Humanities desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 16[edit]

Getting a checking account[edit]

Another dumb question from a dumb blonde. If one writes out checks knowing that there is no money in their account to cover them, does that effect getting a future checking account from another bank in another state. Is there a way that when a bank opens a checking acccount for a person, that they check somehow on one's history of passing bad checks?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many banks use ChexSystems to share data about overdrafts, etc. RudolfRed (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly see Post-dated check. There is no en.wp.org policy, essay or redirect WP:NOTFINACIALADVISOR, though it could be argued that there should be. This query should be elsewhere. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Nitpick alert]. That should be "affect", not "effect". Right now, it sounds like a new account will be automatically created. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, at least, knowingly writing bad cheques is illegal, and I expect the same is true in the US (which I'm guessing is where you are, judging by the way you spell "check"). Therefore, I wouldn't worry as much about getting a bad credit score as I would getting thrown in jail... If you have issues involving bad cheques, I suggest you talk to a lawyer. --Tango (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Late-2000s financial crisis[edit]

In this article why it said the crisis ended in 2009? It's 2012 now and according to what i think it's getting worse. The unemployment rate keep increasing or stay the same. We haven't get out of the crisis yet, have we? If not i wonder why it said the crisis ended in 2009?Pendragon5 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is still debated if the recent events are in fact a seperate crisis. The events of the last year are caused by governments becoming unsolvable, rather than by banks becoming unsolvable. But I agree the 2 are linked. Historians will probably make it one crisis, but in 2009, the banks were back into a good state (although many of them had been bought up by various governments), which is why the financial world considered the crisis it to be over and anything after that is a different issue. Also the current economic recession is different from a financial crisis, see both articles to see why the financial crisis is considered to be finished, although it is clearly followed by an economic recession. --Lgriot (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the problems may well be unsolvable, but I think the governments and banks were at risk of becoming insolvent. Dbfirs 09:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this part of the fallout from the initial crisis, like for example the difference between the great depression and the stock market crash? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Te Feipī[edit]

When did the Battle of Te Feipī between Pōmare II and Opuhara occurr? Was it November 12 or November 15, 1815? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds about right --80.99.254.208 (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it November 12 or November 15?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't a very helpful answer was it? Every Google result shows 15 November but nearly all of them seem to have Wikipedia as their source. The usually reliable Google Books has no matches for "Battle of Te Feipī". I'll have another search later on, unless anyone else comes up; with something. Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This book Trading Nature: Tahitians, Europeans, and Ecological Exchange By Jennifer Newell has a fairly detailed account of the battle (which she renders as "Fe'ei Pi") on page 171 beginning: "On Sunday morning, 12 November 1815.... ". Also Tahiti Nui: Change and Survival in French Polynesia, 1767-1945 by Colin Walter Newbury has a snippet view: "Indeed, the battle of Fei pi, as it came to be known, is rich in interpretations and short on facts. We cannot even be sure of the date— given as 12 November in missionary sources, a Sunday in December in Moerenhout, and May 1815 at one ..." (page 40) is all I can read. Turning Tide: The Ebb and Flow of Hawaiian Nationality also a snippet says "It is interesting to note that in Tahiti King Pomare II, who for political reasons decided to support the Christians among his people, had won a resounding victory in the battle of the temple of Nari'i (or Fei-Pi) on November 12,1815..." (page 97). Tahiti: Memoirs of Arii Taimai by Henry Adams and Arʻii Taʻimaʻi says: "The destruction of Papara by the Tiarapu people in December, 1768, was the first of a long series of disasters and miseries which ended with the death of our granduncle Opuhara, at the battle of the Fei-pi, November 12, 1815" (page 71). So it looks as though there is some doubt, but most printed sources that I can find go with Sunday 12 November. This online calculator confirms that 12 Nov was indeed a Sunday. If the cause of the battle was a provocative act of Christian worship, then a Sunday sounds a likely day to do it! Alansplodge (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the French sources I can find online say November 12 too.--Cam (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little help from the historians[edit]

Can anyone tell me which of the various Herods it was who was friend to Emperor Claudius and his family before his became Emperor? I tried fixing it by date but there seem to have been a few Herods whose life spans would fit. Gurumaister (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herod Agrippa was friends with Claudius' nephew Caligula; both articles describe the pair as friends. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you Finlay. I have been watching (again) the old television series "I Claudius" by Graves. I'm not sure of how historically accurate it is but it has Herod as a family friend of Claudius' family for several years prior to both both Claudius and his nephew being emperors in their respective turns. Is that Herod Agrippa? Gurumaister (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not especially accurate (even its author didn't take it too seriously). I, Claudius (TV series) lists James Faulkner has Herod Agrippa (and lists none of the other Herods). This page shows his photo. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Finlay - that was really helpful. Gurumaister (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Expectations book - which one[edit]

