Humanities desk
< September 24	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 26 >

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.

September 25

Question!

In one word... What do you call someone who's against both religion & politics?

Sorry, you have to do your own homework... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't thnik you can describe such a concept that in one single word. --Lgriot (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antireligiopoliticalist, perhaps, given your similar Question! at the language desk. Gwinva (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilist fits pretty well 90.235.30.211 (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... for a broad-enough definition of "religion & politics". —Tamfang (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US: $700 billion bailout

Where is the US getting $700 billion from for the financial system bailout, if they are already so heavily in debt? Will China play a role here? Thanks for info., Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They'll borrow more money. There is no limit to how much a country can borrow, although if investors feel they have borrowed so much that they may have difficulty paying it back, the country's credit rating will drop and it will have to pay greater interest on the bonds. --Tango (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. is always heavily in debt. Congress repeatedly votes to increase the debt. I believe they do it once a year, but it could be more or less often. All they have to do is vote to increase the debt further. Really, what's the big difference between a $9,791,569,244,675.95 debt and a $10,491,569,244,675.95 debt? -- kainaw ™ 04:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two possibility that I can see.

They borrow money from the federal reserve and put on the national credit card. (Aka National Debt)
They simply print more money. (Aka devalue the dollar)

122.107.176.54 (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They wont simply print more money. That would be economic suicide. They'll borrow it. 90.235.30.211 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...what's the big difference between a $9,791,569,244,675.95 debt and a $10,491,569,244,675.95 debt?" The difference is $700 billion of extra debt to be funded; that is, roughly an extra $2,300 of debt for every man, woman or child now in the US. I am happy to say that I am not a US taxpayer, because one suspects that sooner or later the music will have to be faced. Strawless (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They ought to be earning more interest on the securities they buy than they're paying on the bonds, so funding the debt isn't an issue. The only issue is that they are taking on the risk of those securities and if people continue to default on their mortgages it's the taxpayer that loses the money. --Tango (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing debt per taxpayer is a rhetorical trick that isn't really interesting in economical terms. One measure that is useful, but not the only one, is expressing debt as a percentage of GDP. The US percentage is lower than that of several European countries here. User:Krator (t c) 19:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Musharraf ... will he die?

Where is he right now?. Could he be sentenced to death if is judged? Thank you it's very important to me, I'm a Pakistani national living in other country thanks to this man and I really hope he will be punished. --201.254.85.73 (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you are relaxing in Argentina, why not take the time to read Pervez Musharraf? You never know. With just a little effort on your part, you may find what you are looking for. -- kainaw ™ 04:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I predict that Musharraf will die! Probably of old age. 122.107.176.54 (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Movement to impeach Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf lost the support he needed to survive as President, and I am not going to comment on that, except to say that we must have reason to hope that Zardari will be more committed to democracy. Musharraf went wrong, but you have to see him in the context of events. Is he so criminally corrupt that he should be executed? Perhaps not, but who knows? Strange things happen in Pakistan, and it would be rash to predict the outcome of events. Bhutto was also not widely seen as a great criminal, but after falling from power he was executed for ordering the killing of a opponent, and Musharraf has had many temptations of that kind. Strawless (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Types of banks in the U.S.

I'm sure many people are looking for background information on the financial crisis of 2007-2008. One thing I was looking for but didn't find at Banking in the United States was a clear explanation of the different types of legal banking entities which are allowed. (It's a little strange to find out that arbitrary business arrangements are actually not allowed.) Can anyone shed any light on the current situation? -- Beland (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many different types of financial institutions, including savings and loans, credit unions and insurance companies. Among banks, there are retail banks for individuals and businesses, private banks for very wealth people, investment banks for equities and bond markets, and central banks for keeping it all together. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of this past weekend, I believe that there are no more investment banks in the US, since Goldmans Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted to "bank holding companies". --LarryMac | Talk 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm embarrassed to say that I've been trying to keep an eye on bank in the last few months, but the article is still not great. The real answer is that there are lots of different kinds of financial intermediaries, but they are mostly defined - in any given country - by local regulation and legislation. It is quite complicated.NByz (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan of Oman and race

I have seen the Sultan of Oman Qaboos in pictures, so I am he is black by colour so does this mean he is an Afro-Arab by ethnic background? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.120 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say anything about his personal pigmentation, but historically, the Sultans of Oman conquered Zanzibar from the Portuguese in 1698, and seized control of the East African slave trade along the Indian Ocean coasts north of Mozambique for about 150 years... AnonMoos (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muammar Ghaddafi

I like how Muammar Ghaddafi wear the dresses whenever he is in a meeting. Are they African or Arab dress? Where can I get one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.120 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thawb might give you some links... AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Investmant stat's

Hi ! Does anyone know where I can get statistics on the "growth" of personal investing in the stockmarket or finacial world . Thank you in advance for your assistance !--(Special:Contributions/69.70.21.10|69.70.21.10]] (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC) (could not log in to my wiki account :( )[reply]

I don't know where to get it, but I think the data would be numbers of individual accounts. Oh, and you will need to specify which stock market(s) you're interested in. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skin colour of Jesus

Is it more likely that Jesus was a black man, rather than a white, Aryan-looking man? Why do people tend to take serious offense if you suggest that Jesus was racial anyway?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.114.5 (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your first question, but what do you mean by "racial"? If there's any such thing as different races among Earth's human population (which is highly debatable), then every one of us belongs to one or other of them. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Jesus existed, his appearance was that of someone from Western Asia. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's worth noting we have an entire article on this question: Race of Jesus.

