Humanities desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

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.

June 7

What did the NYSE and Euronext merger achieve?

Most of the stocks traded in NYSE are still traded under the NYSE banner? Right?

I thought when they would merge all the stocks would be under one exchange.

Am I mistaken, or is the merged entity just a holding company for the two stock exchanges?

What did the NYSE and Euronext merger achieve? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are still under 2 exchanges, for the simple reason that NYSE is not open in the European morning time, and therefore europeans couldn't trade their prefered stocks on Euronext if it was only one exchange. The companies that provided these trading services in each reagion NYSE and Euronext merged, but that does not mean that they changed the way they operate the trading. It was on April 4, 2007. The main achievement is control of the market they specialise and it allows them to share technology costs. --Lgriot (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So other than sharing technology costs, everything else remained the same? The stocks on the NYSE are still traded the same way, as was before the merger? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was no change that was a consequence of the merger that I can remember of. Of course the exchanges will upgrade their system from time to time, introduce new stocks as companies need to be listed or delisted, but they would have done that anyway. --Lgriot (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist/socialist view of robotics

What is the Marxist/socialist view of robotics research? Are they opposed to robotics research? I have this paper Karl Marx on High Tech, but it does not shed much light on the contemporary Marxists' and socialists' view on robotics. Can anyone find some sources on this topic? Thanks. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous primary source is the Fragment on the Machines from Grundriesse here. Very broadly, "Automation" and "Leisure" were major debates in Marxism in the 1960s and 1970s. You could do well to read Braverman's extensive deskilling thesis in Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. Very broadly
- Marxism supposes that the increasing capitalisation of the process of production results in the [relative or absolute] emiserisation of the working class. Increased capitalisation also causes the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. These both lead to the largest section of the population of a capitalist economy being the working class, that this population be the poorest in terms of consumption of the share of production, and that the value of commodities approach zero (ie: free). This will create unemployment, and the economic and political basis for the great proletarian social revolution.
- Automated robotic production is usually perceived as merely another step in the development of more intensive and extensive systems of capitalist production. The above still applies.
- Marxists who: emphasise the subjective potential of the working class to foment revolution separate from their position in capital (ie: Autonomists), or those who doubt the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, doubt the labour theory of value, or doubt the automatic conversion of economic poverty into political class consciousness rather suspect that robots don't equal revolution. Then again, they suspected that Ford/Taylorism didn't equal revolution either. There's also a fair number of Marxists who are workers and are therefore personally fucked-off with robot related speed-ups and loss of wages and conditions in the here and now.
- Finally, most socialists love robots, given the long standing linguistic, literary and cultural symbolic links between robots and the proletariat. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please explain what emiserisation of the working class means. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Emiserisation, emiseration, emiserising are all variant English spellings of immiserisation, immiseration, immiserising (replace s with z as applicable to your variant of English). Our article on the topic Immiseration_thesis gives a fairly good explanation. There are two main variants:
      1. Emiseration in capital is an absolute. The real living standard of the working class will decline. This is generally considered as disproven; though, some proponents of this position argue that the absolute world wide standard of living of the working class must be considered.
      2. Emiseration in capital is a relative, based on returns of surplus value to classes and fixed capital. In Marx's conception of the circuit of expanded reproduction of capital where ' indicates that a term is in a varied (ie: expanded) form: Money -> Commodities (being Labour Power, Variable Capital (consumables) and Fixed Capital (plant)) -> Product -> Commodities' -> Money' there are some necessary implications:
        As the process is cycled, and as technological change occurs, a greater proportion of the social wealth ends up in the hands of capitalists as either profit or ownership over fixed and variable capital (particularly fixed capital). A less proportion of social wealth ends up in the hands of workers as wages. Even though the form of the commodities may be subjectively "better", in objective value terms, less value is returned to workers, leaving them emiserated. A key example is market entry into mature markets. In 1700, by saving wages, workers could buy the capital to set up a steel works. In 2012, I doubt even the largest worker controlled superannuation/pension fund could mobilise the capital of millions of workers to establish a new steel plant. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that in countries where self-avowed Marxists took power, Taylorism and Fordism were often explicitly embraced. Arguably no state embraced Taylorism and Fordism than Lenin's USSR. It seems counterintuitive for those of us raised on the leftist critique of Taylorism and Fordism as technologies used by bosses to de-skill workers, but when the "boss" was the Soviet state, they had no problem justifying that. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, but there is a "yes but no but yes" here. Simon Pirani's work on the Soviet workers in Moscow to 1923 indicates that workers eagerly sought a deal where they sold political rights in order to buy social democratic material outcomes. One Man Management and the NEP were rarely opposed in plants, and only political groups with an inherent critique of Taylorism (ie: anarchists, anarchistic Left SRs) or a considered critique of New Classes (same mobs, plus Mensheviks, some Bolsheviks, many industrial workers) resisted this at length. Part of the reason they could do so is that while Lenin deeply advocated a full scale Taylorism, including the positive HR benefits outlined by Taylor but never implemented in Fordist factories; the actual implementation of Ford/Taylorism prior to 1942 was minimal. This has been explored at length in the 1930s, where the possibility of pseudo-Taylorist "advance" to higher wage grades on the benefit of demonstrated skill through unauthorised movement between factories by workers was considered standard. Workers straight off the farm in the 1930s could move massively through skill and pay grades in a single year, and factory labour turnovers were many multiples of the workforce. Starting during the war workers gave up the last of their workplace freedoms to save the "nation". Subsequently, the Eastern societies became a nightmare of Ford/Taylorism for the standard worker, even in post-Stalinist plants. Miklos Haraszti Worker in a Worker's State is magnificent on this, and on how the Ford/Taylor "Norm" was used to discipline workers as a class in the East. So at times Soviet Ford/Taylorism resulted in more freedom for workers than in the West (bits of the early 1920s, most of the 1930s), but generally was worse (1920s, 1940s-1990s). And of course Ford/Taylorism never managed to measure up against workers control (1917-1921, 1956, 1968) in terms of industrial freedom and democracy. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plessy vs Ferguson -- unanticipated disaster?

