Humanities desk
< September 9	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 11 >

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 10

Supreme Court at Obama's jobs speech?

Hello. I didn't have the chance to watch Obama's speech yesterday. Did the Supreme Court justices attend the joint session of Congress, similar to what they do during a State of the Union? If not, was it because their attendance would have violated their neutrality? Ragettho (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The State of the Union address is an official event mandated by the Constitution. The speech yesterday was just the prez going up on the Hill to talk to the folks there. I don't see why the SC would have attended; I don't know for a fact though. Looie496 (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court doesn't drop everything to go attend joint sessions of Congress. They are supposed to be apart and uninvolved in legislation, so nonattendance seems appropriate. Traditionally, the Supreme Court has been attending the State of the Union addresses, though this blog post says even Roberts is not sure why. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PIGS (economics)

To keep within the monetary union guidelines, the government of Greece (like many other governments in the Eurozone) had misreported the country's official economic statistics. In the beginning of 2010, it was discovered that Greece had paid Goldman Sachs and other banks hundreds of millions of dollars in fees since 2001 for arranging transactions that hid the actual level of borrowing.

Why?

Whether or not a member of the Eurozone, Greece and many other liars have already been members of the European Union. What are the political benefits of entering the monetary union?

If you're a member state of the EU. You are eligible to enjoy some pork barrel politics. They distribute aerospace contracts around the EU so every country has a piece of it. They build Airbus parts everywhere around Europe (many contracts go to the U.S. and Asian manufacturers as well but they are less likely be pork barrel). It is not unlike the U.S. where each Congress member brings a piece of defense contract home so people in some poor states get nice jobs building space rocket parts. This is quite natural for any country to distribute their money and jobs among its states, provinces or members. I don't think it's a bad idea if corruption is still under control.

Then what are the political benefits for joining the Eurozone? Certainly Robert Mundell can give us a great lecture on economical reasons. But these questions are answered by politicians. And they even hired Goldman Sachs to tell lies to join the Eurozone. So why? -- Toytoy (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking strictly non-economically, there was a degree of global prestige that came with joining. Since there were economic requirements that had to be met, in addition to matching the ERM, a joining country could project an image of stability and financial soundness. But of course even this results in economic benefit as investment would ideally increase. From a practical everyday perspective, being able to spend the same money almost anywhere in Europe is mighty handy, which in turn promotes cross-border economic activity... oh wait, there's the economics again... Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" Greece and many other liars have already been members ": I don't know what you mean by "other liars." AFAIK, only Greece was accused of lying. Although other countries (like Germany) were possibly looking away when Greece was cooking the books, I wouldn't call that lying. Quest09 (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "many other governments in the Eurozone" statement because it's just wrong since only Greece did it. --Belchman (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that you removed anything. The question still says that many European governments lied to join the euro. Is that what you mean? Quest09 (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I have removed that from the article, not from the question, you idiot... --Belchman (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I think the creation of Eurozone was taken very politically by the top dogs. Germany certainly would like more countries to join. The U.K. did not join the Eurozone. It's a pity. If other major European countries such as France or Italy did not join, the Eurozone would look like a "Grand Deutsch Mark Playground". Even though Greece is not a major European power, their adoption of Euro would still make everything look better. After all, it's always difficult to ask a sovereign state to give up any of its power. If I were a king of whatever kingdom, I certainly would like to have my own laws and coins. If I give up my right to issue my own country's currency, these top dogs would be happy. -- Toytoy (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Flammarion's book on numerology, the Pythagorean

Hello! Camille Flammarion book search, where he studied the numerology of the Pythagoreans. More precisely this need confirmation of this fact (allegedly because of his books): 27 from the Pythagoreans meant a symbol of the world soul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Странник27 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what question you are asking - your post is actually a series of statements, though you seem to be saying that some fact stated somewhere (in a Wikipedia article?) needs confirmation. Please rewrite your post with a clear question, and if it concerns the content of a Wikipedia article, indicate which one. This will make it easier for us to help. {The poster formerly known as 87,81.230.195} 90.197.66.202 (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen from time to time, the Pythagoreans devoted most of their mystical speculations to the numbers 1 to 10, but 27 is 3³, if that means anything... AnonMoos (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my understanding of the question: the OP wants to know whether anybody can point to a passage in a book by Camille Flammarion that states that 27, to the Pythagoreans, symbolized the "world soul". Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book Astronomical myths: based on Flammarion's "History of the heavens" is derived from an earlier book by Flammarion written in French -- I can't figure out its French title. It states on pages 166-167:

