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

= July 21 =

Identifying an unknown US sword
Hello all! I suppose this question would loosely go under "history." We've had this sword stowed away either in a closer or under a parlor sofa for quite some time. I only just now got to taking a close look at it. There are some ornate inscriptions on the blade; you can pick out a shield, probably an eagle here and there, you know, stuff you'd expect to see engraved. In addition, on one side is a nice big "US," and on the other a "Pluribus Unum" (I can't seem to find the "E"). I combed over the blade and scabbard in search of a date, to no avail. Any help on some identification? I'll list some details:


 * The hilt is goldish, covered in engraved four-point stars.
 * The scabbard is primarily silver, but there are four gold areas:
 * The very top (which the cross-guard rests on when sheathed)
 * The very end (which I guess would be the chape, but it actually extends off the basic shape of the sheathed sword. A similar shape can be seen on the end of the scabbard in this sword.)
 * Two separate rings where you attach...um, something to something...they're for attaching the sword to your body, of course, but I'm a dunce at how it actually attaches. They're similar in shape to the rings on Marxuach's sabre in the preceding image. However, they are placed a bit farther apart on the scabbard than on Marxuach's.

And of course, some rather rough measurements:


 * The blade is 30.5 inches.
 * The grip is 3.5 inches.
 * The inscriptions on the blade end about 17.5 inches from the cross-guard.

There's also something a bit unusual with the pommel. At the very end (that is, opposite the blade), there is a silver circular piece, topped with a gold cap nut/acorn nut. I really don't think unscrewing it is a good idea...

I did browse through a few US military sword sites, but nothing looked like it. So, with this plethora of information, anyone have a clue?-- The Ninth Bright Shiner 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * With the inscriptions about halfway down the blade, it sounds to me like some kind of ceremonial sword. A photo might help with identification, but you might do better taking it to a specialist.  Of course, you might find out it is a worthless souveneir from somewhere, but it might genuinely be worth something or at least turn out to be something interesting.
 * As for the nut at the end of the handle, I did read that with Samurai swords, the patina on the tang inside the handle is particularly important to the value of the sword - maybe the same applies to your sword, so I suggest you do not remove the handle and certainly do not clean the tang without seeking expert advice. Astronaut (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The legal concept of acquiescence -- does it exist in any United States laws?
The legal concept of acquiescence (see article), are there United States laws, especially Federal, where it is in law? (I don't mean the precedent Georgia v. South Carolina.) Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are definitely adverse possession laws in the U.S. Although I think they are mostly at the state level. 164.156.231.55 (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no one acquiescence statute, but there are many statutes and common law doctrines that reflect this concept. For example, it may be said to underlie statutes of limitation, where a would-be plaintiff has only a limited amount of time to bring suit after being on notice of a wrong.  John M Baker (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Adverse Possession is part of property law. The states have almost exclusive jurisdiction. The common law requirements are that the adverse possession must be open and continuous, hostile and last the statutory period. Recently, I read a text that described it as a statute of limitations for trespass actions. Now I realize the previous poster answered the same question. The s/l for trespass formulation makes so much sense to me. The elements now made more sense to me.75Janice (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)75Janice

Meaning of Maxims and Arrows 27
What is the meaning of Maxims and Arrows 27 from Twilight of the Idols By Friedrich Nietzsche The quote is "Women are considered profound. Why? Because we never fathom their depths. But women aren't even shallow."

What is the meaning? Is it as simple as women are below shallow or is there a much more profound meaning? I have heard the quote used many times but with no context —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The original is "Man haelt das Weib fuer tief - warum? weil man nie bei ihm auf den Grund kommt. Das Weib ist noch nicht einmal flach" - It's just an aphorism - of the type "I'll never understand women because they are illogical creatures - maybe that makes them profound?", and similar to "rocket science is easier than marriage"
 * The subtitle of the book is "how to philosophise with a hammer" - don't expect it to be profound - most are trite. In contect most of this section of the book is about "turning on the head" or "giving a twist to" common phrases or sayings - it's not a particularily profound or philosophical work by any measure. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Learning to kill
I read On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society awhile back and was most interested in his thesis that specific changes were made in the training of Western soldiers in the years after World War II along Skinnerian lines in order to increase their individual chances of being psychologically capable of killing when the chance game. Unfortunately the book is high on argument (and anecdote) and low on historical citations. Does anyone know another good, generally readable book on such a topic that goes into this particular type of training? E.g. Skinnerian conditioning in the American armed forces between WWII and Vietnam. Any suggestions? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Or put another way. Is there a good book on the use of psychology in warfare for the purposes of training, not psychological warfare as it is typically understood? I'm looking for a historical study on the uses of psychology in developing troop training, basically. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not about psychology per se, but S.L.A. Marshall's "Men against fire" (a controversial work) contended that in World War II, only one in four U.S. infantrymen used their weapons during a battle. Some comments about Marshall's work and his critics can be viewed  here.  Marshall contended that his work resulted in the percentage of "active participants" rising to 55% by the Korean War, so there may be something for you in this work.  Cheers W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

