Humanities desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

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 27

Economics as normative ethics

Please help solve a friendly disagreement between my friend and I. (I’m a philosophy student. He’s an economics student.) My friend claims that economics does not make normative claims, especially not normative ethical claims. I hold that economics is founded on normative axioms such as “more value is better” or “more efficient markets are better,” and that as soon as economics is shown to be based on such premises it is making a claim about what “The Good for people” is. This is a fundamental question of ethics, and therefore I argue that economics is a branch of utilitarianism more or less. (Note: other branches of economics would certainly have different imperatives, notably Marxism.) --143.44.68.157 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economists usually try to say they don't make moral judgements, and only tell us how to make markets more efficient or less efficient, leaving it up to us to decide. Of course, they know we want to make the economy more efficient, so we will do whatever they tell us to do to achieve that goal. In some cases, they even approach the problem in reverse, thinking "we want to get the politicians to do X, so let's come up with a way to say that will help the economy". For example, I believe the goal of tax breaks for them and their wealthy friends was the impetus behind trickle-down economics. StuRat (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economics is the study of value, whatever that means, and many economists do take moral and ethical values into consideration, i.e. making judgements on how they expect people to behave based on what they judge those people's moral code to be. Selling bacon in many parts of the middle east is a bad economical idea, and the reasons are based on moral code. --Jayron32 01:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making judgements based on the morals of others isn't the same as making moral judgements of your own. StuRat (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with vulgar economics is that the utilitarianism that lies at the heart of it involves a problem of incommensurability between use-values; and, an incommensurability between use-values and values. This was seen to be a fundamental failure of the utilitarian project—but if we conduct a history of social science, then we observe that Political Economy (as opposed to moral economy) was always a normative movement based on inflicting patterns of conduct on society (Consider the Manchester School). Vulgar economics as the bastard child of Political Economy continues this, without the good grace to explicitly state that maximisation of shareholder value requires the emiseration of the mass. Value maximisation then lies within a fundamentally normative basis as you note. As you also note, other political economies can have radically different bases. For example, Marxism is fundamentally non-normative in the sense that it rests and resides on a teleology; though many Marxists have normative interests, and Marxism as a political practice is highly normative, if again resting on a teleology. Your friend doesn't understand what normativity is, and also doesn't understand that it isn't a "bad thing." Probably also has a problem with the (necessary) empiricism underlying any economics that attempts to explain reality. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"More value is better" is really just part of the definition of "value". You can decide for yourself what you do and don't value, but whatever it is that you value, you want more of. That's what it means. I wouldn't say that efficient markets being good is an axiom of economics, it is a conclusion drawn from an analysis of what maximises value. Trade increases value (since something goes from a person that values it less to a person that values it more), so making sure as much trade happens as possible (which is what we mean by "efficient") is going to maximise value, which is a good thing, by definition. I think what your friend is getting at is that economics works for whatever value system you want, so it doesn't make any assertions about what you should and shouldn't value. --Tango (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are incorrect, Tango. Just because “wanting it” is part of the definition of value (a priori), it does not hold that more value is necessarily better. For instance, heroin addicts may want heroin very much (in some sense), but many people would maintain that it’s definitely not good for them or for society. It could very well be that maximizing some of the things people value does not create a better or more happy society. --143.44.68.157 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, different people can have different value systems. The heroin addict values heroin, while the other people place a negative value on him having heroin (because of the crime it creates in their neighbourhood, for example, and possibly also because of the harm it does to him, although that is a little more complicated because it involve altruism, which is a little weird economically). What maximises value will depend on whether the negative value for all the other people outweighs the positive value for the addict. The same thing applies to driving a car. I place a positive value on being able to conveniently get myself from A to B. Other people place a negative value on that because of the pollution it causes (there is also a negative value to me from the pollution, but that is massively outweighed by the convenience, since the pollution from one car is very small). Whether or not it is a good thing for me to be able to drive my car depends on whether my positive value is higher or lower than their negative value. See externality for more information on this topic. The economic theory doesn't care what values different people place on different things, it just takes those as an input and tells you how to maximise them. --Tango (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise the arguments above (most of which I agree with--although Fifelfoo must know s/he's being controversial when s/he writes that the "maximisation of shareholder value requires the emiseration of the mass"), economics can be split into normative economics and positive economics. In reality, economists are humans too, and however hard they try, they inevitably stray from the latter into the former. Among the neo-classical synthesis school of economist, a form of desire-based utilitarianism (that is to say, believing that it is [morally] right to give people what they want) pervades as a normative basis, though it is far from universal, as has already been noted. In any case, you would be wrong to suggest that economics requires normative statements; it does not. But neither is your friend, because economists routinely do make normative statements (for some interesting crossover papers, I recommend the work of Amartya Sen). The truth, as ever, is somewhere in the middle. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 02:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many terms in economics are supposed to be positive descriptions of the world, but are so heavily biased that they convey normative values. "Efficient" and "welfare" are two examples. Usually, efficiency is used in the context of welfare economics and means that the total welfare of society is maximized. Welfare, to simplify a bit, is defined as the difference between a person's willingness to pay for a good and that good's price. Questions of equity or fairness do not come into the picture. If Alice is starving to death but can only pay 10 cents for a bowl of rice, while Bob is rich and can pay $100, it would be efficient for me to sell Bob my rice at $80. That way, my welfare is $80 (assuming my production cost is 0), Bob's is 100-80 = $20, and Alice's is 0, for a total of $100. If I sell Alice the rice at 10 cents, my welfare is $0.1, Alice's is 0, and Bob's is 0, for a total of 10 cents. The fact that Alice wants the food much more badly, or that she's much poorer than Bob, or that she might die if she doesn't get food, is irrelevant--if she can only pay 10 cents for food, the maximum welfare she'll ever get is 10 cents, and selling to Bob is more efficient. On a closely related note, the distribution of wealth does not impact a market's efficiency. Any policy that makes Alice $10 poorer and Bob $20 richer is efficient, even if Alice is starving and Bob is a billionaire.

