Humanities desk
< January 22	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 24 >

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 23

Name of the company that holds all stocks traded in the United States?

I remember reading this article linking to a company that happens to hold all stocks exchanged in the United States. It's not a .gov I don't think, but it did indeed exist. The purpose seems to be to just change 'ownership' of the stocks, without actually moving them anywhere. I can't find the name of this company, or anything referencing it, anymore. --TIB (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearinghouses and exchanges that coordinate the sale and purchase of stocks; but I am not sure that there is a single entity which "owns" all stocks in the U.S. What you are describing is essentially how a stock exchange works, but there is not now (nor has there ever been) a single monolithic exchange that has controlled every single public stock trade in America. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think The Depository Trust Company is what you're looking for. You still own the stock though, and if you want, you can ask your broker to request the actual physical certificate and have them shipped to you. NByz (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is what you mean (and a quick search proved useless unfortnuately) but I seem to recall there being a person/group/firm that specifically bought 1 unit of stock in every firm traded in the main stock-exchanges. I can't recall any more details, but perhaps that is what the OP means? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people that run index funds probably do something much like that. (There are ways of approximating an index with fewer trades and fewer stocks [so reducing transaction costs], but I imagine some do it the old fashioned way.) --Tango (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question undoubtedly refers to Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, aka The Depository Trust Company. DTCC is the owner of record of most publicly traded securities in the U.S. As the OP suggests, the purpose is to ease changes of ownership. DTCC records on its books that shares are beneficially owned by broker-dealers and banks, which in turn maintain books showing beneficial ownership of shares by their customers. As NByz mentions, you can get a physical certificate if you prefer (or, for uncertificated securities, have yourself recorded as the owner of record), but banks and broker-dealers usually charge a fee for this service (typically $25 - $35, the last time I checked). In any case, it is usually advisable to maintain ownership through DTCC. John M Baker (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you serve in the army or any other war services during WWII?

If the answer to the above is yes, than please share your expeirence with me! I am wanting to know first person if possible.... I am very interested in history, ecepcially WWII and want to know as much as i can about it.

A quick Google of World War II stories brings up quite a few collections. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the great majority of WW2 vets are in their eighties by now? AnonMoos (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And (speaking for those I have known) they would undoubtedly prefer to be addressed as "you" rather than "u".AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC has a large archive of personal experiences of WW2, written by British people (both veterans a and civilians) - People's War. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War crime or not?

Is NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters a war crime under the international standards and law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.154.181 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was its intended purpose, was the force used disproportionate to its intended purpose, and were reasonable precautions taken to minimize unnecessary civilian casualties and "collateral damage"? The article you link to answers none of those questions... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Amnesty International, it was. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is perhaps "Yes, but..." Directing attacks against civilians is defined as a war crime, but the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction unless such attacks are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes" (Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Part I, Article 8). Xn4 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Amnesty International considered any act of military aggression to not be a war crime? -- kainaw ™ 16:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think to be fair to Amnesty International, they are in the business of demanding justice, while recognizing that the actual judgement of crimes needs to be by due process. Xn4 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just feel that they go to extremes to find injustice. This is a case where you need to start with "why was the station bombed"? Instead, our article and Amnesty's article start from "civilians were killed." -- kainaw ™ 16:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they seem to ignore the "end justifies the means" argument of killing a few civilians to prevents the deaths of many more. If that radio station was broadcasting calls for genocide against minorities, then bombing it could save thousands of lives. In Rwanda, such broadcasts led to the genocide of perhaps a million civilians. It's a shame we didn't bomb that radio station. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they were pushing for genocide. That is my complaint. Our article should explain why it was bombed - surely because of something they were broadcasting - and then go on to explain why it is considered controversial. -- kainaw ™ 17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly, the Rome Statute has nothing to say about "the end justifies the means". A crime is a crime, although no doubt a balance of harm argument could be submitted in mitigation. Xn4 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't allow for "the end justifies the means", then all parties in all wars are guilty of war crimes. I suppose a pacifist can take such a position, but it seems quite absurd to bring people up on charges when they are trying to save lives by their actions. StuRat (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't follow. Killing people in war isn't unlawful, it's only particular kinds of killing (and some other activities) which can amount to war crimes. There are valid philosophical and moral arguments for every kind of armed aggression being morally wrong, but the European systems of law are much more about order than about morality. The criminal law, depending for its application on evidence and facts, is much less interested in motivations (what goes on inside people's heads) than it is in actions. Once you concede that laws won't apply if people believe "the end justifies the means", the whole rule of law breaks down. Xn4 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of law does break down during war. StuRat (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, and (when it does) only for a time. Laws go on existing during a war, unless they are specifically suspended (which international laws can't be). And when the war is over, criminal prosecutions may need to follow. Xn4 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade,is that a crime under the international law? Or NATO bombing of Belgrade streets? My question really is can a military organization,such as NATO,be accused of war crimes if they were commited by bombing? For surely, if any country commited these acts, they would have been treated as war crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.154.181 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that the individuals responsible (the generals in charge) would be charged if an actual war crime had been committed, like if NATO had decided to bomb occupied schools until Serbia gave up. StuRat (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations don't commit crimes, people do. Xn4 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So NATO leaders can not be held responsible? Thank you,that answers my question perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.154.181 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The leaders could be held responsible for war crimes if their actions violated the Geneva conventions. Legitimacy of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia might help, particularly the statement of the Greek judges cited at the end.John Z (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, at least in the United States, where corporations can be tried criminally. Tempshill (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting development, as the ways you can punish corporations are by imposing fines on them, withdrawing their licences, limiting their activities, or (ultimately) by winding them up, all of which in most cases will penalize employees and/or shareholders who have no part in any criminal activity. But whether you can prosecute a corporation or not, aren't crimes committed by people? Xn4 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If General Ripper instructs Battery "C" of the 2nd Brigade to bombard map coordinates (76.2, 113.8) with high explosive, and there's a refugee camp at that location, has a crime been committed, and if so, by who? --Carnildo (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Ripper would be asked, during a trial, why he chose that target, and documentation of what was believed to be at that location would be brought in as evidence. If he did know it was a refuge camp, and had no valid military reason for bombing it, I suspect he would be found guilty. StuRat (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporations are juridical persons,not natural persons,so those crimes are commited by them as a whole,by legal persons. While NATO leaders are actual,natural persons,so its hardly the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.154.181 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is the same thing. It's the difference between prosecuting Corporation X and prosecuting the actual, natural persons on the board. You could try NATO, or try the individual persons representing the NATO council. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Anders quote

