Humanities desk
< May 13	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 14

Obscurantism

Is there anyone known for praising obscurantism? Like someone who was so anti-everything that they purposely used it because they didn't want anyone to understand, or something to that effect. I personally think obscurantism is really funny and kinda cool haha. Evaunit♥666♥ 00:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The liberal media are sometimes accused of being obscurantist, because

1) they tend to claim that all knowledge comes from investigative sources.
2) they further argue that only the information élite has the ability to gather sources, and that most contemporary knowledge comes from themselves.

There are various kinds of obscurantism, but they could be divided into two categories :

a) the élitist brand which limits knowledge to very specific categories of human activity, say philosophy, physical science, economics, history, medicine, politics, religion, exploration, etc. b) the populist brand, much more common, that says that all knowledge is an emanation from the people, at that everything which is not democratic, popular, collective, is presumably false.

So, one could argue that obscurantism is much more common than is generally thought. Any person or any collective who claims to be the guardian of truth, freedom, modernity, etc, could theoretically be accused of obscurantism. 69.157.239.231 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche wrote a few paragraphs to the effect of 'not all philosophy should be accessible to the masses' and so on. Vranak (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been branches of postmodern theory that have taken pride in their inability to be understood. Donna Haraway, though obviously brilliant at times, is known to be quite dismissive of the idea that clarity is a good idea. There are some (and I think I am not incorrect in counting Haraway among them) that believe that clarity serves certain masters more than others. (I disagree—but that's not really the issue, is it?) If I knew more about French philosophy I'd probably be inclined to throw Derrida and Deleuze into that lot (but not Foucault, who obviously took pains to be quite clear), but perhaps my feeling about them is colored by the fact that I think a good deal of what they say is nonsense wrapped in terminology. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Lacan wrote in a way that he felt related to the subconscious as much as to the conscious mind. His work is particularly impenetrable when translated due to his use of puns at key points, which only work in French. Roland Barthes' concept of the "writerly text" is also relevant. He celebrated kinds of writing that required effort on the part of the reader, the pay-off being "bliss" rather than just the "pleasure" of normal reading. The postmodernists can justify their obscurantism by citing these two as well as Derrida and Deleuze. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standby Power wastage

The television when on standby consumes up to 10 watts doing absolutely nothing. So why isn't there a $1 million dollar X-Prize for inventing a standby mode which consumes less than 0.5 watt of power? 202.168.50.40 (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today's TVs probably consume less energy when turned off than "instant on" TVs of the 1960's which kept some voltage on the vacuum tubes and picture tube. The TV would need to store some info in nonvolatile memory to avoid the reprogramming some sets need when they are unplugged. Otherwise you could use a power strip to turn off the entire home entertainment center when it was not in use. If you feel of the little power adaptor or "wall wart" and it is warm, then it is wasting energy. Edison (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already done... According to the manual, my 6 year old Sony (21" CRT) consumes 60 watts when on, and 0.5 watts when on standby. Leaving it on standby for a whole year would cost about £1. Astronaut (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The butter tray in the fridge at my place uses 36Watts constantly. I've cut the wire to it.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin and Eugenics/Social Darwinism

Was Charles Darwin a proponent of either Eugenics or social Darwinism? --Begantruetwo (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From our article on Social Darwinism: Darwin himself gave serious consideration to Galton's work, but thought the ideas of "hereditary improvement" impractical. Aware of weaknesses in his own family, he was sure that families would naturally refuse such selection and wreck the scheme. He thought that even if compulsory registration was the only way to improve the human race, this illiberal idea would be unacceptable, and it would be better to publicize the "principle of inheritance" and let people decide for themselves.--droptone (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(cross-posed at Science desk)

For a fairly complete approach, by a respected historian of heredity, you might look up this article: Diane B. Paul, "Darwin, social Darwinism and eugenics", in Jonathan Hodge and Gregory Radick, eds. the Cambridge Companion to Darwin (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 214–239.