...the last becomes 27 times the original number, and in the school of Pythagoras this 27 had a mystic signification, and was considered as the perfect number. The reason for considering 27 a perfect number was curious. It is the sum of the first linear, square, and cubic numbers added to unity. First there is 1, which represents the point, then 2 and 3, the first linear numbers, even and uneven, then 4 and 9, the first square or surface numbers, even and uneven, and the last 8 and 27, the first solid or cubic numbers, even and uneven, and 27 is the sum of all the former. Whence, taking the number 27 as the symbol of the universe, and the numbers which compose it as the elements, it appeared right that the soul of the universe should be composed of the same elements.

Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book is in electronic form (Astronomical myths: based on Flammarion's "History of the heavens")? Yes, I am looking for an authoritative source that says the number 27 stands for the Pythagoreans the world soul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Странник27 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, click on the book title in my answer above. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this book, though, it was actually Plato, in his dialogue Timaeus, who put forward the idea of 27 representing the world soul. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first book will not open.

Interesting. Are you in Russia? I wonder if Google Books is disabled in Russia for some reason. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OPs response is unclear to me. It could simply be access to the book itself is not allowed/disabled in Russia for copyright reasons, I believe the availability of some books does vary from country to country. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there is mention of the number 27 in numerology?

Mychal Judge: name

Hi, why wasn't Fr. Mychal Judge called Fallon Judge? [1] (This is not the place to debate about alleged inside jobs and aliens in Area 51.) --Usquam (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything on the site you linked to from the talk page that mentions "Fallon Michael". I'm not saying he didn't use that name, just that the link you gave does not appear to support the claim. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] -> Mychal's Story -> Chronology -> Aug. 12, 1954 Is received into the Order of Friars Minor (Franciscan) at St. Bonaventure Monastery, Paterson, NJ, taking the name "Fallon Michael," a combination of his parents' names. --Dandelo (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judge took the religious name of ‘Fallon Michael’ when he took his first novice vows in 1955. According to Daly (p.30)*, he wanted just ‘Michael’ in honor of his late father, but there were already three Michaels in the province, and rules prohibited a fourth. However, later that same year, he requested and received permission to switch to ‘Michael Fallon’. He was known as Father ‘Michael F. Judge’ until 1986 when he changed the spelling to “Mychal” (p.81)*. *(Michael Daly: The Book of Mychal). I think this is all too much detail for the Wiki page, beyond the simple notation/addition I’ve made. BroJohnFCR (talk) 19:47, 10 September, 2011 (UTC)

According to Father Mychal Judge: an authentic American hero, p. 55 he switched ‘Fallon Michael’ to ‘Michael Fallon’ after the Second Vatican Council. --21:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.1.195.217 (talk)

Daly's Book of Mychal is more reliable than Ford's Authentic American Hero on some details, because Daly had more access to records than Ford. In this case, Daly published Judge's actual 1955 letter to his superior requesting the name switch from 'Fallon Michael' to 'Michael Fallon' (Daly: p.31). BroJohnFCR (talk) 00:04, 11 September, 2011 (UTC)

Free movement in the EU

Was ever any discussion about the theoretically possibility that Germans could emigrate en mass to Alsace-Loraine, North Schleswig, Pomerania, Prusia Silesia and other EU regions that were German in the past? Quest09 (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean immigrate. And since some of those regions already have a majority of ethnic German population —such as Alsace-Loraine—, I don't think that possibility is of special concern to other European countries. --Belchman (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emigrate seems fine as used in the original question. DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reference to previous migrations of Germans, en masse, e.g. the Volga Germans? Any citizen of the EU can move anywhere within the Union; that's the point of free migration of labour. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Poles were certainly worried about the prospect of the descendants of Germans expelled in 1945 resettling parts of western Poland, especially about the fact that Germans would also be able to buy farmland there. But they went ahead anyway with EU membership, presumably believing that the other advantages outweighed this sensitive issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.129.211 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the fact that many Poles moved west in pursuit of higher wages and better jobs, there were strong economic disincentives for Germans to move east. Lorraine is also economically depressed, due to the decline in heavy industry. Germany is more prosperous, with lower unemployment, than most of its neighbours. With Germany's strict bans on fascist or extreme nationalist organisations, there are no organisations agitating to reclaim the traditional German lands. I can't find figures, but a lot of Germans have emigrated to different parts of Europe, mostly to more attractive parts than Silesia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need stats. Perhaps this question should be asked on the Polish or German wikipedias.

