an election on February 19 every four years but it was not enshrined in the constitution like it is in the US. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. Fixed election dates in Canada#Parliament of Canada tells us: "In effect, the "fixed-date" law changed only the maximum duration of a Parliament, by ensuring that it ends no later than October in its fourth calendar year after commencement, but the law leaves the possibility of an earlier end unaffected". I'd interpret that to mean that, unless the parliament is dissoved earlier, the election will be held every fourth year in October. It's interesting that it's portrayed as Canada having a fixed election date when it very clearly is not necessarily fixed at all, as this election showed. I don't see what happened recently as a case of "ignoring the fixed-election law", but one of exercising the suite of perfectly legal constitutional options available to the government and the Governor General. If any law had been broken, I'd bet some legal action would have been taken by now. Australia has a similar law. It's not framed in terms of a specific month, but in terms of a maximum duration of a parliament, counted from the day it first sits following a general election. Unless the parliament is dissolved sooner, it "expires through effluxion of time" 3 years after it first sits. This is usually described as "three-year terms", but the truth is that only one of our 42 parliaments has ever gone the full 3 years, and that was back in 1910. It's more accurate to describe it as "maximum three-year terms". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the stated purpose of the "fixed election dates" law was to eliminate the advantage the ruling party has through its ability to control the time of the election. So while the Conservatives' decision was constitutional, it was against the spirit of the fixed election dates law. There is really no way to have truly fixed election dates in a Westminster system. Even if the ruling party were prevented from asking the governor-general to dissolve Parliament, all of the members of the ruling party could simply resign, forcing the governor-general to call an election to get a quorum. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How large are the Canadian quorums (quora?). In Australia it's 25% for the Senate and 20% for the House of Representatives. If it were simply a matter of government members resigning en masse, wouldn't this simply hand government to the opposition, by virtue of the fact that they now control the numbers in the House of Commons? And wouldn't they hold a bunch of by-elections to replace the members who resigned, rather than a general election? No, I don't think it has to do with quorums. Resignations of one or more members would not normally be a legitimate reason to hold a general election, particularly if this were not one of the exceptional circumstances that could require the holding of an election on a date other than that otherwise fixed by law. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right -- quorum in the House of Commons is only 20 members. But I remember reading something to the effect of the majority party would always be able to basically force the governor-general to dissolve parliament -- perhaps by withholding supply against its own government or refusing to pass any legislation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has shades of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, where Gough Whitlam's Labor government was unable to get its supply bills through the Senate. The Liberal opposition led by Malcolm Fraser kept on stalling, demanding that the PM call an election, which he kept on refusing to do, on the principle that a government that has the numbers in the lower house is entitled to be given the funds to implement the legislative program on which its mandate was based. It went on for 3 months, from August to 11 November. To break the impasse, the Governor-General Sir John Kerr sacked the Whitlam government even though it commanded a sizeable majority in the lower house, and installed Fraser as Prime Minister on the understanding that he get the supply bills passed and immediately advise a general election. He did both of these things, and the parliament was dissolved later that day. Fraser remained caretaker PM throughout the election period even though the Labor-dominated House had expressed lack of confidence in his government, and the Liberals won by a record margin. Hypothetically, a government could refuse to pass its own supply bills - for what possible reason, I cannot imagine - but that would place them in the same position as Whitlam was in Australia, and with the precedent set by Kerr, the Canadian Governor General might take similar action. But this is so hypothetical as to be unimagineable. Why would a government want to go to the polls before it had to, or before it would normally even be permitted to? I can imagine an opposition trying to force such a circumstance, but not a government. I can also imagine a PM who'd taken over from a PM who resigned or died mid-term, and who wanted a mandate in his own right, wanting an election earlier than it might otherwise have been called, but voting against his government's own supply bills would certainly not be the way to go about it. The electorate would likely take the view that if the government was prepared to vote itself down, why should they do otherwise? If it were a case of government members being so disaffected by the direction their Prime Minister was taking the country as to not want to be associated with the governing party any more, they'd much more likely resign from the party and sit as independents, or even cross to the opposition party, and if there were sufficient numbers of such members, the government would fall, but an election would not necessarily eventuate. We've had this occur in Australia: in 1941, 2 independents who supported the UAP/Country Party coalition government switched their support to the Labor Party, and the government changed, but there was no election. The next election was not till 1943. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good discussions above. I do see one hole: travel time. At the time the rules were determined in the US, regular elections allowed people to plan their travel (horseback). Calling a snap election could very easily be timed to catch people far from their place of voting, or unable to receive news in a timely fashion. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing motorcycle helmets inside shops (UK)

