Humanities desk
< September 2	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 4 >

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 3

VPs in the USA

Are there any historical precedents in the US where a VP has been picked by the presidential candidate of a major party, and then dropped and another person chosen to stand instead? Thanks for any info, Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Eagleton. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

granny smiths

(troll question removed). Edison2 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czechoslovak Communist Exiles

Recently, I have been trying to research Communist history, namely in Czechoslovakia. Is there a Wikipedia article about the people who went abroad and were stripped of their citizenship while they weren't in Czechoslovakia? Also, are there any good online links? I'd like to know how they managed to get their citizenship back, get a passport from another country, etc. Vltava 68 ^{(talk, contribs)} 10:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is a Wikipedia article on the subject, but if you're up for some research, you might find some candidates in Category:Czech expatriates and Category:Slovak expatriates. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

soranus

i am looking for a high quality image of the bust of soranus, greek gyneacologist. or indeed for the original or a copy of it? i have a client wishing a charcoal drawing of this and my research so far has only thrown up small poor quality copies. thank you. 89.159.144.169 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a photo of a bust of Soranus at [1], but I do not know if it is of sufficiently high quality for your purposes. DuncanHill (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette question

I know a woman who will be giving birth in a few months, at which time I look to send a card of congratulations. I've got a problem, though: I don't know her husband's name, so I'm not sure how I'll address the letter. She's Mrs X-Y, although she normally goes by Mrs X only. Is he likely to be Mr X, or Mr Y, or is it really impossible to know without asking one of them? 63.172.28.202 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather lucky. I work with people from all over the world. So, I can cheat and ask, "How do you spell your last name?" Even if it is something like "Wong", I can reply, "Oh, you spell it the normal way. That's easy to remember." -- kainaw ™ 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If she's Mrs. X-Y, I would guess that he's probably Mr. Y, but there's no way to say for sure. Could you ask somebody who's closer to Mrs. X-Y, and might know the answer? (BTW, my wife did not change her name when we married, and we often get cards with incorrect names. I'm sure that they will appreciate the kind thoughts even if you make a mistake.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought--There may be a birth announcement in the local paper, with their full names. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with what Coneslayer said, but also, will they not send you an announcement card with their names on? DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least here in the U.S., such announcements (of graduations, marriages, births) are often seen as solicitations for gifts. Therefore, polite people may choose to send them only to their closest family and friends, to avoid the appearance of "gift-grubbing". Mr./Ms. 63.172.28.202 might be outside this close circle. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll have to ask someone, there are so many possibilities. She could use a double barrelled name because she's combined her maiden name and her husband's name, or her parents may have combined their names (or some earlier generation), or her husband's parents (or higher generation) could have combined their names, and she's taken her husband's name. (There may even be other possibilities, but I think those are the most likely.) You could just avoid surnames entirely, either by using first names (if you are familiar enough with them), or no names at all, "To the proud parents of XYZ, congratulations and best wishs, [your name here]". It's difficult to know how offended they will be if you use the wrong names. I doubt many people would be offended at being asked, though, just be appropriately apologetic about it (or ask someone else that's likely to know). --Tango (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you know their first names, just put those on the card. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably have to end up asking: as far as I know, I don't know anyone but her who knows him, and I'm planning on sending this card in the mail, so the postal worker likely will want more than their first names :-) 63.172.28.202 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the postal worker care who it's addressed to? They just go by the address. --Tango (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try this: send a "welcome to the world" card to the child, instead. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The child is probably unnamed at this point, though, so then the original poster might again need to know which surname to use. Personally, I'd just ask. It's going to be a hell of a lot less embarrassing than getting the name wrong, and if you don't know him that well, it's by no means impolite to ask. There's no reason to expect that you would offend them by asking. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different Amounts for Different Charges?

In the US, or if you want to be specific, Connecticut, how much illegal substances (marijuana) do you have to have on your person to be convicted of a minor charge? How much for a major charge? Same question for controlled substances like oxycodone? --Anilmanohar (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try here. (first Google hit for 'connecticut marijuana possession') Prince of Canada^{t | c} 17:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this perhaps legal advice? 63.172.28.202 (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal advice is like, "how should I plead in court", not "what exactly does the law say on this specific issue." The former needs expert advice. The latter is just about looking up a statute. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazonian tribe

Which Amazonian tribe does this practise where it is like a celebration where the men hold a turtle and have to hold it from the ladies and the ladies pinch them, bite them or whatever they do to the men in order to get the turtle? This is in Brazil and I saw this thing on t.v. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.121 (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preclassical statuary depictions of masturbation

I and some others am trying to bring the Masturbation article to GA status. Among the uncited statements is this one:

“

A clay figurine of the 4th millennium BC from a temple site on the island of Malta, depicts a woman masturbating. However, in the ancient world depictions of male masturbation are far more common.

”

I'm no expert in archaeology, and I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for the former statement. If this figurine exists, it should be referenced somewhere. Can anyone throw me a clue?

(Good suggestions for the second sentence are also welcome, though these are easier-than-impossible to find so far.) The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was found at Hagar Qim. Try googling that plus masturbation. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the Council for British Archaeology may be of interest (scroll down a bit to find the right section) [2] DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful-- just what was needed. Thank you. The Wednesday Island (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much of a good thing?

