Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 22

Second World War

Our article Phoney war relates that there was virtually no action until the spring of 1940. The winter of 1939/40 was the coldest since 1893/4. Was this the underlying cause of the inactivity? 94.195.147.35 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason for some idea which the article about it does not consider at all to be in any way relevant. Why should anyone be keen on escalating a war so soon after the first world war? Chamberlain for instance was keen on finding some peaceful agreed solution. Dmcq (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was certainly a factor but a) the campaign in Poland had shown up some weaknesses in the German forces, and much equipment had been lost or damaged,. Rectifying these issues took time in an economy not yet fully geared-up for war. b) The Allies, the UK and France, planned an offensive in the west in the spring of 1941 when they would have built up their forces somewhat. In the meantime, it was hoped that the British naval blockade would weaken the German economy. The Germans were good at finding ways round the blockade, chiefly through Scandinavia, hence the Norwegian Campaign of April 1940. Although there was considerable naval activity, see Battle of the River Plate, the RAF's large bomber arm limited themselves to dropping propaganda leaflets, for fear of provoking German retaliation against British cities. Alansplodge (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty clear: the French and the Germans spent eight months staring at each other from two massively fortified lines, the Maginot and Siegfried. World War I had ground down to a virtual stalemate in its day, and now they had deluxe trenches that had been built up for decades. So I doubt anybody was all that eager to blow the whistle and send their men into the kill zone... they might need them later. Then on May 10, you have two separate things happen: a) Churchill takes over from Chamberlain, and b) the Germans invade via Belgium. I don't know which prompted which, but after that there was no longer any diplomatic no-go zone keeping the armies apart away from the trenches. Wnt (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The resignation of Chamberlain and the appointment of Churchill are unconnected with the start of the Battle of France, the former lost the confidence of Parliament over the failure of the Norwegian Campaign. Nobody in the west knew about Case Yellow until the day it happened. The Siegfried Line was much less formidable than the Allies thought (propaganda photographs of the fortifications were actually taken in Czechoslovakia), but even so, they lacked the wherewithal for a full-scale offensive in 1940 and thought they could just bide their time.

For the Germans, Hitler had wanted to attack France on 25 October 1939, but it could not be organised in time. Various plans were considered by the German OKH (general staff) between October and January 1940 but on 10 January 1940, part of the plans fell into Allied hands (the Mechelen incident) requiring the whole thing to be re-planned. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems like a remarkable coincidence that Britain would switch to a hard-liner on the same day as the Germans attacked. I have to be suspicious that in some way, someone had to know something was up, even if they didn't want to admit they had foreknowledge of the coming attack to avoid recriminations. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, coincidence it is. Churchill was second choice after the moderate appeaser Lord Halifax had declined the job. Churchill was not everybody's favourite at that time, since he had been heavily involved in the Norwegian debacle, perhaps more than Chamberlain. According to Lord Beaverbrook; "Chamberlain wanted Halifax. Labour wanted Halifax. Sinclair wanted Halifax. The Lords wanted Halifax. The King wanted Halifax. And Halifax wanted Halifax." Only the last sentence was incorrect, however; Halifax did not want to become Prime Minister (from our article on Halifax). It's ammunition for the alternative history writers, since Halifax was advocating an armistice with Hitler a few weeks later. Alansplodge (talk)

While the north-western European winter is unsuited for offensive warfare (the western Allies got bogged down in 1944/45 and one of the many reasons why the German offensive in the Battle of the Bulge failed was the weather), a major contributor to the 'Phoney War' is that both the British and French needed time to prepare their militaries for war: they simply weren't in a condition to go on the offensive, as was demonstrated by the debacle in France and Belgium in May 1940. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Results of French legislative elections before 2002

I'm beginning a project to clean up and correct old French election articles and have been having some trouble locating results of old elections. Right now I'm attempting to locate results of the 1973 legislative election; data.gouv.fr has 473 out of 490 constituencies, with the source being the CDSP. These numbers also correspond to the totals on the france-politique archive (hobbyists). The National Assembly also has published results for the 1973 legislatives which differ from the above, but I can't find the original source it cites. What is more, neither the French nor English articles on the topic seem to cite sources for the numbers they use (inserted into their articles in 2006) – which differ from both of the previous. Any help locating complete results (by nuance, with seat numbers, etc.) would be greatly appreciated. Mélencron 12:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Literary device like a nested metaphor

I remember reading about a type of writing that is like a nested metaphor but I can't find what it was called. It was sort of absurd and there was an example on the Wikipedia page where the first layer was like: "her eyes were an ocean." Then the second layer might have been: "her eyes were an ocean, glittering sapphires of azure" then the third absurdist layer was like: "her eyes were an ocean, glittering sapphires of azure draped around the neck of a middle aged Manhattanite whose nicotine stained fingertips combed through her platinum blonde hair like the whiskers of a manatee delicately prodding the seafloor.

