Humanities desk
< December 13	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 15 >

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 14

How are aerial victories recorded?

How are aerial victories in wars documented and how are aces recognised? Presumably nobody would be out in the sky watching an aerial battle to see who shoots down who. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pilots would report back. They would report if they know they hit someone and if they saw the plane they hit go down. Other pilots would report what they saw as well. It wasn't an exact science, but they tried to keep track of how many planes they shot down because that gave them an idea of how many the enemy still had left. It also allowed for some healthy competition between pilots and some useful propaganda. --Tango (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After 1920 or so planes were equipped with gun cameras, which, while often ambiguous, could provide evidence as well as a means of improving tactics and gaining intelligence on new airplane types. Acroterion (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Flying ace for a description of how different countries counted victories: solo vs. shared vs. group, in the air vs. on the ground, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ground observers would be another source. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and calendars

On the main page today (Dec 14) we have mention of an earthquake in Constantinople in 557. How do early wikipedia dates work? Are they Julian, Gregorian extrapolated backwards, local calendar or what? In other words, did the earthquake occur 7 or 8 days before the winter solstice (Gregorian) or about 9 days before solstice (Julian) or ...? Also is whatever happened in this specific case a common standard (intended) across all articles? I saw nothing addressing this in Gregorian calendar. -- SGBailey (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DATES#Calendars. It goes over the guideline that I think you're looking for. Dismas|^(talk) 11:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I often wondered about this and I would convert to modern date. But, Dismas, this is brilliant, using the contempory date means that the date published in contempory sources is always right even if the calendar changes in the future.
Sleigh (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really necessary to convert to a modern date unless the calendar changed during the person's lifetime (even then I suppose it may not be totally necessary, but that is often done for people who lived in 18th century England, at least). We're not calibrating a time machine here, so it's not too important if "our" December 14 matches up with "their" December 14. In this case the date comes from Agathias, but our article on the earthquake is a little vague, and I can't view the specific page on Google or Amazon so I'm not sure what exactly Agathias says. (It's page 137, if anyone else can see it.) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nevermind, I can see it now, and our article just repeats what Agathias says, i.e. he doesn't give a Julian calendar date. But I see that Frendo, the English translator, notes that the date was between December 14-23, not the 14th specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, a date "extrapolated backward" to before the calendar in question existed is called a "proleptic" date. - Nunh-huh 14:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas, the date is always the right, the year may still need to be converted and this introduces errors. Some medieval dates from 1 January to 24 March may need to be converted from the contempory published date. If the date needs to be converted, the year needs to be incremented by one. So, if a date has not been converted (for a date before 25 March) then an error occurs where the date is exactly one year too early. And if a date is converted but doesn't need to be because the start of year was taken a 1 January contemporarily then an error occurs where the date is exactly one year too late. If a date is converted but it has already been converted, the double-conversion error, then the date is exactly one year too late.
Sleigh (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sleigh, if that is in response to "proleptic date", I need to explain what a proleptic date is again. A proleptic date is one given in a calendar for a date before the calendar existed. For example, a date in 1500 given as if the Gregorian calendar had then been in force (which it wasn't). It sounds like you are thinking of Old Style and New Style dates, which generally only affect dates between 1 January and 25 March. - Nunh-huh 18:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- SGBailey (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK Pension Pot

