Humanities desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 29 >

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.

September 28[edit]

Totalitarian ideologies[edit]

I know that Nazism and Soviet communism were two types of totalitarianism. Oddly enough, I sometimes see "socialism" used as a label for totalitarianism (like IngSoc). Are there any other totalitarian ideologies? — Melab±1 ☎ 02:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got Socialism there (presumably as Dictorship of the have-nots) then you should also have Capitalism (dictatorship of the haves). SCNR 86.130.153.71 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Story about Enyclopedists who devise a fictional island that becomes real[edit]

I vaguely remember reading about a short story about Enyclopedists who devise a fictional island that becomes real. They describe the island in such rich detail that it exists in fiction, and somehow that enters in reality. --Gary123 (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember anything else about it? What time period the story was from, stuff like that- or even a character name? I couldn't find anything, but more information might help. On a side note, this reminds me of Gaunilo of Marmoutiers objection to Anselm's ontological argument, but that's a philosophical argument:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be thinking of Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius by Jorge Luis Borges.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost certainly it. There is, however, a Ramsey Campbell short story in which some misbegotten encyclopaedia salesman is recruited to hawk copies of the Necronomicon (or was it the The Revelations of Glaaki?) door-to-door. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.25.36 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify this French classical musique[edit]

Please identify the music that begins here at 3:08 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxzvVGlVZqE. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~SoundHound is my crutch. SoundHound says it's Leonard Bernstein's "Fossils and Finale"~~.
Sleigh (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "Aquarium" movement from The Carnival of the Animals by Camille Saint-Saëns. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In subject "Greeks"[edit]

I would like to add some more female profiles to the subject of Greeks. There are 25 people listed there and only 2 are female. in the area where famous people are portrayed by a picture in the different nationalities. Please add:

Cleopatra (famous Queen of Egypt)69-30 bce
Atalanti (Famous marathon runner)some time before
Nana mouskouri (World renown singer)1970s-now
Melina Mercouri (actress and activist)1970s-90s
. Ariadne (Daughter of king Minos of Crete)Long time ago
Helen of Troy Hec of a long time ago

There are countless others but this is a start.

– — ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §

Chris Orfanakos (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC) September 28th, 2013 Chris Orfanakos[reply]

I took the liberty to improve your formatting with some wiki-magic. A better place to discuss this is at talk:Greeks. That said, I think Cleopatra will be a hard sell. She is of Macedonian decent, but more strongly associated with Egypt. Helen of Troy and Ariadne are both mythical or semi-mythical persons, and, looking at other countries, all the examples typically seem to be of confirmed historical people. I'd take Mouskouri over Dimas, but 25 is not written in stone (Italians and Germans both have 30), so you might find consensus to simply expand it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of interest, which page are you looking at? There's a very comprehensive List of Greeks, but to a non-Greek speaker such as myself, it's damn near impossible to discern between males and females. I was going to add Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington but I had no idea where she should go! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Farantouri, Maria Callas and Irene Papas would be on my lists of Greek women. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What gives value to non-dividend paying stock?[edit]

I should first clarify that I'm not really asking about the various buying and selling mechanisms that determine a stock's price on an exchange, but rather a more fundamental question of why stock has "value". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkot (talk • contribs) 05:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a read a number of articles such as http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/133.asp, but I have trouble understanding why non-dividend paying stock has value other than the reason that there is a demand for it. I understand that fundamentally stock represents a percentage of ownership in the company. However, since it can't be redeemed via the issuing authority (i.e. I can't demand that Google compensate me in cash for a 0.01% stake in the company), the only way I can convert stock to any other compensation is via a third party. Seemingly, if there was no third party, then the stock is relatively worthless.

Non-dividend paying stock usually carries voting rights (and if it doesn't then it really does seem worthless), but I would guess that most individuals invested in the stock market don't really have an interest in exercising the insignificant amount of power this entails. Instead, it seems that the true value of voting rights is in that other individuals and organizations may be interested in purchasing the stock so that they can have a greater influence in the company. However, does this mean that anyone that owns such stock and doesn't exercise voting rights is essentially "squatting" on the stock, waiting to sell to someone else so they can "use" it to gain influence in the company? If so then what about cases where there is already a majority share holder of the stock? Does the other 49% of stock lose value because it can't be used to gain a controlling share?