Economics is also based on the assumption that people are fully rational beings who seek to maximize their own gain. Economists do not judge (or at least, should not judge) whether this is right or wrong--it's simply a positive statement about the behavior of people, not a normative statement about whether people should behave this way. Whether the assumption is accurate is another matter, but that's an empirical issue that can be tested by observation, not a moral issue. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would state that Economics does not rest on Normative Claims (claims about how one should act in a moral fashion) but rather it arises from basic logical premises. "markets seek efficiency" is a logical premise, it is stated as an observable and empirical fact. The normative formation would be something along the lines of "Markets should seek efficiency" or "It is morally correct for a market to seek efficiency". The former is a statement of empircal fact, given free reign individual actors will seek profits (another premise) and as a result they will try to eliminate every possibly inefficiency that consumes profit, the net effect is that a market will always seek to be as efficient as possible given its constraints. The latter is a normative statement, it describes correct or moral action, not inevitable action. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US Electoral College v. popular vote

Basically, I'm thinking of a situation much like the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush lost the popular vote but was able to acquire the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency.

By how large a margin could a candidate theoretically lose the national popular vote, while still securing a plurality in enough states to actually win the presidency. Is a 40/60 loss possible with 270 electoral votes still being winnable? 30/70?

I imagine this would require quite a lot of number-crunching, so maybe it belongs at the Math reference desk? Feel free to move if so.

Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, very small, if there were a number of candidates running. If only two, then start with the three-electoral vote states as the small states have a disproportionate influence in the election. Keep counting until you are at 270. Give the candidate 50 percent plus one in those states and no votes anywhere else. Somewhere in there's your answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the USA does not have compulsory voting, you could theoretically be elected to the presidency, by my reckoning, with every eligible voter in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Oklahoma voting against you, and one single voter in each remaining state and DC voting for you. This gives you 270 electoral votes with a public vote of 43/several million. In any case, the states I named are the ones you want to lose, assuming I counted correctly (using this table sorted by Pop. per Pres. Elector). FiggyBee (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you'd probably get a better ratio by getting one vote in each state if you start counting from the big end... Eh. Anyway, I think the answer is that the indeterminate number of voters in US elections makes this a difficult question, but in theory, yes, you could lose the popular vote by a lot, even with only two candidates. FiggyBee (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more interesting question is the worst imbalance that's likely to occur, say in a century. I suspect you aren't likely to see somebody win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote by more than 5%. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Quincy Adams won the 1824 election with only 31% of the vote, 10.44% less than Andrew Jackson, although this election was complicated with multiple candidates and unique in that the eventual victor lost the electoral college vote too. There were two other occasions in the 19th century where the winner received fewer popular votes than the runner-up, and only one - the aforementioned 2000 election - in the 20th century. Of these, the 1876 election had the biggest popular vote margin at 3%. The 1888 election of Benjamin Harrison (which interrupted Grover Cleveland's two presidencies) is the only time a US President has been elected with a minority of the popular vote but without massive legal wrangling.FiggyBee (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but 2000 was slightly more complicated in that it was the first time a person who didn't "win" the popular vote became president. In both of the other cases the victors had at least a plurality of the popular vote (i.e., more votes than anyone else), though not a true 50% +1 majority. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No they didn't. In 1888 Harrison received 5,443,892 popular votes to Cleveland's 5,534,488, in 1876 Hayes received 4,034,311 popular votes to Tilden's 4,288,546, and in 1824 John Quincy Adams received 113,122 popular votes to Andrew Jackson's 151,271 (not all states had a public vote for President at this point). FiggyBee (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand, I was wrong. First time since 1996, I believe. : ) Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I ran the numbers and have determined that if you can win the following, and no more, you could win the presidency with the lowest possible percentage of nationwide popular vote:

Nebraska and all of its congressional districts, Maine and all of its congressional districts, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Vermont, Alaska, Washington, D.C., Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Lousiana, Kentucky, Colorado, Alabama, Wisconsin, Missouri, Maryland, Minnesota, Tennessee, Massachussets, Indiana, Arizona, Washington, New Jersey, and Michigan.

I think I did the easy part. Now, does anyone want to break out a calculator, go through voter registration numbers, and determine what 50% +1 for all of those would be? :P Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search the archives. We answered this exact question about 1 month ago. Lemme take a look... --Jayron32 04:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was almost exactly 1 month ago. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 26. --Jayron32 04:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I should have checked before posting. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this strays a bit from the intent of the question, but according to the 12th Amendment, if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes, then the House of Representatives chooses the President from the 3 candidates with the most electoral votes. Suppose you have many candidates and each state is won by a different candidate. If only 1 person votes in NY, which has the third most electoral votes, then the candidate that person votes for is eligible to be chosen for President. If all eligible voters in all the other states actually vote, then the wining candidate could have 1/(#eligible voters in every state but NY)*100 % of the votes and still win.

Or, if there are enough Faithless electors, then the winning candidate could win a majority (or even a unanimity) of the electoral votes without winning a single popular vote (0%).--Wikimedes (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or if the electoral college split 269-268-1, with the 1 vote being a faithless elector (hopefully not for a side that thought it had won 270), then you go into the House and that means getting 26 congressional state delegations to vote for you. That could be difficult, and who knows, if that third place finisher is someone respectable, he could wind up the compromise candidate. Thus president without ever having run.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's definintely more plausible than 270 faithless electors. Or you could have 268-267-3 without faithless electors for 1/(#eligible voters in every state but AK (or VT or WY?))*100%.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prefabs, UK

maps.nls.uk link There are two estates shown, I've centred on one of them. Here's another. [1]

