Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 July 1

= July 1 =

Pirate Party
Based on historical precedent, how will the Pirate Party (of Sweden) fare without an 'illegal' The Pirate Bay? The party doesn't seem very capable of inciting much interest itself, since it is relatively new and is a single issue party. It does have some inherent support (maybe around 1-2% of the electorate), but without TPB, it seems like interest will fizzle away rather quickly.

On the other hand, I can see how the acquisition of the site can invoke some strong emotions, thereby increasing support for the party. -- hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  04:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder sometimes do they care less about green partys and other stuff unless they are showing it on TV all the time and if so, why don't they brainwash us all into the very best morals and health? If I then took them to court with treasures like The Exorcist, do I get my money back? ~ R.T.G 07:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As you say, the Party alone doesn't seem to have much success, but it is possible that the closing of the Bay could give them one last big publicity boost. Also, the 'Battle of the Bay' isn't over yet. The Pirate Bay is still running, and they will appeal the judgement, possibly successfully. Also, now they are in the EU Parliament they have access to substantial funds and resources there. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on historical precedent, they need to move to California to have any luck. In general, upstart parties with a single political stance that isn't a major part of the daily life for the majority of the citizens is doomed to failure - except in California.  Strangely, in that state, the single political stance can be completely absent from any of the citizens daily life and somehow succeed.  As an anecdote: Sonny Bono's restaurant was being heavily pushed around by Palm Springs city council.  So, Sonny ran for Mayor of Palm Springs to have the power to tell the city council to shove it.  Why would anyone vote for him when it was clear what his motive was?  Well, he won. --  k a i n a w &trade; 11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sonny Bono was a celebrity, celebrities have name recognition and unfortunately name recognition is a big part of getting elected. I don't think California voters are worse than other voters in that regard. -- BenRG (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the original poster is referring not to the court case but to yesterday's announcement that The Pirate Bay is about to get the Napster treatment . -- BenRG (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystalball, and it's impossible to predict exactly how the political developments will be in the future. That said, it should be clarified that PP and TPB are two different entities, and PP was never the 'political wing' of TPB. The TPB trial was a huge boost to PP ahead of the 2009 EU elections, but the media buzz around PP is not dependent on the continued existence of TPB. Also, the PP now has a political network of its own and is (with one full MEP seat and one MEP observer) economically self-sufficient to run an election campaign in 2010. --Soman (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting!
I've seen this phrase in various places, including the start of Royal Charters, but also on American documents. What does it mean, what is its significance, and where does it come from? Does it have a name? Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► most serene ─╢ 06:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "These presents" means "this document". Rhinoracer (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't answer any of those questions, but the phrase has been in use in legal documents since at least the early 15th century. (And Rhinoracer is correct; the phrase "these presents" is sometimes given as "these present letters"). Fouracross (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting, even as a lawyer I never knew what it meant, thanks! I always guessed "these presents" meant "those present at the signing of this document." Meaning, in other words, those attesting to it would, by thaeir attestation, writing, etc., be delivering what was written to others. But, Rhinoracer's explanation also makes a lot of sense.Somebody or his brother (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In medieval Latin, one sense of presens was "a message or document." The English usage no doubt derives from that. Deor (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is a standard formula in medieval Latin documents, something along the lines of "omnibus ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit", or "omnibus ad quos presentes litterae pervenerint", or other similar formulae. "Presens" in that case meant "the present document" or "the present matter". In the study of these kind of documents (diplomatics), I think this part is called the address, there's no fancier name than that. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, although my point was that presens alone was used to denote a document (my old copy of Baxter and Johnson's Medieval Latin Word-List dates the sense as far back as the eighth century in British sources), which would account for usages like "these presents" in English. Deor (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, and definitely the formula occurs with "presens" as a substantive adjective alone. Another interesting thing about this is that "salutem" always occurs as a direct object without a verb, it is just assumed that the verb is "sends". Even ancient Roman letters left the verb out. In English "salutem" becomes an interjection instead, "greetings". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant (since no word corresponding to "present" is involved) addendum: This thread awoke a dim memory in me, so I dug out my old college diploma, which turns out to bear the line "Omnibus ad quos hae Literae pervenerint, Salutem in Domino sempiternam." Not just a greeting, but a sempiternal one! Deor (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