Frequently you see the signs saying the wearing of full face motorcycle helmets is prohibited inside shops/stores/petrol stations in the UK, but is there an applicable law that applies or is it a shop by shop internal rule? Nanonic (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internal rule. Wearing a helmet obscures the face, frustrates CCTV, worries staff concerned that they might be targeted by robbers &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many petrol stations (gas stations for you USA types) won't activate the pump until you remove your helmet so your face is caught on CCTV (in case you ride away without paying). Exxolon (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the risk that they may actually be serving the body of a coltan alloy T-888 (with wireless head-body interface) when the helmet stays on [7] Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The daily lives of people in history

Are there any Wikipedia articles where I can read about the daily lives of "average" people in history -- slaves, laborors, merchants, soldiers, etc. in Roman times, the Middle Ages, and even in more recent history? I've been browsing some of the Portals but I'm not finding the correct articles. Thank you, in advance! 157.127.124.15 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the Middle Ages you could try Medieval household and check out the navigation box at the bottom for more articles. Rome is better-represented here, try Culture of ancient Rome and the associated box with more articles. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I was the original poster, I just wasn't logged in). Thanks Adam -- those articles are pretty close to what I was looking for. I'm reading a book right now by James J. O'Donnell, The Ruin of the Roman Empire (HarperCollins: 2008), and just finished another, Drink: A Cultural History of Alcohol (Gotham: 2008), which both give some greater detail into the daily lives, cares, worries, etc. of persons throughout history. I will see if I can work some of these details into the appropriate Wikipedia pages, and I will look into their sources for even more. Thanks again. Sarcasticninja (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of ancient Rome is very good. I'm hoping to discover more detail somewhere, but the 'Customs and daily life' section is what I wanted to see. Sarcasticninja (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read social history. Just search under social history in WP and elsewhere. --Omidinist (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely helps to point me in the correct direction. Thanks Omidinist! Sarcasticninja (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Veyne edited A History of Private Life in several volumes, available in paperback. Fernand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism and The Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II are filled with details drawn from private life, as they reflect larger political and economic trends. Some of the best social history I've ever read. --Wetman (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also look at this book Daily Life in Medieval times. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wonderful classic book called The diary of a nobody I can't recall the author but it's very good and that is basically a great account of everyday life of a 'nobody' in victorian times. Can't see how it would've been exciting to read at the time but these days it's a fascinating insight into daily life. An area you might be interested in is Mass observation which was a social-research program in the UK (and perhaps beyond?) that offered an insight into everyday life. I suspect similar types of studies may exist for further back in history. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Diary of a Nobody was by George Grossmith. I know all about Mass Observation but I didn't mention it because it's not directly relevant to the original question. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith Fact or fiction?

As of to date, I am sitting and pondering the entire misconception of others, as to read the Bible and develope some twisted concept that there was another wife for Adam before that of Eve.

What is not to understand? It is simple to grasp the concept that Adam and Eve were the first to be crated in the form of man by that of GOD. People are taking a myth, a fable a story and doing their best to disprove that the Bible is the truth, and that God is a telling tales. So my question is simple ( 1 ) Is there a Lilith in connection to Adam? ( 2 ) Where is she mentioned in the dead sea scrolls, as per the home page of Lilith it states " Lilith mentioned in dead sea scrolls. "

Maybe to explain to thoes who do not quite understand, how simple it is is thus: When God is implimenting the creation of Adam and Eve, in eariler passages of Genesis, God is simply stateing Hey I am making man in my own image, He knew He was gonna make man and woman as God knows all, and knew He was gonna make both, this does not by any means say God created Lilith for Adam as his first wife. Also in biblical days, as people wrote what they were told, they wrote in the the foremat of future context, and that of present context which can explain the theroy of double creations. They both were refering to the same creation of Adam and eve.