In short: Darwin was on the fence in both cases. He valued his cousin Francis Galton's work primarily because Galton established, as far as Darwin was concerned, that intelligence was as inheritable as stature and skin color. He believed that it was possible, as Galton claimed, that society could be breeding itself into inferiority, but he was not at all sure that society could or should do anything about that. He considered Galton's view of a state that could help regulate breeding as "utopian". Neither he nor Galton believed at all in anything that looked or sounded like even the coercive form of eugenics practiced in the United States, much less under National Socialism.

Darwin's intellectual priority was convincing people that evolution was plausible. He did this by looking for things in animals that he saw in man, as a way of bridging the gap. He was not interested in how human societies should organize themselves, not like Galton and Spencer were.

That being said, he didn't totally disown these ideas either. But eugenics was brand new and not totally formulated; social Darwinism was not yet a coherent set of principles (and certainly not under that name). Did he believe evolution applied to society? Yes, but he and everyone else just called it Darwinism at that point.

But in all things, the most salient aspect of Darwin is his fence-sitting. Read the sections on society in Descent of Man—he goes back and forth, is eugenics sensible, is it moral, does it make sense, over and over again, back and forth. (Origin of Species is written in much the same fashion, he circles around and around.) In the conclusion of that book he gets as close as he ever did to saying that perhaps the state should be keeping track of whether people marry their own cousins (he tried to get his friend Lubbock to pass a law that would mandate an investigation of this—and he himself always felt that his own children's sickly demeanors came from the fact that he had married his own cousin) and that people should give more attention to the heredity of their spouses than they usually did. But it is not very forceful, it is not the cry of what we would today consider a real eugenicist or social Darwinist. He did not denounce the ideas very strongly, but he did not support them very strongly either. They were not major forces on his agenda. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! that was very helpful. --Begantruetwo (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

To Whom It May Concern,

Can you please help me identify this painting (http://www.dollsofindia.com/product/PH37)

What is the title? Who is the artist?

Hoping for your immediate reply.

Yours sincerely, Mr. Kim Richard V. Unidad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.46.3 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! That is "Le Printemps" (Spring) by the French painter Pierre Auguste Cot. --Taktser 04:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might the painting have been the inspiration for the Cledus T. Judd song "Swingin'?" Edison (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Aid to Soviet Russia in WW2

How important was the material aid given by the west to the Soviet war effort? There is some information on the kind of things supplied in your Lend Lease page, but what I really want to know is how exactly this-and that given by the British-affected the relative balance of forces on the battle fronts? Western aid used to be downplayed in subsequent official accounts of the Great Patriotic War, though I believe more information has come out since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Can you help? (Before I forget my deep thanks for some really excellent answers to my previous question, that on Karl Marx). Big Sally (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty critical. Essentially, the US provided the vehicles for the entire Soviet logistics tail. The Soviets made their own tanks (and a good thing, too: the T-34 was far superior to any early-war American tank), but the vast majority of the trucks and most train engines were American-built. --Carnildo (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British and Americans invaded Persia (Iran) and established a supply corridor into the USSR through that country (the Persian Corridor). Polish troops, captured by the Russians in 1939, subsequently formed an army under General Anders, the Anders Army, and came out of southern Russia through Iran, being re-equipped and fighting alongside the British Eighth Army in North Africa and Italy. The British were also supplying the Russians through the infamous arctic convoys, of which the most famous was PQ-17. According to my dear wife, in one convoy the British packed dismantled tanks, turrets in one ship, chassis in another; inevitably, the first ship was sunk. HMS Edinburgh was sunk bringing back Russian gold in payment for the materiel.

Somewhere I've read of an encounter between allied troops and Russians, in which the Russians were boasting about their excellent trucks; the chap pointed out that they were, in fact, American-made, to which the rejoinder came that of course they weren't - they even had a great big white Soviet star painted on the bonnet. You might also be interested in bombing of the Tirpitz, one raid of which took place from a Russian aerodrome. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the many-winged aircraft bicycle

