Humanities desk
< December 27	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 29 >

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.

December 28

UN peacekeepers Bangladesh Sierra Leone

How many Bangladeshi UN peacekeepers die in Sierra Leone? I asked this question because I was amazed that Sierra Leone officially made Bengali as its language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.155 (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Sierra Leone article says "In December 2002, Sierra Leone’s President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah named Bengali as an "official language" in recognition of the work of 5,300 troops from Bangladesh in the peace-keeping force". That's an "official language", not the "official" language" of course and there is no indication that this is expected to be seen as anything but a honorific gesture, but it does seem to be a recognition of a major role played by troops from what is itself a poor and sometimes troubled country. As to the numbers killed, I'll see if I can find some figures - this perhaps could go into the article too.

See also the Bangladesh UN Peacekeeping Force article, though this doesn't seem to give any specific details on Sierra Leone. (This article needs a little attention too, I think - rather long-winded and essay-like?).

Google finds some useful-looking articles with a search for "Bangladesh Sierra Leone peacekeepers", and I'll keep looking for casualty numbers.

This article [1] says that 92 Bangladeshi UN peacekeepers have been killed while serving in various locations (which include Somalia, Bosnia, Congo and Cambodia as well as Sierra Leone),though unfortunately it doesn't give any specific breakdown by country. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bengal, maybe someone else will find out more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular names for governments

Hi there, is there somewhere I can find a list of popular names given to various governments, generally related to the residence of the head of government, example :

Canada : 24, Sussex Drive
France : l'Élysée (or is it Matignon?)
United States : White House
United Kingdom : Downing Street
etc

Alternatives names, like when one says : « the White House announced today a XX B$ stimulus package ... »

I'm sure not every country has those, and some are probably not used a lot (example, it's rare that one will refer to the Prime Minister of Canada as Sussex Drive), but I'm asking just in case.

Thanks. Cheers! [CharlieEchoTango] 05:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a list. I think it also depends on the location of text or speech. The Kremlin (and the Palais de l'Élysée) might be in global usage as well, whereas less prominent governments might be referred to metonymously in more regional sources and local colloquial usage. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Sluzzelin says, the former Soviet Union was supposedly run from the Kremlin, I'll not comment on where present-day Russia is run from. I think these 'names by location' are more about 'the State' than 'the Government' though, as they add a layer of abstraction. This raises another question (with me at least): is this 'geographic localisation of an abstract entity' common in all languages and cultures, or is it more specific: the British case seems to be very marked to me: Downing Street, Whitehall, Scotland Yard, The Old Bailey etc (and 'the corridors of power' as an ultimate abstraction). There is a sort of logic to this, in that 'the Government' may change, but 'geography' tends to appear more static. I think perhaps Antonio Gramsci's understanding of hegemony may be relevant here - if you don't mind going of on a sociological/political tangent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both.

Sluzzelin, thanks for your response. I'm not sure I understand the concept of Metonymy (I did read quickly over the page). For example, in french, the government of China is often referred to as « Pékin » (another name for Beijing). Would that be an accurate example of metonymy? If so, is refering to a capital as the government a common practice elsewhere? How would you call the government of Australia, for example? Or is « Washington » also a figure of speech for the government of the USA?

Andy, thanks for your response. I definitely understand the layer of abstraction, and I believe it relates to what Sluzzelin pointed out (figure of speech). However I am not sure that I understand how hegemony (if I understand it correctly, it is about refering to the majority to designate a more global group) influences alternative names of governments? Maybe I didn't understand well what you meant to say.

Sorry if my english is not perfect or well structured.