I think theses are prefabs because they disappear by the 1970s, (and are smaller, and less space efficient than the standard terraced house) I also have a source that states that the second one linked was used for '300 displaced poles'. Are these estates a standard countrywide design ? Is there a source to find out more about specific examples of these? Is there any more that can be said simply by looking at the map? Thnks.Oranjblud (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The former is presumably the "short lived housing estates constructed on the fringes of the village (Lowfield camp and an estate east of Tranby Croft)" you mention in Anlaby. Pre-fab houses intended as temporary accomodation were quite common after the war as large areas of inner cities were bomb damaged, or simply considered unsuitable for habitation by the newly-elected Labor government. People lived in these houses while new towns and council estates were being constructed. A google image search for "post-war prefab houses" will give you an idea of the typical design (and, in fact, the prefab article you linked to has more than a little information). FiggyBee (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This memoir of the later 1940s says "...we left Egypt, I went to a school at a place called Knutsford, moved from there to Anlaby (we lived in wooden huts in Anlaby, it was called a 'transit camp'...". Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which has led me to Hansard House of Commons Debate: 09 April 1946 Requisitioned Buildinģs, Hull: "at Low Field Road, Anlaby, near Hull, there are a large number of brick buildings built during the war to house bombed out people from Hull, which are now being partially occupied by the military; and whether he will enable these buildings to be utilised for relieving the housing shortage for civilians...". The answer was no; "The buildings in question form part of the accommodation for Hull Transit Camp which is used by troops moving to and from (the) British Army on the Rhine.". Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's incredibly helpful - now I know I'm not mistaking a piggery for human habitation! Oranjblud (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the National Library of Scotland map archive. With a bit of jiggery-pokery, you can pull up maps for all of England too, even though they do their best not to let you see them. Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting. Does that include 6" to 1 mile maps as well? I discovered it was simple to request any part (or all) of map sheet as one jpg using simple changes to the image requests eg maps.nls.uk/lizardtech/iserv/getimage?cat=os25k-1937-61&item=91802735.jp2&cp=0.5,0.5&lev=1&wid=100&hei=100& (is sheet 9180275, middle [.5,.5], a 100x100 jpg at level 1 zoom (goes to 0) ), but haven't worked out the numbering scheme for the maps as a whole. I fear to fiddle too much as I worry the admins may reduce the service if they get too many requests.Oranjblud (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Webber

I am trying to find all of the images made by John Webber on his voyages with Captain Cook but I am encountering a lot of problems. Mainly it the titles and the subject matters of some. There are so many reproductions have been made on his original work, but what were his original works titled and how many illustrations in total were there? Is there a complete list somewhere? And was their a published source containing his originals? Don't refer to the images on the commons, since I uploaded most of them.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was an exhibition of Webber's work http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/Swiss_museum_rediscovers_James_Cook.html?cid=28488030 at the Bern historical museum. It was curated by Thomas Psota, head of the museum's ethnography dept, whose contact info is here: http://www.bhm.ch/en/information/about-us/museum/team/ Psota also seems to have co-authored a book on Webber: http://books.google.ca/books/about/John_Webber_1751_1793.html?id=IvfSAAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y In German.

Alternately, but a lot more work, you could followup the links from his article to the museums that hold his works. Each might be willing to provide a list. 184.147.121.151 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna of Austria (1549–1580)

Can she be considered a Queen consort of Portugal? Her husband became King of Portugal in 25 March 1581 while she died 26 October 1580, but all different language wikipedia articles and the English one calls her Queen of Portugal. Which is right?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If she died before her husband ascended the Portuguese throne she cannot be called a Queen consort of that kingdom as she never held the position whilst alive. If the articles do so they are incorrect and should be changed ASAP.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have since removed the false information.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a matter of changing stuff. It seems to be accepted on the Portuguese and Spanish article that she was Queen of Portugal. Should you trust articles of their countries' of origin? Any documents, proclamation calling her Queen of Portugal. I came across this problem while expanding the List of Portuguese consorts article, but I was never sure if historians called herself Queen when she not or was it an error of editors on wikipedia.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use other Wikipedia articles as references. If she died in 1580 and Philip's reign as Portuguese king began in March 1981 then she was not queen. The only thing I can think of which is causing this confusion is the fact that the New Year typically began in March.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or that Philip II claimed to be King months before the Portuguese nobles recognized him as such. Henry, the Cardinal-King, died in January of 1580. The Spanish defeated Anthony, Prior of Crato in August. The List of Portuguese monarchs articles said Philip II acclaimed himself King in 1580.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can call her Queen Consort of Portugal (de facto), Aug 25, 1580-Oct 26, 1580. And link to War of the Portuguese Succession or Portuguese succession crisis of 1580. It comes down the criteria you are using for the list, doesn't it? 184.147.121.151 (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's the precedent of Peter I of Portugal -- his wife died before he became king, but according to various stories, when he came into power, he had his wife's skeleton dug up and placed on a throne, and made all those who had insulted her when she was alive file past and kiss her bony hand...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are irrelevant. We should refer to her as Queen if the reliable sources do. We should not refer to her as Queen if the reliable sources don't. It's as simple as that. --Tango (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are there any reliable sources that refer to her as a Portuguese queen consort? I haven't found any.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, even Mary I of England was called Queen of Portugal. Surtsicna (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found another one - Elisabeth of Austria (1526–1545). The article claims that she was Queen of Poland, as do articles in other languages. However, she died 3 years before her husband's accession and there seems to be no evidence that her husband was crowned king before his father's death. Surtsicna (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems that her husband was crowned vivente rege. Surtsicna (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet tankers (ships)

