Humanities desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 20 >

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.

May 19

latest baggage updates

I saw on ABC World News Tonight two passengers who were aboard US Airways Flight 1549 got their laggage back. What about the others? Will there be any further updates?69.203.157.50 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passengers would need to contact the US Airways baggage recovery department, but I imagine any identifiable luggage with (some of) the contacts intact would be returned. It was probably delayed to avoid interfering with the wreck any further during the NTSB investigation. As the article says, they have already been compensated $5000 each which would cover any damage. 86.174.136.167 (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they'll all get their luggage back after it has dried out. The NTSB guys need to measure the dry weight of the luggage as part of their investigation. --Sean 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article in the New York Times yesterday that implies that most of them are getting their luggage back these days, except for their cash which is mysteriously gone. Jørgen (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking to think that maybe someone madoff with the cash. Edison (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anyone carrying more than $5000 in their checked luggage needs to rethink their financial strategy. Coreycubed (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever put any cash in my checked-in luggage. Cash goes in my wallet or a money belt, either of which would still be on my person when I evacuated. What were all these people doing checking in cash? It is possible I'd have cash in my carry on, but never checked-in... --Tango (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it says that the money was necessarily in the checked-in luggage - it's more like these people were smart enough not to bother getting their carry-on with them when they suddenly found their plane in the middle of the river. Jørgen (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you're evacuating a plane in an emergency situation you are instructed to leave behind your cabin luggage. Steewi (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steewi: what I was trying to say... :-) Jørgen (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's one reason why experienced travellers wear their money, passport and at least one credit card in a money belt under their clothes. Not only is it very effective insurance against pickpockets, though not necessarliy foolproof, but it goes wherever your body goes. Except for removing high-heeled shoes, no one is likely to ask you to strip before an evacuation. // BL \\ (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Animals in South Korea

Are there any dangerous animals in South Korea? Specifically I mean bears, snakes, spiders, etc., but if there are any others, I'd like to know.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are rampaging elephants, and a bunch of lions. Tempshill (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so it's not a good idea to go camping in the zoo unless you have a shotgun handy?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venomous snakes in South Korea, according to this: Gloydius blomhoffi, Gloydius saxatilis, Gloydius ussuriensis, Hydrophis cyanocinctus, Hydrophis ornatus, Mesobuthus martensii, Pelamis platurus, Rhabdophis tigrinus, Vipera berus. --Sean 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Korean Moon Bear. --Sean 13:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharks inhabit the waters around Korea. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. So, a bunch of venomous snakes and a bear. Is that what I have to look forward to? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could also look forward to Kimchi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd rather face the snakes and the bear. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! Steewi (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think animal-wise Korea's among the safer places in the world. If you want dangerous animals, come to Australia. Steewi (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? Cuddly koalas and bouncy kangaroos? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. Try some of the world's most venomous snakes and spiders, the box jelly fish, sharks, and crocodiles in the Top End, which have been having a field day of recent years. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the spiders, you eat most of those, don't you? Anyway, back to Korea. I'm interested to know how many animal attacks have happened in recent years, and in what areas. I will very soon be moving to Korea. I'm not worried. I mean, I've been in some very hostile environments with very hostile animals before, but they've usually avoided me as much as I've avoided them. I'm just interested. It'd be a nice talking point with my new neighbours. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modular part-time university courses in the UK

Is the Open University the only British institution providing modular distance learning courses at undergraduate level? I know many others offer part-time and distance learning programs, but they all want me to commit to an entire degree from the start. Note that I have nothing against the OU, just would like to look around before I choose anything. Many thanks! 86.174.136.167 (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a similar search 2 years ago, with similar results. Most universities offer distance or part-time courses, but expect the student to register for a full course, with only limited flexibilty within the subject area, rather than picking and choosing modules. This is generally the same for full-time students, so it just how universities are set up.