Thanks again to you both. [CharlieEchoTango] 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We aso have Nagatachō, Casa Rosada, Zhongnanhai, and the Beehive featured on our list of metonyms. My personal observation is that foreign newspapers often use the capital city ("Ottawa", "Beijing", "Damascus") metonymously: "Ottawa refuses U.S. appeals ..." etc.) ---Sluzzelin talk 05:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Thanks for the details, I appreciate it. [CharlieEchoTango] 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just went over the list of metonyms. Pretty much sums it up for me as to what « a popular name for a government » was. I now know they are metonyms. Thanks a lot! :D [CharlieEchoTango] 05:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CharlieEchoTango, glad to be of assistance. Don't worry if you don't understand the hegemony reference - I was perhaps being a little obscure in referring to this. What I really meant is that by referring to 'the White House', rather than 'the government', you make everything seem more permanent - and of course, governments like you to think this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you burn the White House, I don't want to be associated with it!!! Just kidding, of course. Thanks again, Andy - [CharlieEchoTango] 06:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CharlieEchoTango, you asked about Australia. "Canberra" is used here, outside the national capital, to refer to the federal government, in much the same way as "Washington" is used to mean the US Government. Very occasionally, "The Lodge" is used to mean the Prime Minister, but by no means as much as the White House means the President. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for pointing out The Lodge (and Canberra). Much appreciated, and if anyone knows about other countries, I'd be glad to know. I guess « The Lodge » is used about as much as « Sussex Drive » is used here in Canada, that is almost never except in Op-Eds. Thanks again, Jack of Oz and cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 06:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada we usually just say "Parliament" (or "Ottawa", as mentioned). Sussex Drive is where the PM lives, but nothing happens there (except the occasional hilarious security lapse). Likewise you never really hear "Rideau Hall" in place of "Governor General". Adam Bishop (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the USA, I've never heard the White House used as a synonym for the government. It's symbolic of the President, i.e. the executive branch. The House and Senate collectively are referred to as the Congress, the legislative branch. The judicial branch, the Supreme Court, is often called the High Court. But when Americans refer to their government in general, typically it's "The Government" or "Washington" or "D.C." The fact that it's the Federal Government is understood. You would use other terms for lower levels of government, such as "The State House" or the name of the capital city; and "City Hall". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original poster is using government the way Americans would say administration. For those Brits (or other Westminster-system citizens) who don't know, on this side of the Pond government is synonymous with the state, but not state in the sense of individual state like California or Vermont. --Trovatore (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Trovatore is only describing American usage there. We speak of the Harper government, for example, not the Harper administration. --Anonymous, 09:16 UTC, December 28, 2010.

In similar vein, "Downing Street" is a metonym for "the Prime Minister", not the government as a whole. "Westminster" is for both houses of Parliament, and "Whitehall" is the metonym for the machinery of government, the Civil Service, not far from what Americans understand by the word "government". (This doesn't make sense if you think about it too hard: Whitehall the place is part of Westminster. But metonymy was not made to be looked at too closely.) Marnanel (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it more, "Capitol Hill" is a frequently used nickname for the Congress, just as "White House" refers to the President. In Parliament it makes sense to refer to "The [Prime Minister]] government", because they are bound together through the British election process. Not so in America, due to the separation of powers. Hence you have the Obama administration, or the 44th Presidency; and you have the upcoming 112th Congress. Perhaps the separation of powers is the reason why it's simply called "the government". There's no such thing as "the Obama government" or "the Bush government" or whatever. But "the [President] administration" is still used to refer to an era in which a particular President was in office, regardless of changes in the Congress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Smith government" in the UK means pretty much the same as "the Smith administration" in the US. In both cases, this is just the executive branch. The difference is that it's elected by Parliament in the UK and appointed by the President (Smith) in the US. The nomenclature itself doesn't have a whole lot to do with the issue of separation of powers. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is different though, because a Westminster prime minister is (at least ordinarily) the head of the majority party in Parliament. So he has a much more direct legislative role than a US president. This is especially true because of the stricter party discipline that generally obtains in such countries — a UK prime minister with a solid majority in the Commons has very few checks on his power; he can effectively dictate legislation and then implement it.

A US president, by contrast, has no direct legislative role, except for the veto. He can propose legislation, in the same sense that you can or I can, though he's much more likely to get a hearing on some form of it than you or I. But in general there's no guarantee that even members of his own party will vote for it.