Hi! I am trying to research what living and working aboard Soviet tanker ships was like, without much luck. I wondered whether anyone could point me at any books or websites that discussed the subject (in English or Russian). I tried asking on the Russian Wikipedia, but apparently their Reference Desk is only for Wikipedia-related questions, and there doesn't seem to be a Russian Yahoo! Answers. So, if anyone could suggest anything, I would deeply appreciate it!

Alternately, if you could recommend anywhere that I could ask such a question in Russian and hopefully get an answer, it would likewise be appreciated. Thanks so much in advance -- I've had a surprising amount of trouble finding information on the subject! Heather (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you could try otvety.google.ru and otvet.mail.ru which are a Russian Yahoo! Answers of sorts (must have an account on the respective sites). The second one is much better frequented which has both its advantages and drawbacks. As to books, one I can think of is Засекреченный полюс by one Виталий Волович which is about life on a drifting research station in the Arctic in the 50s (not a ship but still....) It shouldn't be hard to find another books as lots and lots of people write memoirs about life in the USSR (esp. military-men and -women, so there are going to be books about the merchant fleet, too, which is I think what tankers belong to) Уга-уга12 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not what you're looking for, but I found Stalin's Slave Ships: Kolyma, the Gulag Fleet, and the Role of the West. There's nothing else obvious on Google, but I'll try again later, when I have more time. Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some information about the Soviet merchant service is on Google Books at The Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy, although the preview that I can see only has a few of the pages visible. Still looking.... Alansplodge (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks greatly for all the help! It does seem to be a surprisingly poorly-documented subject, doesn't it? I was also familiar with the Russian and Slavic fondness for memoir, and really expected to find stuff, especially after I started asking in Russian. I didn't get any answers on otvety.google.ru or otvet.mail.ru, but I definitely did appreciate those links -- was exactly what I was looking for as far as asking general-interest questions in Russian. So, thanks again! Heather (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Country of passport, Passport nationality

When applying for an eVisitor visa for Australia, they asked both Country of passport and Passport nationality.When aren't those the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.76.237.178 (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you enter more than one nationality? If you have dual-citizenship then your passport will be issued by one country, but may recognise your dual-nationality (I'm not sure if they usually do or not). There are also things like 1954 Convention Travel Documents, which are issued by a particularly country to people that aren't nationals of that country. They aren't technically passports, though. --Tango (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dual nationality situation to me, seems unlikely. The traveller would surely know which passport they were planning to use when entering Australia, and as such, there wouldn't be a need to list all nationalities. Similarly, if that was information that the Aussie government wanted, there would be better ways of asking it.

That latter explanation to me would seem to be what they are getting at (though, you are right, the distinction could have been made clearer!). A person who has been granted asylum in another country, could, in the period before naturalisation, end up having a travel document issued by a different country than his nationality. I.e. the refugee is still considered a citizen of country A, although he is persecuted there, and therefore has a travel document issued by country B. The travel document could then reflect this by stating that, although issued by country B, the nationality of the holder was A. Although this is specifically called a 'travel document' and not a 'passport', the Australian e-visa form only uses the word 'passport', though I guess it might more accurately have said 'passport or travel document'. (But, that might open up to unnecessary misunderstandings - most people will be travelling on a passport.)