There was a black and white film of a many-winged aircraft, the pilot rode it like a bicycle, but crashed soon after. Family Guy did a parody of this with Peter being the pilot and Stewie saying "You know, I vaguely recall seeing something exactly like this, which leads me to believe that it won't work." The plane then crashes beside the garage. However I forgot the name of this episode. I'm looking for the name of this "aircraft" or the inventor, maybe there is a wiki page for this and also the black and white film footage. Thanks a bunch! --Taktser 04:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See if you can find it here [1]--71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It seems to be this multiplane built in 1923 by W. Frederick Gerhardt called the "Cycloplane". This was parodied in the Family Guy episode "Blind Ambition". Although I still can't find the original video footage. But thanks for the link! --Taktser 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican - UFO conspiracy

In 2006, it was reported that a UFO was spotted over Saint-Peter's square. [2]

Now, for the first time, the Vatican has admitted that it used the Jesuits to spy over aliens, with Father Corrado Balducci leading the PR charge. [3] [4]

But get this, the UK government has just released it's own alien archives. [5] Apparently, more and more people believe in UFOs and conspiracies about abductions and landings are becoming very popular.

Within Ufology, what are the most up to date views on the nature of aliens ? Can they be evangelized ? Should we sign an alliance with them, or are they just playing friends with Rome ? 69.157.239.231 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even know if these aliens believe in God! Adam Bishop (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British government files you refer to date back to the period 1978-1987 [6] and as such can hardly be quoted as evidence that "more and more people believe in UFOs". And even if they did, the key point here is the one quoted by the government: "there is nothing to indicate that UFOlogy is anything but claptrap...the idea of an 'inter-governmental conspiracy of silence' is the most astonishing and the most flattering claim of all." End of story. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can they be evangelized? Wouldn't that be like the savages converting the missionaries? Seems more likely that they'll convert us to Zarquonism or whatever, by force if necessary. -- BenRG (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the least of the things they might convert us into. Matt Deres (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that explains Father O'Neil. I( never believed he was really Irish. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFO is not synonymous with 'alien spaceship', its simply an anagram for 'unidentified flying object', so yes, no doubt the Vatican and Her Majesty's Government believe that there are objects that fly and are unidentifyable - it would be irrational to see an unidentifyable object and insist open identifying it, as many UFOlogists do. The British Government's keeping of UFO files doesn't mean that they believe in alien visitations, its simply that when unidentified flying objects are found in your sky, its prudent to keep a record. Ninebucks (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yunaitedo Suteetsu

Why did Alaska and Hawaii become United States? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 06:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. See the opening paragraphs of our articles on Alaska and Hawaii.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those paragraphs don't seem to explain why, which is what was asked. --LarryMac | Talk 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion of this at History of Alaska#Statehood and Territory of Hawaii#Statehood. Algebraist 13:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Restoration in Scotland

Hello again, reference desk. I'm doing some research on the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, particularly as it affected Scotland, but so far have not been able to find the detailed leads I was hoping for in your pages. I'm looking specifically for information on the political climate in the wake of the Restoration. Was there anything, for example, resembling a 'White Reaction' or the trials of the Regicides in England? What were the main areas of conflict in the 1660s and 1670s? Finally, to what degree, if any, did Scottish politics affect the center of political gravity, namely the court of King Charles in London? Some good up-to-date references on these matters would be a great help to me. This, incidentally, is not for class work (I teach) but for a paper I am writing for a history review. I've had great help here in the past with my questions on Scottish history from Clio the Muse and Gwinva, and I was hoping that they might be able, once again, to head me in the right direction. Many thanks. Hamish MacLean (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You honour me with your confidence, Hamish, but I must confess I have only a passing knowledge of that period of history. Clio, unfortunately for us all, has deserted us for greater things (but what can be greater than Wikipedia? we ask), which is a shame in this case particularly, since she is a bit of an expert in the politics of Charles II. However she, and others of great knowledge, have addressed similar issues before at the desks. The archives contain number of responses to Restoration questions, of which the following appear useful at first glance (but it's probably worth investigating them all; one might have just the lead you're looking for): [7] [8] [9] [10] :WP itself is sadly lacking. The English Restoration article is rather Anglo-centric (just marvel at the wonderful title, for a start!) and Charles II does not explore Scottish issues in any great depth. The Covenanter article looks more promising. Of course, the climate in Scotland was quite different to England, and not as simple at Parliamentarianists vs. Royalists. Various factions wrestled for power, over issues of religious freedom as well as issues or rule. Think of Montrose, who was the first to sign the Covenant, and was instrumental in ensuring its acceptance by Charles I; later, when the Covenanters became more interested in rule than preventing the enforcement of episcopalianism, Montrose led the royalists against the new-style Covenanters; after some years and various political developments, he was captured and executed by Argyll for treason: the same Argyll who later welcomed Charles II. The Scots had not been party to the regicide, and declared Charles II king following the execution of his father. Unfortunately, Argyll and the Covenanters did themselves no favours by their treatment of Charles, welcoming him but demanding his support for their cause, and instilling in him a distaste both for them and Scotland, which rebounded sadly later. On Charles's final restortation, Argyll was executed, Montrose's scattered body parts given a state funeral, and the "Killing Times" began: Charles sending in his heavies and bully boys to weed out the covenanters and shape the country anew.