You may be right that this is not the reason for "the nomenclature itself", but I'm not sure about that. --Trovatore (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, you're missing the point of my post: it's precisely about the nomenclature - whether the use of the expression "the Smith government" is due, as Bugs suggested, to Smith controlling both the legislature and the executive. Well, it's not, simply because "government" in UK usage refers solely to the executive (and more specifically to the cabinet, the "team" of ministers); hence, Smith's alleged control of the legislature has no relevance whatsoever. "The Smith government" does not include Smith's majority in Parliament. That's what I meant when I said that "the Smith government" in the UK is essentially the same entity as the "Smith administration" in the US; I didn't mean that they have precisely the same relations to the legislature and the same extent of checks and balances, which is a completely separate issue. Second, as for your remarks about there being less separation of powers in the Westminster system, that may be so, but this shouldn't be reduced to the PM having unrestricted and unchecked power. Technically, the PM does not have any legislative role: s/he can only propose laws, just like a US president can. If one must speak of a lack of separation of powers, one should say that the Parliament has a certain executive role. If a Westminster executive and a Westminster legislature tend to work in the same direction, it's because the legislature controls (to some extent) the executive, not the reverse. You're implying that a Westminster PM is too powerful, but from a Westminster point of view it is the US President that is exotically powerful: instead of one or more political parties working collectively, a single elected individual installs an entire administration and single-handedly has near-complete control of the executive branch. The Westminster PM derives all his power from his Party and the Parliament and can lose it at any time as soon as he loses the confidence either of his party or, in some other way, of Parliament - for instance, because the ruling coalition has split. Also, it's my impression that wherever a constitutional state is dangerously close to authoritarianism, it tends to be, formally, a Presidential democracy. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by saying the PM can only propose laws in the same way the US president can? The PM is (de facto) required to be a member of one or the other of the houses of the legislature. As such, they are perfectly capable of introducing bills on their own account, which isn't a thing you or I or Barack Obama can do. Marnanel (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct in pointing out that there is a formal difference between "proposing" and "introducing" a bill: a President such as Obama can't introduce a bill personally in the way any individual congressman or senator can. A PM, on the other hand, can introduce a bill personally as an individual MP. And the significance of this difference for the actual, practical power of both to influence legislation is, of course, zero.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word Pharaoh originally meant "Royal Palace", so the use of the building to refer to the individual or the "administration" is older than history. :) Corvus cornix_talk 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone in the UK refers to the Prme Minister personally as "Downing Street" - it is usually used as shorthand for the PM's personal staff. "Downing Street has issued this statement" means that it has come from the PM's press office or from one of his advisors. "The Palace" is used in the same way - it means the Queen's support team rather than the Queen herself. Rather different to the Emperor of Japan who used to be referred to as Mikado ("palace gate") because it was disrespectful to mention his name. Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is heavily Earth-centric. Textorus (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can add further examples from those who live under bridges on other planets... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India has Rashtrapati Bhavan for the president, forget the PM's office. and then the various ministries are refered to as either East or West Block depending on theirlcation in the national capital.

Venezuela also has Miraflores, and Ecuador has somethign too but i forget.(Lihaas (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

While we're on Latin America, Argentina has the Casa Rosada, or just "La Rosada". LANTZY ^TALK 08:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest vice president?

Hello. There is a list about the tallest US-presidents. Who was the tallest vice-president and how tall is/was he? Jerchel (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon Johnson was 6'4". He was JFK's VP before he was prez. I'm not sure if that's the tallest. There might be a problem with early VP heights, in that they might have lied about their height, and nobody would challenge them back when it was considered wrong to contradict someone in power. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates could be a good basis for starting a list of the heights of Vice-Presidents. It would be a matter then of researching the missing ones to fill in the gaps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin's Ballade No.1

