Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 21

= February 21 =

When did Kitty Lange Kielland die?
And before you say January 8, 1914 just as the article says bear with me a moment. The Swedish and Norwegian Wikipedias list it as October 1st, 1914. Yes, I wrote the English article, but I no longer have access to the book I used and I know suspect I read 1/8/2008 in the American way (Month/Day/Year) and not the way it was meant (Day/Month/Year). I've checked around the internet, but can't find anything conclusive. Anybody have anything? Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * October 1, 1914. Citation: Marit Lange and Thea Miller. "Kielland, Kitty." In Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http://www.oxfordartonline.com (accessed February 21, 2009). --Milkbreath (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --Falcorian (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions related to the development of civilization
What was the problematic nature of the term "civilization"? How have a variety of social biases influenced our understanding of western civilization over time?

What were the culture and abilities of our hunter-gatherer ancestors?

How did the Neolithic Revolution establish the necessary preconditions for the development of civilizations?

Which historians defended this statement: "Egypt was in many waysa typical Neolithic civilization; its geography made it distinct"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.220 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 February 2009


 * Out out courtesy, and assuming good faith, I have combined your related questions into one topic for ease of responding. I have to say that these read exactly like homework questions. While I am sure many people here would be willing to help you with things, we don't really just answer your homework questions for you like that. Have you researched the appropriate Wikipedia pages, like Hunter-gatherer, Neolithic Age, contribs) 22:34, 20 February 2009

First Legal Tender Approved by US Congress
In the March 2009 issue of Popular Mechanics, pp 53, there's an ad for "Silver Dollars of the American Revolution" - ie Spanish Silver Dollars, that claims "Congress Chose This Silver Dollar as Our First Legal Tender" and goes on to say that the Contintental Congress approved it as such. This articleclaims that coin served as the unofficial national currency of the colonies for much of the 17th and 18th centuries, while none of the seemingly pertinent wiki entries, such as the Coinage Act of 1792 or This one on the dollar coin or any entries on the Constitutional Congress make any mention of the Spanish Silver Dollar as the first approved by Congress.

So does anyone know of a reliable source to back up this claim, made by a site called GovMint.com? Thanks Wolfgangus (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Both of our articles on Dollar coin (United States) and on Spanish Dollar mention that the Spanish Dollar (aka Piece of Eight or Real de a Ocho) was legal tender until 1857. I have not yet found that 1857 act which ended its use... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The act was 11 Stat. 163 (text here). --Cam (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK but neither verifies the ad's claim, that the Spanish silver dollar was the first legal tender for the newly created country; unless this is very loosely interpreted, i.e. it was accepted as legal tender among the colonies and became an ad hoc legal tender following the First or Second Continental Congress. Is this sound? Wolfgangus (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Coins from many foreign countries were accepted as legal tender in the American colonies, but the Spanish dollar was the most common. The first legal tender issued by the Continental Congress was paper money (or bills of credit) known as Continental (currency), which was based on the Spanish system and theoretically backed by Spanish dollars. This is perhaps what the ad is referring to. Finding more info on Continental currency will probably help you find the answer. —Kevin Myers 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can work from this. I appreciate the help from both of you. Wolfgangus (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

British pound sterling was still used in post-revolution America to pay for things, for one. Edison (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

American Pound Sterling
Why didn't the Founding Fathers choose an American version of the British currency? -- 16:34, 21 February 2009 68.231.164.27