UN 6th Committee
There is a wiki article that needs an expert to fix. First the tittle is wrong! Second it needs serious expansion. It is a subcategory. to wikiUN. can some one direct me to the right people? --Zakouma (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a wikiproject that handles UN articles, you can leave a message on their talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_Nations Livewireo (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Princess Elisabeth Helene of Thurn and Taxis
Do you know if there is an photo archive anywhere of Princess Elisabeth Helene of Thurn and Taxis? I only found one here. --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

22nd Amendment (US Constitution)
If the 22nd Amendment were repealed during Obama's presidency, would Obama be allowed to run for a third term, or would it only apply to future Presidents? Or would this be decided by the way the repeal(presumably a new amendment itself) was written? 69.224.113.202 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the repeal just said "The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed" then we would be back to the situation the day before it was passed, and the incumbent could keep running for reelection for the rest of his life, like F.D. Roosevelt. But to avoid it being too clearly directed at one person, it might exclude the incumbent, just as Truman was excluded from term limits as the incumbent when the 22nd amendment was ratified. Edison (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So in theory Obama could run, but in practice he might be specifically excluded? Prokhorovka (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in practice I don't think such a repeal is very likely at all, so it is difficult to say. Something would have to happen to change public and political opinion on term limits and without knowing what that something is, we can't say how it would work. If it was repealed because people absolutely loved Obama and wanted him to be able to stay on then, obviously, he wouldn't be excluded. --Tango (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would depend on how it was worded. Some amendments have "activation" dates which are later then the date of passage, and others are considered to become valid the day they pass.  Consider especially that the 22nd Ammendment specifically did NOT apply to anyone who was President when the amendment was proposed by congress, thus theoretically Harry Truman could have served an infinite number of terms (well, until he died) even though he was the President when the amendment was proposed.  The first president it applied to was Dwight Eisenhower.  Likewise, the 18th amendment went into effect 1 year after it was ratified.  So we have examples of two with alterations on the starting time of the amendment being different from its ratification date; one based on the date it was proposed, the other based on the date it was ratified.  However, most other amendments do not list "starting dates", and so they would become active as soon as they were passed.  Presumably, if the 22nd amendment were repealed, whether it would apply to the sitting president or not would depend on how the repealing amendment (lets say the 28th) was worded.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Miracles
Why is it considered a miracle when a single person survives a catastrophe? The most obvious example is the recent [Yemenia Flight 626] disaster where a teenage girl survived the crash while everyone else died. Why is it a miracle when hundreds die from the same accident as the survivor? I understand why people look for a silver lining but I don't see how someone can explain that God was great for saving the one person while he let everyone else die... TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think often when people say "miracle" they just mean a very unlikely good thing, rather than literally meaning it was an act of god. --Tango (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alternately, if we want to stick to acts of God, let's determine whether you're asking "why is God saving one person out of 500 a miracle" or "why didn't God save everyone". Are you counterclaiming that it would be better for God to let everyone die rather than save one person?  By most any measure, a miracle is a rare occurrence, so asking (theologically) why people die in the first place is a very different question.  Of course, Wikipedia is well-equipped to start informing you along those lines, too -- you may be interested in our article on the problem of evil and related topics. &mdash; Lomn 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's always the flip side of the "miraculous" outlier event—it indicates the relative lack of intervention in the mainstream events, and the question about why intervention only seems to happen at very rare times. I am not sure whether any serious philosophers or theologians would consider such actions "miracles" or not. It is not a very rigorous approach. In many cases (but not this particular example), the claiming of a "miracle" is often at the expense of those mere mortals who actually performed it (medical personnel often get somewhat discounted when someone has a "miraculous" cure). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it was more of a miracle when a passenger train I was on was unaffected by the derailment of a freight train while we were passing it at 70 miles per hour (it tipped over the other way from where we were) than if there had been a wreck and fire and I had been the only survivor. Ditto when a plane a family member was on was in final approach and another plane taxied across the runway in its path. My family member's plane managed to rise above the interloper, and no harm was done. More of a miracle than if the family member had been the lone survivor of a crash and conflagration. When no one is harmed and nothing is damaged, we discount the miracle. Edison (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a miracle if one person survives, not a miracle if half the people survive, and a miracle when everyone survives, very confusing :P --Abc26324 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is probably because the media is a poor judge on what a real miracle is, and tends to overuse to word because it sells more newspapers, ad-time, whatever. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You may also just be interested in our article on Miracle, which just describes it as an interruption of the laws of nature. I don't see why a survivor violates the laws of nature, not even for a moment. Llamabr (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oldest French Noble titles
What are the oldest French noble titles? I a title that had remain in the family for over a thousand years besides the Capetian kings. Like Count of Paris, it didn't remain in the same families throughout history but it is a really old title. I want to know the oldest continuous title from medieval France.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you checked List of French peerages? They don't seem to be continuous for very long; most of them were created in the Renaissance and they frequently died out, were sold, or were merged into other titles, and sometimes a new line is created with the same title. It's similar to what happens with the English peerage. Does any noble title ever remain in one family for a thousand years? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The oldest English title is Baron de Ros, dating from 1264. The various branches of the Montesquiou family may be the oldest French family.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The oldest still existing noble family in France is the House of Rochechouart (876). But since the Third Republic, the French noble titles have no legal value. Gede (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merovingian titles originally belonged strictly to an individual, in right of his appointment: comes was an inheritance/imitation of a late Roman title. The gradation to a heritable title was a process, strongest in outlying domains. Compare the Visigothic Duchy of Cantabria, also in a march--Wetman (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For information on French nobility and titles, including a discussion of their status today (pertaining to the notion of "continuous"), see the pertinent page on Heraldica.org, and its sources. - Nunh-huh 21:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