In Chopin's Ballade No. 1 in G Minor, in bar 170, there is a quintuplet group. The third part of the group, is written as B♮ and B♭, stemmed together, so that the main stem splits in two, forming what looks like the letter Y, where the note heads are on each of the arms of the Y. I've been previously told by another Wikipedian that this indicates that both notes should be played together, however, many notable pianists on YouTube play this as what sounds like two seperate notes, playing B first and then B♭. Can anyone tell me how this is actually supposed to be played? Bramble claw x 19:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "another Wikipedian" is correct - a split-stemmed note like this is used when notating an altered unison as an alternative to writing two touching B noteheads with two accidentals (flat and natural) before them. I have at the Peters edition, which uses this notation: it's possible that other editions may notate it differently, or even show the B and Bb as distinct notes. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found what you are talking about on page 7 of this score. It is without a doubt played together. A quarter note quintuplet takes 3 beats. Following the quintuplet there are 3 more full beats. Since the measure is in 6/4 it must be that the B♮ and the B♭ are played in sync. Have fun with the piece, it looks challenging! schyler (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Bramble claw x 02:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before a fixed retirement age

When was the retirement age of 65 for men in the UK (now being increased) fixed? Did people keep on working until death prior to the state pension being established? Was there the same concept of people over 65 being not fit for work as there is now (contradicted by people like Joan Rivers and B&Q employees etc). I was surprised to read that Francis Austen was promoted to Admiral of the Fleet when he was eighty-nine years old. 92.15.14.203 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the 20th century, old people in England who couldn't be supported by their families often ended up in poorhouses/workhouses, as can be read about in many classic novels. See English Poor Laws... AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The retirement pension was established in England by the Old Age Pensions Act 1908, which allowed people over 80 to draw a pension of 5 shillings per week. (This provision went unchanged until within the last 10 years, believe it or not: all over-80s received an extra 5 shillings per week, even when it became 25p!) The pension age of 65 for men, 60 for women was established as part of Beveridge's welfare reforms after World War 2. It is still possible to "work until you drop", and there are well documented examples of people continuing to work until into their second century. such asIt is only the age at which the pension can be drawn that became fixed. Some firms have treated this as the age beyond which they cannot employ someone, which has never actually been the case. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy has made a good point in highlighting that for most people these days there is not a retirement age. Anti-discrimination laws see to that. You cannot tell people that they're too old to work. There is, however, a pension age, being the age at which they become eligible to receive a pension either from the government or of their own creation. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln comparative height

How tall was Abraham Lincoln compared to the male average height in his day? He was 6 feet 4 inches, but what was the average male height then? Currently the male average height is 5ft 10inches, at least in Europe for young men (and six feet in the Netherlands). 92.15.14.203 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During Lincoln's time, the average male height in the U.S. was 1.71 m (5 ft 71⁄4 in). As such, he was about nine inches or so taller than average. See here for more information. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring percentiles, then the equivalent would be over six feet seven then. 92.29.120.235 (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is heavily male-centric. Textorus (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your point? The OP did ask specifically for the male average after all. Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better answer would include his height percentile or how many standard deviations above the mean his height was. Edison (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why "What Is The Best Philosophy?" Is A Difficult Question