I suppose also that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport and Macao Special Administrative Region passport could be such a dual case, where the issuer of the passport is somewhat different from the nationality of the passport. Although HK and Macao residents are citizens of the PRC, it is easier to travel on HK and Macao passports, than on the PRC passport. (Though, judging by the Australian e-visa form, that is not what they mean, since Macao and HK are listed both as issuers and citizenships.) V85 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Overseas Territories should help clarify the distinction between Nationality and Country. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Australian immigration, BN(O) is both a country of passport and nationality. So, I don't see exactly how it would work, when applying for an Australian e-Visa. In fact, thist separation seems rather redundant, as the list for countries and nationalities seem to be exactly the same. My guess is that this is meant for people who have a passport issued by one country, but are citizens of another, such as refugees are. V85 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the answers above talk about how if an item is listed in both fields "that can't be what they mean". Actually, they can. If you take a close look at your passport, you will see that it is issued by a country, and it also has a field called "nationality". Usually these are the same, but in some cases they are not. For example, a Canadian whose passport is stolen in a country that has neither Australian nor Canadian missions may apply to the local British mission for a replacement passport, but that does not mean the Canadian person gains British nationality, even temporarily. The passport will have been issued by the UK, but the nationality remains Canadian (I think it actually says "Commonwealth citizen" in the nationality field on the passport in such a case). The same applies to an emergency Australian passport issued to a Canadian, an emergency Canadian passport issued to a British person, and in each case vice versa. (And both Canada and UK would, presumably, be available in both the "passport country" and "passport nationality" fields in the form that the OP referred to.)

(As to HK, I believe the correct input for someone with PRC nationality holding a HKSAR passport would be to choose "HKSAR" in the "country" section and "PRC" in the "nationality" section, even if the web form allows you to choose otherwise.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know consulates would issues passports to non-citizens. I know there are arrangements between countries to offer consular assistance to the other's citizens if they don't have a consulate of their own to go to, but I always assumed that things like emergency travel documents were officially issued by your own consulate (although it may be in a different country) and the other country's consular staff just did the admin. Also, I thought you only got temporary travel documents in order to get you home, rather than an actual passport, so I'm not sure you would ever be applying for a visa with one (except possibly a transit visa, I suppose). --Tango (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It differs from country to country and depends on the situation, and probably depends on how well equipped the particular mission is. As I understand it, for example Canadian consulates issue Australians with an Australian emergency travel document with limited validity only to get to the nearest Australian mission. But the UK does issue actual passports to Commonwealth citizens in some cases. (After some digging...) our article Commonwealth citizen has the right information, also see this which talks about emergency passports. I don't know if anyone holding an emergency passport could or would actually apply for entry into Australia on that passport and I don't thik it really matters for the purpose of this answer, my point in the post above is that it is certainly possible for one country (that appears in the web form) to issue a passport to a national of another country (that also appears in the web form), and the passport may well show a nationality different to that of the issuing country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs - examining its history (who invented 'the pyramid'?)

Hello everybody :) I'm looking for the "first" usage of the "pyramid-interpretation" (graphic) of his hierarchy of needs. That is to say some early sources with that kind of picture. I'm quite sure that Maslow himself never used the term 'pyramid' respectively the pyramid-figure. I am grateful for any information. Thank you, --WissensDürster (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, as with the food-groups "pyramid", it's actually a triangle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchies are often visualised as pyramids. True that in 2d these are drawn as triangles; this is true of the population pyramid inter alia. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But does no one remembers on of the earliest adaptions of especially Maslows hierarchy? --WissensDürster (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History and philosophy of social science often don't deal with the history of particular visual metaphors, being more interested and focused on the development of theoretical apparatus and socially authorised methods of conducting research. I'd suggest British Library or Library of Congress is your next step to conduct some original research, starting from Maslow's papers themselves. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not exactly true. There is copious work on influential, particular visualizations in the history of science. (That famous photo of Watson and Crick and the double helix? There's an entire paper on that. Huxley's skeleton lineup? Yup. The finches? Of course.) Concluding that no one has likely done it, a priori, seems kind of silly to me... --Mr.98 (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends if we separate the history of social science from the history of science—a troublesome definitional issue. I've seen a fair bit of "meta-" in social sciences, but visualisations in the social sciences haven't been a meta- issue so far that I've observed. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see Maslow himself drew it that way, in his 1954 paper called Hierarchy of Needs. I gather he drew it as a step pyramid, though -- can't tell for sure because I don't have immediate access to the paper. Looie496 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a scan-by-library version from his book (revised 1954/1970) and there are no 'pictures' at all. I used google-books search and found at least one educational psychology dating back to the year 1970. The explanation there indicates that the pyramid-concept's not that old at this time. --WissensDürster (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wealemefnas

In the first paragraph of the sixth chapter of E. V. Lucas's 1911 story The Slowcoach, this sentence appears:

Here they were, with a caravan, and a horse, and a driver, and a dog, and maps, and a map-measurer (do you know what they're called?— they're called wealemefnas), and tents, and— most of all— permission to be entirely alone; and it was not yet decided where they were going.

