Humanities desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

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.

March 16

How to get reinbursed from City of Los Angeles for tired

How can I get reimbursed from the city of Los Angeles for damage to my tires due to potholes and bumps and cracks in the road? This has happened to me several times, the most recent time being on Wilshire blvd in the city of Westwood where all the high rises are. I was driving east and there was a crack in the ground which I couldn't avoid. I went over it, and my car made a noise so loud, I thought my windshield was going to crack. I noticed two bulges on my tires, one on the front passenger tire, and one on the rear passenger tire. The bulge is on the sidewalls and there is part sticking out, I guess its from the steel belt in the tire becoming damage. How can I get reimbursed for this? I can't believe they won't fix the road in such an affluent area, the road is damaged in several parts and has been like this for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest contacting the LA Department of Transportation. Their contact details are here. --Viennese Waltz 08:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you legal advice, but I've never heard of anyone winning money from their city for the damage to their tires caused by poorly maintained roads. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have (well not personally). It's apparently pretty common, no law suit, just file some paperwork. Ariel. (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did you or your friend go about doing it? Do you have a link to the paperwork by any chance? Thanks! And thank you to everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Average full-time salary v. per capita GDP

This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10150118 shows that the UK has a higher average full-time salary than Luxembourg, yet under the "Economy" tab it shows that the per capita GDP for Luxembourg is higher than that in the UK.

How can this discrepancy be explained please? And which is the better figure for summarising the prosperity of the average person? Thanks 92.29.117.90 (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK has more part-time workers and more inactive people (not in work, not looking for work), probably also higher unemployment (not in work, looking for work). The GDP rate is a marginally better measure of prosperity because it takes account of the inactivity rate. But money isn't everything in live. There are also "quality of life" indicators that could well be better in Luxembourg (access to green spaces, crime rate...). Itsmejudith (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, comparing the numbers in our List of countries by labour force and List of countries by population, the opposite is true. In the UK, the labor force makes up a larger share of the population (50.5%) than Luxembourg (42.8%), so considering that factor alone, incomes in the UK relative to GDP should be lower than those in Luxembourg, since the UK's per capita GDP is divided among more salaries than in Luxembourg. While it is true that the UK has a higher unemployment rate, this is not enough to counterbalance its relatively larger labor force. Using the numbers from our List of countries by unemployment rate, I find that 46.6% of the UK's population is employed, versus 40.7% of Luxembourg's population. Using these numbers alone, we would expect average salaries in Luxembourg relative to GDP to be higher than in the UK.

A more likely explanation is that in Luxembourg, personal income is a smaller proportion of GDP than in the UK. A country's gross domestic product consists of personal income plus what can generally be called "business income," including profits. In Luxembourg, businesses may tend to have a larger proportion of foreign owners than in the UK, such that business income (including profits) generated in Luxembourg is distributed to shareholders in other (mainly European) countries. Also, Luxembourg is one of Europe's leading financial centers, particularly for private banking and reinsurance companies. This means that Luxembourg's GDP includes interest and other financial earnings distributed in Luxembourg to wealthy individuals and insurance companies elsewhere (particularly in Germany and France), so that this component of GDP does not show up in incomes within Luxembourg. The City of London is an even more important financial center, but given the vastly greater size of the UK's economy and population, it is less important to the GDP of the UK than Luxembourg's financial sector is to that country's GDP. Of course, some of Luxembourg's financial income is diverted by taxes and enhances the standard of living of Luxembourgers without adding to their personal incomes. Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II

Hi. Assuming Elizabeth II lives long enough, when, after her diamond jubilee will be her next and what will it be called. Will it be her 65th and be her platinum? --Thanks, Hadseys 12:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read Platinum Jubilee. It seems that it is celebrated at 70. Flamarande (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.. though the statement as it hypothetically applies to the British Monarchy is challenged as uncited on the talk page. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they did decide to celebrate her 65th, it would be her "Blue Sapphire Jubilee" (at least that is the proper anniversary name according to our Wedding anniversary#Traditional and modern anniversary gifts article) Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the longest reign so far is that of Queen Victoria, who lasted 63 years and therefore only made it to her Diamond Jubilee (see List of longest-reigning British monarchs) it's a bit hypothetical, but it's certain there will be celebrations of all major anniversaries. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They'll wait until it's 70-yrs, I assume. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Pitt?

Hi, I was wondering why Brad Pitt is considered to be one of the world's most attractive men according to the wikipedia article.

I know the most common answer would be facial symmetry and eyes but it appears that his left eye is noticeably wider than his right eye: http://nadinejolie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Brad-Pitt-Meet-Joe-Black.jpg

Another thing I've noticed is that his jaw kinda protrudes and his forehead is big although square.

