Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 April 14

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.

April 14

HMS Roselys

I can't really find anything about the Roselys ramming a U-boat outside of this article. The French Wikipedia has a brief excerpt about the incident, but it doesn't really describe what happened to the U-boat. One of the references in the French wiki is dead, and the other doesn't really go into much detail about the incident. Any help would be appreciated. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 00:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

[Admiralty?] "...announced (Jan. 29) that the French corvette Roselys had rammed and almost certainly destroyed a U-boat". Naval Review (London) Volume 30 1942 (p. 163). Sorry, only a "snippet view".

However: "On the 26th January, the Free French corvette Roselys lightly rammed a U-boat, which was also attacked with depth charges... It is probable that the U-boat reached home... [No U-boats were lost]". Donitz, U-Boats, Convoys: The British Version of His Memoirs by Jak P. Mallmann Showell (p. 54).

Seems to have been an optimistic claim seized on by the press. The Imperial War Museum has several photographs of the crew looking pleased with themselves: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Note that the "HMS" title wasn't retained when HMS Sundew was on loan to the Free French. [6] Alansplodge (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: Thanks a lot. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 16:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. It might make a nice little article if you're bored; there's lots of sources on Google about Roselys' rescue mission in a minefield too. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Was Cleopatra literate?

If so, at what level? Additionally, was she educated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.96.144 (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Almost certainly yes, and at a high level. We don't know much about her youth, but her father was a patron of the arts and sciences, and Alexandria was the most important center of Greek learning at the time. Plutarch claims that she spoke Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, "the language of the Troglodytes", Hebrew, Arab, Syrian, Median, Parthian, "and other languages". I would assume that she was a fluent reader of at least Greek. Remember that Alexander had been educated by Aristotle - the Macedonians were not averse to education. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A reference for Plutarch's comments is in Cleopatra VII, Daughter of the Nile by Kristiana Gregory (p. 182). That source also points out that other records were probably destroyed in the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. Alansplodge (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

How is household income calculated if it's a multi-income household?

Dad may earn $120,000 a year; Mom may earn $100,000 a year; Son attends a local university and may earn $8,000 a year; Daughter attends high school and may earn $5,000 a year. Grandpa and Grandma are co-owners of the house and retirees but Grandma may work part-time for $10,000 a year, and Grandpa may work part-time for $10,000 a year. Then, Uncle just happens to find a job where his father, Grandpa, lives, and decides to move in. He may earn $60,000 a year, and his wife is a stay-at-home mother with a baby. Their personal taxes may be done by their employers, so they will probably receive their disposable income in a pay card or pay check or direct deposit. But what about filing for tax return? Are the Uncle's wife and baby the only dependents? What about Son and Daughter who barely earn enough to be self-sufficient? For a multi-income household, how do people consider socioeconomic status? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Household income is just that - the income of everyone in that household combined. As for filing tax returns it's best to just read the rules for US tax returns here. Socioeconomic status is typically going by household income, but this is going to be operationally defined by any study on poverty. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

From Household income in the United States:

A household's income can be calculated various ways but the US Census as of 2009 measured it in the following manner: the income of every resident of that house that is over the age of 15, including wages and salaries, or else any kind of governmental entitlement such as unemployment insurance, disability payments or child support payments received, along with any personal business, investment, or other routine sources of income. The residents of the household do not have to be related to the head of the household for their earnings to be considered part of the household's income.

Note that the legal definition of a household varies between jurisdictions, and can depend on factors such as sharing meals. Compare with House in multiple occupation. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Can supermarkets predict consumer behavior if consumers base their decisions on what the supermarkets promote with reduced prices?

