Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 April 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< April 24 << Mar | April | May >> April 26 >
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.


April 25[edit]

The Yemen/al Qaida lava lamp[edit]

I was nonplussed by the locations in Drone strikes in Yemen, so I went back and started adding maps of where al Qaida controlled. I now have three in there, none of which look like the others outside of Houthi territory. I am not sure whether reports of who controls where are just random/unrelated to reality to start, or whether there really are meaningful zones of control that just keep moving. But to address this - is there anything close to a time lapse video of who controlled where in Yemen from 2010 to the present? Wnt (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What any group claims to occupy, and what its opponents admit that it occupies, is likely to be highly contradictory. What the US spy satellites and drones indicate about actual territorial control will be heavily classified. I fear that anything you find about the situation has a strong chance of being both incorrect, and out of date by the time it is released. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you might find that some towns are in firm control by one faction, others are currently in dispute, and open areas are no-mans-lands. Some of those areas in dispute may even be in control of one faction by day and another by night. StuRat (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All this may be true, yet Wikipedians have been drawing these maps and keeping them in our article on Yemen for many years now. My feeling is that some single authority, culling public news reports and keeping a consistent standard, can come up with something resembling a video of the turnovers. Hell, the revision history of some of our figures almost does that, aside from the constant edit warring that is. (I've never seen files get that many back and forth revisions, so what you say is not entirely wrong...) Wnt (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could actually ask the CIA if they have any relevant unclassified information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush; War on Terror; NSA; Homeland Security; Government surveillance[edit]

Thread retitled from "Please recommend good, mainstream books on the George W. Bush presidency, the "War on Terror," and the rise of the national security/surveillance state.".
I am revising the heading of this section from Please recommend good, mainstream books on the George W. Bush presidency, the "War on Terror," and the rise of the national security/surveillance state. to George W. Bush; War on Terror; NSA, in harmony with WP:TPOC (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, an eager student asking. I've been kinda busy between 2001 and 2012 or so and really need to catch up on those topics. What books would you recommend? I've already read Jane Mayer's The Dark Side (2008) and also The Deep State (2016), by Mike Lofgren. Thanks. Zombiesturm (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can refer you to these categories, but I am making no recommendations.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special Drawing Rights (SDR) Exchange Rate[edit]

Question Remark
According http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2015/pr15543.htm from 01.10.2016 SDR Basket will be:
  • U.S. dollar 41.73 percent
  • Euro 30.93 percent
  • Chinese renminbi 10.92 percent
  • Japanese yen 8.33 percent
  • Pound sterling 8.09 percent

But how IMF will calculate amounts?

We have 5 equations in 6 unknowns: 

A usd  * (usd-usd   EXCHANGE RATE)/(XDR-usd EXCHANGE RATE)=(usd   WEIGHT);
B euro * (euro-usd  EXCHANGE RATE)/(XDR-usd EXCHANGE RATE)=(euro  WEIGHT);
C yuan * (yuan-usd  EXCHANGE RATE)/(XDR-usd EXCHANGE RATE)=(yuan  WEIGHT);
D yen  * (yen-usd   EXCHANGE RATE)/(XDR-usd EXCHANGE RATE)=(yen   WEIGHT);
E pound* (pound-usd EXCHANGE RATE)/(XDR-usd EXCHANGE RATE)=(pound WEIGHT).

A, B, C, D, E, (XDR-usd EXCHANGE RATE) are unknown.

...

37.53.235.112 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your equations at all. Why are you subtracting exchange rates ? You multiply or divide by exchange rates, never adding or subtracting them. Why don't you explain the 2nd equation in words ? And what is XDR ? StuRat (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing pound-usd exchange rate should be read as "pound to USD exchange rate" and XDR is a currency code for special drawing rights. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Remark
Absolutely right. E.g. on 25.04.2016 we have next weights (http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2010/pr10434.htm): 
(euro  WEIGHT) = 0.374 
(yen   WEIGHT) = 0.094 
(pound WEIGHT)= 0.113 
(usd   WEIGHT)= 0.419

Google gives next "to-usd" EXCHANGE RATEs: 

1 euro          = 1.1270   US dollars
1 Japanese yen  = 0.009016 US dollars
1 British pound = 1.4493   US dollars
1 U.S. dollar   = 1        US dollars

Further IMF's calculations are next :

1. Somehow determine amounts (https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bl/rr15.htm): 

Euro           0.423
Japanese yen  12.1
Pound sterling 0.111
U.S. dollar    0.660

2. Convert amounts to dollars and add them(https://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/data/rms_sdrv.aspx): 

( 0.423 * 1.1270  )=0.476721 
(12.1   * 0.009016)=0.1090936 
( 0.111 * 1.4493  )=0.1608723 
( 0.660 * 1       )=0.66

0.476721 + 0.1090936 + 0.1608723 + 0.66 = 1.4067

3. 1.4067 is the XDR-to-usd EXCHANGE RATE. We can check that by dividing by 1.4067 and we should get weights: 

0.33889631 + 0.077553576 + 0.114362549 + 0.469187564 = 1

But how present-day amounts were calculated?? Actually it's enough only one amount (e.g. dollar), others can be derived from weights (system of equations becomes determined). But even this one amount must be somehow achieved.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/tre/sdr/sdrbasket.htm

"1 Currency amounts are based on average exchange rates for a period from October 1 to December 30, 2010."

