Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 16

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

how many people were killed by UN forces since WWII?

With reference if possible. I am also interested in how many people had been killed by diffrent individual governments, both from police, army or in prison. Mostly interested in EU member nation-states and US, Canada and Australia. But also all other nation-states. The stuff I already found on democide seems to be how many people were killed within a nation-state, but not exactly which nation-state was responsible. I know that it is kind of not possible to say this clearly, but for example I would include people died in Chile during Pinochet's regime as killed by Chile and US and so on. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean by "UN forces," e.g. military forces under command of the United Nations on United Nations expeditions, or do you mean, "by UN member states." Because those are very different things. Also I'm not sure how clear your methodology is — including the US for all deaths perpetuated by the Chilean government under Pinochet makes some moral sense but at what point are you separating the responsibility from the actual people who do it and those who indirectly contribute? You can always extend causality back further and further in such situations; do the states who crafted the Treaty of Versailles get credit for the deaths at the hands of the Nazis? Does that make any statistical sense, even if it makes some vague moral/causal sense? --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I'm having trouble with the piano and mostly trying to play with my fingers. I can barely read sheet music and mange to play both clefs. I also become instantly confused when the music requires you to play chords like this, maybe high C-E-G in eighth notes then to high C-D-F-A, or D-F-G-Bb. My question is how could you possibly play those chords on the piano with proper fingering, having proper fingering, and how to identify notes on the treble clef and bass clef. --Writer Cartoonist (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Piano fingering depends quite a bit on context, but assuming no special circumstances I would finger the chords you mention like this:

(Where 1=thumb) 

C-E-G             C-D-F-A             D-F-G-Bb
1-3-5             1-2-3-5             1-2-3-5

Learning a new clef is difficult. There is no quick cure. I would do sight singing practice to work on it. Learn Solfege and sing the notes as you play; also buy an anthology of easy pieces and sight read a new one every day. You basically just need to work with the notes on the staff until your brain reads them as easily as written words. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It'll vary from player to player as well. I think that I would tend to play both the C-D-F-A chord with fingers 1-2-4-5, rather than the 1-2-3-5 that s.dedalus prefers. Either way, you'll have to play the keys at different places than you usually would for a plain major C chord; probably sliding some fingers further up the keys and/or curling the fingers under a little more. It also might be affected by what's played immediately before or after those chords. jeffjon (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll mention that it does take a lot of practice before one can sight-read music from two clefs with any degree of fluency. When I was learning, my teacher made me practise each hand by itself until I could play them well before trying to combine them. That way I knew more or less what was coming up in the piece without having to read it off the music each time. By that stage, the sheet music is for checking when you forget a note rather than for reading as you go. Remember that reading music is a little like reading another language, and it will be some time before you're able to read it fluently. For now you'll have to work through it more slowly and take your time. It's frustrating, that's for sure. All the best for your music. It's well worth the work. Steewi (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Metaphorical winter

Is the word “winter” ever used in the Bible to express isolation, doubt or grief? --S.dedalus (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You be the judge. There is a searchable Bible at BibleGateway. I looked for "winter" in the KJV, and there was a hit in the Song of Solomon that looked a bit unliteral. --Milkbreath (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that one but I think it’s talking about love as like coming out of a winter. Thanks for the great link though. I’ll see what else that brings up. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Blank

I've been trying to compile a list of US states that were once their own countries. So far, I have Hawaii, Texas, and Vermont. Anybody know of any others? Black Carrot (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's the California Republic, if you count that. Algebraist 06:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Some claim the Provisional Government of Oregon counts. Pfly (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a possibility that the State of Deseret might be considered by some to have been a semi-autonomous and semi-sovereign nation for a while. If not in fact, then in practice it was at any rate... -- Saukkomies 10:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A similar question was the basis of the "Final Jeopardy!" on Jeopardy! a couple of weeks ago. However, they specified that the states had to have been republics under the same name. The four answers they considered acceptable were Hawaii, Texas, Vermont, and California. Really this is one of those questions that depends on what you count as a country. For myself, I count only the first three. --Anonymous, 01:55 UTC, January 17, 2008.

Would you count the southern states which left the Union and then founded the Confederacy in 1861? At least South Carolina seceded already in 1860, so wasn't she her own country in some months before the Cenfederacy was created? I know the Union and the northern states never recognised them as sovereign, but in practice I think they were. E.G. (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

West Florida was its own country for a short while. It is however not a U.S. state now, parts of it rather belongs to three differnet present states. E.G. (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

MOU

Is there a difference between an MOU document and a terms of reference? Is there set criteria that must be in the document? Have tried googling for a template with no success.