In the end i went with the OU, and found it to be pretty much great, as it allows me to pick modules from any subject, so i can study the things i find interesting rather than fullfilling course requirments. If you are planning on getting a qualification for a career, you might find OU is just as limiting (eg. if you wanted a degree in Modern Languages, most of the modules have to be in languages). It still has the advantage of only choosing one module at a time, so it is easier to change your mind, but more advanced modules are generally much larger than bricks & mortar unis, so can be significant commitments. YobMod 13:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what percent of Europe's jews were killed in the Holocaust?

What percent of Europe's jews were killed in the Holocaust? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.92.2 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Holocaust victims states that it was over 60%. The worldwide Jewish population still has not recovered to pre-1940s levels. 86.174.136.167 (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of the Holocaust, what percent of worldwide Jews were in Europe? 79.122.92.2 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 16.6m Jews worldwide in 1939 and 60% of European Jews died. We know 6,000,000 died. So 10,000,000 were alive in 1939. So in 1939, 10m of 16.6m were in Europe. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't fully answer question... that means that about 64% (I think. I always was bad at working out percentages) of Jews alive in 1939 were in Europe. I'm surprised that figure's not higher, unless, perhaps, it's based on a chunk of Soviet Jewry living in Asia, rather than Europe. Martin Gilbert's Jewish History Atlas is good at this sort of stuff, if you're interested in demographics of world Jewry at different points in time. --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember reading somewhere there were 1,000,000 Jews living in New York City before the Holocaust - that's 6% of the 16.6 million right there, and of course there would be many more in America outside of NYC. +An gr 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, Historical Jewish population comparisons#Population in 1900 says that in 1900, 80% (9.0 million) of all Jews (11.2 million) lived in Europe (apparently including the entire Russian and Ottoman Empires, not just the European parts). +An gr 14:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There was considerable emigration of European Jewry to the Americas during the early decades of the 20th century, but I'd be surprised if it was as much as a swing considerably in excess of 16% (which is what it'd have to be, considering the large numbers of Jews in Asiatic USSR and what would have been the vast majority of those in Ottoman lands.) Martin Gilbert's your man here. Perhaps it's wisest for now to take 64% as a minimum figure - unless my maths incorrect. Can someone check my working?!?! --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10m as a % of 16.6m is just over 60%. 60.24% to be precise. -- role^player 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I confused myself and amended 10m to 10.6m in my answer. 10m was correct. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

c.60% is even more dubious a statistic and I would definitely take it as an absolutely lowest possible "correct answer". --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert cites US Jewish population of 1924 as 2,000,000. It seems that figure will have been bumped by nett immigration of about 200-250,000 by WWII. Even if it were 2.5m in total, I struggle to understand where the remaining 4.1m non European Jews were, because the numbers in Asia, Africa, Oceania and the rest of the Americas would barely dent that figure - the Soviet Jews would have been mainly in European USSR. --Dweller (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Referencing query

In the A-Z list of authors, where should "de Bono (1999)" go - under d or under b? I'm getting different responses depending on where I look. -- role^player 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a lot on where de Bono comes from; "de" occurs in French, Dutch, Irish, Spanish, and Portuguese names at least, and each of those countries may have their own customs regarding what to do with that preposition in names. My best advice, if feasible, is to look in the references section of a paper by Mr de Bono where he cites himself, and see where he alphabetizes himself. (If de Bono is a woman, change the title and the pronouns of that last sentence accordingly!) +An gr 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Edward de Bono. He's Maltese. I'm still none the wiser. -- role^player 08:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the university have a style guide for Harvard referencing? The two I've taught for in the UK, and the one where I currently study, all have and this question is covered. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unversity online referencing guide does not answer this question, so I have emailed the course leader and asked him. -- role^player 14:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd have e-mailed Edward de Bono and asked him! At any rate, this page alphabetizes him under D. +An gr 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I go by a pragmatic rule of thumb: if in doubt ask the guy who's going to be marking my MA dissertation. -- role^player 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's high time you (a) get ahold of the style sheet for the institution of higher education (not necessarily a particular instructor unless s/he's your thesis advisor) to which you're submitting your MA dissertation and (b) verify with the department office: who's the arbiter of fine points (such as rules of alphabetization in the bibliography) that aren't adequately spelled out. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't Baptists celebrate Ascension Day?