I have posed this question to both my trombone and philosophy professors. The RD knows more about me than they do, therefore there was no knowledge of my beliefs involved. My philosophy professor, who reminds me of a mouse, cleverly evaded this difficult question by telling me that the best philosophy is to "cleverly evade difficult questions." My trombone professor, who reminds me of a cat, her answer is wherein my question lies. She claimed that "there is no 'best'" (quotes hers) and additionally there is "no objective truth." So, why do people not like to talk about these kind of things and would rather revert to discussing the weather or his or her pet or other 'lame' things. Similarly, why do some people absolutely enjoy discussions about religion, politics, and philosophies where disagreement unavoidable and warmly welcomed? Thanks for your individual insights Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a difficult question because almost nobody will agree on what "best" means in this context. The one that makes you happiest? The one that gives the most insight into deep problems? The one that is most internally consistent? The one that constantly calls its own assumptions into question? Until you can agree what "best" means, you won't be able to agree which one is "best." For your second question, I would substitute "lame" for "safe." Many people don't want to rock the boat, or showcase their own ignorance, or have a discussion where they'll be forced to disagree with you. In my experience, some people thrive on disagreeing with others, while others loathe it. I'm not sure there's any obvious reason why people fall into one category or the other. In my experience it has nothing to do with either intelligence or self-confidence. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, 98 said pretty much exactly what I had typed before the edit conflict. The only additional insight I had was that I think people actually do like to debate which philosophy is best. When people argue about religion or politics they are usually arguing about which variety is better. This is a debate about which is "da best philosophy." --Leivick (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can separate "what does 'best' mean in this context?" from the question itself. Questions like "which philosophy could make you happiest?" are footnotes to the main question, "what is the best goal?". This is a moral question, and morality commonly makes people uncomfortable, since it might turn out that they're doing wrong. 81.131.29.142 (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to why it is a difficult question depends on a number of things. For some people who are not very intellectual or reflective, the question is a loaded one --i.e. to them it is very easy. For others, the difficulty is a product of their notion of truth. I.e., if truth is absolute, then there exists some particular philosophy which is best. Just like in mathematics, just discovering that there exists some answer is a big step. However if your notion of truth is not absolute, than what is an is not true is a matter of convenience. (Please be advised that this characterization of that view is not a slight at all.) Epistemologically, the universe does not give us the answers to metaphysical questions. Therefore the best we can do is to find a convenient way to understand reality.Greg Bard (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One way to get more interesting answers out of your professors is to ask them what their favorite philosophy is. You'll probably hear some amusing responses if they are very clever. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly your question, but you according to this site the theologian Leonardo Boff once "maliciously" asked HH the Dalai Lama: "what is the best religion?" According to Boff, the Dalai Lama answered, "The best religion is the one that gets you closest to God. It is the one that makes you a better person." (And seems to have elaborated a bit further, if you click through all the slides. But, I have to wonder if HH might not have been being a bit mischievous himself, speaking of "God" like that!;). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people whose intellects I respect have told me, as the trombone teacher told you, that there is no objective truth. The fact that they are stating this as if it was objective truth bothers me. Marnanel (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an entirely different kettle of fish, but it should be noted that there are many, many variously reasoned ways to talk about truth. There is, I would point out, a big distinction between saying there is no objective truth, and saying that there may be some kind of objective truth that unfortunately or fortunately is never fully graspable by human beings (e.g. Allegory of the Cave). The latter is probably the more true position, though it is harder to defend than the former, for it requires making a few suppositions (which nevertheless may be true). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking what is the best of anything is difficult, not just philosophy, as you have to review all the different contenders and also decide on the criteria for evaluating them. 92.15.4.201 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, you have a female trombone teacher? would you be annoyed if I told you I found that slightly scandalous, in a pleasant sort of way?

Second, the tension here is that most people believe that philosophy is supposed to make your life better, and so the notion of a 'best' philosophy starts to take on an odor of religious/moral judgementalism (which makes almost everyone uncomfortable). When you get around to the understanding that philosophy doesn't exactly make your life better, but only makes it clearer, then you start to realize that all philosophies lean towards the best philosophy in their own ways (which is ultimately something like: "Don't make yourself and everyone around you miserable by getting hung up on petty, stupid crap"), and then you start to realize that the general antipathy to philosophy that most people feel is because most people can't even imagine not getting hung up on petty, stupid crap. As someone once quipped, the thing in life that makes us most anxious is not having any anxieties. --Ludwigs2 06:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking "What is the best car" or "what is the best painting" are also difficult to answer, so it is not some attribute intrinsic to philosophy that makers it difficult to answer. 92.29.127.80 (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really apply here, because a philosophy (of life) only has one use, unlike a car or a painting which might be more or less valuable in different contexts. 213.122.8.29 (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could equally well say that a car or a painting only have one use. And a philosophy of life could have lots of different uses - random examples could be that encouraged to keep the peasants submissive in feudal times, that of a suicide bomber, that of a celebrity, that of suburbanites, trhat of Ghengis Khan - in fact there would be myriad different best philosophies of life for all the different historical eras, cultures, classes, personalities, heaklth, wealth, maturity and circumstances of those involved. In short, that deciding the best philosophy is not straighforward is not intrinsic to philosophy and gives you no clues about any special attributes of philosophy. In any case, the best philosophy of life could be the Golden Rule and Logotherapy. 92.24.183.19 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We apparently have different philosophies of philosophy. :) 213.122.8.29 (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]