 * There were persistent problems with a scarcity of precious-metal circulating in the British north American colonies, and coins of a number of different countries were in de facto use (as mentioned in a previous comment). So it was very easy for the U.S. to start from scratch in creating a new currency, if desired, and several figures (such as Benjamin Franklin) wanted to do this for various reasons, including decimalization... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Why didn't they go the whole hog and have a metric system for weights and measures as well?  --  JackofOz (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By the time the metric system was well-established and gaining momentum in use in France, political relations between the U.S. and France were intermittently very tense and strained (see XYZ Affair, Quasi-War, etc.), and grand reform schemes originating in France were rather politically controversial and suspect within the U.S. Currency decimalization was presented as a homegrown reform (not dependent on foreign influence).  However, the U.S. actually did adopt the metric system in 1866 (non-exclusively), in matters concerning the federal government (see Metrication in the United States). AnonMoos (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just today reading a book about Zebulon Pike and his explorations of Colorado. In several of his journal entries, he makes extensive notes on the weather and uses Centigrade temperature.  However, he also uses standard length measurements (feet, miles, etc.) I expect that for some time, both metric and non-metric systems were in use throughout the U.S.  For probably random and arbitrary reasons, the non-metric system "stuck".  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That gets me thinking about metrication in the US. In the 1960s, Benson & Hedges, a British cigarette maker, marketed a 100mm cigarette in the US, prompting rival Liggett & Myers to produce a cigarette "a silly millimeter longer", the Chesterfield 101. Who says cigarettes are nothing but harmful? The "100" in cigarette names is 100mm, but I'm not sure how many Americans know that these days. Americans know two liters when they see them, though, thanks to Pepsi in 1970. Soldiers brought the "klick" back from Vietnam in the 1960s, but it never caught on, and Americans still can't picture a kilometer very well, I think. The Olympics has forced the meter upon the US, and Americans know it's about a yard but don't use it in everyday talk. The hippies got pot in "keys", but they sold it by the ounce. All in all, America's resistance to metrication displays remarkable stubbornness when you consider the inroads it's made and the pressure from without. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that, Jayron. --  JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jefferson strongly advocated a metric system of weights and measures. He worked hard on a rather impressive system and tried to have it adopted as the US standard. See Plan for Establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States. That page is sadly lacking in detail though. There is an in-depth study of Jefferson's proposed system, how it worked, why it made sense in some ways (and not in others), and why it ultimately failed, in the book Measuring America, by Andro Linklater. One of the main problems with Jefferson's system--and any metric system really--was the difficulty of using metric units to quickly and easily surveying land. In early America land surveying was vitally important and done very quickly by mostly untrained surveyors. It turns out to be much quicker and easier to lay out land in squares, or split an existing square parcel into portions using length and area units of measure easily divided and multiplied by 2 and 4, rather than 10. There was more to the failure of Jefferson's metric system than that. But the way Jefferson had cleverly designed his system so that the base units were interconnected to one another meant that if surveyors rejected the system, as they did, it weakened the rational logic of the system itself. There was also something about Jefferson being annoyed that the French had chosen to base the metre on the size of the Earth, which was not even known precisely at the time, rather than the distance a seconds pendulum swang, which anyone who cared to could confirm for themselves. I like that part of Jefferson's system--he ensured that regular people could confirm standard weights and measures for themselves. A bushel was to be a cubic foot, and an ounce the weight of one bushel of rainwater. If I remember right, a foot was to be one fifth of the swing width of a seconds pendulum (one fifth in order to make the metric foot close in length to the traditional foot). He even tied the system in with coinage and the weight of a (metric) ounce of silver. With his interest in anyone being able to confirm the basic units of measure it is no wonder he was annoyed when France chose to set the metre as one ten-millionth of the length from the equator to the north pole. Pfly (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Irish state of Ulaid
Hi, Ulaid is a precursor to the Irish province of Ulster. It is somehow entangled with Ulidia which is a small north east portion roughly covering counties Down and Antrim. Is it fair to say that Ulaid is roughly the same in boundaries as Ulster? What is the relationship between Ulaid and Ulidia? Anyone suggest a book or website that details these two? ~ R . T . G  11:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This source seems to state that the terms Uladh, Ulidia and Ulaid were used interchangeably in ancient texts.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments between horizontal rules moved here from Obama puppy section