I thought initially that wealemefnas was something that Lucas had made up as a joke. But Google Books has a single hit on the word, for a 1911 British patent on a map-measuring device.

My question is: is this word used anywhere else? Did it appear only in 1911, only to sink in 1912 not unlike some ship or other? And is it only of fanciful coinage? Marnanel (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It usually seems to be spelled without the final -s, if that helps. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 5,390 hits for the ugliest word I've come across all year. Its coiner deserves to be hit 5,390 times. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an anagram of "a new female". DuncanHill (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It (also) seems to have been the Christian name of the inventor, one Wealemefna Morris. An example of his creation graces the collection of the Museum of the History of Science in Oxford.[2] The museum calls his device a "Chartometer"; it's a little pocket-watch-shaped gizmo with a wheel protruding from the bottom, you run the wheel across the map and read the distance on the face. I had a similar thing, (but made of tinplate and plastic rather than silver) in the 1970s. A piece of string does the job just as well. Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can find mentions back to the 1870s (eg this.) Personally I prefer the word to Opisometer, but that's just me :) There's a picture of one (third picture down) here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(another edit conflict) Hang on a moment: www.mathsinstruments.me.uk says that his name was E R Morris, and has pictures of the "Morris’s Patent Chartometer ", the "Morris’s Patent Measuring Instrument" as well as the "Morris’s Patent Wealemefna", which was "was priced at seven shillings and sixpence in 1900, the others being 17s 6d and £2 17s 6d respectively". The plot thickens. Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A book called Surveying and levelling instruments: theoretically and practically described, for construction, qualities, selection, preservation, adjustments, and uses; with other apparatus and appliances used by civil engineers and surveyors in the field agrees r=that it was invented by E R Morris. Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this word have a known etymology, and how are you meant to pronounce it? V85 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's one of those Victorian names, given to "a new female" in the family, and Mr Morris later called his invention after his daughter. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to a post on a forum quoting from "English Mechanic and World of Science" Vol. 33, London, 1881", Mr Morris made it up and wouldn't explain it! (Sixth post down here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe connected with Wēalas, the Old English for Wales? Just a guess, but if they couldn't find out in 1881, we're probably not going to find out now. Alansplodge (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get the original edition of the magazine, but the quote from the forum is "Wealemefna is not derived from " "(world-rule-measure) nor from the anagrammatic transposition "a new female." Meanwhile it would be a pity to dispel a mystery—which U capable of being uitraveiled—as interesting to the public, apparently, as the solution." FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, that's a quote from a letter from Morris (albeit with digitalisation errors) to the magazine in response to other letters wondering where the name came from. The errors make me think that it could be something that might be found on Gutenberg.org, and while I can find other editions of the magazine there, I haven't found the right one yet. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone was considering writing an article on the Wealemefna, here's more details of the inventor, from the THE LONDON GAZETTE, DECEMBER 12, 1873; To Edward Russell Morris, of Oakhill Park, Hampstead, in the county of Middlesex, and of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, Engineer, for the invention of " improved pocket instruments for measuring and registering distances." After all, Wikipedia OUGHT to have an article about everything! Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can get to a snippet view on Google Books that verifies the first sentence of that letter, so I am inclined to think that if Morris wanted people to try and work out the answer, and he does seem to be suggesting there is an answer in the letter, then he is still succeeding 150 years later. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though, if he were hoping that such an obscure name would make his product a best seller, he failed. His product is so obscure that it doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article. V85 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's getting closer to being a point, but there are still zillions of non-obscure subjects waiting for someone to write their articles. We ain't done yet, not by a very long shot. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, whoever put a redirect from Wealemefna, I have added a brief paragraph to the Opisometer article. Alansplodge (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]