I am a community development officer with a regional council. Officers from 3 other neighbouring Councils will be working together on a regional music project for young people. Which document is best?

Thank you Janine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.252.55 (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is merely for coordination purposes (that is, if it's a glorified memo) then it probably doesn't matter. If, however, there are legal concerns as to what sort of document is used and what criteria it contains, then consult a lawyer. Per the disclaimer at the top of this page, Wikipedia does not provide legal advice. — Lomn 14:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Similar sites to Amazon Mechanical Turk

I have been experimenting a little with Amazon Mechanical Turk and have earned a couple of dollars for 2 hours of my time. The system is fine: uncomplicated and stressless. However, the payment is terrible. That's why I would like to receive suggestions about similar sites for telecommuting that offer real payment.217.168.0.21 (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong but it sounds like classic market forces. If there are people willing to work for pennies (say, in poorer parts of the world, where pennies go further), then there's no way anybody is going to want to pay you more for the same work. You're better off getting in touch with a temp agency or something like that. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Mechanical Turk is so badly paid because the task are also so simple. But I am interested in the system (uncomplicated and stressfree, like stated above) applied to other kind of jobs.217.168.0.21 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's something called Rent-a-Coder for hiring programmers—I assume the tasks are more complex than those at the Mechanical Turk. However, my understanding is that the pay rates there are still abysmal by U.S. standards. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The code quality from Rent-a-Coder is also pretty abysmal. --Carnildo (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

humanity

What does a person be called who do not believe in different religion but believe in a god and humanity. 122.168.16.86 (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Deism? --S.dedalus (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your use of "different" makes no sense. Different than what? -- kainaw™ 13:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably "different" from any specific, organized religion. I think theism is probably the best and most general term. Deism might work, depending upon the questioner's specific interest, but Deism sets up a kind of deus otiosus situation in which God exists, in some form, but doesn't directly intervene in human affairs - so miracles and most supernatural events are denied. ◄Zahakiel► 14:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agnostic. Beekone (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agnostics in general do not believe in a god. Agnostic theists do, however. Algebraist 16:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Taking your question literally, I believe the answer is Pantheism. Arguably, pantheists do not believe in different religion, but rather believe that all religions are the same. Pantheists also believe in "god and humanity", because the two are one and the same. --M@rēino 16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the questioner wishes to know what to say when asked one's religion, if one does not wish to affiliate oneself with the familiar major religions and their complete dogma but still wants to affirm some shared values, such as belief in a Supreme Being and regard for one's fellow humans as children of that Being. For me, the solution is Humanism. (that would make such a person a Humanist. There are many flavors.) The Wiki page on Humanism is very informative. Quorumangelorum (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Basic JC-1 H2 Economics help needed

I just started taking JC-1 H2 Economics and some concepts confuse me. Could a friendly Wikipedian with Economics background help clarify my doubts?

According to my notes and lecturers, there are four types of resources: land, labour, capital (physical capital and human capital) and entrepreneurship. Isn't entrepreneurship a type of human capital? Isn't money a resource (and what type of resource is it)?

A free good is defined as a good that does not incur an opportunity cost because supply is plentiful relative to demand. Air is an example. So if demand for a free good increases greatly (e.g. due to air pollution), will the free good become an economic good?

Lastly, are issues affecting a single industry considered microeconomics or macroeconomics? I know microeconomics is about individual (people/business) decisions and macroeconomics is about the effects of these decisions on the economy as a whole. But my lecturer gave "Taiwan's local airlines hit hard by bullet train" as an example of microeconomics.

Thanks a lot!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.16 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Such classifications tend to be somewhat arbitrary and up to an author's whims. For example, petroleum and various other minerals may be important resources, but are not really "land" and even less any of the other given types. And where do fish fit? Aren't human capital and physical capital two different kinds of resources? And so on. I wouldn't worry too much if what you are being taught in Economics doesn't make sense; that comes with the territory. Just remain critical, and for the rest, tell them on exams what they want to hear.  --Lambiam 08:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Entrepreneurship is a term "older" than human capital. It helped completing the simple Neoclassical model of firms, since these are more than a bunch of capital and employees. Human capital was coined, if I'm correct, by Growth Theory, as simple physical capital accumulation proved insufficient to explain growth differences between countries. Why your teacher would think of separating entrepreneurship from other human capital may be related to the importance of the capitalist as the person who takes risks and combines the other production factors. But, as Lambian said above, don't worry too much about such subtleties

Money, or better, access to credit markets, could indeed be considered a factor. Monetary restrictions show from time to time in the analysis, but the basic models you are surely studying assume that you could contract (hire) as much capital as you need (in that sense money could be thought of as a part of the factor capital, as was the case of Adam Smith's analysis, for instance).