I understand that to a certain degree stock entitles one to the assets of the company should it fold, but since the company has creditors that will be paid before stock owners, it seems that this is, at best, a constellation prize. As can be seen when companies declare bankruptcy, their stocks drops to a few cents which is invariably a tiny fraction of the stock's price in better times.

Nkot (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several mechanisms that give value to non-dividend-paying stock. First, the company always could start paying a dividend if the board of directors (who are elected by the shareholders) decide to direct the management to do so. Second, the company can buy back stock if the management feel that it is underpriced in relation to the value of the company. Third and most importantly, if the stock is underpriced a different company, or group of investors, can buy the whole company by acquiring all of the stock. (They really only need 50% to have full control, but the laws require them to offer to buy the remaining shares if they buy that much.) A group that owns more than 50% of the stock has total control of the company and can do whatever they please with it, including replacing the management. Looie496 (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's like asking what gives a dollar bill value if no matter how long it sits in your drawer it doesn't spit out any coins, any dollar bills, or anything else of value such as even a sandwich or anything else: what gives it value is that it's accepted as value by others. if this valuation by others goes up over time then it's worth more and more just by sitting there - without having to spit anything out. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite the right way of putting it. If you were the sole proprietor of a business, it would be easy to see what gives it value: it generates income, and that income belongs to you. Well, When you own a fraction of the stock, you own a corresponding fraction of the income. In many cases that income shows up as an increase in the price of the stock, but my response above explained several ways in which it can be converted to direct cash. Looie496 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way this was really cute: "the only thing I can think of is that the possibility of bankruptcies give stock some value, since in theory a shareholder is entitled to some of the proceeds of a bankruptcy". That's some Icahn thinking right there :) 178.48.114.143 (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a non-dividend paying stock were to be valued at zero, it would present a great arbitrage opportunity: just buy all the stock (for nothing!) and own all the company assets and future earnings. So obviously for companies worth anything even non-dividend paying stocks need to have some value. By the same argument, ideally speaking, that stock value would equal the company's "true value"/(Number of stocks issued). Now, transaction costs, complications of law, different estimates of "true value", differing utility functions of the market players etc mean that that equation is too simplistic. But it hopefully convinces you that even in theory (as in practice), stocks of non-dividend paying companies have value, and the less friction in the market, the less it matters whether the company pays dividend or not. Abecedare (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC) I now realize that Looie496 had already made this broad argument; hopefully seeing the same point presented in two ways, will still be of value to the OP. Abecedare (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Police State[edit]

Is there a recognised measure applied to any society which determines at what point a state is classed as a "police state"? And what factors are indicators? 31.25.4.14 (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Police state? That says

Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no definitive objective standards to determine whether the term "police state" applies to a particular nation at any given point in time. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate objectively the truth of allegations that a nation is, or is not becoming, a police state. One way to view the concept of the police state and the free state is through the medium of a balance or scale, where any law focused on removing liberty is seen as moving towards a police state, and any law which limits government oversight is seen as moving towards a free state.

Rojomoke (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the real chances for change in gay rights in Iran with President Hassan Rouhani?[edit]

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezashirazz (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will take at least a generation to have big changes. The paradox here is that you can only change the situation fast if the country is ruled by a dictator with absolute power who wants to implement a new policy. In a more democratic setting, getting a broad consensus in society is very important. While it looks like the majority decides in a democracy, in reality it's more complicated than that. The majority can only really implement big changes if there isn't a minority who would very strongly object to that. This explains why in the US gay rights is more controversial than in Europe, despite the fact that the US is a far older democracy than most European countries. In the US the political landscape is far more polarized between social conservatives and liberals, so you have a lack of consensus on issues such as gay rights.

