Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 June 19

= June 19 =

Cheap Bike Parts


Assault on Pollighautcherry, India, c. 1790
I have come across some references to a seige at "Pollighautcherry" in India in 1789:, and. with this giving a date of 1790. But I can find no other reference to this place (the only other google hit is the article I'm wanting this for, the 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot). There is a Pondicherry (Puducherry), for which I have a siege date of 1793 [(ref) (a date supported by its [[History of Pondicherry#European period|WP article]]).  So, is Pollighautcherry just Puducherry by another name?  Are the sieges confused, or were there several? (I know there was also one in 1760).  At the moment, I've got both mentioned at the 52nd Foot article,  but it would be nice to clarify whether the 52nd assaulted two places with similar names, assaulted the same place twice, or made only one attack, with the other report merely a mis-dating.   Any ideas?  Gwinva (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A few hits for and one for . 1790 under Medows looks to be correct, the 1789 references also place Bangalore in 1790.&mdash;eric 05:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The best description of the campaign i've found is in Medows' entry in The Dictionary of National Biography.&mdash;eric 06:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * .&mdash;eric 06:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Palakkad Fort.&mdash;eric 06:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Eric, you are a marvel. Do you lurk on the edges of the desk, just waiting to answer my 18th/19th C military questions?  Having checked through those refs, I'm fairly confident it is, indeed, Palakkad.  I will add links and redirects and all sorts through the various WP articles which I've come across during those searches!  Intriguingly, I couldn't raise a ghit at "Polighautcherry", and the Medows DNB link has no preview (what did you search through?).  I have access to the subscriber DNB, but the Medows entry there doesn't mention Palakkad/Palghaut/Pillighautcherry.  Anyway, thanks for that (again).  Gwinva (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Battle Honours of the British & Commonwealth Armies places the 52nd as having fought at Bangalore (7-21st March 1791), Arikera (or Seringapatam; 15 May 1791), Seringapatam (6-7 Feb 1792), and Pondicherry (10-22 August 1793). Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great: I don't have the 1791 Seringapatam battle. Do you have the bibliographical details for the source, so I can add it as a ref?   Thanks.  Gwinva (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The book's by Anthony Baker. Published 1986 by Ian Allen, Shepperton; ISBN 0711016003.
 * The entry notes it was a non-honoured battle (ie, no regiment carries it on their colours) though the 76th Foot applied for it. It titles it "Arikera", with a sidenote saying "Could be called Seringapatam 1791", but doesn't explain any further. The units involved were pretty much the same as those that fought at Bangalore and at Seringapatam (1792). Shimgray | talk | 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! (But, if I might nag, is there a page no?) Were there honours for the other battles? The 52nd just got "Hindoostan", for the campaign. I've got the Peninsular War well sorted, plus Waterloo's easy (once I get around to it) but if you have any more details about the 52nd that'd be much appreciated. Many thanks for what you've done so far.  Gwinva (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * pp. 256-7. Another note from the same book (p.49): "...the British force almost reached Tippoo's capital at Seringapatam in 1791, but was forced to retire after a battle at Arikera." Incidentally, it mentions a siege of Pondicherry in 1778, just to further confuse matters! The only honoured battle of the Third Mysore War was "Nundy Droog", 18/10/1791, awarded to the 1st Madras European Infantry (later 102nd Foot), then the overall honours Carnatic (for 1747-92) and Mysore (1747-92). "Hindoostan" was awarded as a general service honour for the years 1790-1793. The 52nd applied for honours for the battle of Cananore (14/12/1783, in the 2nd Mysore War), Bangalore (in 1791), and Seringapatam (1792), but these weren't granted.
 * I've also looked in Sheppard's History of the British Army, which describes the opening of the Third Mysore War as such:
 * Tippoo ... at the end of 1789 invaded the territory of Travancore. The British plan of campaign [in 1790, I assume] was for the main army under Medows to advance from the south into Mysore, while a force of Bengal troops operating in Baramahal guarded its right flank ... Medows moved forward in May and took possession of the Coimbatore district with little opposition, but his progress was checked on the upper Cauvery by the main army of Tippoo, who ... moving south-east along the river valley overran the whole country as far as Pondicherry. Medows ... was compelled to follow in order to cover Madras, and the campaign thus ended decidedly to the disadvantage of the British.
 * (I've paraphrased some bits) This seems to explain the 1790 fighting at Pondicherry - if the Mysore army reached "as far as" there, there would have been something - but doesn't explain the 1789; I'd be inclined to place that simply as an error. Shimgray | talk | 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Moral standing of Allies in 2nd world war
Hi. I was wondering how the allies could occupy the moral high ground after the second world war given that they had appeased the Nazis until it became impossible and the US itself joined only because of Pearl Harbour and not out of any sense of outrage over the activities of axis powers. Can someone please clarify it for me? Thanks. 125.21.243.66 (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pearl Harbor was the final excuse that got the US into the war, but to say that the US did not have any sense of outrage over the activities of the Axis powers is quite false. As for "appeasement", there is no necessary moral low-ground in trying to negotiate, even if it fails. If you want to go on about the moral high ground, I suggest focusing instead on the wartime tactics of the Allies (e.g. purposeful mass slaughter of non-combatants as part of the firebombing and atomic bombing campaigns), which are more problematic from a moral point of view than the politics that led to war itself. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Point of detail: even Pearl Harbor did not bring the US into the war against Germany, only against Japan. It was Germany that declared war on the US, a few days later.  --Anonymous, 17:06 UTC, June 19, 2008.