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.HTM#P13_4395 "These weights will be used to determine the amounts of each of the five currencies to be included in the new SDR valuation basket that will take effect on October 1, 2016."

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2015/pr15543.htm "In accordance with the adopted formula, the following weights will be used to determine the amounts of each of the five currencies in the new SDR basket that will take effect on October 1, 2016:"

37.53.235.112 (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the pope misbehaves, then who is in charge of his job?[edit]

If a pope misbehaves, then who is in charge of his job and can terminate his office? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one. There is no mechanism for forcibly removing a sitting pope from office. Only a handful (most recently Pope Benedict XVI) have ever abdicated, and it's not been for "misbehavior". This is covered by Papal resignation, which talks about the mechanisms by which a pope can resign or abdicate. There have been, much earlier in the church's history, a few popes who were forcibly deposed, but there is not a formal legal method to do so currently. --Jayron32 16:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Church would theoretically depose him with an internal coup. Zombiesturm (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A [citation needed] on that last suggestion. Alansplodge (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. They can't just "sack" him, and they can't just change their minds about his original election and hold a conclave to elect a successor. The holding of a conclave while there's no papal vacancy would have no canonical validity, imo. I suppose they could force him to abdicate, but they'd have to make it appear as if he chose that route himself without duress, and there'd be a great deal of scrutiny of his documents and statements. Even so, I wouldn't bet that such an abdication would be canonically valid either, so they'd just be opening themselves up to the possibility of his later claiming to have been forced to abdicate and now renouncing that abdication and resuming the papacy, which would probably mean a rival succession. It would be worse than what happened in the Middle Ages, where there were a series of rival popes, and even at one stage three popes all claiming to be the only true pope. It would be worse than WW3 - it may even precipitate WW3 - and would be far more trouble than it was worth. Unless they held him captive in solitary confinement under some pretence that he had retired to spend his remaining years in unceasing prayer and would never make any more public statements or appearances. All terribly irregular, you understand. And rather hard to pull off. But maybe good fodder for a Morris West novel. Wait, he's dead ... He did write The Clowns of God, which was about a pope who abdicated to live a life of seclusion in a never-ending "dark night of the soul". I did read it, but don't remember anything about a forced resignation. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there were something obviously terribly wrong with the Pope, such as dementia or psychosis, or extreme illness such as a debilitating stroke, it seems reasonable to expect that the College of Cardinals would figure out a way of dealing with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there were something such as that, what they would do is "nothing until he died". The Vatican bureaucracy is peculiar, but otherwise still a modern bureaucracy, and it chugs along doing work with or without (mostly without) direct daily input from the Pope. If the Pope were incapacitated, it still keeps working just fine. The notion that the Pope must be involved in every major and minor process and decision of an organization which serves several hundred million people is just silly. Like any bureaucracy, the role of the chief executive is important in shaping overall direction and philosophy of the organization, but the day-to-day operation and the minutiae of running the organization is diffused through a massive bureaucracy. You can see how massive such a bureaucracy is by reading the article Roman Curia, which only covers the top (executive) layer of it. An instructive recent example of the church keeping working through an incapacitated pope would be the last years of John Paul II, his health had been declining for the last 3-4 years of his Papacy, and he gradually withdrew from most of his administrative duties, the last two months of his papacy he was essentially incapacitated. The church kept working. --Jayron32 14:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they had to. Like if the Pope went on live TV and announced he was nominating Secretariat for sainthood. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Secretariat won the Triple Crown, setting a record that still stands in all 3 races, therefore he has 3 miracles under his belt, so what's the problem ? :-) StuRat (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Well, that's a good point. After Big Red won the Belmont, Chic Anderson called him a "miracle horse" - but was the horse Catholic? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I doubt if he was Jewish, because what mohel would be willing to perform a bris on a horse ? StuRat (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
(ec) Hey Jack, I can't imagine you are serious about suggesting that nations would start a war about who is the pope today? All the great powers are secular or not catholic and could/would not get involved in the argument. OK, maybe some African nations would, but I can't see how that would be worse that WW3. In the west, it would just be a twitter war and some people arguing in court about who owns which piece of RCC land. In South America and in the Philippines, there would be some clashes within the populations, but there are already more than 16% of the population who disagree that the pope is they spiritual leader, and they don't get killed for it. --Lgriot (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me, not being serious? How little you know me.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility. Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notably, neither of those say the Pope is incapable of misbehaving in any form. The first merely designates the Pope as an absolute monarch over the Catholic Church, the second only indicates that the Pope is adjudged to be absolutely correct in his interpretation of doctrinal or theological issues and not that he doesn't misbehave. So neither is really relevant to answering the question at hand. --Jayron32 14:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't it inevitable that a Pope will get mentally ill one of these millennia and progress to the "God is a walrus, worship Satan!" level? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
God, though He/She didn't get around to doing anything about Pope Alexander VI (that we know of). Clarityfiend (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes they are allegedly murdered: List of murdered popes#Chronological list of popes who are alleged to have been murdered. Edison (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One option is to have a Protestant Reformation, or otherwise split from the Catholic Church, in which case your nation could then form it's own church and appoint it's own replacement, if any, such as the later Archbishop of Canterbury of the Anglican Church. And, prior to the unification of Italy, if the Pope pissed off his neighbors too badly he might have been the victim of military conquest by a coalition large enough to take out the papal army. What they would do with him and if they would replace him would have been anyone's guess. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Old Catholic Church and Sedevacantism for some less radical alternatives. Tevildo (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Heart attack" HighInBC 00:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point Island[edit]