That's the period you're looking at, but it all gets a bit complicated for me to regurgitate off the top of my head. Check out the key players: John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale and his right hand man John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes; Bloody Clavers aka Bonnie Dundee, and, ultimately, James VII who, as Duke of York, imposed his own ambitions on the face of Scotland, and through the ~~Test Act~~ (nope, that links only to English one) Test Act, tried to ensure his succession to the throne as a Catholic, thus throwing Catholicism into the protestant epsicopalian, and presbyterian mix. Also check out the key events: Drunken Parliament (hmm, red link, quick google, try [11] ), Pentland Rising, and probably others but I've run out of inspiration, and now wait for someone else to pick up the baton. (And make any corrections and clarifications required; as I said, my knowledge is not deep, and may have missed the point entirely.) Gwinva (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locke and politics

How did John locke's philosophical views impact on his politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.84.12 (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O Clio! If this one doesn't tempt you to descend... I should explain that John Locke was a close chum of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, the 'Dorsetshire eel' himself, with whom our own Clio the Muse has lived for some years. Locke wrote Shaftesbury's epitaph - "a vigorous and indefatigable champion of civil and ecclesiastical liberty". But I shall say no more, in the hope... Xn4 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisition

was the Spanish Inquisition as black as traditionally depicted? T e M Da (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition! --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying below Clio the Muse's answer to Tower Raven's question "How accurate is the traditional view of the Spanish Inquisition?" Xn4 13:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of interesting work on this subject, Tower Raven, and I would suggest, depending how deeply you want to go, that you have a look at H. Kamen's Inquisition and Society in Spain, one of the defining modern texts.

I suppose it's impossible to shift a myth once it takes on an independent life, and most people's understanding of the Inquisition will forever be mediated by the wonderful gothic excesses of stories like "The Pit and the Pendulum". But did you know that in the early seventeenth century the Inquisition introduced such a demanding standard of proof in accusations of witchcraft that brought burning for this crime to an end in Catholic Spain more than a century before the Protestant north? Yes, there were horrors attached to the Inquisition, particularly in the pursuit of religious uniformity in Spain; but the country did thereby avoid the equal and greater horrors that followed from the religious wars in France and Germany. After the excesses of the initial campaign against the Conversos, the Inquisition was transformed bit by bit into an arbiter of public morals more than anything else, a little like the rule of the Major Generals in Cromwellian England. As Kamen says "For most of its existence the Inquisition was far from being the juggernaut of death." For example, approximately 100 people were executed as suspected Protestants in the brief campaign against Lutheranism between 1559 and 1562. Contrast this with the 127 priests executed in England between 1570 and 1603. Yes, Catholic Spain was intolerant, but not more so than the rest of Europe at the time.