If a supermarket promotes a selected group of items on sale and one consumer decides to make a meal plan out of the selected group of items and only those items (fruits and vegetables), then how will supermarkets make money if consumers only buy promoted, reduced-price items over non-promoted/non-reduced-priced items? What if most consumers share this habit? Or will there always be a couple of impulsive buyers (buyers who don't care about the price and will buy even at regular price) that supermarkets can lure? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Supermarket pricing is a vast and complicated field with many different pricing strategies. The whole system is confused by the multiple and sometimes-overlapping types of customers: Those who visit multiple stores and only buy the cheapest items at each store; Those dedicated to one store who never change their shopping habits; Those who are willing to switch to a cheaper brand; Those who are beholden to their brands; those who don't even care what they're eating as long as its cheap; and even more types. Each type of customer responds differently to each possible strategy, and you also have to be aware of strategies being followed by nearby competitors. Some stores may operate on the assumption that only discounted items will ever be purchased, and ensure they make a profit if that is the case. Here is a paper I picked nearly at random [7] that talks about these pricing strategies, and you can google or google-scholar "supermarket pricing strategies" and similar phrases to find a huge amount of research on the topic. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the use of the word "predict" causes a lot of issues. Supermarkets increase revenue through strategic price reductions paired with price increases as well as promotions and in-store placement of products. There are consumers who exploit the deals to get cheap food. Most consumers don't even use coupons. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously supermarkets have been doing this sort of thing for a long time, have many years of data on very large samples on which to base their calculations and projections, and know exactly what they're doing. Different customers behave differently as individuals, but their overall behaviours will be statistically predictable to several decimal places. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why my supermarket sells delicious chips for almost 8 dollars when other companies in similar neighborhoods sell that brand for half the price. Even Manhattan stores don't charge $7.79. Walmart charges 3 dollar upstate. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the good points above, it's worth remembering that depending on where you live a lot of promotions aren't just something the supermarket does but something the supplier is involved in as well (including with pricing). Here in NZ this can include requiring the supplier to remove the remaining stock from the shelves when the promotion has come to an end, and maybe getting them to stock the shelves in the first place. At least here in NZ, from what I've read before a lot of these heavy promotions seem to primarily come at the expense of house/store brands which are still a lot less developed here than elsewhere. But the retail price of house brands are still often cheaper than the discounted other brands. How the profit margin for the store compares is going to be very complicated, especially since price strategies can involve things like rebates depending on how many are sold (well at least these apply to consumer electronics, but I'm fairly sure the same things are done for groceries). Still stores generally prefer to sell house brands for various reasons including their level of control. The frequent desire one of the major supermarket chain here to cut down on their SKUs is something which annoys suppliers no end but not something they can do much about. Point being, any analysis based on some simplistic assumption about how supermarkets and consumers operate is bound to fail. Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Working for the government

I know that paying taxes means part of your earnings goes to the government to provide public services. But the government hires employees, so those are public employees. Does that mean the office assistant who gets a paycheck from the government also returns some of that money back to the government in tax? How do the salaries of public employees and government officials work? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Judging from your IP address, I assume you mean the US gov't. The IRS says that government offices do have to issue W2s to their employees, even ones working overseas. That would indicate that they have to at least file taxes on that income, which would be pretty pointless if that income was always exempt. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Americans over the age of 18, or with any taxable income, must file returns with the IRS each year. It may be pointless, and even counter-productive, but (unlike all other civilized nations) it is the law.DOR (HK) (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

They pay the same taxes as anyone else, except I think they don't pay FICA tax (aka social security tax) on the theory that government retirement benefits will take care of them. In the case of the Federal govt that might make sense (if the fedgov goes bust it will take SS with it) but there have been instances of some city governments with the same deal going bust, leaving elderly ex-employees hung out to dry. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The exempted government employees list is actually fairly small these days. Federal employees hired after 1984 pay the FICA tax. As you suggested, the reason for the shift is that Social Security has proven to be more stable than other pensions, so both the state and federal government have reduced their employee pensions so that their employees would be allowed to collect Social Security. --M@rēino 13:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Equivalent arrangements apply in the UK except that all employees pay National Insurance (unless they earn very little). Dbfirs 06:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Can nature be blamed for killing people?

A giant asteroid hits Earth. It hits an ocean and causes a tsunami, devastating several coastal cities. Can insurance still pay for a global disaster? Can nature be blamed? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

We have an article on this -- Act of God. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

See also Force majeure uhhlive (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Nature" can be the cause of such disasters, but the concept of blame applies only to animate entities acting with deliberation. Unless you think Nature is a conscious entity "performing" such events deliberately (despite their being demonstrable as the outcome of mathematically calculable physical laws), "blaming" nature is an irrational response. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the practice of not eating meat on the Good Friday a Catholic thing?