Agreed, there is no point in Germans (or any other western Europeans) moving to Poland to do a normal job. But the economic gap between the two countries cuts both ways. For example if you wish to buy a farm there is every incentive to buy in eastern Europe. Sell 500 acres in Germany and buy a much larger farm in Poland with a cheap workforce. Its the same argument as moving your car factory to eastern Europe.

And if you happen to come from, say, a Prussian family which had held large estates in modern-day Poland or the Baltic states for centuries before losing them at the end of WW2, there may well be an added emotional element. It wouldnt be a question of wanting to "reclaim territory" in the political sense, just of wishing to reestablish your family in their traditional home region (albeit under Polish or Latvian rule) after an unfortunate interruption of two generations living in Bavaria (or wherever) due to politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.129.211 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, Poland does in fact have a law that bans Germans from buying land there. Thogh this would go strongly against the EU rule thar forbids discrimination against foreign EU citizens...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California property tax delinquent date

Historically, why was "December 10th" chosen as the delinquent date for paying 1st installment taxes?

Gcotterl (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just California! Search for "December 10" "property tax" and you'll see that, though the first hits are California, it's also places like Boone County MO, Colquitt County GA, Doña Anna County NM...Interesting question. What's magic about Dec. 10? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African allies and enemies of Muammar Gaddhafi

Which African leaders were allies of Muammar Gaddhafi and which African leaders were rivals of Muammar Gaddhafi? Also, which African leaders were allies to each other and which African leaders were rivals to each others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.116 (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second question is impossibly broad, but I'll attempt to narrow the first one by asking when? Gaddhafi, like many rulers, had more support at the beginning or in the middle of his time in office than at the end. Notice that the Arab League and African Union did not exactly jump to help him when he was faced with revolt a few months ago. Any African country whose government appears open to hosting him in exile might be considered sympathetic: Mali, for instance. (By "African leaders", I take it you mean heads of state or heads of government of other sovereign nations -- not Nelson Mandela or the mayor of Tripoli.) BrainyBabe (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth May

What I don't understand is that how come Elizabeth May did not participate in the debate of Election 2011 in Canada but she did in the previous debate despite she didn't gain a seat? Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.116 (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The interlinked articles, 2011 Canadian leaders debates#2011 debates, Elizabeth May#Excluded from leaders' debates & Canadian federal election, 2011#Leaders' debates discuss her exclusion in 2011. None of these mention the reason (other then noting those hosting the debates decided to exclude her because her party didn't have representation but I think that was fairly obvious), the last article links to [3] which does explain the reason. Evidentally you are mistaken, her party did have a seat before the 2008 election and this is confirmed by a check of Canadian federal election, 2008. The fact that she personally gained a seat in this election and no one from her party got a seat in the last election is somewhat moot since no one could know that for sure until the elections. (In case it isn't obvious, the fact that she personally didn't have a seat is also largely moot since she was representing her party which did, not her self.) P.S. Looking more closely I found from Green Party of Canada perhaps there is some confusion because the MP in 2008 only joined not long before the election and never actually sat in parliament as a Green MP. However as he had I presume joined the Green Party before the participants in leaders debate were decided it's resonable that his membership of the Green Party was considered by the organisers. Of course ultimately only those involved in making the decision can know the full rationale for their decision. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany vs Germany

Why is it that the English Wikipedia usually refers to Germany during the Nazi period as "Nazi Germany" instead of just "Germany"? The name of the country during the period obviously wasn't Nazi Germany but Germany and the German Wikipedia calls the country Germany too. Is it because of political correctness or is there another reason? --Belchman (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine its to clarify that it was the period when Germany was controlled by the Nazi party, in the same way you have names like Victorian and Elizabethan England--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it was a rather profound, important, and relatively brief period in the history of the country, and rather distinct from the periods just before and just after. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness rather sums it up.