So Ascension Day is coming up day after tomorrow. And out of curiosity, I've been to the websites of about a dozen different Baptist churches in about ten different countries around the world and have discovered that not one of them is planning a service on Thursday. Which leads me to the conclusion that Baptists don't celebrate Ascension Day, which leads me to the question, Why not? The Ascension is described in Christian scripture (so it can't conflict with the notion of sola scriptura or Biblical inerrancy), and it certainly seems like an extremely important occasion in the history of Christianity, so why don't Baptists observe it? (In general, at least; I know that their congregationalist polity means that individual churches may well observe it, but so far I haven't found one that does.) +An gr 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling “Baptist, Ascension Day”, without the quotation marks, gave me a few pages of Baptist churches that have marked out Ascension Day for a specific service. Here is one in the UK, for example, at the Tabernacle English Baptist Church, Newbridge of the Caerphilly County Borough Counciland another in the US in Massassechussetts at the Calvary Baptist Church in Dedham, MA. I haven't tried looking for services in other countries. // BL \\ (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so some do. But it still seems that most don't, and I'm curious why. Even here in Germany, where Ascension Day is a national holiday and all the stores are closed, the (relatively few) Baptist churches don't seem to do anything to observe it. +An gr 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a Baptist, it wasn't that Ascension day wasn't celebrated, it was just that Easter Day was the bigger festival: after all, without the Resurrection there would have been no Ascension.

--TammyMoet (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, notice the difference between the Ascension of Jesus and the Assumption of Mary. Both are going to the heaven, but the former by self-propulsion (ascendo), the latter winched up (assumo). --pma (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Catholic Church, it's not only celebrated, it's a Holy Day of Obligation, which means you have to attend Mass on pain of sin. But it's not as simple as that. The Thursday is a HDO apparently only in Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and certain U.S. states. In the other countries and U.S. states, the obligation to attend Mass has been transferred to the following Sunday, which is a HDO anyway. If anyone can explain to me how it can be a sin not to attend Mass on a certain prescribed day if you're in one country or U.S. state, but not if you're in another country or U.S. state, I'd be eternally grateful. This seems to fly completely in the face of the notion of a universal church. The 10 Commandments didn't have a Terms and Conditions clause, did they? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think TammyMoet is closest to the truth here. The biggest event in most Baptist churches is the Resurection/Easter. Beyond that and Christmas, the rest are "optional". I have been a member of two Baptist churches, and its not that they just don't celebrate Ascencion day; they just don't recognize holidays like that. You've pretty much got Holy Week and Christmas and that's it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a man who attended a Baptist church for years, I worry the above may have simply missed the obvious: Baptists don't like symbolism for the sake of symbolism. This includes both idolotry of images (my church had absolutely none of the symbolism popular in "higher" churches) and holidays. The atmosphere even for major and unavoidable holidays (e.g., Easter) was that it was a special day but there was nothing obligatory about attending church - in fact, this church and others I knew often emphasized that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday, and they only celebrate it for the symbolism as a means (not end) to worshiping God.