From the Civil Rights point of view, is it reasonable to call Plessy vs. Ferguson an unmitigated disaster for the Civil Rights Movement? From reading the Plessy, and case articles here, it seems only a decade or two later things were MUCH worse for black Americans than before the verdict was handed down. Is that an accurate assessment? The Masked Booby (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another view might be that it was the ongoing bigotry (and greed?) of white people with power that made things worse, rather than one particular court case. HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the uninitiated, Plessy v. Ferguson was a decision by some white Americans that it was OK to discriminate against black Americans. DuncanHill (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this court decision removed the constitutional and legal obstacles to discrimination and even seemed to enshrine such discrimination in the constitution. As such, the decision made it much easier for white people to enact discriminatory laws against black Americans, whose circumstances consequently did worsen. However, Plessy v. Ferguson was just one of a number of court decisions that institutionalized racism, which also included Williams v. Mississippi and Giles v. Harris. Marco polo (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Reynolds v. United States. Oh wait-- that was a different minority group. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably a very different type of thing. The latter is about what people do, the former is about who they are. The law ostensibly should only be about what people do. The line between doing and being is a fuzzy one, to be sure, and reasonable people will disagree on the question of bigamy, but it's hardly the same level or type of prosecution as Plessy v. Ferguson. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Nadir of American race relations. Obviously, Plessy set a very bad precedent for race relations, but they were already terrible at the time. It's hard to imagine the court ruling differently considering the prevailing mindset in the era. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work Accident Claim

[Sorry, we can't offer legal advice. You have to talk to a lawyer. Pais (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Simion Tavitian, Lascu Stoica: reliability