Maybe they weren't metaphors? Anyway I just remember that they kept going deeper to the point where it was effectively nonsense.

EDIT: Figured it out, it was a pataphor.

204.28.125.102 (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

StuRat (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

190 Personnel LLC

I'm looking for sources on the company "190 Personnel LLC". Benjamin (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not contact the owner? His name and address are listed on just about every business listing, such as this one [1]. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a reliable source, would it? Benjamin (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23

How well is Qatar preparing for invasion?

Today's list of demands in the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis is truly remarkable - things like allowing the Saudi Arabian bloc to censor all the country's media, control its foreign policy, and demand open-ended reparations. These seem like demands far outsized for any blockade, however serious, and more like a call for unconditional surrender.[2][3] Understandably enough the Qataris don't seem interested.[4]

So the question is, how does a country in this day and age prepare for an imminent invasion, when it has some hope for support from external powers? I mean, the obvious thing is to mobilize the army; I found one item about them abruptly pulling out 450 peacekeepers, presumably to have them ready elsewhere.[5] But the Saudi Arabian hegemons seem primarily known for systematically starving the Houthis, so is the Qatar government effectively stockpiling for a siege, caching large amounts of food as well as weapons and explosives in distributed locations? Are they arraying people with cameras on the border to establish the facts when an incident is claimed, recruiting or even drafting soldiers? Are there reviews of everything a modern regime would do to prepare? Is Qatar following it? Wnt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The main thing that Qatar will be doing is trying to make sure that its opponents do not discover what it is doing or planning to do - so any answer to this would be guesswork. Wymspen (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. Qatar could also want to publicly suggest that their enemies threatened actions will be fruitless / ineffective. For example, Qatar is proudly announcing new imports of food from both Iran and Turkey to replace food shipments loss from Saudi Arabia, et al. Dragons flight (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

What they are announcing may not necessarily be true either! If they did have a serious food crisis, they would not want to reveal that. Wymspen (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

An interesting aspect is that the entire military power that Qatar can summon is probably less than what the US has in their own country: the Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US air base outside of the USA. This base is used by 11,000 US troops and flights leave or land every every 10 minutes [6], so, military activity around it (it's on the path from Saudi Arabia to Doha) that was not supported by the US would seems unlikely. Basically either the US support Qatar and the Saudi will not dare to invade, just continue the blockade, or the US joins on the side of the Saudis, in which case Qatar does not stand a chance. But the US won't just let fighting happen around the base. IF the Qatari think they are in danger they could demand that the base be abandoned (major drawback for the US as it is heavily used for bombing ISIS), and then the US would have to breach Qatari sovereignty to keep the base. But that would become nasty, there is also Qatari military personnel inside the base [7], and they might fight to defend their country's sovereignty. --Lgriot (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

With Trump there are no guarantees of anything, but traditionally, the U.S. hasn't wanted to abuse its military bases that way. For example, the Bay of Pigs invasion happened without support from Guantanamo Bay (although apparently they weren't above giving the impression it could be otherwise, according to something in the article). The reason seems obvious: the U.S. doesn't want to lose all the other military bases by spooking every other country that has one. I would expect the U.S. to keep that base totally neutral, or perhaps evacuate it, since they don't ever seem to dare annoying the Saud regime and wouldn't attack Qatar either. Wnt (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

My bet is that Trump evacuates Al Udeid citing the current conflict as a security issue. That provides plausible cover for him to stay "neutral" even though his administration is likely more concerned by satisfying Saudi interests than Qatari. If the US leaves, a Saudi-led invasion could likely conquer Qatar in a matter of days and install a Saudi-friendly puppet government. Not long after, the US could reoccupy Al Udeid with Saudi support. Dragons flight (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Having read this, and thought about it, it seems that indeed US evacuation is the most likely scenario if some violent escalation happens. It would make the ISIS campaign temporarily more difficult though. --Lgriot (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