ALR (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with PC, IMO. Nazi Germany is quite an accurate description (although nobody's suggesting it was the official name of the country). PC would be if we felt the need to give it some euphemistic name to mask the fact that it was run by Nazis. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the last time I saw this discussed the conclusion was that it should remain as is because some Germans might get offended. That's PC. Absolute nonsense IMNSHO.

ALR (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To more directly answer the original question, Wikipedia uses Nazi Germany because that is, according to the preponderance of reliable sources, the common name used in English for that time and place. Why the reliable sources use that term is another question entirely (one that I think is satisfactorily answered by Jac and Mr.98). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also known as Hitler's Germany. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most common name is Third Reich. Quest09 (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason it was not called Semitic Germany? --DeeperQA (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

??? --Mr.98 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean anti-semitic Germany?Quest09 (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the German Wikipedia doesn't call 'Nazi Germany' simply Germany, as presupposed by the OP, it calls it 'Deutsches Reich 1933 bis 1945.' Regarding the PC question, I'd say that is not possible to know if it's just not to disgust the Germans, however, Germans, for obvious reasons, don't want to be associated to the Third Reich. Quest09 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German history divides into clear periods, so it's useful to use a descriptive term like Imperial/Wilhelmine (1871ish-1918), Weimar (1918-1933), etc. So what to call the period 1933-45? With the confusion between the three Reichs, it seems natural to use something Hitler-related, and "nazi" is the common name for his NSDAP party in the west. Hitlerian/Hitlerish Germany would presumably be the alternative, but is longer and more awkward to say.

By comparison, French history is divided into a bewildering array of epochs, so in order to know what form of government was in power you refer to Revolutionary France, the First French Republic, Restoration France, Occupied France as well as even more incomprehensible and arbitrary terms like the French Fourth Republic; a tag like "nazi" would be very useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec politics ethnicity

Which ethnic groups support Parti Quebecois? Which ethnic groups support ADQ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.228.180 (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both are probably supported mainly by francophones. --Belchman (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

listing of jobs short of people

Where can I find a listing of jobs short of people? For instance in some places nurses are scare due to low wages or truck drivers are scarce due to high cost of diesel. Architects may be in short supply due to high cost of training, etc. --DeeperQA (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with a number of your questions, I think you're going to narrow down your range to get meaningful answers. I doubt anyone has compiled 'a listing of jobs short of people' for the whole world. I know Australia and New Zealand and I believe also the UK and Canada and probably a few other countries have lists of skills shortages or something of that sort for immigrations purposes (people who are able to fill those jobs which usually means trained and with several years of experience generally have a greater chance of qualifying for residency and/or companies don't need to make any attempts to hire someone locally before they look overseas). E.g. [4] [5] [6]. Government bodies (in NZ it's the Department of Labour) compile such info and probably also release it to career advisors at secondary and tertiary institutions and perhaps on their own in different forms but the immigration lists are probably one of the simpler ways to get a basic list (in fact [7] mentions it). Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of a less dynamic listing more suitable for statistical analysis. However, a bulletin board type listing which would consolidate word of mouth information might kill two birds with one stone. Around here we have drywall people showing up for no other reason than they have word a store is being remodeled. --DeeperQA (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume historic info is available, but you'll likely need to ask for it and perhaps analyse a bunch of documents yourself to gather the info. Theoretically bulletin boards could be useful for a few things, I doubt it's useful for many areas though and it's doubtful it'll stretch back much more then 5-10 years (at least not if you want resonably complete info) so will be fairly useless for statistical analysis. Governments themselves of course do their own analysis, e.g. [8] [9] Nil Einne (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what seems to be the problem now is that while political leaders are calling for new job creation there may be plenty of jobs which are going unfilled because employment bureaus are State agencies instead of national agencies for historical reasons. Today the average time for an employee to stay in the same location is only eight years and travel to a new job or location usually means travel to a new State. With a Federal employment agency in addition to States employment agencies many fewer new jobs may be needed if jobs and people are matched up similar to the way couples are matched up by computer. --DeeperQA (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your analysis is close to correct. It assumes that employment agencies run by the states are a major way that people get jobs in the US, whereas I think it is much more common for people to read the classified ads, trade papers, websites of companies of interest, websites about a general trade field that take job ads, and simple networking. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nearly no idea about situation in the US hence why I said you need to be more specific. Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the BLS page that probably has data you're looking for — see the methodology links for their operating assumptions about labor supply and frictional unemployment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]