Apologies if this is in the wrong category. My wife and I are both retired UK Civil Servants in our early 60's, and we are fortunate enough to have earned index-linked occupational pensions equal to about half of our previous salaries, tied to an annual increase equivalent to the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) (this year that will be 5.2% - though that is unrepresentatively high). In addition, we are both in receipt of our state-pensions and other state-provided supplements, again index-linked to CPI. Altogether that amounts to some £30,000 per annum, tax-paid. Does anyone have an idea of how much of a pension pot we would have needed to accumulate in order to provide us with that annual index-linked sum for the rest of our actuarially calculated lives? BTW, we are both relatively fit and well with family backgrounds of relatively healthy longevity. I am not asking for exactitude here - merely a roughly indicative guesstimate. Thanks folks. 62.30.176.76 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.pensioncalculator.com/ if you started saving for a Pension at 20 and wanted to retired at 65 on £15,000 per annum you'd need to contribute about £127 per month and build up a pot valued at around £330k. So that's be about 660k for both of you. the calculation above will be a gross simplification (give the complexities of pensions and annuities) but I guess it's reasonable to suggest that to get around £30k a year in pension payments you'd need a fair bit over 0.5m in the pot. Finally (and I assume you know the logic but just incase) your relative healthiness/family backgrounds would mean you'd like get a lower annuity payment than an unhealthy person with an unfortunate family history. ny156uk (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NY. I appreciate your efforts in providing that info. Next time you see me in a bar, let me buy you a pension-provided Pint. Thanks again. Jim. 62.30.176.76 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With gilt yields (interest on government debt) so low at the moment (due to a combination of investors wanting it as a safe haven and quantitative easing) annuities are extremely expensive. It depends on the assumptions you use, but you need about £30 to buy a £1 p.a. index-linked annuity from an insurance company at the moment (maybe as much as £35-40). That means you would be looking at close to a million pounds, at least, to buy the pensions you currently have. Now you can understand why people call civil service pensions "gold plated"! (Apologies for the lack of references - I do this stuff for a living, so I'm just basing it on the numbers I've seen at work of the last couple of months.) --Tango (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, given the amount of political dicking about I've seen in relation to consumer price series and their politicised recalculation in order to stuff around indexed benefits, I wouldn't trust a CPI linked indexed pension any more than I'd trust a government not to try to fuck over unionised government employees. (My opinions are those of a historian who concentrates on class warfare issues, so with a time horizon of 40 years, I wouldn't trust a state to run a chook raffle unless there was a chicken raffle workers union with the power to make and break governments. Your time horizon, perception of risk of state action, and individual pension plan's susceptibility to abuse by state power may vary.) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally the question assumes a pot. Government employers don't have one, they fund the pensions from pension contributions made by other people later on. Private employers create a pot with eg an insurance company and hope it will increase over time. Other employers do a Robert Maxwell. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rules were changed after the Maxwell incident - UK pension schemes are much better regulated now. --Tango (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only partially true, some public sector professions do have investment funded pensions, others are revenue funded. That said, someone describing themselves as a "civil servant" is likely to be on a revenue funded scheme.

When one retired in the revenue funded schemes it is translated into a representative value and that's also used for other purposes. I know when I divorced my military pension had to be valued as part of the settlement.

That said, if one assumes that one is about to get screwed ver by politicians one can't go far wrong.

ALR (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wad Hijam in Sudan

Hi,

I don't find any mention anywhere (not even here) about Wad Hijam, except on this page, which only mentions "the village of Wad Hijam, 50 km (31 miles) west of Buram". Is a detailed map of the region available somewhere? Perhaps there is another spelling for the name of this place?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it's a remote village in a notoriously unstable country with a lot of (often mutually hostile) ethnic groups that are nomadic, exacerbated by refugee flights from the civil war and ethnic clashes. There are numerous such villages destroyed in the recent years, it's doubtful you can get any more information other than its name and its rough location.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be commonly called Wad Hajam or Wad Hagam; in fact "Wad Hijam" may be a typo at your link. This article has an account of the Dec. 2008 events there and calls it Wad Hajam; this pdf apparently describes the same incident and spells the village name Wad Hagam. Wad Hagam is the name of a decent-sized district west of Buram, presumably where the village is located, with maps available by googling "Wad Hagam," but I haven't been able to find a map showing the actual village.--Cam (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may simply be a difficulty in transliterating Arabic script. I found several other sources spelling it Wad Hajjam, Wad El Hajjam, and Wad al-Ugam. I also suspect that the UN reporting bodies may have mistakenly attributed the name of the locality to the village name. This is the most detailed map of South Darfur that I can find. While it outlines the Wad al-Ugam region, it does not show any villages by the same name, nor does it list one.