There is a series of books by Romanian Simion Tavitian dedicated to the history of Armenians in Romania. Some of them are reviewed and prefaced by a historian Lascu Stoica (see e.g. "Dobrudjan Contributions to the Development of Contemporary Armenology"). Are these sources reliable in what concerns the Armenian origin of the mentioned personalities (among them - Spiru Haret, Vasile Conta and others)? --Max Shakhray (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It all boils down to the reliability of Lascu Stoica. If he vetted the work of Tavitian, then he is basically putting his name on Tavitian's book and taking responsibility for Tavitian's claims. I don't know Romanian, but it seems like Stoica is a scholar, whereas Tavitian isn't. As a result I would use Stoica only, as he seems to meet Scholarship requirements. Divide et Impera (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the reply! The formal consideration is now clear. It would be surely also helpful to read some specialists' opinions on Stoica in general or his work on Romanian Armenians in particular. --Max Shakhray (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

Bear with me and my limited understanding of economics. :) I understand that if the US were to say, just print 56 billion dollars, it would cause some Inflation, i.e., the value of the dollar would go down, right? Since there is that much more money in circulation?

Assuming I'm not missing something and the above is true - what would happen, then, if Bill Gates were to take his 56 billion and burn it (thereby taking it out of circulation?) Would the value of the dollar go up? ^Avic _ennasis @ 18:02, 5 Sivan 5771 / 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What would stop the Fed from printing 56 billion in new bills to compensate for the ones that went up in smoke? Gabbe (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the Federal Reserve System were to take no further action in either of the scenarios you present, you fail to account for a crucial variable: The value of a currency depends not only on supply but also on demand. In currency markets today, demand tends to be a much stronger force than supply. Considering that the stock of U.S. dollar money in the broadest measure of money supply (M3) totals about $14 trillion according to this source, it would probably take a change in supply of considerably more than $56 billion to overcome the forces of demand in a lasting way. Marco polo (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gates doesn't have $56 billion in cash. Most of it is in Microsoft shares. He couldn't sell all those shares without causing the share price plummeting, so he wouldn't get anywhere near $56 billion for them. Even if he did sell them, he wouldn't get physical currency, just numbers on a bank's computer. Trying to withdraw $56 billion in cash would be a challenge, since that's pretty much the entire supply of currency in the country. --Tango (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it would weight something like 500 tons and fill 56,000 stereotypical Hollywood breifcases. Assuming you only use $100 notes of course. Googlemeister (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's when you use 100,000 bills. ^Avic _ennasis @ 20:21, 5 Sivan 5771 / 7 June 2011 (UTC)

See our article burning money, which discusses how such a gesture would indeed raise the real value of other dollars (details of cash/stock notwithstanding). SemanticMantis (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing to remember is that the vast majority of dollars in existence are not printed money. In fact, there isn't really a limit on how much printed money the treasury will print. They're happy to exchange "virtual money" in bank accounts with real paper money as fast as they can print the stuff. While theres

Cecil Adams gives his usual easy-to-read summary The Straight Dope : How Much Money Is There?

