Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 July 6

In the 1990’s, the Bureau of the Census reported that about 35 million Americans were classified as poor. They also stated that the majority of poor were white. What race currently makes up the highest percentage of poor?71.164.13.96 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 2007, there were an estimated 25.1 million poor whites (of whom 16 million were non-Hispanic), 9.24 million poor blacks and 1.35 million poor Asians out of 37.3 million poor people. Hispanics, who can be of any race in the census, accounted for 9.89 million poor people. See [1]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note, however, that while whites make up roughly 2/3 (67%) of poor people are white; 3/4 (75%) of all U.S. citizens are white (or thereabouts, see 2000 United States Census). Thus, minorities represent a larger portion of poor people than they do of the general population. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to that, poor blacks make up 25% of America's poor, but blacks represent only 12% of the America's population. 25%/12% is more than two times higher than 67%/75%, so the statement that the majority of poor were white, although true, is highly misleading. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as misleading. If someone were to read into that "blacks were richer than whites" they would be failing to consider other evidence required to validate their statement. You are right that other considerations are important to give this statement context and depth, but of itself the statement doesn't appear to be misleading - only the reading of it. If, for instance we were to read a stat showing the % of each racial-group that are poor we might (incorrectly) assume that there were less poor whites than black. This would be incorrect in 'volume' terms, but correct in terms of 'proportion'. Either way it's often how individual's interpret stats, rather than the stats themselves, that is an issue (though of course the people doing the stats can be trying to willfully misrepresent the data. On this, the excellent book How to lie with statistics is well worth a read. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way round : 24.7% of black are poor (slightly less than 25.3% of American Indians, who are the poorest "race"), that is 2.5 times more than white (10%). But 58.6% of poor are white, 24% are Hispanic, 23% are black, and only 1.5% are Indian Americans. --Gede (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Chinese Communists ever officially use the term Maoism? --Gary123 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Maoism, the officially used term was Mao Zedong Thought (simplified Chinese: 毛泽东思想; traditional Chinese: 毛澤東思想; pinyin: Máo Zédōng Sīxiǎng), of which Maosim seems to me a reasonable English rendering. Algebraist 01:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Communist Party of China disowns "Maoism" as represented by Maoist insurgents around the world, stating that it departs from and does not represent Mao Zedong Thought. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the communist movement, there is a sharp differentiation between Marxism-Lenin-Mao Zedong Thought (MLMTT) and Maoism. The CPC always rejected the term 'Maoism'. In the 1980s, a tendency began to appear internationally, which began to substitute MLMTT with Maoism as their ideological doctrine. Those who claim themselves as Maoists considers Maoism as a qualitatively higher stage of Marxism, in the same sense that Marxism-Leninism is qualitatively higher stage of Marxism as compared to the Marxism of Marx's lifetime. This position is not uncontroversial though, and in some cases (like the Indian ML left) there are both supporters of Maoism and supporters of MLMTT. --Soman (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that its highly unlikely Chinese Communists would use an English term to discuss their own ideology. . . DOR (HK) (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. The CPC has always (at least since after coming into government) translated party documents into English and other foreign languages. They have always been very exact with using a certain terminology when translating documents. --Soman (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Northern Europe, were Moors ever kept ornamentally by affluent families-- brought out for parties, taught pleasantries in Dutch, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.104.114 (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery in Britain and Ireland and History of Slavery may be a good place to start. The term "moor" is somewhat imprecise; it could mean simply someone from Northwest Africa (i.e. Morroco or Mauritania, both of which have the same root word as Moor) or it could mean sub-saharan africans (Blackamoor) or even Sri Lankan Moors, the muslims of Sri Lanka. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest. There were several black servants in the Scottish court (taken from a captured Portuguese slave ship, apparently) in the early 16th century, and the presence of one as the queen of beauty in a mock tournament would seem to constitute at least one "ornamental" appearance. (William Dunbar's poem associated with the event can be read here.) The use of another "Black-Moore" in a pageant, as described on page 4 of the source cited above, would perhaps constitute another. However, describing such individuals as being "kept ornamentally" seems debatable at best. Deor (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that raises the question of the difference between being used ornamentally for an occasion, as in dressing up the house slaves nice for the guests, but other wise having such slaves doing standard slave stuff otherwise, or keeping such slaves for the sole purpose of ornamentation; i.e. as living statues and nothing more. I think the former may have been much more common than the latter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, plenty of Europeans were kept as slaves in northern Africa (see Sack of Baltimore etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! The above article explains where the idea of an angel (right side) and the devil (left side) comes from.
However, when and where did it start, that these companions showed the actual face of the person in question? So far, I got back to the 1960ies Tom and Jerry cartoons; Homer met them too and some Disney characters (Donald and Goofy), of course. Is there a non-animated movie (from when?) which uses this symbolism? Looking forward to your suggestions! -- 12:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Psychomachy, the battle between angels and devils for a man's soul, is a very old trope, going back to medieval morality plays. The word "psychomachy" comes from the poem Psychomachia, about a battle of personified vices and virtues, written ca. AD 400 by Prudentius. More modern examples include William Shakespeare's Sonnet 144, Alfred Tennyson's The Two Voices, Adam Mickiewicz's Dziady or Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's and Christopher Marlowe's accounts of the Faust story. See this photo of a column capital in the Autun Cathedral for a 12th-century example of the theme outside literature. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I just re-read the question and saw that my post didn't really answer it. Still, it looks like we need a decent article about the theme of psychomachy. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