 * Also I understand the US provide huge amounts of support (technology/training/troops) for the allies before they officially went to war. Morality in times of war quickly changes from in times of peace. What was once consider crazy and unthinkable might be standard and normal. Our circumstances affect our actions. Whilst not exactly related to the war you could look at things like Broken window theory and that famous prison-experiment (forget the name of the people but the 21 general-public people made as guards/prisoners that only lasted 6 days) - all show that our morality/ethics etc. can often be discounted within certain circumstances. It's easy to say 60 years later that someone should have done X or Y, but at the time the situation is different, and the thought processes are affected by the situation they are within.

As 98.217 alludes to the attempts to appease are not morally inferior to action, infact if they had brought about a peaceful resolution that would be the perfect outcome. They say for revolution you should use three boxes...the soap box, the ballot box and the ammo box...use in that order. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you mean the Stanford Prison Experiment. If you're using that, why not throw in the Milgram experiment as well? 79.66.85.219 (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Appeasement may seem awful to us now, knowing what we now know about the Nazis. Things were much less clear cut in 1935.
 * There is also a moral fallacy here. The (soon-to-be) Allies may have had some moral culpability for not opposing the Nazis, but the Nazis - well, they actually were the Nazis. You can't equate a failure to prevent a crime with the actual deliberate commission of a crime. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Appeasement may be cowardly, but it certainly isn't immoral. There are indeed additional varying degrees between Nazi attrocity and cowardly appeasement. For example, IMHO, though the Brits may have failed in the sense that they appeased Hitler, the French, and in particular the Vichy Regime led by Marshall Petain failed all the moreso and in a far more guiltworthy fashion insofar as they didn't merely appease Germany, they collaborated. The same can be said of the Swiss. Though nominally neutral, Switzerland served as an essential corridor for the exchange of Nazi loot for hard currency to fund the Nazi war effort. 69.157.171.158 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright fellas, thanks for your answers :) 125.21.243.66 (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget that Sweden supplied the bulk of the iron ore needed to keep the Nazi war machine going, as well.  Corvus cornix  talk  18:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Genetic diversity of human with respect to Bible
So, at the beginning, there were only Adam and Eve, who gave birth to 2 sons(I forgot their names). Then, that' it, human is finished! There is just two men, how can this two men give birth to other human? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.124.108 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, in that particular case, Adam and Eve have more than two children—three are named in Genesis: Cain, Abel, and Seth. Genesis 5:4 points out that "And the days of Adam after he begot Seth were eight hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters." But anyway. Either massive incest, or God created more people that just aren't mentioned in the Bible. I have heard some literalists explain it by pointing out that nowhere does it NOT say that God didn't create more people after the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden. The most classic theological question in this regard is the question of who was Cain's wife (with whom he went off with to Nod after killing Abel)—it was even mentioned at the Scopes Trial. Google "Cain's wife" and you'll find half a million webpages offering up answers on the subjects (most are "she was someone that God created after Adam and Eve", some more literal ones say that she was indeed somehow directly descended from Adam—one of Cain's sisters, ugh). Anyway, if you add in the possibility of God creating more people, then the genetic diversity question goes away—temporarily, anyway. There's still the question of how the post-flood population could possibly be reconstituted from only Noah's family without suffering all of the other ravages of inbreeding, much less separating out into distinct races and wandering all over the globe in only a few thousand years. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To further complicate things, there are two creation narratives in the Book of Genesis. See Creation according to Genesis. The first narrative (before Adam and Eve) suggests a large scale creation of life on the planet "Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command); He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command). They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." Humans and animals are given plants to eat. The totality of creation is described by God as "very good.""  