Humanities desk
< July 4	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 6 >

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.

July 5

Annoying stuff

If someone does something annoying and you discover that it's on purpose, just to be annoying, why does it become even more annoying? 88.14.198.219 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is? --Jayron32 01:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things are annoying because they cannot be ignored or because they break basic social norms. If someone does something on purpose he is being annoying both ways. Wikiweek (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some theories and studies explain it with our habit of attributing intentionality/uninentionality to the negative effects of another person's behaviour (the nuisance).

In case of uninentional (or accidental) nuisance, we further attribute the whole thing to the person's external environment, something outside their own control. Upon reflection, we can sympathize with this person and lose our anger.

In the case of intentional nuisance, however, (see also trolling, a mild form of harassment, for example), we see the other person as in control of their annoying behaviour. We do not sympathize, but sense aggressive behaviour, to which we in turn respond aggressively. Someone is messing with our emotions, on purpose, and we'd like to retaliate or punish them for that. If you google keywords such as attribution, intentionality, and aggression (for example), you will find studies experimenting and theorizing over this.

(And, of course, we are often wrong in our reactions. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 02:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The psychological concept that Sluzzelin aludes to is Locus of control and it is a central concept in social psychology; rather than deal with actual control, understanding ones reaction to an event depends on one's perception of control, which is what "Locus of control" is all about. You're psychological reaction to an event depends a lot upon whether you generally feel responsible for your own actions, or whether you believe your own actions to be controlled by external forces ("them", "the man", "God", "circumstances", etc.). Likewise, your feelings towards others are strongly influenced by whether you believe the person to be responsible for their own actions, or whether you believe the person to be not in control of themselves. --Jayron32 03:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, a certain type of person might choose to get all hot under the collar about "You're [sic] psychological reaction ...", but since the author of that text has made it very clear that he is always but always wrong, then it seems to be out of his control, so we cannot attribute intentionality to him, and it shouldn't bother others so much. That's the theory, anyway. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I take permanent responsibility for all of my actions. I am not only wrong, I am responsible for all of my wrongness. The difference is I don't care. That is, I recognize my wrongness, I just don't feel bothered by my own wrongness. I accept it, I accept it is my fault because I have total control over it, and I choose not to care.--Jayron32 02:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest regnal number

What is the largest regnal number of a monarch with that number, minus one, of predecessors? So not the Reuss princes or Schwarzburg counts who number themselves after non-ruling members of their families?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John XXIII? Or, if you don't count the papacy as a monarchy, Louis XVIII of France? Gabbe (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a case could be made for Louis XIX of France? In any event, for the reader's sake, see also this archived question. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John XXIII doesn't meet the Little Spy's strict definition because there haven't been 22 previous Pope Johns. Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII, another ecclesiastical monarch, fails the same test. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is Pope John XIX of Alexandria, another ecclesiastical monarch. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there had indisputably been 21 previous Pope Johns before Pope John XXIII, taking account of the skipped John XX given the confusion over whether there was an extra Pope John earlier. So maybe XIX is as high as you can get before people start getting confused and demand a recount? However, if you include the antipope John XXIII, who Pope John XXIII was effectively expunging after 500 years, then there were indeed 22 Pope Johns before him. If the Prophecy of the Popes can include antipopes, why not? Please don't take that prophecy seriously, this was not an endorsement. 15:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.27.124 (talk)

