Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 9

= September 9 =

US States by Percent Urbanized
Hello,

I'm trying to find a list of US States by the percent of their population that lives in an urban area.

Thank you,

--Grey1618 07:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This link is probably what you're looking for. I found it in this collection of related links.  Another helpful link, with a detailed breakdown within each state, is here, although that one will require you to extract the information you're looking for.  152.16.59.190 07:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Skin name?
While filling out the form for my Tax File Number today I noticed under the question "Have you ever had another name?", besides the typical check box answers "the name on your birth certificate", "your mother's previous married name", "your step parent's family name" etc... was the answer "your skin name". What is a "skin name" and what cultures have this tradition? --Candy-Panda 07:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See skin name.--Shantavira|feed me 08:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Finland and Crimean war
What role did Finland play in Crimean war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.6.83 (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See Grand Duchy of Finland. Following the Finnish War of 1808-1809, Finland was part of the Russian Empire until 1917. There was a 'Baltic theatre' of the Crimean War, in which an Allied British and French fleet blockaded the Russian and Finnish coasts, aiming to limit Russian imports of all kinds by sea, and also putting Finland on one of the front lines of the war. The Allied fleet raided the coast of the Finnish mainland and the Åland Islands, destroying Russian military bases at Fort Slava and Bomarsund and attacking Oulu, Kokkola, Hanko, Ekenäs, Turku, the dockyards at Sveaborg and other places. The Royal Navy was also accused of attacking and destroying Finnish villages. Meanwhile, of course, the Russian Empire was able to use Finland's resources (such as timber and iron ore) in support of its war effort. Xn4 11:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a book on the subject in English (probably rather more has been written about the subject in Finnish). Try The British Assault on Finland, 1854–1855: A Forgotten Naval War by Basil Greenhill and Ann Giffard (Conway Maritime, 1988). Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it worth noting that the conflict that we now know as the the Crimean War was, in fact, called the 'Russian War' by the western powers in the nineteenth century. The Crimean label has had the effect of obscuring the significance of the vital Baltic theatre to all but specialists in the subject. The actions of the French and British naval squadrons, detailed above by Xn4, and the fear of a possible attack on the port of Kronstadt, kept as many as 300,000 high-quality Russian troops in what is now Finland and the Baltic States, well away from the main theatre of operations in the Crimea. The alled blockade of the Baltic also had the effect of bankrupting the Russian state, a cause of growing internal disorder. Clio the Muse 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The war was fought in three oceans and was a much wider conflict than its current name may lead us to assume. Naval mining was introduced by Russians during their defense of Cronstadt against the Royal Navy. Until I started Siege of Petropavlovsk and uploaded several pictures to illustrate the point (Image:Sveaborg bombed.jpg, Image:Alands.jpg, Image:Napadka.jpg) Wikipedia contained no information about the Baltic, White Sea or Pacific theatres of the Crimean War. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this war referred to in Russia, Ghirla? Clio the Muse 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as in English: the Crimean War. I don't know when exactly the term gained currency, but it seems to have been adopted shortly after the conflict. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

France and Communism
How close was France to becoming communist after the Second World War? Pere Duchesne 12:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the elections of 21 October 1945 for the then unicameral interim Constitutional National Assembly (the first time women could vote in France!), the French communist party had 159 deputies elected out of 586 seats. That amounts to almost 30%, a considerable amount, and the communists took part in the coalition government. Two subsequent elections in 1946, first still for the Constitutional National Assembly, then for the National Assembly of the new Fourth Republic – now the lower house of a bicameral system – gave very similar results. Since then the popular support for the PCF has slowly eroded, and even 30% is far from a majority, so France was at all times far away from a peaceful transition to communism. --Lambiam 13:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with Lambiam that, in retrospect, France was never going to take the electoral road to Communism, though, for a brief period after 1947, the other road, that of insurrection, looked as if it might be open. The Communists had done particularly well from their war-time efforts in the Resistance, in terms of both organisation and prestige.  By the close of 1945 party membership stood at half a million, a remarkable transformation when one considers that on the eve of the pre-War Popular Front it stood at well under under thirty thousand.  This surge in membership when combined with the party's strong electoral showing in the Assembly elections of November 1946 led some, including Dean Acheson, the American Under-Secretary of State, to believe that a Communist takeover was imminent.  To secure Marshall Aid the Prime Minister, Paul Ramadier, dismissed the Communists from the coalition government in May 1947.