offtopic: we have Psychopomp 83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going back a long way the idea of a devil/angel dichotomy was common in middle ages images of the last judgement - with angels and devils in an almost symbiotic relationship - someone with a better knowledge of art could probably supply an example of a painting with devils and angels in a tug-o-war with a human (soul). See also [2] the section on "Ars Moriendi" which describes angel and devil struggling for possesion of a dyinh mans soul - particularily memorable is

The old print shows the dying man on his deathbed... Christ and the Virgin are at his side, but he does not see them, for a devil raises the covers behind his head and hides the heavens from him

- I've seen something similar (but less morbid) in those cartoons.

Here's another link between cartoons and middle ages religious art, just for fun.. [3] 83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep screw that too, sorry- only just worked out what "actual face" mean, if it means "actual thought processes"?83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what "show the actual face" means.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the OP, but I assumed they were discussing the trope where, for example, Homer has a devil-Homer on one shoulder and an angel-Homer on the other, or Donald has a devil-Donald on one shoulder and an angel-Donald on the other. So they say the article already discusses the history of showing an angel and a devil on the shoulders, but it doesn't discuss the history of showing the angel and devil as, effectively, versions of the person. They wish to know if a non-animated film makes use of this trope, and where and when it started. Does this seem a fair reading of their question? 89.168.106.72 (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, sorry, I'd completely forgotten that they did that.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the point. This displayed symbolism exists already in old paintings but there is the person in the middle and a "real" angel on one, and a "real" daemon on the other side. To put the face of the actual person on the angel and the devil must be "modern" because in religious terms it is a bit daring (or - as in the cartoons - you know that it is meant to be funny - specially when the two get into an actual fight). Other associations that I had in respect to that question was "Jekyll and Hide", "S. Freud" and Goethe "Zwei Seelen wohnen - ach - in meiner Brust" (Alas, two souls inhibit my bosom [free translation]. --62.241.104.16 (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (I'm logged, and I sign, but somehow the system doesn't get it...)[reply]

I don't have an answer for the original question but the OP might be interested in Herman's Head. It was a television show where, at certain points in the show, a cast of characters was shown who were supposed to be the embodiment of various parts of the main character's psyche. The characters were shown lounging around in what was supposed to be Herman's head. I'm also pleased to see that the Shoulder angel article doesn't contain an exhaustive trivial list of all the occurances of the shoulder angel in film and television! Dismas|^(talk) 09:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas, that's probably only true because the trope hasn't been used in anime... TomorrowTime (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Actually a list might have been helpful here - I can't help wondering if its the invention of a particular animator ? A list might show a connection, it looks like the idea is public domain, now at least.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+1 (like the popping eyes, stamping feet and the tongue rolling out??) Thank you for the Herman-Idea! I remember this series. It comes close and "Angel"(!) and "Animal" (Beast?) comes pretty close. --62.241.104.16 (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a play in Winchester, UK about fifteen years ago. I remember very little about it, except it had a spiral staircase on stage. At the climax of the play, the main male character is electrocuted or suffers some other fall, and tumbles down the stairs. While he lies on the apron, another character appears, stalking round the stage, his head turned away. When he reveals his face, it is the same actor, or a twin - of the first, still visible male character.

Any ideas? I'll repost this in the entertainment section after a while, it was a bit of a tough call. Thanks 82.111.24.28 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we had a long discussion about this a while ago on a talk page. I don't know why I didn't think of this before, so I'd now like to put the question to some of Wikipedia's unsung heros - the ref desk guys!

I can't actually see anything that speaks against the Commonwealth realms being in personal union however it is almost equally as hard to find any sources stating that a personal union exists. The only evidence that can be found is a few obscure political commentaries and the dictionary definition of the term "two sovereign states that share a common monarch".