APL (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though exchanging virtual and printed money doesn't decrease the total, which is what I was trying to get at. :) ^Avic _ennasis @ 20:21, 5 Sivan 5771 / 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for your responses, though perhaps I should have used a better example. :-) I'm aware that most money is not paper and that Bill Gates's value is not all cash. I guess what I was really getting at - is there anything a private citizen (even if it has to be a very rich one) can do to increase/decrease the value of the dollar in the US? ^Avic _ennasis @ 20:21, 5 Sivan 5771 / 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. If a very rich individual decided to devote his (or her) entire fortune to buying or selling dollars on a given day, they would probably push the exchange rate (versus the other currency or currencies they transacted) enough for markets to notice on that day. However, no individual is rich enough to have a lasting influence on the exchange rate. Marco polo (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also interested. I think that the New Zealand dollar was once affected by a couple of people sitting at home, buying it. Maybe that's a myth, I don't know. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain circumstances where one individual can have a big influence on an exchange rate. See Black Wednesday for one example. --Tango (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand burning money, any destruction of US dollars increases the value of all other US dollars, at least conceptually. This is true whether one burns $1 or $10^10^10 (though of course the magnitude/significance of the change does depend on the amount destroyed). If anyone can describe why this should not be the case, I welcome her to update the article after explaining it to us :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can prove that cash money was destroyed it could be replaced at no cost, or at less than face value, depending on the circumstance. APL (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three semi-wealthy guys are showing off their casual attitude about money. The first one puts a match to a 50 dollar bill and uses it to light his cigar. The second one does it with a 100 dollar bill. The third guy, not to be outdone, writes out a check in the amount of a million dollars, and then puts a match to it to light his cigar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think nobody here is talking about the Fed destroying old bills and printing new ones (which they do all the time, and doesn't change the money supply). The circumstance is, suppose I just burned $100, and can prove it. How can that money be replaced? Even if I can get someone to give me $100, that doesn't replace the money I burned, because someone is still out $100. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just have no idea what you're talking about. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing has an entire department for investigating such cases. If you can convince them that cash money was destroyed they will replace the bills. This doesn't come out of any existing pool of money, so no one is "out" any money. They're not giving you money, they're just replacing the pieces of paper that represent the money you already have. (This is different than an insurance pay-out, because the insurance company would have to give you some of their own money, the BEP will just print some replacement bills.) APL (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, I was not aware of this. Do you have a reference? I suspect that the provision is intended for accidental destruction, and that I would have a hard time getting them to send me a shiny new bill if I send them a video of me flagrantly burning one... SemanticMantis (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure. It's mostly for people who had their entire life savings hidden under the mattress when their house burned down. You put the ash in a box, along with how much you think it's worth and they'll do their best to verify it. Looking at their claim instructions it looks like mutilated coins go back to the Mint. Makes sense, but I hope you didn't keep them in the same coffee can. APL (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's handled by the Mutilated Currency Division of the US BEP.

Under regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury, mutilated United States currency may be exchanged at face value if:
More than 50% of a note identifiable as United States currency is present; or,

50% or less of a note identifiable as United States currency is present, and the method of mutilation and supporting evidence demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Treasury that the missing portions have been totally destroyed.

^{Damaged Currency}

So, if your home catches fire, and you send the ashes of your money-stuffed mattress to them, they will replace your money. (Provided their research correlates your story.) ^Avic _ennasis @ 00:30, 7 Sivan 5771 / 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the "value of the dollar" has two senses: 1) the purchasing power it has for Americans, 2) the amount of foriegn currency it buys. These are by no means the same. 2.101.15.113 (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are the same. You can use it to buy a certain amount of printer toner, paper, or paper with toner on it, the last being in fact currency of another country. People forget that PPP is a fiction, in fact currencies are just something you can buy just like anything else. People pretend that "rice in Manhattan" is the same item as "rice in Shanghai" and then say "but it doesn't cost the same even though it's the same!" and introduce the fiction. Obviously the error comes from thinking that "rice in Shanghai" and "rice in Manhattan" are the same item. 87.194.221.239 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Purchasing power is different than the value on the currency markets. Over the long term they tend to follow each-other, but they are by no means the same.

This is why it's a good idea to take your vacation in a country whose currency has recently lost value compared to your own. If the pound suddenly lost value so that it was worth the same as the dollar, it would be quite some time until prices in London adjusted. The pound would still have the purchasing power of just over a dollar and half. In the mean time, American tourists would pay about a third less than they expected to pay.

Now if you want to get all philosophical on us and say that a pound of sugar in London is a different product than a pound of sugar in Boston, well that's fine, but it's a matter of semantics that doesn't change the fact that there's a real phenomena of local prices not instantly being adjusted to match the day-to-day fluctuations of the currency markets. 76.28.67.181 (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're simply wrong. "purchasing power is different than the value on the currency markets" is exactly wrong, a myth perpetrated by economists. Think about it. If I command you to buy me an apartment in Manhattan, does it become any cheaper for you to do it if you move to Malaysia first? Or South America? No. It becomes cheaper for you to buy a LOCAL substitute. The local apartment and the Manhattan apartment are not the same thing - everyone knows that. What everyone EXCEPT economists knows is the "slice of Malaysian bread" and "slice of Manhattan bread" are not the same either. Everyone in the world knows you're buying DIFFERENT goods, not at all the same ones. Economists are the only ones who introduce the myth, no, no, they're the same, it's just that your purchasing power has increased. If that were true I would never spend more than $5000 on anything, whether car, house, whatever, without first buying a round-trip ticket to BumF-ck, Asia, getting a disposable phone there, and then completing the transaction by phone and from there before flying back home to enjoy the goods bought with my greater purchasing power. --188.29.215.73 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're wrong. Certainly, some things can only be purchased in certain areas, with the local currency. And certainly the cost of living is different in different areas and that does not indicate that the currency has more or less "purchasing power".

