Humanities desk
< April 7	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 8[edit]

Economics problem![edit]

Ok, I'm stuck with an economics problem. It looks easy to me, but somehow my brain isn't functioning. Problem : In a market, for in increase in price from $1.50 to $2.00, the elasticity coefficient of demand is 0.97, which is almost unitary. The question is, "Should the government consider increasing the tax on fish at a price of $1.50 as a way to generate revenue?" From what I think, the government should because at this point the response not only is close to unitary meaning the revenue will stay the same, it also is a bit inelastic which means a bit of profit. So if the government does add the tax, they can generate a revenue. Am I right? --(Aytakin) | Talk 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have better luck posting this under the Science Ref Desk. StuRat 04:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes logical sense, so the science desk might say yes. The humanities desk might say no, because in many places fish is considered a staple food, and the government has a responsibility to ensure healthy food is affordable by everyone. In any case, it would be difficult to administrate a tax on fish, which are freely available from the sea where catches are difficult to monitor. Far easier to tax the manufacturing industries.--Shantavira 08:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to guess the type of answer being sought here, because some critical facts were left out, and that might have been intentional, to prompt students to fill them in and discuss. We might wish to consider, for example:

Normative economics:

is fish a normal good, inferior good, public good? how would your answer influence public policy?
what would be the relative tax incidence on households vs. suppliers?
what is the conservation status of fish?
how would such a tax influence cheating on catch limits?
(see also the points made by Shantavira above)

Positive economics:

what is the Market structure for fish, (as well as complements, and substitutes?)
is the market for fish currently in equilibrium?
assuming 0.97 is the price elasticity of demand, what is the price elasticity of supply?
what are the transaction costs of imposing such a tax, how would it affect allocative efficiency? dr.ef.tymac 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone identify this painting?[edit]

This is a photo I took back in November '06. It's a guy copying out a painting which looks like it's from around the Dutch Golden Age, but I can't identify either the original artist or the name of the painting. Can anyone help? —DO'Neil 03:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's The Cardsharps by Caravaggio. It belongs, of course, not to the Dutch Golden Age, but to Italian baroque, painted by an artist who really liked to live dangerously, in every conceivable sense of the term. Clio the Muse 04:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, Clio's good! --Wetman 04:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, Wetman, are invited to my party! Clio the Muse 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pavement artist is pretty good too!--88.109.20.242 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln`s cabinet[edit]

i was watching the daily show with jonh stewart and he was interviewing jonh bolton (u.n. Ambassador) , during the interview stewart made a referance ton abraham lincoln`s cabinet and how it was democraticaly the oposite of goerge bush`s because lincoln placed his rivals in high position to make for a well balanced democratic party and boltn replied that he was historicaly wrong and that you cant have an efficient democratic party where there are members constantly opposing the president.

from what ive read in the wiki article on lincoln , jonh stewart seem to have been right and ive seen this comparison a 2 or 3 times with similar out comes ,i would like some insight on this matter clockwork fromage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.113.99.58 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I can tell you this much: John Bolton is about as wrong on this issue as it is possible to get. Lincoln's Cabinet was conceivably one of the most devisive and back-stabbing collection of men ever assembled in the whole course of American political history! Almost every member thought he could do a better job than the President, and it is to Lincoln's credit that he somehow managed to get the barnyard hens all clucking to the same general tune. The beginnings were not at all auspicious, because the new government included all of Lincoln's main rivals for the Republican Party nomination for the 1860 election, including Salmon P. Chase, Simon Cameron, William H. Seward and Edward Bates, some old Whigs, others former Democrats, all divided by politics and ideology, all united in resentment of the President. Stanton, the Secretary of War, had openly refered to Lincoln as the 'original gorilla.' Writing to James Buchanan, the former president, after the Battle of Bull Run, he said, "The imbecility of this administration has culminated in that catastrophe, and irretrievable misfortune and national disgrace are to be added to the ruin of all peaceful pursuits and national bankruptcy as a result of Lincoln's running the machine for five months." It was only later in the war that he turned into one of the President's strongest supporters. Salmon P Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, to take one other example, was said to be so unlike the President as it was possible to get, and even William H Seward entered office highly sceptical about Lincoln's abilities, and convinced he was far better suited to the position. "No President", one contemporary wrote, "ever had a cabinet of which the members were so independent, had so large individual followings, and were so inharmonious." If some of them resented Lincoln, they resented and hated each other even more! At the close of 1861 Bates noted in his diary that the administration was not a cabinet but a collection of seven independent officers "each one ignorant of what his colleagues are doing." I suppose you might liken Lincoln a little to Caesar in the forum, surrounded by 'friends', all with daggers in their togas. But, as I have already said, he got the job done, by a mixture of common sense, decency and quite authority, the very qualities that make him one of America's greatest Presidents. Clio the Muse 08:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a topic that Bolton

is not a terrible dolt on?

--Lambiam ^Talk 13:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: moustaches.