I'd be very interested in your personal comments on the subject, and thrilled by any sources anyone can find - I can't find anything myself! :) Best, --Cameron* 17:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are, according to a source whose author is given as "Canada. Parliament. House of Commons" - it sounds reliable! I'll keep looking! Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You may be interested in such books as "personal+union"+canada&dq="personal+union"+canada&ei=wTxSSsW_MIOSNriI4eUC The Sovereignty of the British Dominions ("The British Empire has been dissolved in a number of states in personal union"), "personal+union"+canada&dq="personal+union"+canada&ei=wTxSSsW_MIOSNriI4eUC Handbook of international law, which provides a definition that UK, Canada, Australia, etc meet (separate governments, same HoS), "personal+union"+canada&dq="personal+union"+canada&ei=wTxSSsW_MIOSNriI4eUC Foreign Affairs which does much the same, and "personal+union"+canada&dq="personal+union"+canada&ei=wTxSSsW_MIOSNriI4eUC International law, which refers to the International Person through the dominions of Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, etc. Also, The Crowned Republic, which appears to be an Australian monarchist organisation refer to it as personal union. Hope this helps. --Saalstin (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes, and that Personal_union#Commonwealth_realms actually addresses the reality of the situation, in that this would be the correct, if archaic, description of the relationship. freshacconci talktalk 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Thanks, yes that section is, I believe the result of the discussions. Thanks for the other comments/sources too. Surtsicna, your source is a dream come true, I could kiss you!!! :) --Cameron* 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for pointing out the obvious, it's that the section of personal unions dealing with Commonwealth nations very much reflected my understanding of the term. freshacconci talktalk 18:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not usual to talk of Canada and the UK as being in personal union because they aren't - unlike Jersey or the Isle of Man and the UK - only in personal union. In countries usually discussed as being part of a personal union, the countries generally have little or no relationship other than being ruled by the same crowned head, and that's clearly not true of Commonwealth nations like Canada and the UK. - Nunh-huh 18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not just in personal union, of course, but that doesn't mean they are not in personal union at all. Anyway, thank you Cameron! I'm glad I was that helpful :) Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We used to be very close, but now we're separated, with occasional halfhearted grumblings about divorce. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've just liberally applied some fact tags. I don't think "functional importance" changes the legal nature at all. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these pictures were taken with a Nikon D40 and its standard kit lens, the AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED. At first I thought it was lens flare, but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem like dust since it is blue, so my only other guess is some sort of sensor flaw, but I have taken pictures both before and after these without the weird blue spots. Also the photos here were not all taken consecutively; I had other exposures in between them that came out fine. Any ideas, and suggestions to avoid this problem? dlempa (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures aren't showing--they either weren't loaded properly, or are deleted (wikipedia is not an image host), or something like that. Sensor dust can cause colored spots because of the Bayer filter over the sensor. If the pics were taken in low light it can be ordinary sensor noise. If you can get the spots to be out of focus by changing the lens focus, it's dust on or inside the lens. Without being able to see the shots it's hard to diagnose. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, but I'm pretty sure it's not dust. I've uploaded the pictures on Wikimedia Commons, and I'm not sure why they're not showing up - if someone could help here, that would be great. dlempa (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found and corrected the image links (hope I got the right ones). They are in different places on each image, which suggests to me that it is an optical effect rather than a fault with some pixels in the camera's sensor or electronics. That also suggest it is not dust or other dirt on the lens. The photos were all taken with the sun in front of you, or at least above. In fact the blue spots all look like lens flare to me, but are much smaller that other lens flare I have seen. I could speculate that there is perhaps a small lens defect (a tiny bubble for example?) which catches the sun in some circumstances. Examine the lens very carefully using a magnifying glass if you can. Take some test pictures and see if you can see some pattern to when the blue spots appear. If there is a defect in the lens, you sould try to get a replacement - especially if it is still under warranty. Astronaut (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a test - you could try taking images of a lightbulb, and a plain room - put the light bulb at various positions in the screen, and also try photos with the light bulb to the left/right/above/below/behind you etc.. see if you can get the spots reliably - this might not work if a very bright light is needed - the photos look light they were taken on a v. bright day. - possibly a bubble or even tiny crack or edge flaw on the lense, or maybe even a patch on the lenses inner case that is not as black as it should be.

Was the sun very bright and to the side when these images was taken.?83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the first image closely I guess it to be diffraction about a small point source of light/

Thank you for all of your suggestions! Yes, the sun was was in front/above, so that is probably a factor. dlempa (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. That is pretty weird looking for lens flare but it's possible.
2. Do your tests in aperture priority mode with the lens stopped to the smallest setting.
3. Always use a lens hood when shooting outdoors (or pretty much all the time, really). It will help with flare and make your pictures look better even when there is no flare, plus it will help protect the lens from stuff bumping into it. The recommended hood for your lens is the Nikon HB-45. Or heh, you can also make your own for free. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have several photographs that belonged to my late father which depict The Massacre at Lidice.

