Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 March 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< March 25 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 27 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 26[edit]

Surnames derived from country names[edit]

I suspect we've had a similar question before, but what the hell.

Is there a list of surnames that are derived (or appear to be derived) from the names of countries or peoples? The ones I know are:

  • Brazil
  • Britain/Briton (and Britton, Brittan, Britten)
  • Cornish
  • Deutsch
  • England
  • English
  • Finn
  • France
  • French (also ffrench)
  • German (also Jermyn)
  • Holland
  • Ireland
  • Israel
  • Moravia
  • Saxon
  • Scotland
  • Scott
  • Wales
  • Welsh.

I'm sure there must be some more. Any ideas? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How about Walsh (surname), Norman (name), Kent (surname)? Astronaut (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
And then there's Great Uncle Bulgaria and the rest of The Wombles who were all named after places. And maybe Barrington Womble MBE - presumably named after the Wombles :-). Astronaut (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
There's Flanders too. Alansplodge (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Okity dokity, neighborino. StuRat (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Stupid Flanders. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Alamanni/Allemann, Albanese, Bayer, Böhmer, Bošnjak, Catalano, Greco, Horváth, Israels, Italiano, Ladino, Lombardo, Němec, Németh, Nimitz, Österreicher, Polaco, Poland, Pugliese/Puglisi, Romano, Schweizer/Schweitzer, Siciliano, Swede, Tedesco, Türkoğlu, Ungar ... (Ausländer :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 03:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I've known someone with "Spain" as a surname. --Jayron32 04:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
As you volunteer at the desks, was it Frances Lander Spain? See also Spain (surname). There seem to be a lot. I think we can easily triple the list we have so far. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
In Spain the surname España is more or less common. Japón (Japan in Spanish) is concentrated in the south, apparently it has its origins in an expedition of Japanese Christians who established in Spain in the 17th century. Francia, Portugal, Italia and Suecia also exist. You can look for other surnames here. Sabbut (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Couple more: Ashkenazi and Sarfati. De Vries, Fries, and Friis. Fleming and Flemming. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Also Arnautov, Arnautović, Arnaudov, Arnaudović. --Theurgist (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been interested in the number of non-Egyptians known as al-Masri (not sure that all the famous ones are listed there)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all very impressive. Clearly, there are many more than I realised. Thanks to all. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Angola and Congo are relatively common surnames amongst African descendants in some Latin American countries. In Sweden, you find a few people with the surname 'Svensk' (meaning 'Swedish'). --Soman (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You have Nepal as a surname in Nepal, such as former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal. Bharat is a common name in India. --Soman (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As AnonMoos pointed out above, it is very common in Arab world to have family names indicating the origin of the family, either the name of a town (al-Qudsi, Trablousi, etc.), region or country (such as 'Al-Libi', i.e. 'Libyan' or 'Al-Hindi', i.e. 'Indian'). Then you have the Saud family, but in their case he kingdom is named after them rather than the other way around. --Soman (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
We have a list of countries named after people. --Theurgist (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dench is an old English name for someone who was Danish. Snorgle (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Musical D-BeatD-beat Notation[edit]


What is the notation to the left of the eighth notes, and above the "DUPP"?Curb Chain (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an eighth (or quaver) rest. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't eight restseight restseighth rests look like this?Curb Chain (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those are eighth rests to the left of the eighth notes. They look slightly different from that because they are handwritten and placed lower on the staff. The "u-dupp" isn't very well aligned with the notation, but I'd guess the "u" is supposed to go with the eighth rest (and the hi-hat Xs) and the "dupp" with the eighth note bass drums (hmm actually, the second "u-du" is aligned differently from the first; it's unclear what the "u-dupp-u-du" is supposed to mean). Also, the rhythm in the soundfile on the D-beat page, [2], is different. It would be better notated with sixteenth note rests followed by dotted eight notes. Pfly (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Even if they are handwritten, shouldn't the dot be connected by a curve to the slant?Curb Chain (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks as if there's a horizontal connecting line that almost exactly coincides with the staff line. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yea, its right on the staff line. While the modern standard printed eighth rest has a curved line there's a lot of variation in written styles. That said, this example could be improved to various ways. In addition to making the eighth rests clearer, I'd write the bass drum notes with downward stems. Also there should be a quarter rest in the bass drum part at the end. Pfly (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Raining while burning at the stake[edit]