King Bhumibol Adulyadej, current King of Thailand is also known as Rama IX and is the ninth successive King to take the name Rama. Astronaut (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King Stubbornovsky the Last ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were 15 king Ptolemys of Egypt in 300 years, which must be some kind of a record. (List_of_pharaohs#Ptolemaic_Dynasty). If only the Romans hadn't intervened. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a German noble family all of whose male members is named Hermann? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Henrys of the Reuss family, and the OP specifically excluded them, even though there are numbers into the 70's for them (the two branches of the Reuss family had different conventions for "resetting" the numbers, though one of the two lines died out and the two lines eventually merged). But the Henrys (Heinrich in German) of the Reuss family is what you are looking for, and the OP excluded them from their criteria. What they really want is a line of reliably numbered monarchs of the same name for the same country. My guess is the Louis of France (already noted) are the best chance, and which (depending on how you count it) got as high as about Louis XIX of France. In the other major long-ranging monarchies of Europe, (England, France, Spain, Portugal, HRE, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, maybe Hungary) I can't think of anyone that close. The highest in England, for example, was VIII (Henry VIII and Edward VIII). Spain got up to XIII (Alfonso XIII), but that numbering requires counting from the pre-unification Kingdom of Castile. Portugal never got higher than VI (Alfonso VI and John VI). The HRE made it to VII (Henry VII and Charles VII). Russia had an Ivan VI. Sweden's current king is Charles XVI, but the numbering of the Charles's is highly suspect, I think the first reliably numbered Charles is actually Charles VII or so; they had like XVI for Erics as well, but numbering the early Erics are a problem as well. Denmark's highest number of Christian X. I don't think Polish monarchs ever got beyond IV, of whom there were several. Now, there may have been some minor German county or principality which was nominally independent of the HRE which had a higher regnal number, but from a cursory glance at the Major European Powers, the French Louis's look like the champs here. --Jayron32 02:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The champs élysées, even. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark might beat the record. Prince Christian of Denmark will be Christian XI and even if they do have queens in case of older girls they will still count the girl as Frederick or a Christian and then skipped to the next name in the cycle. All monarchs since Christian I has been either those two names.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what did Madoff invested the money?

The question is not 'in what did he pretend to invest', but really where did the money go to normally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiweek (talk • contribs) 14:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Bernie Madoff article, he didn't invest the money at all - he simply deposited it in a Chase Manhattan bank account. To run a Ponzi scheme you need to keep funds liquid in order to make pay outs to investors who want to withdraw their money plus their inflated paper profits. If you can't pay out when some investors say "show me the money" then all other investors lose confidence and the scheme collapses. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, you can also keep your funds liquid investing in some stocks that have a high trading volume...Wikiweek (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Madoff could have done that. But then he would have been exposed to market risk, plus transaction costs. And investors are most likely to want to withdraw their funds from the scheme when markets are falling and they want to realise the (fictional) profits that the scheme has promised in order to cover their losses elsewhere. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, if it's cash it looks like you have a good cash position -- wow, it's not all stocks, it's all this cash too. (Since it's supposed to be a small percentage of the total - on paper). The fact that it's in fact 100% of the thing that's the problem! So, it could be an image thing... --188.29.180.98 (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is wasn't Madoff president of Nasdaq or something? Maybe he came to the conclusion that the entire stock market was a ponzi scheme as well: so he was just running his own. Why would he use the proceeds to invest in another ponzi scheme started earlier and by others than him? He might think that investing in stock is just coming relatively late (maybe too late) into someone else's ponzi scheme... Personally, I am trying to get in on the ground floor: by making my own company. Let me know if you would like to invest - I need $2000, then $5000, and would like to raise $250,000 from others (not you) using the funds just mentionoed to have built a prototype. Am using it to create approx. $1.5billion within 5 years. Let me know. --188.29.180.98 (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why set your sights so low? Only $1.5 billion? That's peanuts. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what the idea is realistically worth? (based on market, the marketing plan, the technology, my background, etc.) I would have to fundamentally change the marketing plan and make it far, far more speculative to make $10b in 5 years. If you think you can turn $5000 into $10b in 5 years you are welcome to try. I don't. I left a hypothetical question about $10 billion below (new topic) you can answer that if you want to. But it's not reality, it's just speculation. The reality is I can make $1.5b in 5 years, I need $2000, then $5000, can raise the $250,000 (by myself, don't need your help) based on the protytpe built using the former funds, and use that and later rounds of investments to get to having a ~$1.5b company in 5 years. Let me know if you would like to invest. --188.29.180.98 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire stock market is not a Ponzi scheme; businesses are frequently profitable and are therefore able to pay dividends to investors - Ponzi schemes can, at best, pay a small proportion of investors before they collapse. If you believed the entire global capitalist system was doomed, you might see it as a Ponzi scheme, but I can't believe that was Madoff's opinion. Warofdreams talk 15:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While not a Ponzi scheme, where all the money growth comes from new investors alone, the stock market could be compared with a multi-level marketing scheme. That is, once you invest, you not only make money as a result of the actual products or services the company produces, but also when new investors add their money to the pot. During periods of stock market speculation, nearly all the money may come from new investors, versus the products and services, as in the Dot-com bubble.StuRat (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was on the bord of SIFMA, not NASDAQ, and he invested money in the Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd campaigns. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fox says "Shortly after leaving law school, Madoff founded his firm in 1960. It was one of five broker-dealers most closely involved in developing the Nasdaq Stock Market, where he served as a member of the board of governors in the 1980s and as chairman of the board of directors." His primary returns are believed to be from front-running the transactions from Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) and insider trading.Smallman12q (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how do left-wing people think taxes should work?