The OP is right in the analysis of free goods. A good is free as long as you could have as much as you want for free (or in more formal terms, a good is free if its demanded quantity is less than available supply for positive prices). If demand rises, or supply falls up to the point there's no more free "trade" of the good, then it will cease to be free. Good bye free air, welcome air bottlers.

Finally, the distinction between Micro and Macroeconomic topics is subtle. The whole economy could be considered in macro or microeconomic terms (see for instance, general equilibrium theory). So, your teacher may want to speak of the interrelations between sectors of the economy in Microeconomic terms (e. g. price adjustments after a competitor enters the market), or how a sector affects the economy in Macroeconomic terms (how much it contributes to GDP, how its price rises have affected the inflation rate, etc.). Pallida  Mors 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And as the OP is an anon, I will note that OP stands for Original Poster and refers to the person who asked the question :P Skittle (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Pallida, you rock! Now I understand about free goods. Maybe when I learn more, I will understand the classifications of resources better, but for now I will note that there are no fixed rules about that, right?

My worksheet has a few true/false statements and I have to explain my stand. But I don't understand this statement. "Positive statements are correct statements and normative statements are incorrect statements." Can you explain what it means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.8 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See Positive statement and Normative statement.  --Lambiam 09:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But what is meant by 'correct' and 'incorrect' in this case? Have the phrases been used in other questions that you were surer of? Skittle (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, Skittle. The intended meaning of correct/incorrect is, I guess, that of (scientifically) true/false, proved to be right/wrong, etc. Hence, economists struggle to show that statements of one of the two types are correct or incorrect, but could care less with propositions of the second type. (Not that they don't mean anything. It's just that arguments over their validity follow a very different path, and in the end, one must be prepared to accept different value judgements.) Pallida  Mors 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Lambiam, thanks for showing me that article! Now I understand about positive statements and normative statements. So the answer is false because a positive statement can be incorrect. After my lecture next week, I think I will have to ask a few more questions. --165.21.155.13 (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between change in demand and change in quantity demanded? Can someone explain the flow concept to me? All I know is that it has something to do with quantity demanded. My teacher asked us to find out more about the flow concept but Wikipedia does not have an article on it. Lastly, I don't understand the concept of the invisible hand. Can someone explain that also? Sorry to bother all of you.

Was the Roman conquest of Britain a major strategic error - in retrospect of course?