 * This was certainly made France's financial position better in the long run, but it created immediate political problems; for the PCF, no longer restrained by the responsiblities of office, was free to channel the widespread discontent among the working class with the poor economic performance of the new Fourth Republic. Furthermore, the Party was under orders from Moscow to take a more radical course, reminiscent of the Third Period policy once pursued by the Comintern.  In September 1947 several European Communist parties came to a meeting at Szlarska-Proeba in Poland, where a new international agency, the Cominform, was set up.  During this meeting Andrei Zhdanov, standing in for Stalin, denounced the 'moderation' of the French Communists, even though this policy had been previously approved by Moscow.


 * Out of government, and newly instructed, the PCF denounced the administration as the tool of American capitalism. Following the arrest of some steel workers in Marseille in November, the CGT, the Communist dominated Trade Union block, called a strike, as PCF activists attacked the town hall and other 'bourgeoise' targets in the city.  When the protests spread to Paris, and as many as 3 million workers came out on strike, Ramadier resigned, fearing that he faced a general insurrection.  This is probably the closest France came to a Communist take-over.  It was prevented by the quite determination of Robert Schuman, the new Prime Minister, and Jules Moch, his minister of the Interior.  It was also prevented by a growing sense of disquiet among sections of the labour movement with Communist tactics, which included the derailment in early December of the Paris-Tourcoing Express, which left twenty-one people dead.  Sensing a change of mood, the CGT leadership backed down and called off the strikes.  From this point forward the PCF moved into permanent opposition and political isolation, a large but impotent presence on the political map of France.  The 'Great Fear' was over.  Clio the Muse 01:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, not only the activity of the communist resistance influenced this sudden popularity of the communist parties. People talked about being liberated by the Americans/Canadians/English, whatever, depending on which army had fought in their town, but they were well aware that a large part of the battle (actually the largest part) had been fought on the Eastern Front (ie by the USSR). But how wide-spread was this popularity? In the Netherlands, the (late) communist party also reached its peak after WWI (only 10% of the seats, though). And in the Netherlands, they were also actively kept out of the successive coalitions, which were unusually wide for the next ten years. History of communism only briefly mentions this popularity of communist parties. I would like to see an expansion on that. Maybe an overview of how the communist parties did in various countries in Western Europe at the time. Or anywhere anytime, for that matter. Given the questions we get about this, we should have such a table. Alas, I don't have the time to make it at the moment. DirkvdM 06:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the cheapest Law school in the United States?
What is the cheapest Law school in the United States? --Gosplan 12:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What sort of accreditation are you looking for. There are many cheap schools (some don't even require classes), but they are not accredited. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That depends. If you want to be eligible to sit for the Bar exam, then you will probably want to rule out any school that is not ABA-accredited. Also, it depends on how you define "cheapest". Tuition is one slice of the pie, but books, lab and practicum fees, room and board, a suit, prescription eye glasses for your soon-to-be-declining eyesight, and other "hidden" costs also play a part.


 * Moreover, assuming you cannot qualify for some kind of student grant to help lower or obliterate your tuition expense, tuition will also vary depending on your residency, which means the tuition will be different depending on which state (or the commonwealth of Puerto Rico) you call "home" you might benefit by changing residency ... but then, lower tuition does not necessarily translate to lower living expenses and lower "hidden" costs. Therefore, this is actually quite a complex Optimization problem. dr.ef.tymac 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * CUNY Law School has got to be close. It's $4,450 per semester for in-state students.--Pharos 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At least until you factor in housing expenses, which gets back to how you define "cheapest". dr.ef.tymac 02:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alyssa Monks
How do I actually request an article? I found the list of requested articles but not a place me to actually request one. Alyssa Monks is a fantastic oil painter and my husband and I are in a trying to find out how old she is.

Thanks for your help.