In my experience, here in Brazil it is normal to abstain from eating meat on the Good Friday, whether you're Catholic or Protestant. (I'm not saying anything about people who are not Catholic or Protestant, or not Christian for that matter.) But in the article Good Friday, the word "meat" is mentioned only once, in the section Good Friday#Day of Fasting. That section makes it sound like doing it is a strictly Catholic thing. (That paragraph even has a "citation needed"!) The words "fast" and "fasting" appear elsewhere too in the article, mentioning other forms of fasting in some cultures and religions.

I'm not a great expert in history, but it may be important to note that apparently Brazil has been historically mostly Catholic — not counting the African and indigenous religions — since its colonization in 1500 and started having Protestantism in the mainstream relatively recently. So the practice of not eating meat on Good Friday here in Brazil may have come from that Catholic ancestry.

My question (or questions):

Is the practice of not eating meat on the Good Friday a Catholic thing? (as opposed to a Protestant thing) Not counting Brazil, in other countries and cultures is it normal for Catholics only to do it? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Here in a Protestant area of northern England, I'd never heard of the practice of non-meat Fridays (Good or otherwise) until I visited an area with a Catholic population. The practice might also be common amongst some Anglo-Catholics. Dbfirs 09:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

See this recent discussion here, which pointed out that the requirement to fast on a Friday was done away with for Protestants at the Reformation. However, the practice of eating fish (an acceptable alternative to meat) has lingered as secular custom in some Protestant societies, hence the long queues outside the fish and chip shop on a Friday night in many parts of England. The Good Friday tradition in the UK is to eat hot cross buns, but in recent decades they have been made available all year round by supermarket chains who care nothing for our cultural heritage apparently. Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The practice of fasting or abstinence is a very old christian tradition, dating back at least to the second century of church history. Many protestant churches (though not all) moved away from the traditional requirement to fast during Lent and on Fridays. The Roman Catholic church has generally maintained the tradition,, with some local variation - however, strictly speaking the requirement to fast on Fridays only applies if the day is not ranked as a Solemnity, which Good Friday is. That makes Good Friday the one Friday in the year when fasting is not required (unless Christmas Day or Epiphany happens to be a Friday as well). Wymspen (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth enquiring into exactly what "meat" meant when the relevant directives were originally written (and translated?) In Middle English, "meat" meant any food (just as "deer" at one time meant "any wild huntable animal"). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

More than that, they are now doing "Easter crackers" and "Easter trees" [8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:BE08:2100:890B:A60:D273:AE70 (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Dowry

Is dowry dependent on the number of children a family has? If Family A has one child (the only heir) and Family B has one child (the only heir), and the two families merge through marriage between the only child in Family A and the child in Family B, then is it still considered a dowry? Or is it a dowry if one person takes a fraction of the wealth because most of the wealth goes to natal family's own heir? The practice of dowry occurs in India and China, especially among the wealthy. Though, China has a one-child policy, so the brides are also heirs. Then, there is Miss Havisham in Great Expectations or Queen Elizabeth I of England. Neither married. If Miss Havisham did marry, then would she have to forfeit ownership of the property? Or will she continue to be owner of her property and bequeath it to Estella? And if Miss Havisham has children, then would the biological children take precedence over any adoptive children, especially if one biological child is male or transgender male? By the way, can English families fake the gender of their children and raise the daughters like homosexual sons in the 19th century so they can bequeath property to them, if they happen to be born of the wrong sex? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

So many questions all at once. Your first ones depend on what country and what tradition you are talking about so I don't think they can be answered until you let us know that. I do know that traditionally in China, that's to say among the Han Chinese dowry was not usually paid but rather bride price so you may want to look that up. Then England. A lot has been written about what might have happened if Elizabeth I married; it was not very certain. Miss Havisham is a fictional character in the 19th Century and it was in that century that the Married Women's Property Act was passed, so I suggest you look that up. People in England made many very complicated arrangements for their children's inheritance - indeed the plot of Great Expectations involves arrangements made for Pip. Property could be left to daughters so there would be no point in pretending that a daughter was a son. And people made bequests to adoptive children in their wills. There was lots of work for clever lawyers. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Chicken tikka masala and General Tso's chicken