Clio is right. Lincoln's cabinet was filled not only with past rivals but future rivals, too. Further, his commanding general was a future candidate for his job. Every single "Washington insider" regarded him as a political lightweight and a rube to be easily replaced, and they were ravening. Some were more for peace, some for more total war, and most were for personal enrichment, but they had Lincoln in their political sights during the entire first term. When he won re-nomination and re-election, they grew, if anything, more surly. Bolton is a bit of facial hair with a crypto-Birchite attached to it. Utgard Loki 12:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little late to this, but if you have the time or inclination to pursue Clio's excellent answer from above, you might try Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin - it is probably the most comprehensive treatment of the subject matter in question. Carom 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

veterans of the punitive expedition against Pancho Villa (1916-7) and the Russian expedition (begun during WWI, and lasting for over one year)[edit]

When did the last veteran of the Mexican Expedition die? I believe there was at least one as of last year.

When did the last veteran of the Russian Expedition die? I know that most of them were sent over late in World War I, but at least some reinforcements/replacements were sent over in the spring of 1919, and possibly later.

Thank you. Fred —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fmlondon (talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fred, I thought I should let you know that your request has not been ignored. Unfortunately, I can find no specific information on this subject. You might be best contacting the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs directly. You will find their website here [1]. The best of luck. Clio the Muse 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If care to read the article Polar Bear Expedition, you will find that the last one died quite recently. However there seems to be another expedition at the same time. Flamarande 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, American Expeditionary Force Siberia went to Vladivostok. There were other Allied expeditions into various parts of Russia, but only those two major ones for American troops IIRC. Shimgray | talk | 20:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last surviving Mexican soldier who fought Pancho Villa’s rebels was believed to be Teodoro Garcia, who died at age 110 on 25 April 1999 [2].
Also, for those who are interested - Villa had at least 9 and perhaps as many as 24 wives. According to our article, Villa's legal widow, Luz Corral, died in 1981. But one of the others, Soledad Seanez Holguin, is also reported as being his legally accepted widow - she survived for 73 years after his death, until 12 July 1996! [3]. JackofOz 00:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, if we are talking about Pancho Villa trivia I saw a bullet hole, yes, a bullet hole, made by him, and now carefully preserved in the ceiling of the Bar La Opera in Mexico City. It's worth eating there if for no other reason than to see people troop in and out just to see that hole! Clio the Muse 01:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people call her Maurice[edit]

Is there any history of the name Maurice being given to a girl? Are there any famous female Maurices? Anchoress 08:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Maurice (prénom) says "Maurice est un prénom masculin, mais il peut aussi être féminin." Skarioffszky 11:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In English, "Maurice" for a girl is as self-conscious as "Sam" (ostensibly for Samantha). --Wetman 12:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to have been female people named "Mauritia", which would be the Latin feminine form of the name: Mauritia "Moritz" Mayer (1833 - 1897) - Find A Grave -- AnonMoos 14:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really cool web site if you're interested in this sort of stuff. nameplayground.com. I did an econometrics paper on a similar topic once. The site uses data from the United States Social Security Administration on naming trends (which became a really hot topic after Freakanomics). Anyways, the data on this site is fun (though limited, because it only has data on top-1000 names in the years that they were top-1000 names, leading to some seriously damaged statistics on names that have fallen off the list). Here's the entry on Maurice: http://www.nameplayground.com/Maurice. Indeed, from 1913-1931, Maurice was one of the 1,000 most popular names for girls! --JayHenry 15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks everyone for all the great replies! Anchoress 23:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball (Z and GT too)[edit]

What was censored in the manga and in te anime Dragon Ball? --Vess 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US vs. Iran in 1980s/naval conflicts[edit]

Is it true the USN sank most of Irans navy in the late 80s? If so I didnt here about it at the time. What happened? Did the USS Nimitz take part? Please advise, thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.187.36.112 (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The information you are looking for is in Operation Praying Mantis. The Americans damaged the Iranian frigate, Sahard, and sank six speedboats. Clio the Muse 19:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Operation Prime Chance in which a SEAL team destroyed an Iranian mine laying ship. GreatManTheory 20:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, prior to the Gulf War (when the US was allied with Iraq), US and British naval forces had methods for "tricking" Iranian naval ships into attacking heavily armed vessels, resulting in damage or sinking of the Iranians. Utgard Loki 12:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity[edit]

It has been shown that France's slogan is also the official slogan of the Grand Orient. They have been caught on video admitting their political heists. [4]

In fact, according to Father Le Tourneau, the motto is called the Republican Trinity and is based on the christian Trinity : Father, Son and Holy Spirit. [5]

In 1791, the motto was adopted by the Cordeliers [6], ie Danton, Desmoulins, Marat, Fréron, Chaumette, Hébert, Legendre and Robert.

Many these men were rumored to be masons. In fact, there was a famous and controversial book called Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire du jaboninisme that made similar claims.

In 1998, it was revealed that the freemasons had been infiltrated by French trotskists. [7]. They began fighting over benefits, rituals and personal benefits. [8]

What will happen to the famous motto if the freemasons begin to decline ? Inside sources claim that they have lost influence inside the EU and were absent from the 2005 referendum [9].