A quote by astronaut William Anders regarding the photograph Earthrise, can be found in many places. However, I am unable to find the exact quote, as there appear to be many variations. I'm wondering if there is an "official" quote released by NASA that can be confirmed. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quote by Anders along with the image itself is at this NASA webpage[1]. --Thomprod (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the quote there. It looks like you found a NASA page that uses the image in question to illustrate a different quote. For comparison, the quote that I am looking for can be found in the links I provided above and on my user page as a caption. The problem is, I am looking for a definitive version of the quote, and I can't find it. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a video on YouTube of Anders talking about the event in retrospect. Is that what you need, or did he say it at the time? --Milkbreath (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, now I have four versions! Collect them all! :) Actually, that YouTube link helps, because it makes me think he must have talked about this a lot, which explains all the different quotes. Thanks, I suppose you can close this because it should be obvious now that there probably isn't a definitive version. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National buddhist and church of Bangladesh

which church and buddhist temple is the national of Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.111 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "the national of Bangladesh" but the article Religion in Bangladesh contains several links to articles on specific religions in Bangladesh, including Buddhism and Christianity. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there was a duplicate question here, which I removed. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sartre question

I'm going to make this brief and I know it's an opinionative question, but I'm curious: is it justified to call Sartre a jerk? Evaunit♥666♥ 18:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about him is jerkish?Livewireo (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... he probably wasn't the easiest guy to get along with, at least. Clearly, he had some notions of intellectual and moral superiority, which rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. On the other hand, he was a really smart guy, and he demolished certain preconceived and wrong-headed notions a lot of people had, which was probably a benefit to society... but that doesn't mean he couldn't be a jerk as well. I guess it comes down to what you think of as a jerk, which I admit is kind of dodging the question, but from what I can tell, he didn't go around trying to hurt people or intimidate them, or doing what he wanted at the expense of others, which strike me as the kind of qualities jerks generally have. But on the other hand, he clearly wasn't afraid to offend. Personally, I wouldn't call him a jerk, but I wouldn't argue with anyone who did. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was an apologist for some of the most violent and tyrannical regimes of the 20th century. I happen to like reading him, though. A line from Swift comes to me: "Sometimes I read a book with pleasure, and detest the author." Antandrus (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say he had tremendous personal qualities, including physical courage, a willingness to help the underdog, disdain for material wealth, and a wicked sense of humor! Rhinoracer (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walworth Road Baptists: still active?

Religion: Walworth Road Baptist Church in London, and Walworth Road Baptist Road Missionary Society. Church apparently closed in 1971. Perhaps reopened later?? Walworth Road Baptist Road Missionary Society apparently still continued until at least 2003??Japansking (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't help you with the question, but I did add a header to it so it'll stand out. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

logo look-alike

http://img89.imageshack.us/my.php?image=n419925026433666de1.jpg

can anyone tell me what other logos this logo looks similar to? publix is one option, but there's gotta be some more. thanks 128.227.239.217 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the font ITC Bauhaus, Bauhaus 93 or Bauhaus Heavy Bold, is popular for some which might help with image research. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Army during WWI - Other Fronts

My girlfriend is currently doing a statistical essay on casualty rates in the British Army during WWI in theatres other than the Western Front - specifically the Dardenelles, Egypt, Messoptamia and the like. I'm struggling to find any academic books (Terraine and the like) which explore the activities of the British Army on those fronts, and was wondering if anyone could help me hunt some down. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin has a great deal of information about the British activities in those regions during WWI. --Omidinist (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles at Middle Eastern theatre of World War I and Gallipoli Campaign which give some helpful leads. Xn4 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[resolved] is the pope always old

nt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ages of popes doesn't answer directly, but does say the average age upon election has crawled up from 63 to 65. It notes one guy was 54 when he was elected. I am going to bet you think 54 is old, so the answer to your question is probably "yes". Tempshill (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah - resolved, thanks for the quick answer!