My friend and I were talking about credit cards and he said that paying your credit card statement on time, every time, can actually be a bad thing because you won't make credit card companies any money, therefore it would essentially lower one's credit score. I sort of see the sense in it, but I don't really believe it, because they make money through the merchants, right?... [Disclaimer: I'm not seeking legal/financial advice] -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have a very hard time believing paying your credit card statement on time, every time, could have any sort of harmful effect whatsoever. JIP | Talk 17:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your credit score goes down if you are late (by even a single day) when paying your bill. All you need to do is ask for your credit report. There is a section that lists every time you've been late paying a bill (and the creditor reports it). There is no section listing how often you pay on time. -- kainaw ™ 17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pay your bill on time if possible. Not only is letting balances build up one of the worst financial mistakes to make, but paying on time (and in full) enhances your credit score. As long as the credit card / phone bill /etc is in your name you are building your credit worthiness. That is what institutions will look at when deciding to lend you money (or the rate at which they will!) in the future. Also, Credit Rating Agencies are separate from credit card companies. And you are correct, credit cards charge merchants a percentage fee per transaction and also on the interest rates charged customers on outstanding balances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwebster99 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should certainly pay at least the minimum on time every time, otherwise you will do serious harm to your credit score. I guess the question you're asking is if you should pay the balance in full every time. I think you should, the cost of the interest (which is usually very high on credit cards - if it's a 0% card, it's another matter entirely) far outweighs the fact that the credit card company won't like you much (they still make money though, the shops you use your credit card in do give the credit card company a percentage). Credit card companies certainly aren't fans of people that are good with money, but I think it's rare for them to actually do anything to penalise you. --Tango (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The minimum you should do is pay the minimum of your credit card payment on time, every time. Even the slightest deviation will harm your credit card statement. I have had a credit card for almost five years and have managed to do this every time. The more you pay of your credit card payment, the better. The credit card companies certainly want you to use your credit card very much - but they also except you to pay up every time. Failing to pay up is far worse than spending too little. And also, beware of these new-fangled "instant loan" companies that offer to get rid of credit card debt fast. They often have interest rates much higher than the credit card companies do. JIP | Talk 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotten a lot of good advice regarding your credit score, but your friend may have been thinking of something else... a profit score. (Sacrificing your credit score to help your profit score is probably a lousy idea, BTW.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one possibility: it is possible in my experience, at least in the US, to have no credit score at all if you've never been lent money. This can be problematic if one day you want to use your credit score for something. If you pay off your credit card every month, perhaps this counts as never having being lent money? Marnanel (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having no, or a short, credit history can indeed be a problem. I think having a credit card would help in that respect as long as you use it, regardless of whether you ever actually borrow on it. You are being lent money for the month or so it takes you to pay it back and paying it back in full every time shows you are able to be responsible with your spending, which will help your credit score. Having the card and never buying anything on it may not count as having a long credit history (it could also hurt your score because you have more available credit - banks don't like to lend money to people that already have lots of available credit since they could easily end up with more debt than they can pay off, even if they don't have any debt now). --Tango (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of too much of a good thing, the Federal Reserve consumer credit estimate for June 2008 says that American consumers have $986 billion in outstanding revolving credit, and $1.618 trillion in non-revolving credit (e.g., auto loans, education loans, boat loans). That's $2.586 trillion. — OtherDave (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is nearly $8500 per person (which includes children who hopefully have no debt, and plenty of people will have mortgages on top of that). --Tango (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the replies, and thank you for that link Coneslayer, that seems to cover what I was talking about. I guess I fall into the "not that profitable for lenders, but got potential"-category. I just never understood the concept of spending money that you don't have... -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spending money you don't have can be a good decision in some cases (buying a house is tricky otherwise, as is going through university, in other cases it may be a good decision now, but only because you made bad decisions earlier). Borrowing on a credit card is never a good decision - if you're that strapped for cash, find a good unsecured personal loan, you can get much better interest rates. (Of course, if you can get an interest free credit card, and trust yourself not to forget (or be unable) to pay it off at the end of the year, or however long it's free for, then go for it!) --Tango (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowing on a credit card can be a very good thing if you are looking for insurance on the things you purchase and the transaction that takes place, especially if you are not 100% sure of the person you are paying. Using a credit card on the internet means that it is the creditors' money that is stolen if something goes wrong and not yours. Also, if you pay your credit card immediately, you don't build up any interest. Never say never. ;) - Phydaux (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's my imprecise use of language at fault - by "borrowing", I mean for longer than one statement period (shorter than that is still technically borrowing, but that's not your reason for using a credit card). Purchasing things on a credit card has significant advantages, but you should always pay it off in full before they start charging interest. --Tango (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an American living abroad all of my adult life, I was unhappy (but not surprised) to find out I had no credit rating at all. It was suggested that I take out a credit card and make only the minimum payment for three months, and then pay the full debt. That would establish top-quality credit. Of course, carrying any credit card debt at all is incredibly stupid for most people, as the interest rate is at least 3 and sometimes 10 times what you make keeping the money on deposit. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]