Melissa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.167.214 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to edit Requested articles/Culture and fine arts and insert her name where it should appear in alphabetical order. Note that there are already a lot of requests, so yours is unlikely to be fulfilled quickly (think months or years, not days). The fastest way to get an article into Wikipedia is to write one yourself. —Keenan Pepper 17:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here online bio doesn't give a DoB, but the dates there might allow you to guess. Algebraist 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Women and the Easter Rising
What role did women play in the Easter Rising of 1916?Irishbard 18:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A little Wikibrowsing has turned up Cumann na mBan. Algebraist 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For individuals there's Constance Markiewicz and Maire Comerford. There may be more, but there isn't a category for 1916 people that I can find, although there is a Category:People of the Irish Civil War. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Helena Moloney, too Algebraist 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egyption Activism
Where can I find information on the role of egyption activists in the neolithic to Greek dark age era? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.149 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain further what you mean... AnonMoos 22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be amused to learn that "activists" existed in ancient Egypt, especially in your specific time period. Can you elaborate? What kind of activists? Adam Bishop 22:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I, too, would like to help you, though I cannot make sense of your question in its present form. Have you looked over Ancient Egypt? Clio the Muse 00:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the questioner is asking about "activities", ie what were the Egyptians doing in the period stated. It's a whopping chunk of history. --Dweller 09:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was my conclusion too, Dweller, and I started to write along those lines; but such a reading would not fit with 'on the role of'. Clio the Muse 23:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Languages of the Pope
What languages does the Pope speak? Heegoop, 9 September 2007 (UTC).


 * Try Pope Benedict XVI. -- 68.156.149.62 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "As well as his native German, Benedict XVI fluently speaks Italian, French, English, Spanish and Latin, and has a knowledge of Portuguese. He can read Ancient Greek and biblical Hebrew. He is a member of a large number of academies, such as the French Académie des sciences morales et politiques. He plays the piano and has a preference for Mozart and Bach" A.Z. 18:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that most of the recent popes know a fair share of languages. When did this habit start?Evilbu 11:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but various 20th century popes had earlier been papal nuncios (ambassadors) and so would have had to know more than Italian to do their jobs. Among these were Pius XII (Bavaria) and John XXIII (Turkey and Greece).  The first pope known to the general public as a linguist of any description was John Paul II.  --  JackofOz 21:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I observe in passing that linguists – scholars who study language-in-general as a universal human activity – sometimes get cranky about use of the word linguist as a synonym for polyglot. &mdash;Tamfang 22:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Applying for a credit card
I hope this is the right place, since credit cards would be somewhat related to "Finance and Economics". I'm a 21-year-old college student who has a checking account with Chase Manhattan Bank, and I am looking into applying for a credit card to build my credit history for the future. However, I'm having difficulty following the jargon in regard to credit card usage, especially APR and how it works. I want to use the credit card for minor purchases such as groceries, and I don't intend to overspend. Can anyone explain to me what the process is like, in terms of purchases, dealing with bills, and interest rates? Or at least link me to a website that breaks down an explanation of credit card usage into layman's terms? 75.60.171.158 19:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of information in our credit card article. Gandalf61 20:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Things will vary from bank to bank, and this is how things are in the UK so read with a pinch of salt. First off think of a credit card as an arrangement between you and the bank for you to borrow money, none of the money you use on a credit card is yours. You should think of a credit card as a debt card, every time you are using the card you are creating a debt; so are you really sure you want to be borrowing money every time you buy groceries. The maximum amount you can borrow is known as your credit limit, the better your bank trusts you the higher your limit will be, so building up a history of using your card and paying it off helps build up your credit history. If you are thinking of using it for groceries the best thing to do is to put the cash you would have used for the groceries into your current or saving account, so that you can pay off most if not all the debt at the end of the month; because that debt comes with strings and that is interest.


 * You'll probably find two interest rates a monthly one and the APR. The monthly rate is what interest you will have to pay on your purchases for that month, and on first sight it looks rather reasonable, however if you do not pay off the debt in full interest on the debt is compounded the Annual percentage rate or APR. Again things will vary from bank to bank but if you, for the sake of arguement, make a purchase at the beginning of the year and do not pay it off in full you could be paying anything from 25 to 30% interest on the money you are borrowing. Some accounts will start calculating interest from the moment you make a transaction, and continue calculating interest on the full amount of the principal until it is payed in full; even if it has been partly paid off, (e.g. you borrow $100.00,even if you pay off $80.00 at the end of the month, you will still be paying interest based on the $100.00 in the second month, not $20.00 the amount of your remaing debt.)