When people call him the world's most attractive man, is the title coined loosely or is it his seriously good looks which I've never understood.

http://www.bigbradpitt.com/UserFiles/2009/3/9/BRAD%20PITT%20%20STARS%20LOSE%20OUT%20AS%20DUBAI%20PROPERTY%20MARKET%20CRASHES.jpg

http://static.igossip.com/photos/MeetTheFamous_Brad_Pitt_88381_1223694170_brad_pitt_bnews1392_1392_995_14_jpg_And_x_395_And_And_y_553_And_crop_y_And_nw_395_And_nh_553 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.5.121 (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's in the article because that's what sources say about him; it has nothing to do with what we and other editors think about the matter. If you disagree, I suggest you take it up with Entertainment Tonight. --Ludwigs2 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article you want is Physical attractiveness, which is a pretty good article ... although it does not directly address Mr. Pitt. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Jolie + Jennifer Aniston = ultra attractive man. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyneth Paltrow too! Adam Bishop (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also have to remember that there are attraction factors beyond 'looks'. He is...highly successful (a trait many, both men and women find attractive)....wealthy...plays (or has played) a variety of 'personalities' etc. All these factors will have an impact on his perceived attractiveness. In reality a 'nobody' cannot be the most attractive man in the world as they need a certain level of 'fame' in the first place, so the 'worlds most attractive' was always going to be a famous person. Personally I believe that the most attractive people in the world are the ones you pass in the street i.e. not in perfect light, airbrushed and professionally styled/made-up. ny156uk (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I just can't visualize Steve Jobs or Warren Buffett as a hunky babe magnet. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but neither was Henry "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" Kissinger. Matt Deres (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzen Orden

I was watching La Question humaine recently and one of the characters was said to come from a family "nostalgic for the Schwarzen Orden". It was perhaps clumsy subtitling or my Google-fu is weak, but I haven't been able to trace the reference. I am about 90% certain that the original French phrase used was "L'Ordre Noir", which seems similarly unknown to Wikipedia (en and fr) and to the higher reaches of Google Search. Anyone know what this name refers to? Cheers, Skomorokh 18:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a WAG, but my searches turn up, perhaps, the Order of the Black Eagle, in German the Hoher Orden vom Schwarzen Adler. Shwarzen Orden would mean almost exactly "Black Order", so I'm uncertain about which Black Order it is refering too. There's Black Order (James Rollins) a novel which appears to have some sort of Nazi connections, and there's also The Black Order Brigade, another novel which has connections to Spanish facism. --Jayron32 18:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be related to Black Sun (occult symbol) - a semi-mystical Nazi cult purportedly run by Himmler during the third Reich. I can't tell from a quick perusal whether this was a real thing or one of the paranoid fantasies that attaches itself to Nazi lore. I don't suppose that would matter from the perspective of a movie, though. --Ludwigs2 18:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for the responses. It's definitely to do with 20th-century German right-wing politics, but Order of the Black Eagle does not mention post-Wilhelm political connotations, and Black Sun (occult symbol) doesn't seem exactly right as the character is later described as un enfant de l'ordre, suggesting to me at least that it is an institution... Skomorokh 18:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search at Google Books for 'L'Ordre Noir' and 'SS' suggests that they are identical. See for example the reference on the first page (second book) to 'L'appellation consacrée d'« Ordre Noir» pour désigner la SS'. It may be a specifically French nickname for them which doesn't get translated into other languages much. L'ordre noir: histoire de la SS, for example, is a French translation of a book by Heinz Höhne, called in the original German Dem Totenkopf: die Geschichte der SS (The Death's Head: The History of the SS). --Antiquary (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] According to this page, "der schwarze Orden" was a kind of nickname for the Nazi Schutzstaffel (SS). More generally, in German political terminology, political parties are identified with colors, and parties with a "Christian" orientation (such as the Christian Democrats of today) are traditionally identified as "black". Also, the flag of Prussia was black and white, featuring a black eagle, so black has a strong connotation for Germans of "conservative". A reference to "the black order" could be a reference to the good old days, when kaisers and führers imposed order from above. (Because German has grammatical case, der schwarze Orden would become den schwarzen Orden if it were the direct object of a verb, or dem schwarzen Orden if it were the indirect object or the object of some preposition. Another possibility, inconsistent with a connection to the SS, would be the plural die schwarzen Orden—"the black orders".) Marco polo (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most ethnically mixed places in the world