Not going to get an answer here. There is no specific taxation level "left wing" Americans agree on. And the RefDesk is not a place to fish for opinions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm a student, I have a low income. But I have an idea that I can use to make $10b. But, it will take 5 years of my life. What do left-wing people think I should be able to keep of the $10b? Even $1million would make me far richer than the average American. So should I be forced to work for 5 years for $500,000, which is just "kind of unattainable" amount for most Americans to earn in the same period of time, and to do it for 100 hours per week? What if I don't want to give 5 years of my life for $500,000, I only want to do it for bigger reward. What do left-wing people think, should taxes be so high no one wants to make billions in value, or what? Or, what percent of my income should I give away to poor people (like I am at the monent), 90%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.999%, before they are satisfied with my having way more money than them? Thanks. 188.29.180.98 (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the frankly insulting tone, it's become fairly clear in Britain, at least, which is one the whole considered 'liberal' in America, but from a British perspective is somewhat liberal with politics on both sides, a 40% tax rate for high earners is accepted but a 50% is far more problematic (A poll for the Times in 2009 found that 57 per cent of people are in favour of keeping the higher rate, while just 22 per cent oppose it.) - although it's gone through temporarily in an age of austerity and a government deficit that most parties agree is too high. I read once about an American tax only the Rockefellers paid. But I can't remember what it was called. On a more philosophical note, see also Utility#Money and Difference principle. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk isn't the place to ask for opinions (although you'll probably receive some, regardless). We have a lot of articles on taxation, including capital gains tax and income tax, and other forms of tax which might affect you, depending on how you make that money, which illustrate different approaches in various countries and states. If you have a system for making $10bn from almost nothing in five years, no matter how much is taxed, you'll be able to make plenty more from holding seminars on how you did it. Warofdreams talk 16:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you completely misunderstand the question - I am not asking about how taxes affect me. I am asking about "how do left-wing people think taxes should work" (as specified in my title) and "what do left-wing people think" as specified later in the paragraph. I have no question about the current task-system, and I am not asking "what does the reference-desk think" I am asking about a political sector. I don't really understand what you write about seminars - could you be more specific? 188.29.180.98 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, refer to the answers below which point out the obvious answer, that left-wingers hold a wide variety of opinions on this and pretty much any other issue - just as if you asked what right-wingers' views were on the topic. Regarding seminars, it was a throwaway comment on the amount some people will pay for get-rich-quick plans, even when patently ridiculous - so one which worked would be particularly popular. Warofdreams talk 16:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing people have varying opinions. At one extreme, Franklin Roosevelt said several times that he thought 100% of income should be taxed above a certain level (I forget what), but it isn't clear if he was serious, or just frustrated at the obstruction he was getting. In some European countries, marginal rates have reached as high as 80-90%. I believe there is a pretty broad consensus now that rates in that range don't work: they cause too much motivation to evade taxes. Still I think there are a lot of left-leaning Americans who would favor top rates in the 50-60% range, at least. Looie496 (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