Is there a place called Point Island in or near Shanghai? Thanks! --2.37.228.109 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It gets mentioned in various places:
  • "After 1932 the Nanjing government planned to extend its control over the Shanghai fish market by setting up a central fish market as an 'official-merchant joint enterprise.' Work was commenced at Point Island in 1934 and completed in May 1936."[1]
  • "After Dolzhikov recovered, Pertsovskii ... then ordered him once again to lead a team of saboteurs in civilian dress to destroy Japanese pontoons near the [sic] Point Island."[2]
  • "Item Three quonset huts in a row at one of the UNRRA-CNRRA project sites at Point Island, Shanghai, provide badly-needed office space"[3] Clarityfiend (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I found "Point Island in the Whangpo River (see Huangpu River) a few miles downriver from the center of Shanghai" in Lucky Me: Engaging a World of Opportunities and Challenges by David C. Cole. Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a listing for Point Island, with latitude and longitude. That should help you find it. --Jayron32 18:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based upon that information, and a few other sources, I think Point Island is today Shanghai Hongqiao International Airport. Looking on the map, this is not an island but currently inland a bit from the mouth of the Yangtze River, though during WWII, this may have been an island. --Jayron32 18:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zoom in on any map of Shanghai and the whole place is criss-crossed by rivers and canals - just about everywhere is an island. Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hongqiao Airport was definitely not an island at that time! It's also on the opposite side of the city from the mouth of the Yangtze. Jayron32, if your map is showing it as near the mouth of the Yangtze, you have probably fallen prey to China's infamous GPS shifting. Also, Kiang Wan, Lunghwa etc are all townships in Shanghai and not the same place.
Going by the clue that Point Island was the location of the Shanghai fish market in the 1930s, I think it's 定海島, Dinghai Island, now called 复兴岛, Fuxing Island, which was formerly a headland on a bend of the river that was artificially dredged into an island in 1927, so "Point Island" would be an apt English name. It is served by Fuxing Island Station on the Metro. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The deal is, several sources list Point Island as being locate at "Hung Jao" and the photo, it's noted by the "HJ" abbreviation, which could be Hung Jao. I'm pretty sure that in the 1940s, Wade-Giles was the common transliteration system, and under the more modern Pinyin system Hung Jao would be Hongqiao, I think Admittedly, my chinese is a bit rusty (as in nonexistent) so I will defer to you on this. I will note that Point Island was an airfield, and so it also makes sense to be an airport today. --Jayron32 12:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32, I also noted the references to "Hung Jau", but "Hongqiao" in Wade-Giles would be "Hung-Ch'iao". Not sure what "Hung Jau" was meant to be, but as I said (not very clearly I realise) the source linked to above that lists Point Island alongside "Hung Jau" and other townships, which are all not in the same place. And Hongqiao is on the opposite of town from the river.
As to the photo, the caption says "the inauguration of the HJ-Heimes at Point Island". Given the Swastikas "HJ-Heimes" almost certainly means "Hitler Youth Homes", rather than "Hung Jau", whatever that is. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Very good. Thanks for clarifying. --Jayron32 13:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of China maps, a (reversed) swastika is a temple.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DOR (HK), look at the image. It's not a map, it's a photo. And in case this is your second thought - that's clearly a Nazi Swastika flag, not a Buddhist Red Swastika Society flag. And they are clearly Germans in the photo, not Buddhist monks. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This [4] wartime news report locates "Point Island" somewhere "about six miles southeast of Woosung" [i.e. Wusong, the area right at the mouth of the Huangpo river]. That might fit in well with PalaceGuard's suggestion that it's present-day Fuxing Island. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here [5] is another ref that equates "Point Island" with "Dinghai", "in the Yangshupu district". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fuxing Island. Is that anywhere near East Intercourse Island? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_April_25&oldid=1138608903"