True but you can do more than just annouce something. For example, you can invite the world media to see things that you are doing. Of course it depends on how extreme a conspiracy you think there is. It's unlikely the world media is going to inspect every single plane even less so every single box. So you could sent empty planes or planes with empty boxes. Likewise and especially since Qatar despite the problems is far from North Korea (or even Saudi Arabia), while you may be able to lie about how much food reserves you have, it's difficult to hide it if you actually start to run out of food and it starts to affect people. Even despite the poor way they treat their migrant workers, it difficult to imagine they could start to to completely starve them and no one will notice let alone their citizens or expats. For military buildups, you can likewise invite observations etc. As cases like Comical Ali or even Donald Trump have shown, it's hard to hide forever that what you're saying is utter nonsense. Heck even for some of North Korea's more extreme claims (like when they were saying they successfully launched a satellite before they had). Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that mobilizing military forces is often seen as a preparation for an attack, so can itself cause an invasion. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

As the Dutch says, the soup is not eaten as hot as it is served: according to Western mainstream media, there is no danger of war against Qatar, but a symbolic agit-prop quarrel for getting Qatar to present its excuses for not condemning Iran. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as US military intervention, the US has it's hands full now in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc., and has no need to get involved in yet another war. StuRat (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting rumor is that Turkey mobilized army forces to lend Qatar hand, so the defensive power of Qatar may receive a force multiplier.. אילן שמעוני (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

With demands like that I would certainly go on a war footing. Do the Saudi Arabians really want to try conquering a city of a foreign country? Syria and Iraq have had enough trouble trying to win back their own cities, and there's lots of people trained in such type fighting around. It seems to me the Qataris bend over backwards to be friendly with everyone but I don't think that means they will embrace invaders with open arms! Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Saudis have 40 active duty military personnel for every 1 in the Qatari military. Like Kuwait during the first Gulf War, I suspect a Saudi-led coalition could overrun Qatar in a matter of days, unless perhaps if a larger foreign power intervenes on Qatar's behalf (Iran, Turkey, or the US, seem the most plausible options). Pacifying the country would be a different issue than occupying it, but perhaps the Saudis believe it is possible to replace the Emir and his government with one more favorable to Saudi Arabia but also acceptable to the Qatari public. The House of Thani, the ruling family, numbers in the thousands. It wouldn't be hard to imagine there are members of the ruling family that might be more preferable to the Saudis rather than the current Emir. For example, the current Emir's uncle is a political exile living in France, who was accused in 2011 of plotting a coup against the then current ruler. At the time the plotters apparently had some support within the public and the Qatari military, and the uncle's views align more closely to the Saudis. If the Saudis invade perhaps they will try to install him or someone like him as the leader of a new hardline government, and then mostly withdraw. Dragons flight (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

But keep in mind that the Saudis are currently fighting a war in Yemen, and also need to defend against potential incursions from ISIL, al Qaeda, etc. So, not the best time to pick fights with other states. StuRat (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Iran is an interesting example though. If Iran does effectively engage in large scale direct engagements against Saudi Arabia in Qatar, will this be enough to push the US off the fence and into directly supporting Saudia Arabia militarily? I suspect traditionally most commentators would say no but I'm not so sure if they'd be so certain now. And in particular whether the Saudis will think so. Nil Einne (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The country's small (160 x 90 km at its widest) and mostly flat (according to our article) with no permanent rivers or lakes, which would make it just about the most indefensible place imaginable. I'd venture to guess that if Saudi Arabia really wanted to invade, it wouldn't take more than a few days at most to overrun the entire place. A tank could drive the length of the whole country in a couple of hours, for Pete's sake. So I figure the Qatari contingency plan in the event of an invasion is how to get out of there as quickly as possible and live in luxurious exile. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd think enough land mines could make just about anyplace hard to invade. And the exile contingency plan seems to have a key flaw - the Saudi Arabians accuse top Qataris of facilitating "terrorism", and presumably can arrange to have various compliant countries like the U.S. round them up and confiscate their assets. And some of those assets, such as oil fields, can't be taken with them anyway. Mostly though, I'm thinking there are recent precedents in Iraq and Yemen for the idea that a few fighters really can just hold out for a long time. Wnt (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of charges and assets ... the Devil is currently learning how to ice skate! The very first criminal charges of the 2008 financial crisis to be levied against a bank have just been filed [8] ... and they were filed against Barclay's for making a deal with Qatar's sovereign wealth fund to avoid having to file for a taxpayer bailout which sounds like the kind of thing prosecutors would charge a banker with, if they ever charged a banker. Now how this affects Qatar's sovereign wealth - for example, if the transaction was illegal, do they still get repaid? - I have no idea at all. But the timing seems kind of suspicious for a miracle... Wnt (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Regional banks