90% is fine for me, as $100m is more than fair for 5 years of work on my part at 100 hours per week. It's the fact that I have a feeling a lot of Americans would not be happy with me walking around with 100m when they have nothing...so, what do they think, should it really be 100% tax rate above a certain level? But if it WERE 100% tax rate above a certain level, why would I spend the next 5 years buildiing a $1.5b company?? It's not really my passion in life, it's just something I know how to do... So, what do left-wing people think should happen if I do it? 188.29.180.98 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] There is no uniform "left-wing" view on taxation. Most on the left would agree with the principle of a progressive tax. Most would probably also agree that the current top marginal tax rate in the United States is too low. Beyond that, I don't think there is any common line on how high the top marginal tax rate should be, or above what income the top marginal tax rate should apply. Some on the left would support a top marginal rate over 50%, some would not. (It partly depends on what you define as "left.") Nobody on the mainstream left would support a top marginal rate of much more than 80%, I would think, so you would still get to keep at least a couple of your billions even in the unlikely event that the most left-wing Democrats (that is, far to the left of Obama) gained power. Marco polo (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me try to get you to be crystal-clear: you are saying that my fellow Americans will NOT have a problem with my living lavishly, as long as the total money I have represents 20% of what I made? So, if I clear (into my bank account) $1b upon my exit 5 years from now, Americans won't mind my spending $200m in my lifetime, giving the rest away in voluntary income redistribution? (In other words, they would not want met o give the $200m away as well, due to income inequality)? If that is the case, it makes me a lot more comfortable than what is mentioned about 100% tax rate, as if people will hate me for having $100m even if I gave away $900m, then I will not invest the next 5 years of my life into doing it... 188.29.180.98 (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deluded enough to believe that all of your fellow Americans can come to an agreement on anything? No matter what percent you use, some will agree, some will say it is too low, and some will say it is too high. -- kainaw ™ 16:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to know what you will do when you "live lavishly". Just a few million would get you a nice big house, big car, private schooling for your children, holidays in exotic places. But do you need all that anyway? Wouldn't a large-enough house in an area where the public schools aren't too bad, new fuel-efficient medium-sized car (or a train season ticket), relaxed family holidays ... be enough to bring you happiness? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some general liberal views on taxation:

1) It should be used for "redistribution of wealth". The most modest goal here is to prevent wealth from accumulating in the hands of the rich, as it naturally does. A more aggressive goal might be take money that the rich accumulated in previous years and redistribute that to the poor, as well.

2) Progressive income tax is only one way to accomplish this. They do realize that a 100% (or nearly 100%) income tax would damage the economy, by removing the incentive to work. Removing tax loopholes for the rich and their companies is one method. Inheritance taxes are another. Luxury taxes on mansions, yachts, high-priced cars, etc., is yet another.

3) How you make your money would also come into play. If it's a method that takes money disproportionately from the poor, the business itself may be heavily regulated or even banned. Examples are "rent-to-own" stores where you pay many times the normal purchase price, "check cashing" businesses that offer short term loans at usury rates, and any number of direct marketing businesses which offer products with fraudulent medical claims, such as copper bracelets. Businesses which exploit the middle class, like Bernie Madoff's Ponsi scheme, would also be eliminated. (Note that while this was illegal under Republican leadership, they reduced funds to the regulatory agencies, intentionally to "limit regulation", thus allowing it to continue.) StuRat (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden, which has the highest adult high literacy rate in the world,[1] uses a two bracket income tax, where anyone making less than 10% above the median wage pays no tax (similar to the U.S. "personal exemption" 0% bottom bracket) but everyone making more than that pays about 57% on the amount they exceed it. That kind of two-bracket income tax is the most progressive taxation possible, and saves even more paperwork than the flat tax because most people don't even need to worry about payments until they start making 10% above the median wage. Steve Forbes often suggests that the regressive flat tax could be filed on a postcard. A pure two bracket income tax could be filed on a postcard, too, but even Sweden got a regressive VAT sales tax when they joined the EU.