10-28-2008 C.T.Minner

Have you tried the article on Lilith? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to read our article on Documentary hypothesis, which discusses the "JEPD theory" and is a fairly straightforward and rather scholarly approach to explaining the apparent contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (such as, why is the entire creation story told twice, and why don't the two stories match up in terms of timeline and details?). The basic idea is that the information in the Pentatauch (the first 5 books of the bible) were compiled from 4 different sources, and cobbled together into a single narrative from creation through the Moses story. The contradictions between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, which is the basis for the "Lilith" tradition, can be more conveniently understood if one assumes that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written by completely different authors, and only put together later. The JEPD theory is not without its detractors, but it has widespread acceptance from both non-believing biblical scholars, and believers as well. I have an NIV Study Bible which, while it does not endorse JEPD, does discuss it and does not explicitly discount it either. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith doesn't appear in either story in Genesis and a possible origin for the Lilith story may lie in trying to read the double account as a single story, not in the contradictions between the accounts. Rmhermen (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point I was making; thanks for making it more clear. The contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is explained in some traditions to mean that God created two women, the first (Lilith) equal to Adam, and the second (Eve) to be subservient to Adam. Since Lilith disappears from the story, and Eve is who persists, it is her relationship to Adam that God prefers (or so the Tradition goes. Not that I agree with that interpretation). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some folk, and they have been numerous through Christian history, claim to have a direct line to the thoughts of God: "Hey I am making man in my own image, He knew He was gonna make man and woman as God knows all, and knew He was gonna make both..." Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, can only report the texts and describe the historical interpretations of those texts.--Wetman (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen

I'm not sure that I understand what really caused the strange behaviour of the Volkswagen shares on the stock market in the past few days. Can someone explain this? User:Krator (t c) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One explanation is here. I won't pretend to understand all the details, but it sounds like a classic short squeeze. --LarryMac | Talk 17:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche now owns about 75% of Volkswagen Stocks and the German state Lower Saxony owns another 20%. Since there are now only 5% of stocks on the market and accessible, trading with these stocks is frequent and frentic. There is high demand for these stocks, and as there are only very few available, prices started to soar.

The FT article pointed out by LarryMac says,

hedge funds, rushing to cover short positions, were forced to buy stock from a shrinking pool of shares in free float.

That it is accurate but only part of the story. The extreme demand/supply mismatch that drove up the price of VW ordinary shares (or common stock), so that at one point it had the highest market cap of any company in the world, also came from two other groups.

Besides the short sellers, there were the option writers with whom Porsche had long ago agreed on call options giving Porsche the right to buy VW stock at a pre-determined price. Porsche was starting to exercise those options, and some of the option writers did not actually own VW stock so they had to buy it in order to make good on their promises. (These were not simple call options; details are sketchy and Porsche is very secretive about them.)

The third force driving up the price of VW common stock were investment funds tracking the DAX (Germany's 30 biggest public companies). By their own statutes they are bound to mirror the relative weight of companies in the DAX, so when VW went up to account for 27 percent of the DAX the index funds had to scramble to buy VW at almost any price.

Those three factors taken together amounted to a perfect storm for some people, who got caught out in the cold.

One aspect that I have not seen mentioned in the media is whether or not this puts a damper on recommendations to invest in index-tracking funds. There seems to be an inherent flaw here, and the comforting thought that you could "invest and forget" in an index fund while saving on management fees may be less well-founded than previously thought.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, contrary to what someone wrote above, Porsche does not actually hold 75% of VW stock yet, though it is their stated intention to achieve this in 2009. If I remember right, a few days ago they owned a little over 40% of VW and held options to a little over 30%. THis last figure will have declined somewhat in recent days as they gave back some of their options in order to, as they said, take some of the upward pressure off VW's share price.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tag British news presenter and politicians are wearing at the moment

What kind of pin or tag are British news presenter and politicians wearing since 27 October? (it is red, green, and black tag in the shape of an apple) Is there a Wikipedia article about it?

I'm guessing you're referring to the Remembrance Day poppy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever wondered what the pretty nurse selling poppies on a tray in Penny Lane was about, that's it... AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some Australian politicians wearing them recently, and I have to wonder why they're wearing them so early. Remembrance Day is 11 November, still 12 days away, and it's a single day, not a season like "the Christmas-New Year season". A couple of days early is ok, but up to 3 weeks early is like having office Christmas parties in early November, or selling hot cross buns in late December. It's fine to remember the fallen throughout the year, not just on one day of the year, but the wearing of poppies so far removed from the day set aside for that commemoration seems almost disrespectful. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's like Christmas (and Halloween), people start doing things for it earlier every year... I'd say poppys should be worn for at most a week prior to the 11th, more than that is silly. --Tango (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the reference desk was about facts. Richard Avery (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Royal British Legion launched their annual campaign a few days ago? I'd have thought most people get their poppy from the first place they see them when they have a free moment and some change, and wear them once they've bought them. Although politicians probably put more thought in... I wonder what's up with the larger, more Canadian-style poppies I've seen a few people wearing (in the UK). Are they symbolic of something in particular, or are they just more ostentatious? As in "I remember harder than you do", which doesn't really seem the point. 79.66.86.162 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]