Many banks in the US are not nation-wide, and on their application forms there's a "only for residents of X, Y, and Z state" restriction. What happens when someone signs up to one of these regional banks and later move to a different state? Do these banks just immediately close your account and mail you check? Or do they give you like 90 days or something in order for your to move your money out first? Or do they let you keep your account (due to a grandfather clause or something similar)? Scala Cats (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Banks having branches in more than one state (much less nationally) wasn't all that common in the U.S. before the 1980s, and there was no federal law allowing interstate banking before 1994, so nationwide banks are fairly recent. I would find it surprising if banks are often aggressive in closing out accounts because of an address change; that certainly wasn't the traditional practice for savings accounts... AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 24

Wiki article for *Karen Handel* - possible issue of "circular sourcing"

I believe I may have encountered some circular sourcing (where A is a source for B, B is a source for C, C is a source for A, and so on) or general dearth of information regarding a statement on Karen Handel's page. It states: "she served as deputy chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle's wife, Marilyn, where she worked to promote breast cancer awareness and research." The cited links all either (a) route to broken links, or (b) don't actually provide that information. When I tried to do my own research (ie googling), I get a lot of circular sourcing, with every newspaper article/media outlet regurgitating the same generalized information: that Handel worked for Marilyn Quayle. I can't find a direct source, nor can I find any additional information (when did she work for Marilyn? for how long? in what exact capacity? etc.) Given the recent election, I think it'd be great to find a better source and clarify things. I appreciate your help! UltravioletAlien (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If someone doesn't come up with one, I think you should post something on the article's talk page and tag the statements with {{better source}} ("") or {{failed verification}} ("") as applicable. See those templates. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

There's an article in the Indianpolis Star 24 October 2012, Wednesday, page B3 that quotes Handel making a speech: "When I worked for Dan and Marilyn [Quayle] as a young staffer, I was extermely impacted by their faith...." and goes on to describe Handel's experience "as she tried to cut grant funding for Planned Parenthood." She supported "Susan G. Komen for the Cure"'s (initial, later reconsidered) decision to cut grant funding for Planned Parenthood because they could get more money and the Planned Parenthood studies were "poor-quality grants that weren't helpping the fight against breast cancer." So there at least we have the Quayle connection in her own words. Handel resigned from Komen to protest the reversal of their decision about Planned Parenthood. - Nunh-huh 06:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Another article in the Baltimore Sun, 4 February 2012, Saturday, page A14 quotes "Rob Simms, a close friend [of Handel] who aided Handel's political career saying that "Handel had worked as deputy chief of staff to Marilyn Quayle, wife of Former Vice President Dan Quayle, as part of her breast cancer awareness outreach efforts." "Simms is now [i.e. in 2012] chief of staff to Rep. Bill Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican." - Nunh-huh 06:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both. UltravioletAlien (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Creation of fantasy names

In the Hunger Games, there are the names Katniss (feminine) and Peeta (masculine). In the Game of Thrones, there is the name Daenerys (Dany, feminine). Real-life names often imply a person's culture, but in a fantasy world, these names apparently have no culture. Instead, they seem to be derived from real-world names like "Kat" (short for Katherine), "Peter", and "Danielle" (feminine form of Daniel). Do fiction writers ever take into account of the language and naming pattern of a particular culture? Maybe a person's given name is "Tree-Stump", because his parents think it's a good idea to name a kid "Tree-Stump". The person's family name may be "Ugga-ugga", which is the Romanized form derived from an archaic word in the kid's native language that means "grunting". And the author writes in English, because English is a real-world language and the audience understands English. So, as a whole, the person's name is Tree-Stump Ugga-ugga. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Fantasy is well-known for created names in fictional cultures, not culture-less names as you claim. Even your example show this. Katniss is the name of a flower with an edible root (she is known for her hunting and foraging) - her sister's name is Primrose (a medicinal herb name for a healer). Tolkien was the most elaborate: Languages_constructed_by_J._R._R._Tolkien. See also Characters in Earthsea. This page looks at George R.R. Martin's naming system. Rmhermen (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's noteworthy that the name form of the original language is kept, but somehow, in the process of Romanization, the name is spelled a particular way, such as "Daenerys". When it comes to East Asian names, for example, a person named 洋洋 may use the pinyin spelling, "Yang Yang". A literal translation of the name would be "Ocean Ocean". To reflect the one-syllable original word, "Sea Sea" may be the translated name. Practically, many native Chinese speakers simply choose an English name that bears no connection to the Chinese name. By the way, "Sea Sea" sounds like "Cece", which is actually a recognized name in Western culture. It is short for Cecil or Cecelia. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