This report (while seemingly also referring to the village of Wad Hajam) hints that the village may actually be named "Gueigh". And the closest village by that name in the previously linked map is Gueighin (also spelled Goweighin). And it fits the descriptions perfectly. It's 50km almost directly west of the town of Buram, is within Wad al-Ugam (Habaniya territory), and near Tullus (Falata territory).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being easily offended

Why are some people so easily offended and how can that be reversed? Some people get offended if you explain them something that they already know, if you ask something they don't don't, if you disagree with something, if you deny a favour, if you dislike something they love and more, much more.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.16.11 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but when you find out please let me know, as I work with a person exactly like this. You have described her to a tee. Her first line of defence (because it's all about ego-defence mechanisms) is to at least doubt whatever you say about anything, if not outright denying it. When she tries to be polite, she will query why you're saying it, and is always surprised when there's a good explanation. She's also a lot deafer than she is ever prepared to admit, and I suspect she's struggling with that issue, but that wouldn't apply to everyone who's like this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human social behavior, like that of other social species, involves dominance hierarchies. Anger is the natural response to interactions that challenge one's position in the hierarchy -- that is, anger is the response to actions that are perceived as disrespectful. Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell it's cause people are pretty bloody pathetic, as a whole. Egg Centric 19:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offensiveness is socially contextualised. I can say something to a speaker of Australian English and be considered intimate and friendly, where saying the same thing to a speaker of Indian English would result in my being considered grossly offensive. If your work, political party, union, church, community group or protest movement is taking offence at things you think are fine, you'll need to slowly change the culture of that social group. For an example of a cultural environment where people like being corrected on things they didn't know, consider the ideal University. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you called someone from India a bastard and didn't get the reaction you'd expect in Aussieland. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

No, I grew up knowing that India has a different conception of language intimacy, and speakers of Indian English use a different code, so I knew not to call them bastards or something even more intimate. On the other hand, my experience with United Statesers other than Marines has been more patchy. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I hate to think of your conception of Americans, based solely on Marines. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It's probably no worse than being based on American tourists overseas, or high-profile politicians, or congregation-loving tele-evangelists, or film and TV actors. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 17:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Some advice:

1) Pick your battles. That is, don't correct such a person when it really doesn't matter.

2) Apologize when you explain something they already knew.

3) Stroke their egos, say by asking them to explain something they know (even if you really already know the answer).

4) If all else fails, limit your time with them. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango. Just as people can be easily offended, so too can people easily offend. The devil is in the details. Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people will definitely get offended by 3, since they'll think you are testing them. 4 always works, but sometimes can not be implemented. 88.8.78.13 (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number 2 is OK if peace at any price is your thing. If not, why should you apologise for their tetchiness just because you told them something you didn't know they already knew? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing to understand is that being offended is a choice. If you are looking for ways to help people make better choices, good luck.Greg Bard (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg - I agree with you that being offended is a choice, but many people do not know this, or (more neutrally put) would not agree with this: they believe that the offence was given them by others, and their reaction is unchosen and inevitable. My take is that

We do not have the power to control others' reactions to what we do or say
But we can choose our actions to make others' responses more or less likely to be agreeable to us
The better we know the people, the more effective such choices will be; but they will never be 100%.

Pretty obvious stuff, I know. --ColinFine (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the OP, I've never quite experienced this on an ongoing basis, but at a previous workplace, I had a lot of little problems with a small but significant number of people, basically a bunch of ravening individualists in a sales environment. In several cases, I brought it up with the manager, and nothing happened. I can only draw the conclusion that they had already made a rational choice about what they could get away with, and decided to act accordingly. Perhaps my failure to confront them personally about their behaviour was the real problem. I'm assuming the person is a work colleague, otherwise you would avoid them, so my own experience suggests you will have to tell the person quietly and directly that their behaviour stands out from the norm, and is causing you problems. If you can also mention something you like about them, and do it all good-humouredly, you might stand a better chance, but my own experience has been bad with these things. On those other occasions when I have confronted a problem, and done so with the person concerned, it has usually worked out ok, but I have only chosen to deal with such situations when I knew there was an adult intelligence at the other end. IBE (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are people other than coworkers who can't be avoided. There's family, clients/customers/business contacts, and also spouses/romantic interests. Why would someone choose to be romantically linked to such an annoying person ? Presumably they bring other things to the table which outweigh this annoyance. They might be a good provider, take care of the house or kids, etc. In the sitcom The King of Queens, fat Doug explicitly acknowledged that the only reason he could get pretty Carrie is her bad personality, which drove others away. StuRat (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Egocentrism, I found Borderline personality disorder and Narcissistic personality disorder informative. Manytexts (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]