 * A trap to avoid falling into is the way that a bank will allocate your payments, usually there are things like insurance charges (against you defaulting) and service service charges for example and any payment you make will first go towards paying these charges before going to help pay off the proncipal.


 * The minimum payment is the minimum amount that you have to repay each month, this is calculated on a formula like, 3% of the outstanding debt or $5.00 which ever is greater or something similar. It is essential to at the very least pay this minimum amount, as failure to do so will lead to more service charges and will dent your credit record, which is the reason you seem to want a credit card. If the bank offers the option it is worthwhile to set up a Direct debit with your bank to at least pay the minimum payment every month.


 * One thing to remember is the longer you delay paying off the debt on your card the longer the interest builds up. You could for example never over spend on your card, but leave what appears to be a small debt standing on the card in order to have some extra cash to do something else. This small outstanding debt can lead to you accumulating interest charges out of all proportion to its size. And talking about cash, you can use the card to withdraw a cash advance from an ATM, this cash will come with a cash advance charge and can attract a higher rate of interest than for shop purchases. A similar facility is the credit card cheque which is similarly expensive to use. Generally you will wish to avoid using cash advances and credit card cheques.


 * If you have it play with the numbers in Microsoft Money or a similar, put in the monthly interest from the bank literature, and start with a monthly pend equivalent to your monthly grocery spend and see what happens when you only pay the minimum amount, what different monthly payments will do and what happens if you are able to pay itoff in full etc. Now think of something that normally would need saving up for but would be immediately available if you had a credit card and see how this affects your figures. This can give you some idea of what might happen if you let things get out of control.