Rouhani can start a process that will eventually lead to more rights for gay people, but this will have to involve changing the attitude of conservative people. While most of them will likely always be against, a change is possible if their resistance changes from being against and having big problems with it, to being against and being able to tolerate it. The latter can happen if they feel that it's not a threat to their way of life if gay people are allowed to live more openly in society. Count Iblis (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Islamic view, and how likely is that to change? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which Islamic view? --Jayron32 19:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever view of Islam that the Islamic Republic of Iran adheres to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at religions from the outside, they are not static, god-given systems of belief, but mould themselves quite nicely to the general belief of their adherents. So if the people and government of Iran move to a more liberal interpretation, they will find a version of Islam that support that. After all, Islam worked for the Golden Horde, the Assassins, the Mughals and the Dervishes. Similarly, Christianity was founded by the sandalled hippy who talked about "turning the other cheek", but the religion has happily worked for the Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisition, and all sides in the Thirty Years' War (and indeed most wars in Europe up until circa now). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice chit-chat we're having, folks. Reference, anyone? If no reference could be found that tells us the future, this should be hatted or deleted. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Star News reported during the June election that LGBT Iranians thought all candidates are resolutely against equality on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, and will not wish or be able to (even of they wanted to) effect any change.. I haven't been able to find any direct statements by Rouhani, which would be a better source, perhaps, but better googlers might have a try. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For an idea of how rapidly things can change, see LGBT rights in the Republic of Ireland. Bugs, what is the Catholic view, and how is that likely to change? See also Spain, Italy...Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They usually do all their leather pride parades etc. in a certain few cities where this is tolerated. It's often a bit of a problem whenever they try this in many cultures where it would never be tolerated, like for example Iran! 71.246.149.160 (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland is a secular state, not a theocracy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But one in which the Catholic Church has historically had a lot of influence. Have you read the Preamble to the Constitution? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How could any presidential candidate have any opinion on gay rights when they claim there are no gays in Iran? Effovex (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Iranian version of "don't ask don't tell". The gays keep quiet, allowing Iran to pretend that there are no gays. Count Iblis (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When things change for the better, you can hope that more tolerance is allowed, and that is what gays and Baha'is can count on in Iran. Mr. Rouhani's catchword is moderation and he has the support of the majority of the people. Omidinist (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this a time ago. [1][2] Wnt (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Ahmedinejad knows there is a homosexual activist writer living in the Iranian city of Karaj by the name of Payam Feili? Godd find, Wnt... 71.246.149.160 (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an optimist, but I'm an optimist who takes his raincoat. (Harold Wilson)-- Omidinist (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was the first U.S. health insurance plan to exclude coverage for autism and why did they do it?[edit]

It seems to be the standard now that health insurance plans deny coverage for autism treatment unless required to do so by a mandate. I'm trying to understand how that came to be the case. I understand that there was no treatment (except institutionalization) until the 80's, but it seems to be agreed upon by the medical community (e.g. the American Academy of Pediatrics) that ABA therapy helps. Did the Mental Health Parity Act have an effect? Is it because of all the quackery out there (hyperbaric chambers, mercury chelation, homeopathy)?

Thanks! 22:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.c.owen (talk • contribs)

I would guess that the fact that autism is a chronic condition with no cure as such plays a role... AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes and asthma are two examples of chronic conditions with no cure. I believe they are both covered by most health insurance plans.Jonathan.c.owen (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My impression has always been this: Non-mental conditions such as diabetes are readily quantitatively verifiable to the insurance company -- the measured blood sugar level is whatever it is, and there are standard ways in the medical community to respond to a given numerical reading. But with disorders like autism, it's hard for a doctor to prove his diagnosis on paper, even if the diagnosis is clear based on observed (but non-quantifiable) behavior. So insurance companies are worried about being defrauded by fake diagnoses. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Duoduoduo. As a parent, I can't imagine putting a kid through intensive behavioral therapy that wasn't needed, and with the autism rate being what it is, it's hard to imagine doctors/therapists lacking for work, but I can respect the desire for an objective test (I'd like to see that happen too). Googling "objective test for autism" turns up several different methods that are being pursued. In the mean time, it seems like insurance companies could avoid fraud pretty accurately by requiring a second opinion.Jonathan.c.owen (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that, in order to get services for a problem child, some parents, doctors, teachers, etc., will fake an autism diagnosis to get them "into the system". This is ultimately caused by trying to have a sharp line between those covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and those which are not. If everyone got the services they needed, regardless of diagnosis, then there would be no pressure to fake the diagnosis. StuRat (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, StuRat. I know first-hand of a good number of parents of autistic kids (in our state that doesn't have mandated coverage) who are avoiding getting an autism diagnosis, because at least they can get coverage for related symptoms. That seems a shame. It seems like an objective test would change a lot of things.Jonathan.c.owen (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the answers seeem more about why autism is exclude not when and where it started, I would mention I suspect there's probably no one reason why autism is excluded. The factors mentioned already (no cure but high ongoing costs*, no objective diagnosis, the variety of questionable treatments) would most likely play a part plus the soaring diagnosis rate and cost probably wouldn't help either [3] [4]. While many other health issues also have increasing rates e.g. diabetes [5], I'm not sure if the increase is as high as autism.