An historical example of a counter-productive fad
Hello all -

I'm working on a book which is largely mathematical, but I want to intersperse it with a few relevant historical examples. Right now, I'm looking for a particular example of a situation where a community of people had a clear goal in mind, but as the result of some serious misinformation, they all acted in a way that was radically counterproductive. It would be best if at the time there were people who knew what this group was doing was counterproductive, but the people in the group didn't listen to those people (either because they didn't believe them or because they didn't know them).

As an illustration, the recent scandal about the misperceptions of Florida teenagers regarding bleach as a preventative for HIV or Mountain Dew as a contraceptive would be a good example. But, I was hoping for something (a) more historical, (b) with a bit more meat so that a nice narrative could be written, and (c) a little less embroiled in politics.

The more suggestions, the merrier I'll be. Thanks for your help! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * China under Mao went into a few widespread counterproductive practices. These are anecdotes.  You will need to dig into the history to make it as accurate as you want.  The main example that comes to mind is steel production.  Steel is required to build major cities and a strong military.  So, Mao (or someone speaking for him) made the announcement that more raw steel was needed.  The people took their good steel products, melted them down, and created heavily polluted, brittle, almost worthless steel (mainly because they didn't know how to recycle steel).  Another more abstract issue is rice production.  Mao asked how much rice production there was.  As the question trickled down to the farms, it was expressed that it was important to grow a lot of rice.  When the answer trickled back up, each person added a tiny bit to the amount produced.  The final answer was far more than the amount of rice produced, so the government sold a lot of the rice that wasn't apparently needed to Russia and, as a result, many people in China starved. --  k a i n a w &trade;