The Inquisition in Spain also had a unique relationship to the state, answerable to the crown, not to the Pope in Rome. As such it operated a little like a modern secret police force, always alert to the possibility of dissent. Yet, as Charles Petrie points out in his 1963 biography of Phillip II, it was "a very mild affair compared with the NKVD and the Gestapo." We all, I suppose, associate the Inquisition with the most grusome forms of torture. But it employed no unique methods, nothing that was not already in widespread use. Torture, moreover, was only used in a minority of cases, and only for the most serious offences. A doctor was always present on these occasions, and the process was such that no lasting physical damage ensued. Ugly, yes, but a standard better than that set by other practitioners of the art, both then and since. Clio the Muse 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100 people executed over three years from 1559-1562 equals over 33 a year, while 127 executed over 33 years from 1570-1603 is less than 4 a year, so less severe by an entire order of magnitude. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Black Legend" seems to exist in order to disprove its subject, but the whitewash might be carefully examined. --Wetman (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Clio points out, it might not have been as cruel as propagandists of the time and subsequent cultural memory has it, but the crucial difference between it and other countries was the unitary structure of church and state, and its unprecendented instrusiveness. From that point of view the Inquisition was indeed the first harbinger of modern totalitarian nightmares. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by "toadstool casserole"? (Not as in food)

What is meant by "toadstool casserole"? (Not as in food) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.78.50 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the phrase brings Harry Potter references; is it from those books? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also sounds to me rather like something from Harry Potter, but if what you're trying to understand isn't about food, then maybe it's referring to psilocybin mushrooms, that is, ones with psychedelic properties. Oddly enough, many toadstools (a term which isn't clearly distinct from mushrooms) are perfectly edible. I had a headmaster who knew a lot about the matter. I once heard him say "When I find one I'm not quite sure about, I feed it first to the school prefects, and then to my dog, and only after those precautions do I try it on my wife." Xn4 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The context of this question seems to be the phrase's use in a previous Ref desk question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Country of the Blind, Christopher Brookmyre describes criminals on the run disabling their pursuers with a brew made of mushrooms. SaundersW (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably have to plead guilty for using that phrase. I hadn't known/remembered it was in the book. The origin is that mushroom casserole is not detrimental to health, if however you happen to have (intentionally or unintentionally) mistaken toadstools for mushrooms the effects can be quite detrimental and not uncommonly lethal. Presumably the person consuming the dish won't have a way of knowing until it's too late. I assume in the original meaning any psychedelic side effects would have been as short lived as the target. I used it above to indicate that one way to impede British troops might be to foul their food-supply. (Also see "scorched earth".)71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POWs, international law, internment/repatriation

Suppose is it WW2.

I think I am right in saying this:

If an Allied Airman lands his aeroplane or bails out in neutral Switzerland, his plane is confiscated by the Swiss authorities, and he is held in an internment camp for the duration of the war. He may be able to escape and contact MI6 to bring him home, but if recaught by the Swiss they put him back in the camp.
If an Allied Airman lands his plane or bails out in Nazi-occupied Europe, he is taken prisoner of war and taken to a POW camp. Suppose he escapes and makes it to Switzerland. He is then repatriated by the Swiss.

This does not seem to me to be consistent.

What articles of the Geneva Convention cover this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiddly pop (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know much about it, but the article Switzerland during the World Wars mentions that "104,000 [foreign soldiers were] held according to the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers outlined in the Hague Conventions." Probably the text you want is Hague V, (Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land) Chapter II, articles 11 and 13:

Art. 11. A neutral Power which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war. [12]
Art. 13. A neutral Power which receives escaped prisoners of war shall leave them at liberty. If it allows them to remain in its territory it may assign them a place of residence. [13]

-- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea is that soldiers participating in military activities inside a neutral country endanger that nation's neutrality, and, as such, are arrested by that country. Soldiers who are no longer combatants, like escaped POWs, do not threaten neutrality, so are not arrested. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

renewable and non-renewable natural resources of Canada

Which natural resources are renewable and which natural resources are non-renewable. Your articles doesn't list which natural resources are renewable and non-renewable. I know hydropower is renewable but the rest I don't know. These natural resources i am talking about are in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at our articles on Renewable resources and Nonrenewable resources, you will find some fairly clear definitions and examples with which you can make sense of the information you have for Canada. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economics: Government Deficit, Output &

Ok, some simple macroeconomics, but I can't figure this question out.

Take a graph with on the vertical axis inflation, and on the horizontal axis output Y. In a simplified model, graph aggregate demand as a straight line with a negative slope. The model is in long term equilibrium with AS as a straight vertical line at Y = Y*.

Question: assume the government runs a budget deficit. What are the long term effects of this, and show your answer in the graph.