@JackofOz - My guess is the devolution of authority just may lead to confusion when it comes to eternal truth. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Baptists don't like symbolism for the sake of symbolism" - but I just read in Baptist disinctives that Baptists generally consider both the sacraments (excuse me, "ordinances") they recognize - Baptism and the Lord's supper - to be purely symbolic. Isn't that symbolism for its own sake? +An gr 10:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You miss the important point. The ordinance of Baptism and of The Lords Supper were actually done by Jesus himself, and Jesus himself ordered of the Lords Supper "Do this in memory of me." Symbolism for its own sake is a bad idea; symbolism because Jesus did it or commanded it be done is a different thing entirely. Jesus never celebrated Ascension Day... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify baptism; Jesus himself was Baptised, not that he baptised others... That's the important bit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok at the passover jesus told his followers to do this as often as you meet,they met about three times a year. 1Passover 2Pentecost and 3Fall Feast.now Passover to Pentecost is a 50 day period of which every seven days were already pretty high days of the year with the 49th and 50th day being a two day sabbath.Now do the math and you will see that the 42nd day was a seven day sabbath. You want to add one more (40th)to a list of days that everybody else has already forgot about.--Prprd (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deflation & inflation

can be their is any one help me pls i want to known that in deflation that how we will calculated deflation and my secound question is that how we calculate inflation if the last year inflation is under WPI is 5.28% and current inflation is 6.78% pls any one with logic ans help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatender singh (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation and Deflation are usually based on tracking baskets-of-goods. Things such as the Consumer Price Index and Retail Price Index look at the cost of a huge list of items and track the costs overtime. Items are added/removed over time but essentially as prices (by and large) increase you'll see inflation and as prices (by and large) decrease you'll see deflation. I'm sure the maths involved is a little more complex but that's the basic idea. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You offer two data points for the Wholesale Price Index (WPI), +5.28% last year and +6.78% this year (I'll assume that is for the first quarter). So, 2007 = 100, 2008 = (100 *1.0528=) 105.28. But, since we don't know how much of last year's inflation was in the first quarter, we can't figure out where the index is now. What we can do is determine that the next three quarters of this year will need an average of more than -2.26% per quarter to off-set the +6.78% in the first quarter. That's because (+6.78% - 2.26% - 2.26% - 2.26% = 0). Price changes below zero, that is, falling, are known as deflation. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the artist? What's the name of the painting?

Regarding this painting:

Who was the painter and how is the artwork called?

My painter guess is Philip Richard Morris... (w/o proof)

Thanks in advance, --Scriberius (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The signature in the bottom left corner says Michael Philip. A Google of "Michael Philip" +squirrels shows this as the first result, with a link to the artist's homepage -

http://digitalart.org/art/52310/miscellaneous/autumn-serenity/

Dalliance (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parimutuel betting

As a novice, I have been trying to understand the mathematics of parimutual betting. I can understand the (theorectical) situation where bettors are only allowed to bet on the winner. After deduction of the running costs, the total money bet by all punters is divided up among the winning bettors in proportion to how much they have bet.

But how is the money divided up when other types of bet are also allowed? The win, place, show, and more exotic bets? 78.149.232.7 (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would likely have much better luck with this question on the Ref Desk for Mathematics than here in Humanities. If I knew how to move the question, and how to leave the proper trail, I would do it for you. // BL \\ (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this question required someone with betting experience to answer it rather than knowledge of abstract maths, but I will try also asking on the Mathematics desk as you suggest. 89.242.109.25 (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When one bets at a race track, for example, the odds are machine calculated, as are the payouts. I doubt very much, given the general range of people I have seen at the track, that any of them work out the payouts for themselves. However, trackside bookmakers doubtless do so, but I have only been to tracks where the betting was parimutual.

Horse racing bases payouts on odds calculated from actual bets placed, with a certain portion taken off the top for the track. Let's say you bet on a horse to show, which means you win if it comes in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. If 5% of the total value of the bets for that race are on on that horse to win, 8% for it to place, and 12% on it to show, that means a total of 25% have bet on the horse to show or better. So, a 4-to-1 payout would be in order. However, once the track takes it's portion, that may be lowered to 3-to-1. An interesting side-effect of this system is that if everyone bets on the same horse, everyone bettor loses money, even if the horse wins. (In reality, I believe they would cancel the race in such cases.) StuRat (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not clear how the money is divided up amongst the bettors. If the people who betted on the horse to show got the same money back as those who bet on it to win, then why would anyone ever bet to win? 78.147.247.28 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]