Any list of world's most ehnically mixed places in the world ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.252.236 (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I have found with a quick search was Ethnic groups in Europe#By country. However my guess for the most ethnically mixed place in the world would be one of the major US cities (New York probably). Blueboar (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends in part of the scale of "place" - the most mixed district of a city may not be the same as the most mixed city overall. On the city scale, the odds are high it will be one of the major First World cities - this article makes a case for London, noting that NYC or Toronto are plausible other candidates. By the time you get to ranking them against each other, however, the odds are that fine distinctions in how you define diversity will sway the answer! Shimgray | talk | 22:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "ethnically mixed." More than 800 languages are spoken in Papua New Guinea. If we consider each linguistic group to be an ethnic group too, that's a lot of diversity. If you are referring to North American perceptions of racial categories, it's hard to get more diverse than Markham, Ontario, which in 2006 was 34% white, 34% Chinese, 17% South Asian, 3% black, 3% Filipino and also lots of Middle Easterners, Koreans and Latin Americans. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the level of mixing between groups is very relevent to the OP's question. In Papua New Guinea, for example, it is not very ethnicly diverse since the language groups/ethnicities do not intermingle in any real sense; they are isolated to their own geography. Likewise, a city like Markham may not be terribly diverse if the racial groups don't actually intermingle within the city; that is the Whites all live in one quarter, the east asians in another, the south asians in another. When I think of a diverse place, I think "If I walk through the place, how many different people groups will I see intermingled". An arbitrary geographic area like a city could have many groups represented, but if you walk through one neighborhood and see nothing but white people, and walk through another and see nothing but south asian people, then I wouldn't define that city as terribly diverse. As noted, major World Cities like New York or London are likely to feature not only a large number of ethnic groups, but also a high degree of intermingling between the ethnic groups. --Jayron32 02:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read, Houston, Texas is the most ethnically diverse city in the US. From our article:"According to the 2010 Census, Whites made up 50.5% of Houston's population, of which 25.6% were non-Hispanic whites. Blacks or African Americans made up 23.7% of Houston's population. American Indians made up 0.7% of Houston's population. Asians made up 6.0% of Houston's population while Pacific Islanders made up 0.1%. Individuals from some other race made up 15.2% of the city's population, of which 0.2% were non-Hispanic. Individuals from two or more races made up 3.3% of the city's population. People of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 43.8% of Houston's population." Pastordavid (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Houston as a good suggestion, but I do wish Americans would stop regarding a sloppy description of skin colour as an ethnicity. Clearly what's important is self identified backgrounds of all those monochrome people. Where in Africa or Europe or elsewhere do they say their backgrounds were. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why self identified? Surely their actual backgrounds are more interesting? APL (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no such thing as an "actual" way to concretely identify the concept of "race" or "ethnicity" which is more accurate and useful than self-identification. Race and ethnicity are socio-cultural constructs, purely so, and so the best way to know how someone interacts with their society and culture is to ask them. If someone identifies as "African-American", it is because that they find themselves meeting the definition of the term in the early 21st century United States. After all Dave Matthews is technical an American from Africa, but I wouldn't say that he likely self-identifies as an "African-American" in the same way that, say, Snoop Dogg does. While, under a certain definition of the terms "African" and "American", Dave Matthews is most definately more African, that particular definition isn't useful in understanding the difference between how Dave Matthews fits into American society and culture, as compared to how Snoop Dogg does. So the concept of honest self-identification; that is if people honestly assess how they fit into societies definition of race, ethnicity, and culture, we can use that assessment better than any other "technical" definition to understand what race is all about. Of course, someone could be a prick and fill out "Wookie" under the "race" blank in the census form, but I wouldn't count that as meaning anything... --Jayron32 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles is very much comparable with Houston, and arguably more diverse because of its larger Asian population. Some suburbs of Los Angeles such as San Gabriel, California are even more diverse, and probably compare with Markham, Ontario. Marco polo (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If language is a mark of ethnicity, then London is among the most diverse, with over 300. [1][2]. Similar claims are ,and for Toronto [3] and New York. Gwinva (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by place? Continent, country, city? Here are some quick facts:

Africa is the ethnically most diverse continent in the world. [4]
With 500 to 600 ethnic groups, Sudan is the ethnically most diverse country in the world. [5]
Sacramento, California is the ethnically most diverse city in the US. [6]
Toronto is the ethnically most diverse city in Canada. [7]
São Paulo is the ethnically most diverse city in Brazil. [8]
Mosul is the ethnically most diverse city in Iraq. [9][10]
Kabul is the ethnically most diverse city in Afghanistan. [11]
Yunnan is the ethnically most diverse province of China. [12] --Reference Desker (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted by Mwalcoff, Papua New Guinea, which has over 700 native languages, is linguistically world's most diverse country. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A vote here for Amsterdam. Living in London myself with an Irish family on one side, a Jamaican on the other and within a few doors of Somalis, Indians, Poles, French, Turks and several that I'm not sure about, I think we have to be in the running. Alansplodge (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch that Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, and Burnaby (British Columbia) have vast swaths of various immigrant groups. Toronto too I believe, and I suspect Calgary and Montreal too. You may notice a trend here. Vranak (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]