This is quite a lot more simplified than what I usually do, but this introductory question of a larger chapter has me pinned down. My answer would be 'nothing, because it's in long term equilibrium'.

User:Krator (t c) 15:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do they assume the government is going to print money?--71.236.23.111 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the y-axis is inflation? I've encountered price on the y-axis in these circumstances. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the y-axis is price then consider the following:

What is your assumption regarding short run aggregate supply? It looks like you may assume that the economy is in short run equillibrium as well.
If there's a budget deficit, then the government essentially puts more money back into the economy (via spending (G)) than it takes out (via taxes). How will this affect aggregate demand?
What will this do to short run equillibrium (i.e. price and output)?
Does the new output imply a recession or an expansion? How does that impact the supply of labour?
How will the new labour supply affect short run aggregate supply?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's how far I came as well, but my answer to these questions, particularly the second, would be "nothing". Running a deficit doesn't affect aggregate demand because the economy is in long term equilibrium; all 'extra' money put in there is drawn from the savings. This would increase inflation (yes, it was inflation on y) as opposed to a situation without deficit, but that comparison is not made here, it's simply, given a deficit, does anything change? User:Krator (t c) 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this: Aggregate demand#Two Concepts of the "Aggregate Demand Curve"#Aggregate Demand-Aggregate Supply model. Not the best article but it should explain things to you.

Government spending is a component of AD. If it increases then so will AD. Running a deficit does affect AD.

In the short term, this will result in a increase in the price level and (real) output which implies that we're now in a temporary expansion. If you assume that the labour market adjusts quickly, then there will be a decrease in short run AS (assuming short run AS responds quickly to changes in the labour market). Draw the graphs and see that the net effect on the long run equillibrium will be increased prices and unchanged real output.

Not sure what you mean by "all extra money put in there".

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Guard

Was the Romanian Iron Guard influenced more by the Italian Fascists or the German Nazis?86.153.161.144 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to read Fascism: Comparison and Definition, 1980 by Stanley G. Payne.--Tresckow (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And see Iron Guard. Strawless (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brown as PM

Hello. Gordon Brown was a good second in command but is proving to be a bad prime minister. Is there any reason for this? Does it prove that one leading position in public life does not readily translate into another, or is it simply that circumstances have changed to Brown's disadvantage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDBM&T (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't prove anything since it's subjective anecdotal evidence. To find cause and effect, it is best to conduct an experiment with controlled variables. --Mark PEA (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can even agree that Brown was 'second in command'. If you mean he was a competent Chancellor of the Exchequer, then there's little doubt that he was. Managing a nation's taxes and spending requires many skills, but, as you suggest, those are different from the skills needed in managing a party and a country. I could mention the words of T. E. Lawrence, writing to The Times in July 1920: "...the art of government wants more character than brains". Xn4 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is partially to do with Brown taking over at a time that many of New Labour's problems have come back to haunt them, at a time of a downturn in the economic outlook, and at a time when the governemnt (after 10 years of rule) are facing a more resurgent opposition. Add in that he does lack the charisma that you got with Blair, negative sentiment from much of the press, and a charismatic leader of the opposition in David Cameron and you have a recipe that makes an already tired-government look positively dead on their feet at times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled experiments are good for investigating many things, but this example isn't one of them - it would be highly unethical to impose a leader on a nation just to satisfy a researcher's curiosity. To find out if seconds-in-command go on to make good or poor leaders, you would have to assemble a large number of examples and then analyse them as impartially as possible. This would be an observational study. It would be a good idea to restrict your study to examples in the past, so that you would have the advantage of hindsight. The consensus assessment of a leader's quality often takes many years to emerge. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it would be a good/practical idea or ethical, but it is the best known way of finding out these things. Obviously there are limitations, which is why most people just speculate on these kind of things, with extremely limited evidence. --Mark PEA (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Peter Principle at work, perhaps? Rhinoracer (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was he a good second-in-command, and is he proving to be a bad Prime Minister? If we accept the question as you have posed it, with its suppositions, the answer is probably due to the mismanagement of the economy; since 2000, for example, he has simply poured money into unreformed public services, primarily the NHS, whilst starving the armed forces (it seems increasingly unlikely that the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers will ever be built, and the Royal Navy currently operates its existing aircraft carriers without any Sea Harrier aircraft). But I suspect that you know the answer to your own question anyway! --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Total Population and Admin. Population

Good afternoon,

I saw two different figures for the population of a council I was interested in and I can`t find out the difference between Total Population and Admin. Population.