[For anyone confused by this non-sequitur, it appears to be a misplaced response to answers in another thread on the Language Ref desk, also initiated by 50.4.236.254. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.167 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)]

IMO, the master of fantasy naming is Jack Vance. While others often invent names that just sound fake and made up, his often odd-sounding creations still have a verisimilitude that nobody else comes close to. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

June 25

Infinite Wealth and Happiness

Would an infinite amount of money make people happy? -- 05:15, 25 June 2017 14.202.204.226

Money can pave the road to happiness, but it does not provide happiness in and of itself. Some of the most famous philosophers have espoused the idea that the fewer possessions one owns, the more time and focus one will be able to dedicate to discovering inner peace and true happiness. See Teachings of Jesus, Dharma, Francis of Assisi, Taoism to explore related philosophies and theologies. UltravioletAlien (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Then there's the "middle road" proposed by the Buddha, who argued that it's hard to focus on spiritual matters while starving to death or while managing a fortune. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

No. First, it would be meaningless to say that everyone could have infinite wealth, as "wealth" is largely a relative measure comparing the resources of one person with another. If everyone had a trillion dollars, then nobody would be willing to work for anyone else (or would charge billions of dollars to do so). But, if you mean just one person has infinite wealth, that would mean they would own everything, and effectively everyone, on Earth. That situation seems unlikely to create happiness, too. For one thing, they would always be paranoid that others might try to take their wealth, say by kidnapping. StuRat (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I think its important to distinguish between money and "stuff". With Fiat money, money isn't really wealth - its just a way of measuring wealth, and determining who owes what to whom. If you doubled everyone's money, no one would be any better off, because inflation would make the money half as valuable. But if you doubled the amount of "stuff" everyone had, they would all be better off. Iapetus (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

To some extent, yes. Having two cars is better than one, in that you have a spare in case the primary breaks down, or if two family members want to drive different places at the same time. But even here there's reduced utility with each new car. So, 3 may be better than 2, but not by as much as 2 was better than 1, and that wasn't as much as 1 was better than 0. When you get to a difference between owning a trillion cars and a trillion and one cars, or even 100 trillion, at that point additional cars do you no good, unless you can sell them, and if you have all the wealth in the world, there would be nobody to sell them to. Indeed, they would become a massive burden, in just finding places to store them, trying to keep them all operational, etc. So, there's a certain ideal number, somewhere between 3 and a trillion. Indeed, the only source of happiness in having so much wealth may be found in giving some of it away. StuRat (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

For example, if someone literally had all the world's gold, gold would cease to be of any value as money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And if everyone had an infinite supply of gold, it would no longer be much used in jewelry, as being rare and showing off your wealth is part of the charm. Sure, it's a nice material that doesn't tarnish, but so is surgical quality stainless steel and few people buy wedding rings made out of that. Gold would be useful for electrical wires and as cladding on cars, silverware, etc. (solid gold isn't as useful because it's too soft). So, it would become something like nickel-plating. StuRat (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