Chicken Tikka Masala originated in England. General Tso's chicken originated in the United States. So, they are really English and American, respectively. Still, why do people treat them as Indian and Chinese, even though those specific recipes originated among British and American people of Indian and Chinese descent? Also, when news reporters talk about "British girls" going to Syria, it seems that most of these girls are Muslim. But their nationality - British - is emphasized more than their religion - Islam? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You pretty much answered your own question - that they originated among immigrants of Indian and Chinese descent respectively. See American Chinese food and Anglo-Indian cuisine.--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you'll find that all those girls are Muslims. 2A02:C7F:BE08:2100:890B:A60:D273:AE70 (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ahem, Chicken tikka masala was (according to our article) devised in Glasgow which is in Scotland. However, moves by the Scottish Parliament to establish a Protected Designation of Origin for it has prompted top chefs in Delhi to claim that the recipe has been known in India for generations. [9] Alansplodge (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, there you go. "Vindaloo" is actually the Portuguese carne de vinha d'alhos. 2A02:C7F:BE08:2100:890B:A60:D273:AE70 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

By coincidence, here in the UK very recently, there was a TV programme on the origin of "foreign" foods. One of the statistics they stated is that in the UK, 80% of takeaway shops we consider to sell Indian food actually sell Bangladeshi food. They also stated that chicken tikka masala was developed here in Britain, but did not specify where. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As for the 2nd part of your Q, I have also found this a bit odd. That is, they refer to someone as "American" or "British" based on their legal status alone, while I wouldn't consider somebody who came to the country, managed to obtain citizenship, but remained loyal only to their nation of origin, to be "American" (or "British"). This even applies if they were born in the US or UK. Being American or British implies some degree of loyalty to your nation, and belief in it's values. If they betray all of those values by joining ISIS, I don't consider them to be American or British, and I doubt if most people would. In the case of naturalized citizens, I would hope there would be a way to strip such people of their citizenship, as they have violated whatever loyalty oath they took to obtain it. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of the girls who have gone to Syria from Britain were born in Britain, and have British citizenship by birth, not by naturalisation. Wymspen (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, if they've joined ISIS, they've committed treason, and should be tried for it. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hanged, drawn and quartered? Alansplodge (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the Hogan's Heroes punishment: "You will be shot, then court martialled, then sent to the Russian Front !". StuRat (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

50.4.236.254 and StuRat -- It's been alleged that the Khadr family have no attachment to Canada other than using it as a convenient recuperation base and passport to facilitate their various terrorism-related ventures, but I doubt if there's much similarity between that and typical cases of radicalization... AnonMoos (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

change of meaning of "conservative"?

Were conservatives ever the party in favor of conserving natural resources and preserving and protecting the environment, while at the same time period, were liberals ever the party against spending money on environmental protections? Like maybe Eisenhower and Nixon? The sarcastic comment a liberal acquaintance of mine made was "gee thanks conservatives! Now the Great Barrier Reef is doomed. I thought conservatives wanted to conserve things." I thought this is a lie because after all Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, and Nixon started the EPA. 144.35.114.172 (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing "conservatives" wanted to keep the same was the government, status quo, etc. And this term was from a time when little government money was spent preserving nature. So, it means to not spend money on things like that. Of course, by now, spending money to protect the environment is fairly well established, so undoing that may quality as reactionary. Note, however, that "not spending money to protect the environment" is fairly low on the list of conservative priorities, so it wouldn't automatically disqualify somebody, if they held an opposing view. StuRat (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

StuRat -- I don't think that's entirely accurate. There was a tradition of genteel conservationism among Republicans (to be distinguished from activist environmentalism, of course) which continued among Rockefeller Republicans at least until Ronald Reagan appointed James G. Watt Secretary of the Interior in 1981... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A quote from Will Rogers: "I can remember way back when a liberal was one who was generous with his own money." Then there's this: "A Republican moves slowly. They are what we call conservatives. A conservative is a man who has plenty of money and doesn't see any reason why he shouldn't always have plenty of money. A Democrat is a fellow who never had any, but doesn't see any reason why he shouldn't have some." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Baseball Bugs, I couldn't find your quotation of Will Rogers on Wikiquote, but I did find: " I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."155.97.8.213 (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

First of all, neither conservatives nor liberals are a party (well, except in New York State, but that's a special usage we don't need to consider here). Don't confuse conservatives with the Republican Party or liberals with the Democratic Party; completely different things.