OK, I'm thiking about reading Great Expectations. There appear to be about fifty different published versions of the book. They all probably read the same. However, I would like to read the one that everyone else generally reads. The version on Amazon that appears to have the most customer reviews is ISBN-10: 1613820763. Is that the most popular version of Great Expectations or is there one that those who typically read such books are more likely to read. TIA -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that the most widely read paperback version is probably the Penguin, but I have no source to back that up. Deor (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best reason to suspect the Penguin Classics is that those are usually what are used in high school and college courses. (At least in my experience they are more or less synonymous with "public domain classics used in school".) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon cross-index their user reviews, so that edition aggregates reviews from almost all of them. (I don't know why some seem to have more than others if they all draw from the same pool!) Simon & Brown are not a major publisher - in fact, I believe they may just be a digital-printing organisation turning out low-quality reprints - and that edition is nominally dated last month, so it's very unlikely it's the most widely read edition!

That said, almost every "classics" edition from virtually any publisher will probably use a standard edition; it's unlikely that there will be any major textual changes. There are two known variants (different endings) but it looks like most published editions use the "second" ending; you're unlikely to find the first unless you buy a scholarly edition, or one which explicitly refers to itself as a reprint of the original version. So, all in all, it doesn't really matter... Shimgray | talk | 22:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the "Cliffs Notes" version and see if you still want to tackle the complete book. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why spend money on the Cliffs Notes or even the actual book. Try some of the online versions such as Project Gutenberg's version or the Wikisource version. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of good reasons why you might prefer a dead-tree copy, CBW. For one, on Gutenberg you can't write marginalia or underline stuff or circle misspelt words or words you have to investigate - see [1]. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a decent ebook reader (hardware or software) you can do all those things - that isn't to say that there aren't reasons you might prefer a hard copy, but I don't think those are necessarily good ones. To the OP - in case you weren't aware, Dickens wrote two different endings to this novel. I don't know which ending most editions go with, but you might be interested in looking up the other ending after you have finished. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack even back when I was still using a m130 you could do all those things. If you had a dictionary installed then you could look up words from the book you were reading without exiting the program. For books in the PD it makes sense to check them out online before handing over cash. If you only have a desktop then it's much harder to read but with a laptop or ebook reader it makes sense to see if a certain book is going to hold your interest before paying. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's never the same experience as picking up a pen and writing on the pages of the book. That is, for those of us who still remember how to write. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack I would never deface a book by writing in it. And I hate it when I pick one up that some vandal has written in. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! Jack needs to make sure he burns any books he's vandalised when he doesn't want them anymore.... Nil Einne (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't work. The only books I ever throw out are those I haven't "vandalised". Anyway, what's all this talk of vandalism? It's my property, to do with as I please. It's not the exceedingly rare and fragile Zanzibar Polka-dot Butterfly. Or even a First Folio. I was raised in Cambridge Bay Weather's tradition of treating books like precious objects that must not be marked in any way, the pages must not be dog-eared or creased, the cover must be protected with another cover, and a coffee mug stain or a cigarette burn would be unmitigated disaster. I later abandoned that policy. Books are indeed precious, not because of the paper or the ink or the cover or the replacement cost of the thing, but because of the information or the ideas they contain, which are utterly impervious to external markings. Maintaining a book in its pristine original state is certainly a mark of respect, but to me it's respect for something transient; of far more moment is respect for the imperishable intellectual contents, and margin notes etc indicate there's been an engagement with those ideas in situ. Which is a very good thing. My LP record sleeves (which is where all the best information about composeres and their works comes from, obviously; none of this Wikipedia rubbish :) are replete with underlinings, circlements and question marks; and my music scores are full of markings, not all in my own hand, either. I wouldn't have it any other way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true you've never in your many years of life thrown away a book you've marked, that's fine for now but remember to designate in you will the requirement to burn all books you've defaced. Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, "Who am I to deprive my beneficiaries of owning Jackofoziana of immense historical value?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Clarityfiend Notes version [spoiler alert]:

Boy meets girl. Boy assumes he gets girl. Boy loses girl, whom he never had in the first place. Boy gets girl back (in one version). The end. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary. It beats having spent an entire freakin' semester on it in high school. Likewise with Moby-Dick: Man fights whale. Whale wins by a knockout. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading is hard. Let's go shopping! 31.185.35.82 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]