With the parallel creative narratives, there's room to reconcile the lack of genetic diversity in the Adam and Eve story if we see them as part of the larger population explosion on the 6th day. Of course a literal interpretation of the biblical creation narratives is at odds with Evolution, Geology and Genetics sciences.  So like politics, better not to bring it up at a dinner party.  Mattnad (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I doubt that societal taboos against incest would have existed when everybody was one step removed from everyone else. I suppose to even have a conversation on the topic, though, you need to simultaneously accept a couple of mutually contradictory histories. jeﬀjon (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Presumably, holders of a worldview in which polar bears, capybaras and kangaroos are within walking distance of a fellow in the Middle East don't spend a lot of time fretting about poor genetic diversity gumming up the story.  --Sean 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Collecting polar bears was nothing compared to finding a home for all the fish, shellfish, and other aquatic lifeforms that would die in the brackish flood waters. Matt Deres (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I recall some Creationist webpage explaining that Adam and Eve were genetically perfect, all genetic diseases result from deleterious mutations after the Fall, and so Cain could have children by his sisters without the "ravages of inbreeding". And it was OK, since God hadn't outlawed incest yet. I... guess that works.... N (t/c) 00:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't explain Noah's inbreeding, though. I've heard a lot of different explanations, but no one really knows the answer. If God really is all powerful, he can do what he wants, right? If that means diversifying the genetic pool at will then so be it. Wrad (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, which comes down to an explanation of, "it's just magic!" Which, you know, I'm actually fine with, because it's a lot more intellectually honest (that is, the reason is far more transparent) than trying to pretend that there's actually some real way that the genetics of this sort of thing works out, which is just an effort in misdirection and sophistry. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to look at Mitochondrial Eve for a scientific take on this - noting that there are reputable scientists who think that all humanity is descended from a single woman living 150,000 years ago. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Err, no, that's not what Mitochondrial Eve is, exactly. Read the misconceptions section of the article a few more times until it makes sense. Or, as another useful website puts it: "However, perhaps because of her biblical namesake, mitchondrial Eve is often misconstrued as the first woman, the only woman alive at her time, or the sole mother of all humanity. Though mitochondrial Eve did exist, she was none of those things. True, all humans on Earth today can count mitochondrial Eve among their great-great-great-great-great-(fill in roughly 5000 "greats")-grandmas and inherited their mitochondrial DNA from her. But we have other great-great-great-great-great-(fill in 5000 "greats")-grandmas as well who lived at the same time as mitochondrial Eve — you can think of them as our nuclear great-great-great-(etc.)-grandmas. We inherited other bits of our nuclear DNA from them — and from all of our equally ancient grandpas. Mitochondrial Eve is only one of our many human ancestors." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Answers I've seen on Cain's wife: 1) he married his sister, which was OK because a) God had not yet prohibited incest, possibly because b) there were not yet genetic disorders, so no harm could come of it. 2) he married one of the Nephilim/fallen angels/other such non-human things, and the "corruption of mankind" that led to the Deluge was largely referring to human lineages becoming mixed with non-human. Of course, not being a Biblical literalist, it's sort of irrelevant to me (but intellectually interesting to see what others have thought, nevertheless).

Noah's family might actually work, biologically. Everyone living would of course have to be a descendant of Noah, but at least you have the 3 sons' (presumably unrelated) wives to throw in a LITTLE diversity. The genetic situation wouldn't be any worse than the Chatham Island Black Robin; it could work if you assume that the 8 people on the Ark had few or no genetic disorders in the first place. [Note: I don't believe there was a literal "every-animal-on-Earth-on-one-boat, cover-every-mountain" Noah's Flood, though I think it's likely that flood myths are based on historical events, possibly the flooding of coastlines worldwide at the end of the last glacial period.] Vultur (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the benefits and overheads of high-interest rate in a country?
It also useful if you provide links. Thanks in advance. roscoe_x (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Surprisingly, it's not easy to find the answer on WP. High interest rates is a monetary policy tool often used by central banks to reduce high levels of inflation (see Contractionary monetary policy and Inflation targeting).