Given that Rome invaded in 43 AD (notwithstanding that trading links had been established during the preceding 100 years), and further given that it took another 100 years before the Antonine Wall was built (to defend southern Britain from the marauding and rebellious Scots tribes), and further given the wet and cold weather, the rebellious and surly nature of the Brits and Welsh and Scots, the warlike tribal systems of local "government" then prevalent in Britain, and the uncertainty of what material wealth might be available to the Roman conquerors, and lastly given that the Roman Empire's resources were stretched too far by their presence in Britain causing weaknesses in their Germanic, Gallic and Meditteranean Basin satellite states, eventually causing the Romans to withdraw from Britain; can it now be safely assumed that the benefit of invading Britain and staying as long as they did was vastly over-rated and in fact, cost Rome dearly in the long term with no easily identifiable "profit" accruing to them? Or was it worth all the fuss notwithstanding all the foregoing contra-indications?? Thanks, but please don't answer "yes" or "no".81.145.240.38 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe _{well it was too good an opportunity to pass up.} 86.21.74.40 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of Catullus 29 I would say that perhaps the perspective you take is too broad. In Catullus' view, long term strategy didn't enter into it, Caesar just needed some money to pay his boyfriend - "Was it not this, one and only general, that took you to the farthest island of the West? So that fucked dick of yours, should consume two or three hundred thousand dinarii?" 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It might of course be argued that Catullus' view of the matter was a bit too narrow instead of too broad. In retrospect, it's hard to tell - maybe the Romans might have prospered more by seeking to profit from trade with their neighbours and spending their resources on a really strong border defense instead of overstretching the empire with one conquest after the other, but such was not the Roman way of thinking, and the outcome of that scenario is doubtful at best. As regards the conquest of Britain, two things to keep in mind are that 1) Britain was a known exporter of tin (which was needed for making bronze), so it's not entirely true to say there was an uncertainty of what riches would lay ahead, and 2) the Celtic people on the Isles were cooperating with their relatives on the continent and Caesar was worried about a rebellion in Gaul being fed and supported from Britain. Whether the conquest was worth it in the end is hard to tell - we'd need lots of data on the actual cost of the occupation force and on the profits from trade and extortion - which, I'm afraid, is rather lacking in ancient sources (at least in the level of detail needed to take a serious stab at answering the question) -- Ferkelparade π 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My take on it is that Brittania supplied so much raw resources to the Roman Empire including the mines of tin, silver, and lead, that the benefit accrued from just those minerals alone would have justified the costs involved of invading the island and keeping it as part of the Empire. Of course Rome could get these same resources elsewhere - and it did - but that does not negate the fact that the benefits outweighed the costs of maintaining Brittania as part of the Roman Empire, in my opinion of course... -- Saukkomies 19:44 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember somewhere back in college that Britain was considered somewhat of a wheatbasket in the late empire (like Egypt had been throughout the late Republic and early Empire, and this was partly how Magnus Maximus (?) was able to declare himself emperor with Britain as his base of support and operations. Any truth to that? Or were the resources he relied on the mining from York and Wales? Steewi (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My trusty historical atlas suggests that Britain supplied tin, lead, wool, and even gold (from Wales apparently). Also, apparently, bears and wolfhounds were exported to Rome for use in "the arenas". Pfly (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

After thinking on this some more, I have come to the conclusion that the invasion of Brittain actually was not really so much for long term economic benefit as it was to gain political clout for the Emperor Claudius and his supporters. The notion of conquering a new land and bringing it into the Roman Empire was not really inspired by any larger strategic plan - it's not like Brittain was very strategically situated, as opposed say to the Levant or Asia Minor... But being able to score victories in Brittain gave a lot of popular support to Claudius, which was what really prompted the invasion in the first place. That, and the immediate economic benefits of accruing booty and slaves to bring back home. So if you look at it this way, the invasion of Brittain by Claudius' troops was immensely beneficial to him and his supporters, as it served to give him a lot of public support, which was always a very critical thing in Rome even under the Julian Emperors. -- Saukkomies 05:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What is a "good economy" defined by economists?

I don't know much about economics, that's why I ask this. The US pres. elections are also coming up, and the issue is being talked about more. For regular people, or those not familiar with economics, "good economy" I suspect means when things are affordable to them(cheaper food, lower gas prices, etc.) But what's a good national economy through an economist's perspective? What separates a bad economy from a good one?

And I have another question related to this. How does the stock market play in the economy being good or bad? I only know the basic idea of what a stock is: ownership of a company shared by people. I get that, but I don't get how that relates to the economy being in a good or bad state. I hear in the news about when stocks go down, the economy is going bad; but why?

I'd appreciate any answer, and please if you answer try to keep jargon at minimum! Thanks. 199.76.154.127 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• There's a lot of things that make an economy good or bad. For example, a lack environmental damage, an abundance of factors of production, and an efficient (or fair, depending on ideology) distribution of them, and good regulation may be part of a good economy. This is a bit of a broad answer, and necessarily so, because I'd probably need 300 pages to explain what a good economy is. What may help you more, though, is what economist think about whether an economy is "going" good or bad, because this is more easily explained, with some wikilinks for the jargon. When economists are generally positive about the economy, they look at a few things, among which are the following:
  • Consumers' purchasing power is increasing.
  • Stable prices (inflation is low).
  • Consumers are spending relatively more money than before on buying goods, as opposed to savings.
  • Production is increasing.
  • Imports are falling, exports are rising.