These photographs are stamped on the reverse with Obrazove zpravodajstvi CTK archives.I have had them for several years and would like to know if they are of any interest to any organisation or individual.Curious60 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't copies of the photos available currently at our Lidice article or at the Google image search page for Lidice, and if you are the current legal owner of the photos and you wish to share them with the world, then scanning the photos yourself and uploading them to Flickr or Wikipedia is the easiest way to make the photos available to interested parties. First, scan the photos — front and back, separate files, since you make it sound like the reverse of each photo may be of interest — and save the photos to your computer's hard disk. If your scanner software allows, save them as PNG (or even TIFF) files to be sure that no lossy compression artifacts get baked in to the scan. (If this is not feasible then JPG-format files are fine; save the photos using the highest-possible quality setting, if your scanning software has such a setting.) Then you could head over to the Flickr website, create a new account, and then start uploading the photos. You can decide what license you want to impose on whoever is interested in reusing the photos. CC-by-sa is a license, for example, that would mean anyone can use the photos for any reason and must attribute them to you (presumably using your Flickr account name, whatever that is.) Tag the photos with a description of anything you know about the photos — the story of how your father obtained them and anything he told you about them — and you're done. Alternatively, here on Wikipedia, you can click "Upload file" off to the left of the screen and contribute them using the license of your choice; though here on Wikipedia there is the risk that your photos will be "nominated for deletion" at some point if they are not actually incorporated into an article, or if a skeptic doubts that you are being truthful about your ownership of the photo. Hence my recommendation to use Flickr. If you lack a scanner then you might contact World War 2 museums, such as this Lidice museum in the Czech Republic which might be interested. Tempshill (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HI there. Could somebody explain this to me: In Germany titles of nobility are not inherited by the heir but by all children of the title holder. Thus the children of a Freiherr are all known as Freiherr "Son 1", Freiherr "Son 2" and so on. The heir may place the word "Erb-" infront of his title to signify that he is his father's heir. Could anyone confirm that this is true. If this is true, surely half Germany would be entitled to use a title, seeing as both son 1 and 2's descendants would also inherit the title, as would their descendants and so on. I hope you can see where I am coming from. It's all rather complicated. If anybody has a useful English language link that explains German titles I'd also be interested. Thanks...--217.227.122.36 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If only sons of sons, sons of sons of sons etc. (in a strict patrilineal line) inherit nobility, then it would not really be expected that an ever-increasing proportion of the general population would be noble over time...

The British pattern, in which the wife and children of a title-holder derive honorifics and precedence from him, but only the title-holder as an individual is really fully noble in a technical legal sense (so that, for example, Lord Astor's wife and son could be MP's in the House of Commons) was not the prevailing tradition on the Continent... AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the nobility only tended to marry amongst themselves, there are lots of cousins marrying other cousins. In a perfect family tree where there are no familial marriages, you would get that diluting of nobility; each generation would produce more and more nobles. However, since the family tree of any noble family essentially folds in on itself, the size of the nobility grows MUCH slower than one would expect. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But still, the lesser members of the lesser nobility tend to marry non-nobles rather frequently. Otherwise, how would it be that 80% of Englishmen are the descendents of King Edward III? Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, as explained above, the situation in Britain was quite different from the continent. As already noted, only title-holders in England are considered to be noble; a noble's heirs who do not inherit titles from him are no longer considered noble there, unlike in Europe, where ALL decendents of a noble inherit nobility. Plus, the particular attitude towards nobility only got esconced in Europe during the age of absolutism; Edward III ruled many centuries before that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section about German nobility in the alt.talk.royalty faq is pretty good.[5] 208.70.31.206 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Abdoulaye Wade have any siblings. I've google once on Abdoulaye Wade, I don't know if I can find that site again. If so, how many total. Is he oldest, youngest, if 6th is he the 4th?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Daniel Arap Moi baptize as Roman Catholic, or is he Sunni Muslim or he is some I don't know theologism. Since Mwai Kibaki is Catholic, on one of my geography book said most people in Kenya is Catholic, so will Moi be Catholic?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a market for it? I assume there must be. What forms does it take? CD? MP3? I assume it must be audio-based, but perhaps it could have a tactile element. I suppose this question is in poor taste, but I'm genuinely curious. LANTZY^TALK 23:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could have pornographic books printed in braille. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 23:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know you could type "blind porno" into GOOGLE, like I did - and get the answer - such as this http://pornfortheblind.org/ which probably has a lot you wanted to know..83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porn is a many splendored thing. LANTZY^TALK 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a scene in the movie Sneakers where a blind character is shown reading a braille version of Playboy. I personally doubt that they made it specifically for the film. Dismas|^(talk) 09:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blind really do only read it for the articles (third paragraph). Fouracross (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Porn for the Blind. Willy turner (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]