You seem to be (violently) reacting to some argument (that no one here has made) that intentionally confuses purchasing power and cost of living to make it seem OK that someone in Malaysia is paid very little compared to a westerner. Those arguments are nonsense, but not because the idea of purchasing power is a fiction, but because they're confusing several different ideas. (Besides, the differences in "purchasing power" wouldn't even come close to explaining why Malaysians make less money than Americans.)

The fact remains, that the real purchasing power of a currency does not vary day-to-day with the currency markets. Sometimes it lags quite a bit behind, or even remains somewhat apart for various reasons.

Now, you think about it. If I buy a pound of sugar in a market in London they won't charge me the USA price translated by that day's currency exchange rates. They'll charge the same price they charged the day before. That is because the exchange rate has changed, but the purchasing power hasn't. Obviously, over the long term, wholesale prices of imported goods are driven by the exchange rate, and that will in turn effect the consumer prices. So the exchange rate clearly affects the purchasing power, but they're just as clearly not the same.

"Purchasing Power" is a very useful concept to understand when traveling. Take the example above. The pound usually has a purchasing power near a buck fifty. But the exchange rate varies quite a bit. When the exchange rate is up near $2.00, you can expect everything to seem super-expensive to visiting Americans, because they'll be paying $2.00 for a unit of currency that can only buy $1.50 worth of stuff. But if the exchange rate drops to near $1.00, then it's a great time for Americans to visit, because they'll be paying $1.00 for a unit of currency that can buy $1.50 worth of stuff.

Many people intentionally plan their vacations to take advantage of these sorts of fluctuations. It would be ignorant and costly for a traveler to pretend that the exchange rate is the only way of understanding currency.

I particularly like the (only somewhat serious) attempts to define purchasing power based on the cost of a Big Mac. (See Big Mac Index) Big Mac sandwiches are pretty much the same everywhere in the world, but they are certainly not priced at what you would expect based on the exchange rates. 76.28.67.181 (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question without the crazy arguments above, What you are describing is called the quantity theory of money. In theory the value of a currency (or more precisely the price leven within the economy) in the long run is determined by the quantity of that currency. One of the problems with that theory today is that most money is not created by governments, but by the fractional-reserve banking system. Jabberwalkee (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazereth to Jerusalem

Luke 2:42,in the bible(KJV)states "And when he was twelve years old, they [Jesus and his family] went UP to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast". Jesus and his family lived in Nazereth at this time, according to my references. How would Jesus go UP to Jerusalem when Nazareth is in the northern region and Jerusalem is in the southern region as depicted on any map that I can locate? This event probably took place around 12 to 16 A.D. Was the map different during this era, or is there another explanation for this wording?