 * See articles Backyard furnace and Great sparrow campaign... AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Tulipomania.--Wetman (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As expressed in Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, which also examines the South Sea Bubble, among other popular follies &mdash; this may be at a distance from what you're looking for (but may be spot on). Tempshill (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just about to recommend that very book when I saw that you had beat me to it. It is probably the best source for what the OP is asking, although of course because of its age it lacks more recent examples. A somewhat relevant book would be Wilhelm Reichs The Mass Psychology of Fascism which attempts to answer the question: "Why did the masses turn to authoritarianism which is clearly against their interests?" (this is a quote from the article). --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How about the Shakers? They believed in complete celibacy and essentially went extinct as a result (just 4 left). TheFutureAwaits (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Guns, Germs, and Steel (Google book link), in the 1600s Japan abandoned the use of guns and rifles as part of its drive to let Japan stay in isolation. A few influential samurai were apparently convinced that guns were un-samurai and therefore counter-productive in defending Japan.  The result was that when the USA's Commodore Matthew Perry showed up, Japan's military was woefully under-prepared to defend itself and stay in isolation.  --M @ r ē ino 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the misinformation in this situation? That the US was not going to roll up and threaten them? (I'd say 200 years of success at a policy is a pretty good track record, personally. Failing to adapt with the times is something different than being said to be delusional the whole time...) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other entities had firearms. Giving up advanced technology because it didn't match their romantic ideals is unwise.  They got lucky that it took 200 years for some one to come along and point it out.  However, I don't think its what the OP was looking for.  Cmschroeder (talk)