14.202.204.226 -- There are several well-known science-fiction stories (such as The Midas Plague) about what might happen if economic scarcity is no longer relevant. AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I forget who said this: "I've been both rich and poor; and rich is better." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Usually attributed to either Sophie Tucker or Joe E. Lewis, but Beatrice Kaufman seems better attested than either. --Antiquary (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You may be interested in A Classic Psychology Study on Why Winning the Lottery Won’t Make You Happier by Melissa Dahl and Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative? by Philip Brickman and Dan Coates (Northwestern University), and Ronnie Janoff-Bulman (University of Massachusetts). Alansplodge (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There was a widely reported US study just after the 2008 banking collapse. It concluded that money makes people happier, only up to a certain income (then about 75k $). See Wall Street Journal for example. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Imagine if you suddenly inherit $50 million, or win it in the lottery. You're set for 10 lifetimes. Then your only child is kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered. Of what value is the money then? Are you still "happy"? There's a good reason why these sorts of impossible hypothetical questions should not be entertained here on the Reference Desk. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a Happiness economics article.Pacostein (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@JackofOz: I see a lot of interesting references and links; so far people are answering the question pretty well. Though we could use further discussion of StuRat's cogent objection that an infinite amount of money is impossible because money mostly is measured in the ability to tell other people what to do. For example, during slavery in the United States, ownership of human beings made up a large fraction of the overall wealth in the South; even today, there is a very substantial amount of intellectual property, pretty much the same idea in smaller slices. I think you end up having to drill down what "wealth" can and can't be in some detail. It surely is a very very basic question in philosophy, insomuch as economic ideas e.g. Marxism are considered to be part of philosophy. Wnt (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, having a large sum of money often involves having done something bad (or your ancestors having done so). At best, that might be ruthlessly crushing the competition, while at worst we have running a kleptocracy, slavery, etc. So, it's difficult for most to be happy while spending money taken, or stolen, from others. StuRat (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

you mean: generally suffering unhappiness, is retribution for bad deeds and sins, yours or your ancestors. This is a very broadly adopted belief. Hence you contradict yourself: being rich or successful is sign that you are on the right path, approved by whatever god you believe in, not a source of unhappiness but of happiness. eg: Calvinism and Weber's thesis The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

Gem fr (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

define "happiness" first. It all depend on it.

Alain (philosopher) defined happiness as "total engagement of personality", taking example of a dog attached but forever trying to detach itself (a situation most people would find unhappy). USA constitution as a pretty similar point of view, stating the ultimate political goal is to let everyone have his "pursuit of happiness" according to his own definition.

Obviously with such definition, wealth just do not matter. Gem fr (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

For a science fiction society where material wealth has been even more obsolete than in Star Trek, see Ian M. Banks's The Culture. You can, quite literally, have anything that you want there. People are respected because they are clever, smart, funny, or interesting, not because they have more small pieces of paper or bars of gold pressed latinum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

June 26

A guy where I work contends that CSPAN is actually harming democracy and functioning of usa legislature.

He says because of cspan, politicians can't make deals, and can't have personal friendships across party lines. Is this true? Also, are there political scientists and journalists who have discussed this claim, either pro or con?65.103.249.243 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(Question transferred from the Science Desk by 76.71.5.114 (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC))

In the wake of the shooting of a Republican congressman, I heard some members of both parties talk about how they all get along personally, they just differ over policies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

C-SPAN seems like an odd thing to blame, as they remain neutral and just broadcast US Congressional votes, etc. Highly partisan broadcasters, web sites, social media, etc., are more the problem. Back under the Fairness Doctrine, everyone was at least exposed to the opposite opinion, but now they can completely avoid it, and this leads to radicalization. If all you ever see and hear is that person X or group X is evil, then you may believe it. I am reminded of the radio broadcasts in Rwanda just prior to the Rwandan genocide. StuRat (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

C-SPAN#Public_and_media_opinion have ref to critics.

I have few trust for "political scientists and journalists", but for sure ZERO trust on the matter. Obviously, this kind of people say that media is good for democracy, but [insert names of particular media they have grudges against] does its job so badly, it hurts democracy for this or that reason, so you better trust [insert names of media they work for/with].

The fact is, any media (gov-backed media not the least) can be broadcasting propaganda, lies, very biased information etc. with dire consequences ("manufacturing consent" to stupid politics or economics, war, genocides, etc.)

Gem fr (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is not a request for references, we have no idea why "some guy at my job" would spout any opinion--ask him. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course it's a request for references. The original poster asked "Is this true?" and asked for discussion of the claim. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I remember some robust discussion in college concerning the effect of the Government in the Sunshine Act on politics in general. The idea is that since everything is now out the the open, politicians can't do the hard "wheeling and dealing" of compromise because all of their actions are now essentially campaign fodder. Part II of this article entitled "We reformed closed door negotiations" is worth a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.225.116.25 (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is the source of the problem. After all, we could always see which Congressman voted for what, and who added which amendments. And closed-door negotiations are still possible, as in the most recent would-be replacement for Obamacare. Just read the Congressional Record. The transparency part has more been a change in what government departments do. StuRat (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Rosie inspiration artwork