 * Advantages
 * It reduces spending and therefore demand and therefore reduces inflation.
 * It encourages consumer saving which may reduce pressure on state-provided pension schemes.
 * It tends to attract foreign investment which increases the value of currency and helps importers.


 * Disadvantages
 * By discouraging spending, it reduces growth and therefore increases unemployment. Also, firms reduce their level of investment since new ventures would need to provide higher returns and, in a slowing economy, this is unlikely.
 * It may lead to a recession or even stagflation (if coupled with poor fiscal policy).
 * If many people have floating rate (or prime-linked) home loans, higher interest rates leads to defaults which may lead to higher systemic risks. The same applies to companies' corporate bonds.
 * It tends to attract foreign investment which increases the value of currency and hurts exporters.
 * Very high interest rates in a developing economy may even be seen by foreigners as a sign of instability which would reduce foreign capital injections.


 * But as with everything in economics, the effects are very difficult to predict accurately - ever heard a newsreader say "Economists were surprised yesterday when . . . "? I have. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Economists were surprised yesterday when Reserve Bank governor Tito Mboweni raised interest rates by only 500 basis points. Many had expected a full 2000 point increase...". Raising interest rates is only successful in fighting inflation if the factors above apply. In South Africa at the moment most CPIX inflation is due to "imported" inflation because of high food and fuel prices. Raising interest rates in this case may even crate more inflation.  Zun aid  ©  ®  11:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And one other benefit, high interest rates can "put the brakes on an overheated economy". This helps to even out a roller-coaster economy and can prevent or lessen the eventual downturn and recession.   See business cycle. StuRat (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whenever interest rates go up mu dad (retired with no mortgage and savings) leaps for joy, and I (working, paying a mortgage, no large savings) groan. When the rates drop it is the other way round. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Execution of Tsutomu Miyazaki.
Hi dear friends. I want to know why this scum was so many many years in prison and has been executed 18 years after being arrested?. He killed four little girls. Thanks and greetings. 190.49.97.59 (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Due process takes time. The matter is explained well enough at Tsutomu Miyazaki, I think. Due process is a good thing, IMO. Emotive appeal no so good. YMMV, of course. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could be worse. --Sean 20:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Difficult to say that case is worse IMHO. While the Sagawa case may have been mishandled and his ability to profit from it may be controversial, on the whole, there doesn't seem to have been grave consequences arising from the way it was handled. Presuming you believe a criminal sentence is supposed to be primarily about rehabilitation and/or prevention rather then punishment, since Sagawa has never commited (as far as we know) any further crime or had a relapse, the treatment appears to have achieved its goal. Even if you don't agree with this view, as far as I'm aware in most countries even those where a criminal sentence is intended to be punitive i.e. to punish the person responsible, it's rare that this is extended to those who were legally insane when they commited the offence (since they are considered not competent and therefore not responsible for their actions). Generally AFAIK those held insane may be subject to involuntary commitment but the point there is always prevention and/or rehabilitation and not punishment. There may be a minimum period of commitment if this is considered necessary for the goas of prevention and/or rehabilitation but this is still not intended to be punishment. So whatever the flaws in the handling of the case, the outcome seems to have been as desired. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1972 Mid-Campaign Presidential Election Polls
Would anyone know where I can find polls conducted at various points during the 1972 Nixon-McGovern campaign season in order to compare them with polls presently being taken for this year's election?

For example, I'd like to see how Nixon and McGovern were faring against each other in June of '72, and compare it with June '08 polls measuring public opinion in the McCain-Obama race, along with polls taken later on in the season. (July, August, September, '72 etc.)

I've tried the articles to no avail. I've even contacted the Gallup organization, but they require some sort of subscription fee to gain access to their "archived" polls.