The maps to which I am referring are Palestine in different eras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wruth244 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that north is 'up', and south is 'down' is evidently not universal (there is no particular logic to it). I suspect that Jerusalem was 'up' in the sense of being 'higher' as in 'more holy' or 'closer to God'. Or perhaps Jewish maps (did they make maps then?) has south at the top? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The convention of depicting maps with North at the top dates back to Ptolemy (see [1]). Gabbe (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^^As your own source says, though, this didn't become the prevailing convention until after the Middle Ages. --M @r ē ino 20:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but my point was that the convention post-dates 16 AD. Gabbe (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hebrew scriptures, travel to Jerusalem is traditionally represented as ascent. That is, one travels up to Jerusalem. See Song of Ascents. This may be a reference to the position of Temple in Jerusalem atop the Temple Mount. Your passage makes an explicit reference to Pesach, one of the Three Pilgrimage Festivals, when Jews traditionally went up to Jerusalem. Marco polo (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As well as endorsing the "north doesn't automatically mean up" responses above, I would add that the word up was not in the original Bible. It is a translation. If it really bothers you, you need to find the original text. HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as a more modern example of "up" not meaning "north", in Railroad directions, trains tend frequently to go "up" or "down" for north/south, unless they're going to the capital, in which case, a train would go 'up' from Scotland to London, despite the journey being due south --Saalstin (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that the New American Standard Bible and the Revised Standard Version do use the word "up", but don't say "up to Jerusalem." --M @r ē ino 21:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the corresponding Greek verb and preposition. Notice in the link former that it says "to go up (literally or figuratively)." Schyler (one language) 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 May 21#Are north and south strongly connected with up and down everywhere? for a recent discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Jerusalem is on a plateau, at an average altitude of about 2500 feet -- so many routes of approach must involve going uphill in the literal sense. Looie496 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Jerusalem is 2500 feet above sea level while Nazareth is 1200 feet.--Bill Reid | (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first verse of the World War I song "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" begins with this line:

"Up to mighty London came an Irish man one day..."

London is geographically east and south of Ireland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The song continues with the information "As the streets are paved with gold, Sure, everyone was gay". Wikipedia has an article about the song which was premiered by the redoubtable Florrie Forde, "a dashing...lady with a most attractive figure, excellent voice, and a positively uncanny faculty for taking hold of an audience."[2]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient maps often had East at the top - see Mappa mundi. Astronaut (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some historian I don't remember the name of said that "To orient" originally meant to turn so the map faced East (if one were in Europe) since The Orient (or The Holy Land) was at the top. Similarly, The "Oriental Institute" in Chicago is devoted to artifacts from the Holy Land and surrounding countries, not Asia. Edison (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Land and surrounding countries are in Asia. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also some speculation that "Nazarene" as applied to Jesus may have been a title, rather than a geographical classification, and even that the town now known as Nazareth may not have existed in biblical times. See Nazarene (sect) Rojomoke (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there were any maps 2000 years ago. Some of the earliest maps, from medieval times, had south or east upwards. 2.101.15.113 (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People in the English Home Counties "go up" to London, whichever compass direction they have to go in. By ancient tradition, you also "go up" to Oxford or Cambridge - everywhere else is "down". As the King James Bible was translated in Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster, perhaps it's no surprise that the translators followed the same logic for Jerusalem. Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I've just found the Latin text from the Vulgate Bible; "et cum factus esset annorum duodecim ascendentibus illis in Hierosolymam secundum consuetudinem diei festi"[3]. My Latin is not up to much, but "ascendentibus" sounds as though it ought to mean "went up". Perhaps the idea of "going up" to the capital and "going down" to the provinces is more widespread than I thought. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the name "Songs of Ascents" — there's a good reason that these psalms, sung by pilgrims going to Jerusalem, are songs of Ascents instead of songs of Descents. Throughout the Bible are found references to going up to Jerusalem, going down from Jerusalem to wherever, etc.; for a New Testament example, look at the poor victim in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, who (along with the religious leaders that followed him) was going "down" to Jericho, which unlike Jerusalem is below sea level. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo from federal prison

Asked at the Image help desk and not given an answer:

This photo is of an inmate in federal prison, while in federal prison. Would it therefore be considered public domain? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer either way, sorry, but I'll bet it makes a difference whether the prison in question is operated by the government or if it's corporate operated. It might help to know which facility it's from. APL (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is who took the photo, not where or who it was of. If the mugshot originates from a Federal Bureau of Prisons or the FBI, on Wikipedia we give it the {{PD-USGov-DOJ}} tag. Anything else we consider to be probably non-free. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I wondered about corporate run prisons. Wouldn't photos taken by employees there be handled differently? APL (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inmate is at the Federal Correctional Complex, Beaumont, which is federally-run. The photo is from this page--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the photo in all it's formats, but the file you linked is of such low resolution that I personally would have no qualms about using it on fair use grounds. It's a tiny image! --188.29.130.143 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]