If it rained while a person was being burned at the stake did they stop burning the person and consider the person innocent because of God's grace? And has there ever been such an incident of this ever occurring in history?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No (at least not in England anyway). It just made the process a whole lot more drawn out and unpleasant. I'll look for a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Here we go: "As the execution approached, there was a fine supper the night before or a hearty breakfast on the Big Day. Weather forecasting—an issue of pressing concern for the English throughout the centuries—assumed huge importance, for a rainy day meant moist, green faggots (and a slower, more lingering death)." From a review of If God Spare My Life: William Tyndale, the English Bible and Thomas More - A Story of Martyrdom and Betrayal. by Brian Moynahan.
A windy day could also make things worse: "William Coberley’s death was prolonged and horrible; because of the wind, the fire did not reach his body, but only his left arm. After a while the arm was burned off, and he leaned over the fire, holding his right arm in the flames, hoping that they would reach his body." (From the source quoted above, but you can read John Foxe's even more lurid account of the same event here). Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What's this music?[edit]


Any clue what this music is? The image is at WP:FFD, where it's been suggested that it's a theme from something by Rachmaninoff, but we don't have a positive identification. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I used the musipedia search tool, and it appears to be from "piano concerto No. 2 in Cmi op. 18, 1st movement, 2nd theme" by Rachmaninoff. -- Lindert (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Those five bars can be heard at 02:38. [3] Oda Mari (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Jump to page 7, the number on the page on top left says 8 though, and see the bar on the right with "a tempo". Oda Mari (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Funding a Campaign in the United States pre Super PACs[edit]

I'm trying to figure out how much an individual could give to help a candidate in one way or another before super PACs came into effect. I've found varous conflicting sources from $30,000 to $117,000 and I would greatly appreciate some (sourced) clarity on this matter. --CGPGrey (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If your question is how much an individual can give to a candidate, then the emergence of super PACs does not affect the answer to your question since, technically, super PACs are supposed to be independent of a candidate's campaign. (I know that in fact there is coordination because the law against it is interpreted so loosely as to make it meaningless.) The limit to an individual's contribution to a specific campaign for federal office is $2,500 for the 2012 election cycle, during which super PACs have been legal. During the previous election cycle, per this source, the limit was $2,400. Before 2002, the limit was $1,000. The higher numbers you cite are limits on an individual's contributions to all campaign funds for a given election, including not only a specific candidate's campaign fund, but also to other candidates and to unspecified party funds, which may be spent on any candidate. As for candidates for state elections, different rules are set by each state. For limits in effect for state campaigns as of 2010, see this document. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but that source lists the very table that is mainly causing me confusion:

To each candidate1 To national party committee2 To state, district & local party committee2 To any other political committee2 Special Limits
Individual may give $2,500 $30,800[Note 1] $10,000[Note 2] $5,000 $117,000[Note 1] overall biennial limit;
National Party Committee may give $5,000 No limit $5,000 $43,100[Note 1] to Senate candidate per campaign[Note 3]
State, District and Local Party Committee may give $5,000[Note 2] No limit $5,000[Note 2] No limit
PAC (multicandidate)[Note 4] may give $5,000 $15,000 $5,000[Note 2] $5,000 No limit
PAC (not multicandidate)[Note 4] may give $2,500[Note 1] $30,800[Note 1] $10,000[Note 2] $5,000 No limit
Authorized Campaign Committee may give $2,000[Note 5] No limit No limit $5,000 No limit
  1. ^ a b c d e f g Cite error: The named reference ref3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference ref4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference ref5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ref6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference ref7 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
That $70,800 number at the top right makes it sound like individuals' contributions to PACs currently in 2012 are not unlimited as is often reported in the media. Also this paragraph from a 2011 congressional report is confusing but seems to agree with the above statement:

Despite these changes, it should be noted that despite very common reports in the media that these decisions constituted overturning limits on contributions to candidates, parties or PACs, "pre-existing limits on contributions to campaigns, parties, and PACs generally remain in effect. Despite Citizens United's implications for independent expenditures and electioneering communications, the ruling did not affect the prohibition on corporate and union treasury contributions in federal campaigns";

Any help much appreciated. --CGPGrey (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an American but my understanding has always been, supported by Political action committee#Super PAC backlash is that individuals (and most 'ordinary' organisations) can give unlimited amounts to an organisation who campaigns for or against candidates. There are some accepted restrictions on what these organisations can do (e.g. they are nominally supposed to be independent and can't coordinate with candidates and I think some other bodies like a political party or I think real PACs) and the the donations also have to be declared and non US donations are still restricted. While these are commonly called super PAC, the terminology is probably a bit confusing as PAC as I understand it were/are? a variety of specific organisation so named and specifically regulated by US law, whereas a super PAC is simply a media term for any organisation that they consider is set up to campaign. You don't have to be a 'super PAC' to campaign, individuals and organisations can direct campaigns themselves using their own funds provided they don't violate the small number of rules. (Obviously there may be other limits on what organisations can do, e.g. a public listed companies still has a duty to its shareholders.)
About the pre-super PAC thing, it seems there were limits on how much an individual can give to a PAC. I presume in theory there were some restrictions to stop a person setting up multiple PACs to funnel money to a candidate or a single PAC. Otherwise it seems like someone could set up 14 PACs each receiving $5000 from an individual and giving everything minus administration costs to a candidates PAC effectively meaning they gave close to $70k for the use of one candidate. Perhaps the complexity of cost was enough to discourage this, particularly given the ultimately small amount of money. (The other alternative is for each PAC to do their own campaign but you can generally do more with close to $70k then 14 organisations can do with $5k although if you have a lot of individuals wanting to donate a lot, perhaps having 14 PACs with their 'own' campaigns would work.)
Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

what is the annual donatinos for the tory, labout, lib dems?[edit]

what is the amount? could it be funded by taxpayers?

who gets the most? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See Political funding in the United Kingdom.
Parties are funded in 3 ways - from membership fees (including, in the case of the Labour party, from Trade Unions), donations, and from the public purse. Individual donations over £5,000 must be recorded by law. Parties in opposition receive money from taxpayers to cover administration costs - see Short Money and Cranborne Money.
You can find numbers for donations in 2009, 2010 and 2011 here, a more detailed breakdown of all funding since 2001 here and comprehensive information on the subject from the Electoral Commission here. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The current lead story on the BBC News website, here, has a graph at the bottom showing how much each major party got from each source in 2011 (2011 wasn't an election year, though - I imagine most of the money comes in during election years). --Tango (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
(E/C) To answer the last part of your question: In 2011 the Conservative and Unionist Party (the 'proper' name for the Tories) received the most money in donations, and the most money in total, whilst the Labour party received by far the most money from public funds (almost 90% of the total public money given to political parties). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe the only reason Labour got so much more than anyone else in public funds is because they are the largest party in opposition. Only opposition parties get public funds - the governing party/parties get(s) to use the civil service so they don't need public funds. See Short money, as linked above. --Tango (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You may be interested in this graph: which shows a cumulative total for the Tory Party over the last 6 years of over £150 million. Astounding. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not that astounding when you compare it with US elections. Take a look at Fundraising for the 2012 United States presidential election. Mitt Romney spend $20m (£12.5m) in just the fourth quarter of 2011, and that's just on the primaries. The £150m figure is the entire revenue of the Tory party (excluding public funds, by the look of it, but they aren't particularly substantial) and is for all spending, not just elections. If you look at the total budgets of US parties, including all the spending by individuals on election campaigns, they are several orders of magnitude larger than the entire UK political system combined. --Tango (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I should hope so, because the US is larger than the UK, in all fields, by several orders of magnitude! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)