The Maginot Line in France, which was clearly opposed by people such as de Gaulle who knew that the military theory on which it was based was out of date. Basically, French generals thought that the next war with Germany would pretty much be the same than the previous one that they won : static, based on defence and artillery. So they built these huge system of defence, which diverted France from using its resources on the new weapons, planes and tanks, that made the Blitzkrieg possible. And in 1940, in three weeks time, they lost. --Gede (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was just a bad strategy, not a counter-productive fad... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Something along the lines of your original example is the South African phenomenon of raping babies in the belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this one so far is the most in line with the original suggestion. The rest are just poor policy decisions or economic bubbles, which are not quite the same thing at all. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * At the beginning of the 1910's, the hobble-skirt briefly became a mainstream fashion. Elaborate and cumbersome women's clothes had long been used in order for families to effectively advertise for all to see that they were wealthy enough that they could afford to render their women unfit for practical physical labor (as famously analyzed by Thorstein Veblen), but even in that context the hobble-skirt was kind of extreme in restricting basic mobility, and it basically came and went in about two years (and at the end of that time, I bet a lot of women were asking themselves "What was I thinking?"). AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This may be an apocryphal tale - but you may or may not have heard of the 'rat temple' of Karni Mata at Deshnoke. Supposedly, when periodic outbreaks of rat-borne sickness afflict the monks there, their response is to go out and acquire more sacred rats to live and eat alongside them in the temple, as they believe that the sickness is some form of divine punishment for failing to sufficiently worship and protect the rats... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From 1the 1790's through roughly the end of the 19th century medical doctors would routinely bleed and purge patients, to "remove toxins" from the body. This was based on tradition and faith in the claims of such 18th century doctors as Benjamin Rush rather than on experimental evidence. The purging was by administration of a poisonous mercury compound called calomel. That plus the loss of blood from the bleeding hastened the deaths of many, and were of no therapeutic value. Their goal was to purify the bodily fluids, but they only weakened and poisoned the patient. In the mid 19th century, homeopaths and herbalists (some quacks in their own right, but more with placebos) wrote books collecting evidence of deaths caused by these practices, and even a few physicians denounced the practice of bleeding and purging, but it continued for decades as the standard treatment for every kind of illness or injury.Other harmful abuses during this era of Heroic medicine included blistering and emetics to make the patient throw up. Edison (talk) 04:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The practice of bloodletting is much older than the 1790s, in fact one could say that it was from the last half of the 1700s and onwards that the process of ending the practice began through more and more practical experiments in the field of medicine (although it is correct that it was not abandonded completely until the late 19th century).--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeasement. What an own-goal that was. --Dweller (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Smoking, and the theory of humorism, seem to fit the bill. See Smoking is good for you. As late as the early 20th century people thought that smoking would cure a bad chest. "Here, sonny, have a gasper, it'll do you the world of good and no mistake." Ericoides (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about the plowing of the top soil of the great plains? It was intended to make it more suitable for agriculture, but... See Dust Bowl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Challenger disaster is a very well documented incident that seems to meet your criteria:
 * "A community of people" - senior management in the Space Shuttle programme ...
 * "had a clear goal in mind" - wanted to demonstrate that the Space Shuttle was safe and reliable ...
 * "but as the result of some serious misinformation" - but a failure to communicate serious safety concerns up the chain of command ...
 * "they all acted in a way that was radically counterproductive" - led to a tragic loss of life and grounding of the Space Shuttle fleet for almost three years.
 * "at the time there were people who knew what this group was doing was counterproductive" - engineers at Morton Thiokol expressed their concern about the effect of the temperature on the resilience of the rubber O-rings on the evening before the launch ...
 * "but the people in the group didn't listen to those people" - but they were overruled by Morton Thiokol management.
 * The Rogers Commission Report described the Challenger disaster as "an accident rooted in history". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaded Petrol and the use of Asbestos. Nanonic (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In hindsight, the combination of asbestos and cigarettes was probably a Bad Idea. Yep, for a time (in the 1950s, I believe), some cigarette filters contained (or were made of) asbestos. Years ago, I saw a documentary on the BBC that explored the 'worst ideas in history' - one of the things they talked about was a brand of cigarettes sold in Britain that, as a selling point, featured a thin strand of asbestos through the centre of each cig, which supposedly prevented the ash from breaking off at inappropriate moments. Also noted was a 'health tonic' made from substances extracted from the brains and spinal cords of cattle. Oops. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a perpetual fad for skin lightening; venetian ceruse was certainly harmful, but it fails your "people who knew this was counterproductive" test, but mercury-based skin whitening preparations continue to be used in countries with poor regulation, although there's strong medical evidence that it's dangerous. 87.113.26.43 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WOW!! I didn't check this for a day, and look what I got. Thank you everyone. I'm going to look through these and see how they fit with my overall project. If anyone has any more ideas keep them coming, but thank you everyone for your quick help! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See Tragedy of the commons. Almost any example of over-exploitation of a common resource will work for you. This has been going on since before the invention of agriculture. Examples include hunting the manoth to extinction, the deforestation of the seats fo many great civilization ofthe past (Greece, Rome, Israel...) salinization of crop land in India, overfishing in lots of places, global warming, air pollution in London, air pollution in eastern europe and many more. In each case, the activity seems like a good idea to most folks, and at some point a few people notice that bad things are happenihg. -Arch dude (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting a deep bronze suntan to look healthy and fit, until the skin cancers pop up amidst the wrinkled ruins of the person's skin. Edison (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rabbits_in_Australia --Dweller (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Endowment mortgage DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

MMR_vaccine_controversy Snorgle (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lysenkoism - Nunh-huh 18:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed on the desks before - but how about tapeworm eggs marketed as a weight-loss aid? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not the Edsel, described here as "talented, competent, well-intentioned people setting a goal that seemed perfectly reasonable, marching confidently toward that goal--and going straight off a cliff." --Blue387 (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Iowa crop revenue
Hi, I've been trying to poke around google and the various Iowa government sites to find this, but I'm having trouble. I'm trying to find the annual revenues earned by Iowa farms, broken down by crop. I've seen crops compared in terms of acres or bushels, but what I'm really trying to get a hold on is how much money is at stake, so I figure revenue is a better figure (or maybe net profits or appraisal value, but I haven't seen those either). Yes, I know that the ballpark answer will be "corn is really important, then soy, then some other stuff," but I'd really love to get a more exact economic picture than that. Thanks! --M @ r ē ino 21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The 2007 U.S. census of agriculture will probably have all you need: . You can get down to the county level.Rmhermen (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--M @ r ē ino 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)