 * Okay enough of the horror stories, a credit card is useful to have for emergencies (but so are savings), and for things like hotels and hire cars. Hope this helps.KTo288 21:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack on U.S. soil
If the U.S. were attacked tomorrow (and the attack required all available U.S. citizens to fight), how fast could our troops be home from Iraq...? Briandgleason 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that was what your Second Amendment for, the militia forms and all that. On an other note, to paraphrase someone much wiser than me, "if you have to start defending your home from your own door way its already too late." Although in the face of attack the knee jerk reaction is to entrench, the whole thing about the Iraq debacle for example was to keep the enemy and any fighting as far away from home as possible.KTo288 21:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose that depends on whether or not you consider Iraqi interests or not. Surely if all the US troops left Iraq on one executive order, then Iraq would be extremely short of security forces.  It might take alot longer if you have to wait until the Iraqi Army is capable of taking over first.martianlostinspace email me 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, is it the power of Congress or the President to impose conscription? Of course, the President could act much quicker than Congress, which would have an affect on timing as well.martianlostinspace email me 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly the U.S citizens have a lot of guns and ammo to fight the hypothetical invader, exclusive of the military stationed in Iraq. The hypothetical invasion force could not sneak across the ocean without being detected by satellite surveillance. Missile, submarine and aircraft attack would be devastating, leaving them to surrender on the beaches, cutoff from resupply. But assuming some foreign force attacked the U.S. mainland or some foreign base, there are supposed to be sufficient forces not stationed in Iraq to fight them. Assuming that the Iraq forces were needed as well, when people say that it would be impossible to get the U.S. forces out of Iraq in a year, I think of the Dunkirk evacuation in which an impromptu fleet removed 338,000 soldiers in 9 days after the Nazis crushed the allied forces in May 1940. To move the U.S. forces from Iraq to another war would require transport planes and ships. Distinct from Dunkirk, there would likely be a requirement not to leave behind weapons and equipment, so it would be necessary to move it as well. Ocean transport would have to have cargo ships and ships for soldiers arrive at Iraqi ports, loading of the ships, and sending them out through the Straits of Hormuz. Gettin such a fleet there and to the U.S. could take weeks. Possible the insurgents would not oppose the departure, depending on whether they were allied with the new enemy. If the enemy had submarines and aircraft to attack the ships, some convoy escort system would be needed for ocean transport. Cargo and passenger planes could also be used for personnel and much of the equipment. If a significant part of the U.S. civilian airline equipment and personnel were nationalized, it could move an amazing number of people per day, assuming a schedule were implemented comparable to that used in the 1948 Berlin Blockade with flights taking off every 3 minutes. If exclusively military transport planes were used, a lot of personnel and materiel could still be moved in a couple of weeks. Compare this to the rate the hypothetical enemy (China?) could move his men and materiel to the U.S. or whatever location the fight was taking place. Other U.S. forces (reserves, National Guard) could likely delay and impede the enemy until the forces from Iraq arrived. Under international treaties, other countries such as NATO members could be expected to aid in the defense of the U.S. from foreign attack. NATO planes flew air defense patrols of the U.S. in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. has equipment pre-positioned at certain strategic locations.  "Head em' up, move em' out," as they used to say on Rawhide. Edison 22:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You forgot the fifth column. Carcharoth 23:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that the Dunkirk evacuation was done for a large part with private ships, which was possible because the troops were such a short distance from home. So that was somwhat exceptional, unless you consider it normal for an army (if seen as a defensive force) to stay close to home because that is what it is defending. Of course sending troops halfway across the globe to defend the homeland is a ruse, but that's POV. :) A substantiation of it is, though, that the argument that invading forces can be seen coming long before they reach the US does not hold for the troops there. The more US troops are away from the US, the easier it is to attack them and weaken the military position of the US when it comes to actually defending the homeland. DirkvdM 06:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember that the U.S. has 0.162 million troops in Iraq - out of 2.68 million in the armed services (and 55 million "fit for service"). Granted they have the best equipment in Iraq, but we still have substantial strength in our own country. Rmhermen 12:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If sometime in the future Canada and/or Mexico were to build up their armed forces and launch a coordinated attack against the U.S., the case would be different from that discussed above, where an invasion fleet crossing the Atlantic or Pacific could not make the crossing unobserved, as did the Allied fleet which crossed the Atlantic in 1942 to invade North Africa, or the Japanese force which attacked Hawaii in 1941. Satellites can track an individual ship easily, and even submarines are usually detected by hydrophone arrays. But if much of the U.S. best troops and equipment were in one or more foreign conflicts (add a Korean conflict to the Iraq conflict, say) then an invasion force from a neighboring country could probably capture and hold some U.S. territory for a while. The U.S. would have the option of escalating with nuclear strikes against military and industrial targets in the attacking country, unless they were backed by another nuclear power, so the Canada/Mexico invasion of the U.S. still wouldn't stand much of a chance. The U.S. in the 20th century created and maintained plans for fighting Canada and Mexico (among other countries of combinations) as discussed in United States Color-coded War Plans. War Plan Red was the U.S. plan for invading Canada as part of a war with the British Empire. The Canadians had Defence Scheme No. 1 for capturing  Seattle, Washington; Great Falls, Montana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Albany, New York. Canadian military officers in plainclothes conducted reconnaissance of U.S. targets in the 1920's in developing the plan. In the first half of the 20th century there were numerous plans without corresponding invasions, in contradistinction to the present day. Edison 15:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that Canada has only a fraction of the population of the US and I assume Mexico doesn't have anything that comes close to the military power of the US, even without the troops abroad. So if it were to stand a chance, it would have to be a combined attack of many countries, preferably on several fronts, so from Canada (New England), Mexico (California) and Cuba (Florida) (or has Cuba also promised not to attack the US?). For this, the coutries would have to receive supplies and as the Cuban missile crisis teaches us, that can indeed be easily spotted. But the US might not look at Canada with such suspicious eyes and Mexico can be supplied over land.
 * Anyway, if so many countries are in on it, a blockade of the US, similar to the US Cuban blockade, might be more effective. Or any other (legal) economic attack. If the EU and China would pull out all investments in the US, then that would damage them seriously, but cripple the US. The damage to the EU and China would probably be much less than that of all-out war. DirkvdM 08:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know the name or artist of this painting?
The painting is of a large goblet, with a number of ships sailing over its surface between two coasts. I am virtually certain it's by an American artist of the early or mid 19th century. Any ideas? 64.178.27.66 23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)J.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.27.66 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you mean The Titan's Goblet (1833) by Thomas Cole. ---Sluzzelin talk  00:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes! Thank you!  64.178.27.66 00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)JB