• On the relationship between stock markets and the "real" economy, that's somewhat harder to explain, and again, this is not 100% of it, just some examples. Forgive me if I'm explaining what you already know, but for clarity, the stock market is a place where shares of stock are sold and bought, at very high speeds, and very high volumes. Something to keep in mind is that most of the people who buy and sell shares do not really do so because they have any interest in the company itself. (There's some American/British confusion on "stocks" and "shares". Read Share (finance) - I write British) They usually do it because they can sell the shares later at a higher price, making profit at the transactions. Now, suppose I have some shares of a few different companies, and a rumour spreads that the day after tomorrow the whole city is going to be bombed by terrorists. This is obviously bad news for all the companies I have shares of, so I decide to sell the shares, but as no one wants to have them at high prices, I have to sell them for a really low price, so the market price of the share decreases. Then, five days pass, and no bombing. To get back to your question, here's the first part of the answer:

  The stock market is not a 100% accurate indicator of what happens with the economy. From the example above, stock markets can go down tremendously while nothing really changes in the "real" economy.

• There is certainly some relationship between the real economy and the stock market. To continue the example above, if I happened to be the CEO of a company in the city of the previous example, and I wanted to buy some extra hugely expensive machines. To do this, one of the things a company can do is to give out extra shares. So, the CEO goes to the stock market, and asks "who wants more pieces of this company" (part of it is already listed on the stock market), and returns to his office with a pile of cash. When the stock markets are really low, because of a rumour in this example, his pile of cash is considerably lower. The buyers at the stock market didn't want to pay as much for his company as they would've three days before, and they probably didn't pay as much for, say 10% of the company, as that 10% was really worth. Second answer:

  The stock market influences the real economy in all kinds of ways, and one of those is that companies cannot easily obtain capital when the stock markets are low. From the example above, the company couldn't buy an extra machine.

• Finally, keep in mind that the market for shares is not the only one out there. See Financial market. User:Krator (t c) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that, in simple terms, economists think of a good economy as one where "everyone is better off in economic terms", or, in other words, "everyone is earning more money", where "more" is measured in terms of what you can actually do with it.

The considerations that Krator mentioned are all used to decide whether everyone is better off. In terms of some key considerations, inflation needs to be low, otherwise your money is worth less tomorrow than it is today; growth is an important aspect, since "economic growth" means that there is more money in the economy overall; employment should be relatively high, which means most people are working and thus earning money; production, productivity etc obviously affect how much money is being generated; interest rates should be kept moderate - and this is related to inflation; the environment might also be a consideration: if you damage the environment, it will cost much more in future to fix it up, or you might lose a lot of natural resources, all of which will affect how well-off everyone in the economy is in the future.

Because the stock market is where people buy and sell chunks of (generally) the biggest companies in an economy, generally speaking when the economy is doing well, those biggest companies should be producing lots and earning lots, which means they are more valuable, and thus the stock market should go up. However, as Krator said, often many other factors make this relationship complicated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Stock prices are the prices investors are willing for stocks. If investors are wiling to pay a huge amount of money, it means they believe the company is going to earn high profits from which they expect to earn dividends. The average investor researches companies well before buying their stock and their decisions are usually rational. If the major companies are doing well then the general economy is likely doing well too.

Also, people buy stocks with the intention of earning dividends or selling the stock. If the stock price goes down, it means the company is doing poorly and they're not going to get dividends. It also means they won't profit from selling the stock. This would lower investors' income, and that's part of the economy. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Relation / Correction of Tanakh page with Ketuvim page

I apologize in advance if this is posted incorrectly or in the wrong place.

I was researching all of the "books" in the Tanakh and noticed that the beginning section of the main Tanakh page lists the common division of the Ketuvim differently than the main Ketuvim page.

As quoted from the main Tanakh page "They are sometimes also divided into such categories as the "wisdom books" of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs, the "poetry books" of Psalms, Lamentations and Song of Solomon, and the "historical books" of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles."
and

As quoted from the box on the main Ketuvim page "Three Poetic Books 1. Psalms 2. Proverbs 3. Job Five Megillot 4. Song of Songs 5. Ruth 6. Lamentations 7. Ecclesiastes 8. Esther Other Books 9. Daniel 10. Ezra-Nehemiah 11. Chronicles"

I am not familiar enough with this to be able to discern which is the correct breakdown. They may both, in fact, be correct. However, in the interest of avoiding confusion, it should either be stated specifically that alternate breakdowns are used or have them merged into one.

Thanks,

71.138.122.142 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Kristen Jennings

• I believe that the short answer is that when Tanakh refers to the books being divided into categories, it is just describing a way that some people may think about the books in Ketuvim, not what order the books appear in. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not referring to the order the books appear in. Their order in different versions of the Bible will vary consistently. I am specifically pointing out the way they are grouped into subcategories. --71.138.122.142 (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Kristen Jennings