If progressives in the US or UK were interested in transitioning to a two bracket system, they might find the proposition opposed by corporations who can threaten to leave (capital flight) in which case an international harmonization of tax laws away from property and sales taxes to a two bracket income tax might be most effective as a rider on the OECD's multilateral tax haven treaty.[2] 99.24.223.58 (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also [3] and [4]. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal? Left-wing? My brain is screaming for some simple, indisputable definitions. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that communism is a 100% property tax (maximally regressive) and it will all make sense. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always think of it as this: Liberals/Left wingers think the rich should help the poor where they can, with help from the government. Conservatives/right wingers think the poor are useful for target practice. --Jayron32 02:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no... Liberals might think like that. Left wingers think the rich should be used for target practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progressives aren't opposed to rich people, just the deleterious effects of income inequality. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my country the Liberals are the conservatives. The assumptions behind this question and the responses are very narrow. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

99 is the person who best understands my question. The fact is, there will be great income inequality between me and everyone else, even if I only keep $100m after giving away $900m. But that 100m is what would motivate me to sacrifice 5 years of my life at 120 hours per week. Why would I do that, if at the end I would be ethically forced to give almost ALL of it away - that doesn't make sense. In that case, I would just live normally. 188.29.111.138 (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you always have the choice as to how to spend your money - disposable income. And if you find that you wish to give it to a charity whose cause has touched your heart, or put it all on the favourite in the 3.15 at Doncaster, or even to whatever call girl takes your fancy - it's still your choice. People don't always act rationally or logically, or even ethically. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History books

Recently, I have enjoyed reading (and using on WP) the book The Battle for Spain by Antony Beevor. I'm looking for more similar books (those others by him aren't on subjects I feel I'd enjoy reading about). For those who have not read the book, I liked the authoritative nature (400 pages+, as a good a measure as that is) from a noted historian, and complete with bibliography. Also that it is on a historical subject of some importance but preferably avoiding those where there is already lots and lots of books, unless they are on a part of it. This one had a pretty strong narrative (rather than strictly chronological) line, but I'm open to suggestions. I'm fine with most periods (1500 onwards), anywhere worldwide. Any suggestions? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly broad category of books, but some of my favorites that may match your requirements are Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War by Margaret MacMillan and The Scramble for Africa by Thomas Pakenham. Enjoy, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any urge for pre-1500, Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel is a great read (though it doesn't fit squarely into the genre of history). In terms of other great works of modern history that are also good reads, anything by Richard Hofstadter is pretty enjoyable (especially Anti-intellectualism in American Life). If war is of interest, pick pretty much anything by John Keegan (I'm a huge fan of his History of Warfare, though I will note it covers a lot of pre-1500). If you're interested in the 20th century, Spencer Weart's Nuclear Fear is really quite wonderfully written and argued (and timely), and Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb is a must if you have any interest in the history of physics. One easy way to find some great works of history is to look at the winners of the Pulitzer Prize in General Non-Fiction — it often contains really magisterial works of history. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Taubman's biography of Nikita Khrushchev is good. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To follow Mr. 98 general suggestion, see also what's listed under Pulitzer Prize for History and Wolfson History Prize, and possibly others listed in some of the articles within Category:History awards. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In another life I've been to Barcelona several times and traveled around Catalunya a bit. Assuming you're interested in the Spanish Civil War specifically,

George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia
Raymond Carr has written a number of works on the SCW over the years, most recent (I believe) The Spanish Tragedy: The Civil War in Perspective

Any reading on the SCW is, of course, helped immeasurably by a study of Spain's history.