(ec)Pope John Paul II was 58 when he was elected, which is (comparatively) very young. He was very energetic, too - in addition to visiting a huge number of countries, he reportedly ran shirtless on the roof of the Vatican every morning. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which may be one reason why female Popes are embraced with stiff resistance. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I'd embrace them with a stiff... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been "stiff" popes. See Cadaver Synod. Alexander VI may have been stiff in another way; see Banquet of Chestnuts. Much diversity in the history of this upstanding institution. Antandrus (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would the resistance be "stiffer" if the Pope were female, shirtless, young, and attractive? The legendary Pope Joan probably kept her shirt on, at least in public. Edison (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite always. The youngest pope whose age we know was John XII, who was eighteen when he was elected. However, there's uncertainty about Benedict IX, who was probably in his late teens but may have been as young as eleven or twelve. Xn4 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The heads of most large organisations are middle-aged or older. It takes a long time to work your way up through the ranks. Also, since being pope is usually a job for life, you don't want to risk giving it to someone with too much life left to live! --Tango (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read once that an Italian proverb, equivalent to "once in a blue moon," says "every death of a pope." From Gregory XVI in 1831 through Pius XII, who died in 1958, the average was over 16 years.` John XXIII helped reduce that with his four years, as did John Paul I in his one-month reign. --- OtherDave (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16 years isn't too bad - if you appoint at 18 year old, there's a good chance they'll be pope for 60 years! Remember, the pope is elected by cardinals, who are usually pretty old themselves - given that they probably wouldn't mind a chance to be pope, they probably don't want to elect someone that's almost certain to outlive them. --Tango (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

107 commuted death sentences

Capital punishment in California notes that California v. Anderson, the decision that invalidated the death penalty in California in 1972, commuted the death sentences of 107 inmates who were on Death Row. Can anyone point me to a list of the names of the people whose sentences were commuted? I'm trying to find out what happened to the Griffin from Griffin v. California in order to update the article, and have not succeeded. If his sentence was commuted, at least that's one piece of data I can use. Thanks in advance - Tempshill (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his sentence must have been commuted. Aaron Mitchell was the last person executed in Californa, in 1967, until the barbarism was resumed in 1992. (Unless Griffin died before 1972.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you write a speech outline in First person on the person who you have to be?

I have to be Annie Oakley for a speech i am giving at school multiple times and was wondering if anybody new how? I cant figure it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to write a speech where you are Annie Oakley talking about you (who is Annie Oakley?)? Write it as if you are the character. So instead of "Annie was born in a cabin..." say "I was born in a cabin..." - or am I misunderstanding the question? ny156uk (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you need to identify yourself for the audience, try "I, Annie Oakley, was born in a cabin...". StuRat (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Oakley in particular, but read up about her, know your facts; also, if you can, find some of her quirks of speech / mannerisms, and imitate them. Also think about how well your audience know the character: are they going to know when you're just making facts up as you go along? If they're not, feel free to dramatise her life (if it needs to be!). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Google book search produced a biography with many direct quotes attributed to Annie. They may help you get that voice you're looking for. You might also pick a point in her life (the height of her career, say, or a time late in life) and frame the talk as if given at that time. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does music change your mental state?

What gives music that interesting, mysterious property? How and why does music "take you to another place"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the drugs give the music that interesting, mysterious quality. all the best musicians take drugs. always have and always will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

82.120's statement is far too general to be even remotely valid. It is, however, true (see the abstract here) that a pleasure derived from music shows up as activity in the same brain areas as a pleasure induced by any other "euphoria-inducing stimuli, such as food, sex, and drugs of abuse". Caveat emptor. --Dr Dima (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try Daniel Levitin's book This is Your Brain on Music. The New York Times called it "a layperson's guide to the emerging neuroscience of music." Levitin heads the Laboratory for Music Perception, Cognition and Expertise at McGill University in Montreal. --- OtherDave (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like Frank Zappa! And Henry Rollins! And Johnny Cash! (Well... post-1968 Johnny Cash, anyway.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Sacks has recently written a book on the fascinating links between music and the brain:Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain.: You might, for a mystic take on the subject, look up some of the doctrines of Pythagoras, or the medieval notion of Music of the Spheres. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about music generally but Binaural beats are supposed to change your brain wave patterns & thus mental state. AllanHainey (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]