Thanks for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.24.88 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't specify, but my guess is that you are asking about English counties. The Local Government Commission for England (1992) and earlier administrative reorganizations split the traditional or ceremonial counties of England into a variety of asymmetrical units. (See Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England and Ceremonial counties of England.) For example, the unitary authority of Medway is now administratively separate from Kent, the county to which it traditionally and until recently belonged. Our articles on English counties that are both ceremonial and administrative counties give the populations both for their ceremonial area (including urban districts or boroughs and unitary authorities that are no longer part of the administrative county) and for the area of the administrative county alone. The "Government" section of the article on each county should specify which parts of the ceremonial (traditional) county are part of the administrative county and which are not. Marco polo (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you say you are looking for the population of a "council", you are probably looking for the population of the area administered by the council, or the administrative population. Marco polo (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you email National Statistics (www.statistics.gov.uk), they will give you a full answer to your query. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fronde

Was the French Fronde influenced at all by the rising against Charles the first in England at the time? Arthur James (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. The Fronde is more like a continuation of the nobles' rebellion embodied in the French Wars of Religion, without that Protestant component. The radical Protestant element in the English Civil War was distasteful to the Frondeurs, who sought to control and direct the monarchy, not eliminate it. --Wetman (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And see Fronde. Strawless (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of states that remained independent throughout European colonization

I want to create a new article. Can you help me with the list?

Liberia, Abyssinia, Haiti (out of place?), Qajar, Ottoman, the predecessors of Saudi Arabia, Qing, Japan, Afghanistan (independent enough?)

Can you guys also help me decide the organization for such a list? (What counts and what doesn't)

Lotsofissues 20:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The greatest problem with this suggested article is probably that the meaning of 'independence' is so vague, but 'European colonization' is also pretty vague (the Greeks, the Romans, the Normans, the Russians, and so forth, were all Europeans), and so is is the question of what is a 'state'. Haiti is certainly out of place in any such list, as its predecessor Saint-Domingue was under French colonial control for more than a hundred years. By Ottoman, you no doubt mean the Ottoman Empire, which throughout its history was often at war with various European powers, but during its long decline parts of it (such as Egypt) had an equivocal status. Arabia, for much of the period you may have in mind, wasn't in any sense independent, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. By Qing, I take it you mean China, which also gets you into deep waters. Afghanistan... take a look at European influence in Afghanistan. "What counts and what doesn't?" - That's exactly your problem, and there isn't a definitive answer to it. Xn4 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xn4's misgivings are all quite valid, but if there is to be such a list, Thailand deserves mention as much as some of the other countries. Marco polo (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I suppose I'll just dump these wikilinks into an article and watch the wikiprocess refine it over time? That would be cool. Lotsofissues 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the states that you listed were themselves colonisers, only they weren't based on the European continent. --Taktser 01:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely lifecycle: long periods of disinterest interspersed with bouts of definition stress and anxiety, before a successful AfD on the grounds of OR. (And would you please fix your signature. I think you well know it is policy that sigs contain a link to the user or talk page of the poster. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is "throughout"? And "independent of whom"? You mention the Qing, but what about the Ming? Were they colonisers because they sent fleets to subjugate Somalia? Were they colonised when they were conquered by the Manchus? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia.--droptone (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to make a list of countries, please use the names of the countries, not the dynasties that ruled them. For example, Persia rather than Qajar, and China rather than Qing. And, as Tagishsimon suggests, you should find sources to back up the inclusion of each country in the list. Marco polo (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys: Don't tell me my question is problematic. I know it is. That's why I asked the question! Instead help me figure out a usable title. I can't imagine this article being tossed for OR. Considering the amount of scholarly material written about European colonization, do you think no one has noted the states that remained independent? Lotsofissues 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As to title, List of non-Western sovereign states during the New Imperialism, i.e. "List of non-Western sovereign states during the New Imperialism (height of European domination)".--Pharos (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks. Lotsofissues 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Were they colonisers because they sent fleets to subjugate Somalia?" If there isn't an article I encourage you to write one. I love historical events that show improbable contact between distant peoples. Lotsofissues 23:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Um. Thailand? Can't believe nobody mentioned it. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the countries mentioned (Abyssinia, Saudi Arabia) were sometimes independent in name only ("informal empire"), and with the case of Abyssinia were successfully invaded but were decided by the imperial power (Britain) not to be annexed (but could have been if they had wanted to).--Johnbull (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was Abyssinia conquered by the UK? Lotsofissues 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See: Tewodros II of Ethiopia#His reign. If you wanted to do something useful you could add these details back into the Abyssinia article! Also see, possibly, the novel 'Flashman on the March'! --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War finished on time