 * Thanks for just putting those maps there without a warning - I have a phobia of maps, especially ones showing islands or water. Very considerate.--Wovit! Wovit! (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I have a phobia of sarcasm. Thanks for using it without warning. Very considerate. What's that? You had no way of knowing and it's not something anyone could reasonably expect? Well, you're still a bad person for doing it, I'm sure. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Did Barack Obama's daughters ever get their puppy?
If so, where is the Wikipedia article for it? US Presidential pets are apparently notable enough for their own articles.--Wovit! Wovit! (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This op-ed suggests they are waiting for warmer weather before getting one . Exxolon (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

has any work in philosophy ever caused historical change?
Hi, are there any good examples of any book or system of thought in philosophy having a definite causal effect on history? People often talk as if philosophy has been influential, and the preponderance of philosophical works on "great books" courses suggests an assumption of its wider importance, but I'm looking for a fairly concrete example. Thanks, It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Communist Manifesto seems to be an fairly concrete example. The text established a new method of political thinking a new ideology, which was to have an effect on the later history of so many countries.MarquisCostello (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Analects of Confucius exerted (and continue to exert) a massive influence on the course of Asian history. Adam Smith continues to influence economic policy. The works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in particular The Social Contract, were a major cause of the French Revolution, and his novel Emile had a major effect on pedagogy in France and elsewhere. Jeremy Bentham influenced the development of the modern penal system and the welfare state, among other things. The work of Georges Sorel may be partly blamed for the rise of fascism and Nazism, as it fueled anti-parliamentary extremism in the years before the Second World War. L ANTZY T ALK 19:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the fine examples listed above could be categorised as writing on economics, or politics, or sociology, and so forth. Similarly philosophical writings about the shape of the earth or the order of the heavens get called astronomy, writings about how many prime numbers there are get called maths, and writings about the death penalty and who should get a kidney transplant get called ethics.  So the cynic might argue that "philosophy" is the name we give for thinking and writing about stuff for which we haven't (get) found a worthwhile application, and if some prior thought was found to actually have use, we'd promote it to being a proper science. So by that definition the answer to you question is a resounding "no!", for if something had ever caused historical change, we wouldn't call it philosophy.  Of course I'm being rather contrary here, but when you find someone claiming "there is no use for philosophy", you'll find they're using a tautological definition of philosophy which defines it as only including useless things.  Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You can make a clearer case if you're allowed one step of removal. Without Hegel, you don't get Marx, for example. Often the greatest influence of pure philosophy is on someone who does not plan to be a pure philosopher themselves. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You might find applied philosophy interesting for its impact.  Julia Rossi (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those answers. I don't quite agree with Mimetic's point which attempts to answer the issue by redrawing the boundaries of language. Clever, but I would accept that philosophy is a definite area that remains after it's been put to good use. Marx is, to me, an example that requires some care. He is probably best considered part-philosopher, part other stuff (including activist). I believe it's fair to say his impact has come mostly from his work on political (and perhaps economic) theory, but that philosophical aspects of his work have been influential. Rousseau and Bentham I would consider mainly philosophers, and I believe these are good examples, that I will give some thought to. Thanks :) It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there'll be a difficulty in separating philosophy from activism. Pacifism is, in part, a philosophy, but is its practical application still philosophic? If so, folks like Bertrand Russell (to choose a man who was very definitely a philosopher) would seem to qualify as having changed the course of history. A less stringent definition of philosophy nets you folks like Mahatma Gandhi, who had an even greater effect on history. Matt Deres (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam war interview
Hi, I am looking for a video clip from the Vietnam war in which an American officer is being interviewed outdoors. He insists the North Vietnamese are nowhere nearby but immediately afterward there is gunfire and a wounded soldier is carried through the frame. Not sure if it was Tet, Hue or Saigon. Haven't had any luck with my searches on youtube. Thanks!--75.157.250.4 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A descendant of John Sedgwick, one assumes. --Sean 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Name of science fiction story
Hi, I am trying to find a series of science fiction books on Wikipedia, but I can't remember the name!! The name of the series is simply a year in the 17th century (I thought it was called "1639", but I checked that year and can't find it there). All I need is the correct date and I should be able to find it.