For something completely different, I'm not usually into biographies, but David McCullough's John Adams is superb reading. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everything David McCullough does is pretty great. Truman is also excellent. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homage to Catalonia (and Down and Out in Paris and London for that matter) are incomparable. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally like most of what Barbara Tuchman wrote.--Zoppp (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sons of Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza

The sons of Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza include in their names de Kászon et Impérfalva. What does de Kászon et Impérfalva refer to? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kászon and Impérfalva are both place names in the Székely Land in modern-day Romania. According to our article on the Thyssen family, these names came into the family from the Bornemisza branch. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are places in Romania (but formerly in Hungary). Kaszon seems to refer to multiple places but this one might be Plăieşii de Jos. Imperfalva seems to be the current Imper, for which there is no English article. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A = B ≠ A

I am in my last week of my Introduction to Logic class. All throughout I have been approaching the idea that Logic reduces Truth to a False Dichotomy; i.e. Logic dictates any statement is either true or false; e.g. 'my name is Schyler, not Skyler, it's a common misunderstanding (i.e. misunderstanding ≠ ~Truth).
Now this becomes a problem. False Dichotomy is a term in Logic and the essence of Logic meets the criteria for a fallacy; therefore fallacies are fallacious. It's like trying to critique a piece of music that is made up of fish and cars.
Perhaps a quote from Bertrand Russel can clear up my misgivings:

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.

The quote meets the criteria for the critique; the skeptics critique on reality applies to the critique itself. Thanks Wikipedians! Schyler (one language) 22:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your actual _question_ is, but Law of excluded middle might be a useful article. Tevildo (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, either; I think schyler has to try rephrasing the question. I don't see why "the essence of Logic meets the criteria for a fallacy". Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True... Remember that logic only applies to _statements_, and not every sentence is a statement. Tevildo (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This happens with my types of questions... Herewego, simply: Logic dictates a statement must be either True or False. This looks to me like a False Dichotomy, like in my example of a misunderstanding above. If a fallacy is part of logic, and logic is a fallacy, it would be like a word made up of paragraphs, or an electron made up of water; it is inherently illogical. The question is: is my argument valid? Schyler (one language) 23:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more concise phrasing of your question is: Is "Logic dictates a statement must be either True or False" a false dichotomy? Correct? Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a false dichotomy, because the contradiction of true is not false, but not true. Arbitrary and fatally ambiguous statements like "this statement is false" don't even rise to the level of falsehood. Nevertheless they remain statements that are 'not true' because they have no truth value. They are flatus vocis. μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, there are some statements that are not falsifiable, but are not true either. I think a better assessment is that there are statements that are true, statements that are false, Statements that are neither false nor true (they are matters of opinion or the like), statements that cannot be determined to be true or false and statements that are meaningless. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this. Thanks for the information. What, then, can I call something that disproves itself (such as the Russel quote above)?Schyler (one language) 01:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His statement isn't self refuting per se. First, he says it is not desirable to believe such things, not that one can't believe such things. And the statement could be perfectly justified by its wider context, assuming he explains that, for example, all knowledge ultimately comes from observation, empiricism. But it is certainly wise to be aware of such potentially self-contradictory statements. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about things such as the liar paradox? I think you'd call it "self-contradictory". If you were being a bit slap-dash, "oxymoron" might get the point across, or if you were feeling fancy, you might try "contradictio in terminis". "Self-refuting idea" would be another possibility. -- 174.31.196.47 (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the math desk, people would have pointed out that there are logic systems with more than two truth values. Specifically, Fuzzy logic allows any truth value between zero and one. These types of things might not appear in an introductory logic course (which probably focuses on Classical logic, but they do exist, and are seriously studied, because the two-truth system of classical logic isn't always the best way of looking at things. Buddy431 (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there is a bit of a distinction in practice between fuzzy logic and many-valued logic, although they are closely related. Typically, many-valued logic has more that two (discrete) truth values (true/false/unknown is a common one), whereas fuzzy logic strictly has two truth values (true and false/not-true), but instead of being a discrete one or the other, a statement can be any continuous mix of the two. For example, the paradox for "this statement is not true" could be resolved in fuzzy logic by assigning it a value of 50% true and 50% not-true, whereas in a typical many-valued logic you might assign it a value of unknown/unknowable/unspecified/etc., depending on how the logic is set up. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarianism vs. philanthropy