In 2006, Eric de Montgolfier published an major book called Le devoir de déplaire [10] in which describes financial and political scandals caused by the masons. Indeed, several top cabinet ministers are members of the group. [11].

By these accounts, what can we tell about the future of Europe and France in particular ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.232.52 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not much. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are far too generous, Lambiam. The real answer is that is that it tells us nothing at all, which is fairly usual with conspiracy theories of all kinds. Clio the Muse 19:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a mathematician, Clio, and to a mathematician, nothing is not much. Both answers are perfectly true, although one is more specific than the other. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‘Utilitarianism can only ever lead to the treatment of individuals as means rather than ends in themselves.’ Discuss[edit]

Hello,

i think someone else has already asked this question but i cant find the link to it, so would it be possible for you to post any comments you have again please. I really dont know where to begin with this essay!

Many thanks xx

The reference desk won't give you answers for your homework assignments, although we will try to help you out if there's a specific part of your homework you don't understand. You might start by reading Utilitarianism, including the section entitled "Criticism and defense". --Lambiam ^Talk 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the previous discussion on the topic: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_April_3#Utilitarianism. I think that's what you were asking for. --JayHenry 21:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you had done "search first" as indicated under How to ask a question, you would have also found this:

   User_talk:Clio_the_Muse#Utilitarianism

if you had submitted this:

   site:wikipedia.org utilitarianism refdesk

to this:

   http://www.google.com/

obviating the need for others to do this. dr.ef.tymac 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: ... and if this is for the jurisprudence course, you will do well to heed Clio's extremely astute advice (especially re: Rawls), or depending on the constraints of your library, and your calendar, and your willingness, just download any of several freely-available essays (such as this one by Adler and Posner) and familiarize yourself with the basic arguments and referenced sources. dr.ef.tymac 23:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC) With apologies to User:Vranak for perpetuating mediocrity by implying "U"tilitarianism necessarily coincides with "Cost-Benefit Analysis". :P..dr.ef.tymac 23:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after EC) ::It sounds like the question being asked HERE is not the homework question, but the question "how can I start/write an essay on this topic?" Given that, after you follow Lambiam's suggestion, I would look carefully at the question itself. This type of question is in the logical form "all x are y", which, to me, suggests several possibilities for inclusion in an essay, including

Don't forget that any essay on such a subject is designed (at least in part) to test to see if you understand what Utilitarianism IS, and how it works, with great specificity. As a teacher, any essay I get on this sort of subject had better include some substantial discussion/definition of what Utilitarianism is, preferrably with citations and quotes, so that we can then explore those parts of the definitions which would lead to / affect treatment of individuals as means OR ends.
Do you think Utilitarianism USUALLY leads to the treatment of individuals as means? If so, that's worth saying, and showing why that is generally so.
Do you think there are cases -- even just one, even a theoretical case, where Utilitarianism might not always lead to the treatment of individuals as means, rather than ends? If so, then you'd want to describe/present that case, and show how it made the "always" clause of the original question too strong. If not, then you might take a case where others might THINK people are being used as ends, and show how, even then, people were being used as means.

Hint: the above makes a good loose organization for a paper on this subject. It's just missing two things:

an intro (maybe an anecdote about Utilitarianism in which it DID cause pepople to be treated as means, so we can show that it is at least sometimes rue, and anticipate the question "is this always true"?), and
the usual conclusion (restate the question and answer, and point to where in the definition there either is or is not room for the "not always true" you've concluded.)

Jfarber 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow -- looks like between Clio's archive and my outline, you're golden! Hoorah for the ref desk! Jfarber 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way I can find out who purchased Piero Manzoni's shitcans in 1961?[edit]

I know a lot of them ended up in the Tate gallery, but did they purchase them when he first made them? I really am just looking for a general idea of what the clientele for Artist's Shit was like, with maybe some specific names or organizations. Thanks! Toko loko 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you visited the Tate Online website, provided as an External link on the Tate page? The site has its own internal Search feature, plus an internal link to the Tate's Press Office, to which you can send a particular query if the info you seek doesn't emerge from your search nor already among the site's FAQ. -- Deborahjay 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the answer you're looking for but an addendum that many of the cans have exploded due to the expanding gases in the cans. So there are a lot fewer left than were produced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.193.170.84 (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the advice, Deborahjay. They were very helpful in getting me what I needed! I also love the idea of cans of shit exploding in the Tate gallery. Art is awesome. Toko loko 00:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...indeed, and in this case: dynamic. Glad to have been of help! -- Deborahjay 18:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Military Code of Conduct in dealing with enemy POWs[edit]

What is the US Military's position stated in some code of conduct when attempting to interrogate an enemy POW? How does the United States' definition deviate from that of the Geneva Code? -- Johnnyboy221

Do you want the official one (widely proclaimed and legal) or the unofficial one (what really happens behind closed dooors and always denied)? Flamarande 00:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Both if possible, but more the official one. - johnnyboy221

One detail you seem to be missing is that the prisoners in GITMO have not been granted POW status, but are instead referred to as "illegal combatants". Thus, the Bush administration argues, they are not entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention. In practice, however, the prisoners are still granted most of those provisions. StuRat 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]