Second, properly speaking, conservatism and liberalism are not even necessarily in opposition to one another, as they measure different things. Conservatism is a position on how fast you want things to change, namely slowly. The opposite of conservatism is perhaps radicalism. Liberalism is not a position on how fast you want things to change, but rather on where you want to end up; its opposite is authoritarianism.

Therefore it's perfectly possible to be a conservative liberal, especially in a country that, like the US, is already pretty liberal. If you want it to remain liberal, that's a conservative position.

The environmental issues show a tension within conservatism. If you're a conservative and want things to change slowly, then what do you do in a situation where, if the legal framework changes slowly, the environment will change quickly? Different people who describe themselves as "conservative" may have different answers. --Trovatore (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Richard Nixon, as conservative a President as the US had had, founded the US Environmental Protection Agency. In the US, Republican opposition to environmentalism comes not from the conservative elements of the Republican party, but from y monied business interests of it; the rich stockholding class opposes government regulation of any sort as it decreases short term profits, and thus stock value. Such forces in US politics has little to do with conservatism in any traditional political sense. --Jayron32 03:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly possible for conservatives to be environmentalists, but I don't think Nixon is a very good example, and I don't know where you're getting this "most conservative" thing. He wasn't nearly as conservative as, say, Coolidge or Hoover or Taft. He was elected in a time when statism was on the rise, and he caught the rising tide. One recent commentator, can't remember who, went so far as to describe him as a "hawkish Jill Stein". --Trovatore (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use words I never used and then disagree with the words you pretended I used as though it somehow makes me wrong. Address my words, not words you pretended I used so you could make me look wrong.--Jayron32 13:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm? You said Nixon was "as conservative a president as the US had had". That was what I disagreed with. Did I misinterpret what you meant? --Trovatore (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I never used the word "most". If you disagree with the notion that he was among the more conservative presidents, perhaps we can have a discussion. But I never said he was the singularly most conservative, and since I never said that, I feel no reason to defend myself against rebuttals to things I never said. Your entire counterpoint is based on naming Presidents who may have been more conservative than Nixon, which is meaningless because I never said there were not others as conservative as him. --Jayron32 00:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you didn't use the word "most", and it was not intended to be a direct quote. It was just more succinct than "as conservative a president as the US had had". It's true they aren't exactly logically equivalent, because "most" would be refuted by another president that was exactly as conservative as Nixon (unlikely; two things are rarely exactly equal in any measure), and perhaps by another president who was more conservative in some ways and less in others, so that the overall level of conservatism could not be directly compared.

But that's not the argument I actually made. Rather, I provided examples of presidents that I thought were clearly more conservative than Nixon. It seems to me that "as conservative a president as the US had had" is refuted by a single other president who is clearly more conservative. If that's not what you meant, I apologize, but to me it still seems to be the plain meaning of that phrase. --Trovatore (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 

Perhaps more substantively: No, I don't think Nixon was very conservative at all, except on cultural issues. If you take away the rhetoric, you could easily defend the position that he was a Great Society liberal, carrying on LBJ's legacy. Even his anticommunism did not greatly distinguish him from Kennedy and Johnson. --Trovatore (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, between working to recognize China and end the Vietnam war, he was far from your typical communist-hating war hawk. StuRat (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

He was a hawk and an anticommunist, but a pragmatic one. That wasn't really my point. Those aspects are more associated with conservatism (as understood in the United States) than a lot of other aspects of his policies. In a lot of ways he was a continuation of LBJ and the Great Society. --Trovatore (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's only on cultural issues that you can usefully describe Nixon as "conservative". He was defined in opposition to the hippie movement, spoke against "permissivism", that sort of thing. But those issues are usually mostly distractions. --Trovatore (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The rich stockholding class isn't so strongly against government regulation when it discourages new competitors. —Tamfang (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)