The story is of a circle of land in modern-day US that was switched with an identical circle of land in 17th century Germany, and goes on to tell the story of the American people that were then trapped in the past... a pretty awesome story, no? Jonathan talk 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you are referring to 1633 (novel)- there were also books entitled 1634 and 1635. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The first book in the series was 1632 (novel). It's available from the publishers as a free e-book, see the link in our article if you're interested. The series is Assiti Shards series, and that's part of a larger body of work called the Assiti Shards series - gadfium 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's it! Thanks Jonathan talk 05:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Louis Font, Donald Duncan, and Howard Levy
Why don't we have articles about these people? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably because nobody's got around to it yet. You could start them off yourself if you wanted to.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because their notability is rather suspect. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

inflation
why should inflation happen if the government printed just enough money to pay its foreign debt or to purchase from a foreign company or country?


 * Because that money just comes from nowhere. By printing more money, all you're doing is making the existing money worth less.67.169.118.40 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the concept of money as equivalent to physical currency is old and antiquated and not at all applicable in the modern world. Modern monetary theory rests on the total supply of money, which has little do with how many bills are printed and coins are pressed in a given nation.  It used to, maybe 100 years ago, but since most "money" exists solely as entries in computer spreadsheats.  Inflation is controlled mostly by the amount of money that banks will lend out relative to how much money they keep on hand to cover those loans.  As banks make greater ratio of loans to capital on hand, inflation tends to increase, since more money is on the market.  However, when banks stop loaning cash, people stop spending, and money is taken off the market as it sits around in bank accounts.  Since the supply of money is now decreasing, inflation slows down, and you can actually get price deflation, since money is now scarce so its value rises relative to the products it can purchase.  Governments can control this sort of money supply by lowering base interest rates; for example, a central bank can lower the rate IT uses when it loans money to commercial banks, thereby theoretically encouraging those banks to lower their interest rates, and encouraging them to loan out more money.  This is sort of the modern equivalent of "printing money"; but it isn't the same thing as firing up the printing presses and producing more bills, since bills themselves represent a small portion of the total money on the market.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  23:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A "dollar" is just a representation of 1/13-trillionth of the US economy. If you print more money, you're not increasing the size of the economy, so now that dollar represents less of the economy than it used to. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that money isn't simply going into a safe or something, either. It's being given to businesses and governments, who will then spend that money, thus putting it back into the economy. And the more money is circulating, the higher inflation is. So while printing more money seems like a good solution, it only causes problems in the end. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 02:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the U.S. Government themselves: there is $829 billion dollars of U.S. currency in circulation.  That represents about 0.829 trillion dollars out of a 13 trillion dollar economy, or roughly 6 percent of the total "money" in the economy.  Printing more dollar bills will have little to no effect on the overall supply of "money" in the economy.  The "money supply" is no longer controled by printed bills; its controlled by the central banks, in the U.S. the Federal Reserve Bank which controls the interest rates with which it will loan money to banks, and to an extent by the Fed's ability to buy up U.S. government debt (Treasury Bills and Treasury Bonds), further driving down the supply of "money".  If the Bureau of Printing and Engraving knocked out a few million more Benjamin Franklin notes this year, it would have little effect on the total supply of money, and thus would not do much for inflation.  Again, inflation in the modern world is controled by the supply of money (well, as it was in ALL times) however, in the modern world, money is not currency.  Money is mostly ledger entries in computers.  Increasing the numbers in those ledger entries is much more effected by the Monetary policy of central banks.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Printing money and adding money out of thin air to computer ledger books is the same thing essentially. Both increase the money supply and both can cause inflation if done irresponsibly. Wrad (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes; but sometimes causing inflation can be a rational, intentional policy, sometimes the most responsible course. See Krugman's reissued book on the return of depression economics; there's a real chance it could be the wisest thing in the near future in the USA.John Z (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the question is whether the actual printing of money is likely to have a major effect. Given that printed currency represents 6 percent of the money in the U.S. (and this is a high estimate, since most of the currency printed in the U.S. is used outside of the U.S. and likely not part of the U.S. economy), increasing this number to like 7% will have a slightly inflationary effect.  Just not a significant one.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  14:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. See quantitative easing (which is nothing more than a euphemism for "printing money"). --Tango (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)