I was looking some Rosie the Riveter images on Internet. When I looked at some images, this particular one [9] caught my eye. The only problems is I can't make out the artist's signature. Could somebody help me, please? Thank you.2604:2000:7113:9D00:B81E:C008:E611:FADF (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your link: http://www.gothamgal.com/2014/12/women-entreprenuers-3 goes to "page not found"; however, there is a page for /women-entreprenuers-2 which shows the image "We Can Do It!" by J. Howard Miller. Is that it, or ... can you find another link to the image you are referring to? — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:90BF:36D1:C424:982A (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Odd, that address also gets me "Page not found". On the other hand the slightly respelled http://www.gothamgal.com/2014/12/women-entrepreneurs-3 does take me to a picture, which however has a signature that I can't read either. --Antiquary (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. The file name is we_can_do_it__by_abranime-d7atri5-600x580.jpg; "abranime" search leads to a number of hits related to DeviantArt, e.g.:(image on pinterest) -I hope this helps. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:90BF:36D1:C424:982A (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to confuse things, it looks like ABR is an abbreviation for Anime Brasil, which has a Facebook account: ABR (Anime Brasil), a website: anime-brasil.com, and multiple accounts using abranime and abranimebrasil. What I cannot tell is if ABR is really short for "A"nime "BR"asil or if ABR is a person who works for Anime Brasil. They way they use it, it looks like it is an abbreviation, not a person. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) Information on Norwegian immigration to America (2) Norwegian whaling industry

Hello, I'm trying to gather some information for a family project. My father's side of the family is Norwegian, and I was really hoping to learn more about the history of Norwegian immigration to America. Also, my great great grandfather who came to America in the late 1800's was a whaler, which is why my family's last name is Hval (Norwegian for whale). So, I was also hoping to see if someone could gather information for me about the history of whaling in Norway. I would really appreciate it if someone could either send me some information on these subjects or refer me to other books, articles, or resources that could help me understand these topic better. Thank you very much. 2601:640:4000:ABF8:6085:2B80:3C3C:9D0 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen Norwegian Americans & Whaling in Norway articles yet? The 'Sources', 'See also' and/or 'External links' sections might be useful. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:90BF:36D1:C424:982A (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Has it ever taken this long to form the UK/British/English government?

It took a week longer than the time between the election and when the Queen's Speech was supposed to happen. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The government was formed after Theresa May became PM in 2016. Under the U.K.'s (uncodified) constitution, an incumbent government remains in office until the PM resigns or the House of Commons expresses no confidence in it. The Conservatives don't necessarily need DUP support to stay in office; for as long as they can survive votes in the House of Commons, they can remain in charge. 211.23.25.61 (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

June 27

Eligibility requirements for UC Board of Regents

What are the eligibility requirements to be appointed to the board of University of California Regents by the Governor of California? Does one have to be an United States citizen to be appointed or they can be permanent residents of the U.S. or be a Non-citizen US national, (e.g. American Samoan citizens)? Are the officeholders consider to be politicians and/or very important persons (VIP)? WJetChao (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Man of steel ad for Trump

Does anyone know what this "Man of Steel ad for Trump" is referring to here[10]? Could I find a clip of it on youtube? Scala Cats (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"America Soaring", an ad run by Rebuilding America Now, got some media attention (e.g. "Donald Trump, Man of Steel" in the NYT). That ad does show "pensive workers in hard hats, all in super-slow motion", but not the exact slow motion images shown in your AM Joy clip. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Name of this law

It is often said that hospitals are required to provide service regardless of the ability to pay. Does this law have a name? Or is this simply a statement in the law code? How prevalent is this type of law? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Duty to rescue? †dismas†|^(talk) 02:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

In the United States, this is regulated by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What’s the point of anything if we’re all going to be dead someday?

??????????????????? Count Iblis (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You might start with Quora where "What is the point of living if we are going to die and not remember anything?" gets 100+ answers. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no point after you are dead, so live it while you are alive. manya (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See Hedonism. 94.195.147.35 (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

And Ecclesiastes 8¹⁵. 94.195.147.35 (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Gurkha Error

Hello I checked an article about Gurkha and I disagree with a small portion of the Article. The information which is there related to Gurkha soldier recruitment is incorrect. The Gurkha regiments whether they are from India or The UK, they recruit only ethnic Gurkhas as soldiers. Tharus and Madhesis are not Gurkhas. This information is wrong and needs to be corrected. I am not sure who edited that article but it's incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeverest (talk • contribs) 08:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)