And for these reasons and more, insurance treatment of mental health issues has frequently been less (after all this is one of the reasons for stuff like the MHPA) and I think the ultimate consumers of insurance are frequently also less likely to see it that way (you're not covering diabetes, are you insane? vs you're not covering autism, okay I guess...).

This source suggests ABA is frequently claimed to be educational rather than medical [6] (I don't know how accurate this is and to be clear I'm only mentioning this as an explaination of how insurance providers present the issue not as an endorsement). These sources also suggests autism may also be seen as a pre-existing condition [7] (also http://www. examiner.com/article/supreme-court-rules-favor-of-obamacare-victory-for-autism-families blacklisted site) which until the recent reforms can be excluded although from your comments I'm not sure how common this is or whether autism is generally just specifically excluded (where allowed by law). Presuming it is an issue, while this could happen for something like diabetes I'm not quite sure whether it's as common (I'm presuming we're talking about a case when the condition was undiagnosed before the insurance coverage was taken up).

In other words, there's a confluence of factors which aren't in favour of covering autism. BTW, it's worth considering subjective diagnosis wouldn't just concern because of outright fraud but good faith diagnosis which many others won't agree on, perhaps partially in response to pressure.

P.S. In reference to *, perhaps the earlier answers didn't emphasise this enough. While stuff like diabetes and asthama and chronic with no cure, I don't know if their treatment costs are generally anywhere near as high as autism. Even from first principles, it seems likely. And if we look at some of the costs quoted [8] and the earlier links even if these are partially headline figures some from activist sources, the cost definitely seems higher [9]. There are obviously some conditions, e.g. HIV infection or a variety of non infectious conditions with as high or higher costs but it does illustrate that comparing them to stuff like asthma or diabetes doesn't really work even though they are chronic with no cure.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana and the end of the world[edit]

In Buddhism, nirvana is literally a state of "extinction". The goal, to the extent which I understand it (which is to say, not at all) is to prevent the reunion of the skandhas and free people from the cycle of death and rebirth (samsara).

However, does this mean that Buddhism would teach people to approve of the end of all life on Earth, for example by a runaway greenhouse effect, and would oppose the seeding of life on other planets? Or do I badly misunderstand the doctrine? Wnt (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me state I'm no expert on Buddhist philosophy. It's also important to mention that Buddhism is far from a singular philosophy, especially when getting to the nitty-gritty of things like the true nature of enlightenment. Different sects/schools of Buddhism will likely have different outlooks on things. That said, in traditional Buddhist cosmology, life is not limited to Earth. There are other realms of existence where you'll end up if you're unable/unworthy to end up reincarnated on Earth. Obliterating all life on Earth will not stop the cycle of rebirth, it will simply limit what you can be reborn as. (And there are certain schools of Buddhism which maintain that being reborn as a human has advantages in reaching nirvana - being born "higher" or "lower" makes it harder to end the cycle of rebirth. See Samsara (Buddhism)#Realms of existence for an overview.) Another point is that attachment/craving is seen as the source of suffering and the reason for rebirth. Ironically, being monomegalomanical enough to seek the extinction of all life is the kind of attachment that would make it exceedingly difficult for you to reach nirvana. It would also violate the Five Precepts, the first of which is to avoid taking life. -- 71.35.115.214 (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I was thinking these were "afterlife" possibilities, but they're presented here as being just sort of parallel dimensions - so even if you don't ever come back as a human or animal, Buddhism would still expect you to keep bouncing around among the hells and god realms? To be clear, I understand the religion opposes killing - I was wondering more if they would see it as unethical to spread life to other planets, because it would lead to billions of years of suffering of sentient beings. Wnt (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I come out of Zen, where consciousness is viewed as the problem, and instantiation (individual bodies) isn't really important. Most life isn't experiencing the problem of consciousness that humans do. There's no way to quantify (and quantification is impossible) of the amount of suffering. There's no point to stopping the outward form of the reproduction of life, that isn't where the problems of suffering are. Bringing a potential human being into the world isn't increasing suffering. Wu Chêng-ên's Monkey is quite good on this: suffering is an apparent fact before the mind, the body, sentimentality, the imagination, the will, etc... it appear from "desire," not from bringing babies into the world. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]