(My apologies to those few insanely pedantic editors among you, but I see no reason in specifying just which country I'm talking about. Information on any country in the world that held presidential elections between individuals with the names Nixon and McGovern in 1972, and are this year holding presidential elections between inviduals with the names Obama and McCain will do.) 69.157.171.158 (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Irony alert: it would have been quicker to type "US" than to type your last, pedantic paragraph. But pedants like you & I can't resist giving a lecture, can we? —Kevin Myers 02:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, Kevin. :) 69.157.171.158 (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case, I don't think anyone would have called you if you'd just left your question without your last para. --Richardrj talkemail 10:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, I know. It's just that Americans tend to be accused of being ignorant of the fact that there's a whole world out there that exists beyond their borders. And often this accusation is well founded, I just find that some people here really overdo it in trying to teach Americans otherwise. That last paragraph was meant just as a(n apparently annoying) joke to make a point. My sincerest apologies.
 * Still, I can't resist: Even if I did as Kevin suggest and spoke of the US, who's to say I wasn't referring to the United States of Mexico?
 * Don't bother. I apologize in advance for that one too. :) 69.157.168.230 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, any pedant knows that Mexico is actually the United Mexican States. --Anonymous 02:48 UTC, June 21, 2008.
 * I think the issue with many potential questions is not that there is only one country the question applies to, but that people may not know what your question refers to even if it only applies to one country. While I think most people would at least have heard of McCain and Obama, many would also have heard of Nixon and McCartney so I really wouldn't have cared if you hadn't specified what country you are referring to (in fact probably wouldn't have even noticed); there are a lot of times when it's foolish to presume people will know what country you are referring to despite the fact it may seem obvious to you and there is only one country it could apply to. Why should people reading something have to Google to work out what the heck you are referring to? For example, I would suspect there is only one country where there has recently been a fuss over one television network's decision to disallow flag lapel pins. I could probably have found out there was a fuss by Google (and I could have guessed anyway due to the fact that USAmericans are the only ones to make such a fuss about such things and they also predominate on the internet and are by far the ones who most commonly presume someone is going to know what they are talking about). But the fact remains, there is no reason why I (or anyone else) should be expected to know, nor any reason why I should have to read a question having no idea what the heck the person is talking about simply because the person asking the question is too discourteous to specify what country they are talking about. For example, if I were to ask the question, "Has the ever been time in history where the poll results were similar to the current Key - Clark results but the party expected to win had not won?" most people would have no idea what I'm talking about. (Those that do would probably think it's a dumb question but I digress...) You could probably work out what I'm referring to by Googling and I strongly suspect there is only one country where someone called Key and someone called Clark are the leaders (of the major parties) contesting an upcoming election. But that doesn't change the fact it would have been wise for me to specify what country I am referring to and not let the reader try to work out or guess. In other words, rather then going on a long rant about something stupid, why not just have the courtesy to specify what country you are referring to, since it obviously occured to you it's something people may want to know...? Either that or simply don't bother to say anything, when as I remarked there isn't really an issue since I doubt anyone would have made a fuss about your question where it not for the fact you choose to. (I do have to give you credit for at least realising the problem, my biggest gripe is when people start talking about obscure details of US or some other countries current or historical situation without realising most people probably have no idea what they're talking about)Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Gallup organizarion has archives of their polls, perhaps for a fee. At a library you should be able to access the NY Times which published polling data, or Newsweek and Time magazines which reported polls during the campaign. Edison (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You could also try the "News archive search" link in Google News (news.google.com), which searches older news articles. Most of the sites that it reaches require payment to view the articles, but not all.  Sometimes even if the article requires payment, you will get a synopsis that will tell you want you want to know.  --Anonymous, 05:48 UTC, June 20/08.


 * Try this: http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=nixon+mcgovern+polls&srchst=p You do have to pay to read the articles, though.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure but this may be useful Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the UK, there's a series of reasonably dry books on each general election (I forget the author - Butler?), giving an overview of the whole thing, and I suspect these have appendices with polls and so on. It might be worth poking around in libraries to see if anyone in the US produces a similar thing - it's quite possible.
 * For a good readable overview of the campaign as a whole, which may well mention some poll figures in passing but certainly gives you a feel for it, try Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail.


 * Here are some polls from 1972, all taken by the Harris Survey.
 * March 1972: Nixon 59%, McGovern 32%
 * April: Nixon 54%, McGovern 34%
 * May: Nixon 48%, McGovern 41%
 * June: Nixon 54%, McGovern 38%
 * July: Nixon 55%, McGovern 34%
 * August: Nixon 57%, McGovern 34%
 * Early September: Nixon 63%, McGovern 29%
 * Sept. 19-21: Nixon 59%, McGovern 31%
 * Oct. 3-5: Nixon 60%, McGovern 33%
 * Oct. 16-19: Nixon 59%, McGovern 34%
 * Nov. 2-4: Nixon 59%, McGovern 35%. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)