When was the last time a war was over by the time any surviving government involved had initially predicted? Has it ever happened for the United States? Neon Merlin 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this has happened to the United States. To give the first example that comes to mind, the Gulf War ended in total victory after six weeks. Algebraist 00:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Huh? Six weeks, eh? My, how time flies!) I think the ending of wars may be a little like being "within budget"; everything hinges on how the terms are defined. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gulf War article says 2 Aug '90 - 30 Nov '95. That's almost five and a half years. The 2003 invasion of Iraq did last about 6 weeks, but five years later soldiers are still dying there almost every day. Astronaut (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article says "Date: August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991 (officially ended November 30, 1995)" (although I suppose it could have been changed since the above was written). So the 1995 date refers to the date when peace was declared or agreed to or something, like dating the end of World War I as 1919 (and later for the US) instead of 1918. And the US attacks against Iraq did not begin until January 17, 1991. So there is reasonable justification for the "six weeks" statement as regards the US, but it depends on what you count. --Anonymous, 03:57 UTC, May 15, 2008.

We still have military members dying in Germany, Italy, Japan... Of course, they mostly die in alcohol-related accidents, but they are still dying. Perhaps the solution is to completely do away with the military, bring all citizens back into the United States, and build a huge glass dome around the country to nobody can get out and die in some other country. -- kainaw ™ 03:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no insurgency against the US military mission in Germany, Italy, Japan... With the ongoing insurgency in Iraq, you can hardly say the Iraq War is over. I think your glass dome idea is unworkable, but bringing the troops home would be a good start. Anyway, what I was trying to say was I couldn't find evidence to support Algebraist's claim that the Gulf War was over in 6 weeks - over as in the time between war being declared and peace being declared again. But like Anonymous says, it depends on what you count.

The coalition attacked on January 17; the fighting ended on February 28. U.S. troops started heading home on March 10 - it is all in the Gulf War article. Rmhermen (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the OP's question... I strongly suspect that no war has ever gone exactly to plan. For example, WWI wasn't "over by Christmas", I'm sure neither side planned for 2 years of pointless stalemate in the Korean War, and I think everyone was surprised at the speed of Israel's victory in the Six-Day War.

Astronaut (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the last sentence, no. When war seemed imminent, the CIA gave Johnson an estimate of one week for complete Israeli victory, and were proud of its accuracy after the war.John Z (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if FDR or Harry Truman ever made any statements as to how long the war with Japan would last, but I know most people not involved in the A-bomb program thought it would go far beyond August 1945. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually true to my knowledge—most people were anticipating the war's end quite near to when it actually did end. The question was not whether it would drag on, but what terms on which it would end, and what the final strokes would be. Even before the bomb there was quite a panic domestically about the economic effects the impending peace was going to bring, when suddenly all of those GIs returned. And from another point of view, there was an intense worry on the part of the Manhattan Project participants that they would not be able to finish the bombs in time for actual use during the war. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before the US knew that the atomic bomb would be usable against Japan, the estimates for when Japan would finally be defeated extended up to the 1950's. If you look at all the aircraft carrier orders that were cancelled by the US in 1945 and subsequent years, you can tell the US was planning on gearing up it's military for a massive and long campaign against Japan. StuRat (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]