What is the difference between philanthropy and humanitarianism? Loopus9 22:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopus9 (talk • contribs)

Humanitarianism is successful philanthropy. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles on philanthropy and humanitarianism may help. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A humanitarian is someone who loves mankind in general and no one in particular.

From the Devil's Dictionary: PHILANTHROPIST, n. A rich (and usually bald) old gentleman who has trained himself to grin while his conscience is picking his pocket.

μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Philanthropic", is something done for the general benefit of mankind. "Humanitarian" implies some form of relief from an external condition (from what I can remember). "Charitable" is the third arm, if you like, because it implies a redistribution of resources from the haves to the have-nots. (I got this information from the Charity Commission in a seminar in 1999, when I started working as an advisor to charities. However, I can't find it on their website.) --TammyMoet (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarians like people; philanthropists help people. Looie496 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Sydney Smith put it, "You find people ready enough to do the Good Samaritan, without the oil and the tuppence." Tevildo (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looie, I think there's more to it than just "humanitarians like people" - or what is "humanitarian aid" about? It seems to be that humanitarian aid is providing the basics necessary for the maintenance of human existence in difficult situations - which you can do regardless of whether you like those suffering or not. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What publicly traded stock has performed best over the past X years?

Is there a website available that will let me enter a time period, and it'll cogitate and then tell me what publicly traded stock performed the best over that time period? Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/finance/stockscreener "Add Criteria" / "Growth" / "5y net income growth rate" then click the button and then on that far column heading to sort. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by "performed the best", I didn't mean by revenue or income; I simply meant its stock price. This is very close to what I had wanted but not quite. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Corporations can arbitrarily change the value of their prices by issuing more stock, and with splits, dividends, buybacks, and reverse splits. The nominal stock price difference is meaningless. Net income represents the performance to stockholders, or would earnings per share growth be more accurate? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO, those aren't arbitrary changes, they have to be purchased or paid for, in the case of a split, by issuing new shares to the current holders. What would be arbitrary would be if a company could announce a split and keep all the new shares for themselves. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Comet Tuttle really wants is "market cap". 188.29.186.150 (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

188 is correct, what I want is the market cap. Eliminating penny stocks would be nice, either by requiring a share price above X, or, more sophisticatedly, by not sampling the market cap on a daily basis, but by means of weekly or monthly averages. (I'm betting the former will be the way to eliminate the issue.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you must mean change in market cap per time period. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this type of analysis is that, since prices fluctuate daily, it depends strongly on the days you start and end the comparison. That is, you might find the answer is completely different each time you try it. However, longer time periods will tend to even out such variations, although then you risk finding a company that did well in the past, but recently has stalled. StuRat (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, penny stocks can fluctuate by a factor of 20 or so, but do so in a fairly random manner and on small volumes. Unless you look at really long time periods, it's very hard to outperform these random fluctuations with a substantive stock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One candidate is Berkshire Hathaway "A class" stock. It is fairly easy to track because it has never split or had any buybacks, and trades currently for several thousands of dollar per share. Even our article notes a return of 76% (compared to an S&P500 average of -11%) for the past 10 years. --Jayron32 02:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to sort stocks by net income growth, EPS growth, or market cap growth for an arbitrary number of years? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]