Second, most Americans have been raised on the idea of Jesus as a brown-bearded white European male, just as they think Santa Claus is chubby and dresses in bright red. Both are historically contingent constructions — the European Jesus is a particular Western European depiction of Jesus that migrated over to the US centuries back, and the bright red Santa is a creation of the Coca-Cola company. When you question the appearances that they have been taught, many people will understand this introducing a certain arbitrariness into what they have been taught. If he isn't snow-white with brown-to-blond hair, what else could be just something someone made up? And I don't know this to be exactly true but I suspect that the "personal relationship" that most protestant Christians try to have with Jesus often involves a visual image of Him in some form of their worship, and the idea that they might have been imagining the wrong guy probably rubs them a little kooky.

Personally, as an agnostic-atheist, I love this kind of stuff, because it does, in the end, point to the places where popular religion and actual history don't intersect very well, and does, in its own little way, illustrate the arbitrariness of much of what is taken to be Word of God and so forth. Because it has a visual aspect, it really hits harder than a lot of the more nuanced philosophical arguments, even if it is really quite a minor theological point. (That the image of Jesus is interpreted and modified to reflect the worshippers should hardly surprise or bother serious Christian thinkers—it is only the very unserious and unthinking that it disturbs.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic : "the bright red Santa is a creation of the Coca-Cola company." This is a myth. APL (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that your statement that "the church" sees Jesus as European is actually a fallacy in itself, as our Independent Baptist church has always regarded Him as a man of Middle Eastern looks. Which is what the Word of God says. The denominations of Christianity are the ones who have taken this attitude that He is the same as the European man; one of many reasons we don't believe in belonging to any denomination.209.244.30.221 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Can you provide the chapter and verse from the Word of God that actually says he was a man of Middle Eastern looks? (For the record, I don't doubt it, because a European looking person in Palestine at that time would have been very unusual and would have been commented on. He might have appeared to be a Roman who wasn't wearing Roman garb. But afaik, there's no mention anywhere of his looks, his clothing, his physique etc, which suggests to me that he was absolutely normal for that place and that time in all these ways.) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did they have quilted jackets in middle ages? And in general what other clothes did they wear?

Did they have quilted jackets in Europe during the middle ages?? (approx. 1100-1200) And knowing more about what clothes and garments they wore in general to protect themselves from cold and winter would be nice too. Knowing what the garments were called and such. winter-coats? winter-cloaks? scarves?

Any sort of winter-tunics? And did they wear anything in addition to normal pants/trousers to keep their legs warm? I've heard that many that were poor didn't have proper shoes to protect their feet, but shoes/boots in particular aren't so imporant in my question. But, as for the clothes, it's more important to know what actually was available and possible to make(overly expensive or not) than knowing simply what the lower classes wore that could not afford much, coz then I'm left none the wiser.

Appreciative thanks for any answers I might get :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/84.49.121.40|84.49.121.40]] (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how helpful this would be, but we do have an article called 1100-1200 in fashion. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quilted jacket you're thinking of might be the aketon, of which various early types were found in the 12thC. For more specific information about what they wore, then Adam's link above is useful. Also check out these google books, which offer some previews: [1], [2], [3]. For making them yourself, this site had links to a lot of patterns, but I've not investigated their accuracy: you might want to compare them with the pictures in the google books. Gwinva (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The options for most people were limited to what was readily available. They had a lot of wool, so as soon as the weather got colder they could pile on woollen clothing. But wool is not good at keeping cold winds out, so leather, sheepskin and fur had a role. In a sense they pioneered the modern approach to outdoor clothing - "wicking" layer next to the skin (in their case linen), followed by a warm layer trapping lots of air (wool ideal for that), followed by a windproof outer layer (skins best for that). I expect the detail varied between specific areas, social groups and points in time. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which logical fallacy is this?

Let's say than an average editor makes 10 edits per day and is criticized once every 10 days (thus once for every 100 edits). An editor that is 10 times as active (makes 100 edits per day) and is half less criticized per edit (this once for every 200 edits) will still rack up one criticism every 2 days. If one states during a dispute resolution: editor A is disruptive and has lost trust of the community, he is 5 times as often criticized as an average editors because he is criticized every 2 days instead of every 10 days like an average editor will be doing injustice to editor A, who is actually twice less disruptive than an average editor - he is simply 10 times as active... The only "fault" editor A has is that he is 10 times as active as an average editor - should he be ordered to limit his activity? Or should we say that "if you are ten times as active, you should be ten times as civil as an average editor"? Ridiculous, isn't it?

Which logical fallacy does this example show? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Base rate fallacy, amongst others, I'd think. List of fallacies is your best starting point for these sorts of enquiries. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the list, but had trouble fitting this one into the right peg.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's a base rate fallacy (there may be some others in there as well, but that's the main one). The arguer is failing to take into account the probability of editor A getting those complaints without being more disruptive than average. --Tango (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the more edits or administrator actions one takes, the more mistakes he will make, numerically if not as a percentage, and that when someone lines up a set of diffs to show how bad an editor or admin is, they should be considered in relation to the total body of work on Wikipedia, insofar as they could be considered mistakes(as opposed to gross violations of policies and guidelines). If someone has done 20,000 edits, the worst 20 might look very bad indeed, but are at a rate of 1 per thousand edits. The more vandal fighting or POV removal an editor does, the more likely he is to annoy a crank who is quick to file bogus complaints at WP:ANI or other fora for complaining. [User:Edison|Edison]] (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly (used here and on talk). Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The core fallacy here is petitio principii. There is no reason to presume that good behaviour obliviates bad behaviour in a constant ratio when viewed by a disinterested observer. Nor is there a tariff of X personal attacks per FA, Y tendentious edits per DYK, et cetera. The Arbitration Committee is never that utilitarian, while the Arbitrary Committee, on those fortunately rare occasions that it makes an appearance, is simply unpredictable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]