UK Ministry of Information during WWI
I noticed the following unsourced statement about the (former) Ministry of Information, in the Censorship in the United Kingdom article: "During the First World War it was infamous for having a staff of 999." Was that because government bodies with 1000 or more staff were subject to greater supervisory or public disclosure requirements, and the Ministry was able to get away with specific, identifiable dirty deeds because it was small? Would be very interesting to read about if so, but otherwise "infamous" is just a throwaway superlative that should be deleted. 86.162.194.37 (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That should be "During the Second World War..." If you're headed to the library, try: Riley, Norman. (1940). 999 and all that. .&mdash;eric 04:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can a nun enter a civil marriage
Can a Roman Catholic nun enter a civil marriage? Does any secular country forbid Roman Catholic nuns to enter a civil marriage? Surtsicna (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt that any country (even the Vatican) has laws forbidding Catholic nuns from getting married. The Catholic church forbids marriage.  A nun can freely marry with the possible result being loss of status as a nun by the church, not the country. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have heard of such cases. Of course those are moot, since in all cases the nun/priest had to denounce her nunhood/his priesthood before the actual marriage could take place. And I also find it less than likely that any country would have a law forbidding nuns marriage. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If the Pope himself wanted to marry someone, I doubt there's be any law preventing him. There'd of course be theological ramifications ..., but that's not the state's concern.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well isn't the Pope himself a head of a theological state? Googlemeister (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct, but he is also the head of a religion. Are the rules/laws of the state identical to the rules/laws of the religion?  It is very possible that the religion forbids the Pope to marry but there is no specific law in the state forbidding marriage. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It would probably be quite tricky for the Pope to marry in the Vatican City itself. But if he went to another country to do it, there'd be less of an issue.  --  JackofOz (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the nun in question (if british) could enter into a civil partnership... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends what you consider a secular country I guess. Israel for example is often considered a secular country, but there's currently no provision for a civil marriage in Israel so clearly a nun, and everyone else can't enter in to a civil marriage in Israel. However it's still possible the Pope or a nun could get married in Israel if one of the 15? religious authorities were willing to marry him or the nun and if he/she were to marry overseas, his/her marriage would be recognised and that's even if he/she gets married to another man/nun(woman). There may be other countries which some consider secular but with similar issues. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Pope: the rule banning priests (excluding monks, who follow special rules) from marrying is internal church discipline that the Pope can change. It has no theological ramification. David.Monniaux (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weren't there a few Popes or so with children? I remember hearing about a Pope who was the son of a Pope sometime around the Renaissance. So perhaps this has changed? (Then of course, they could perhaps be situations like that of the former? Argentine? (somewhere in that region) president.) Vltava   68  00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can't say something nice...
Every time Bernanke makes a public statement, the Dow takes a 50+ point hit. Why does he insist on making public statements? Googlemeister (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Every time? Literally, every single time he has made any sort of public statement, the market drops more than 50 points?  If you actually believe that, you shouldn't be messing with stocks.  Or... now that I think of it... I have a bunch of Martian stock that is very rare that I can sell you for, say, just $5,000/share. --  k a i n a w &trade; 16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering how stocks are fungible, rarity is not a means of increasing value. And I mean everytime he makes a public televised statement.  Googlemeister (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure of the accuracy of the premise (that Bernanke's statements (almost) invariably make the market go down). Even assuming it to be true, however, consider that maintaining the valuation of the stock market neither is, nor should be, a central responsibility of the Fed Chairman.  He has more fundamental responsibilities with respect to, for example, the monetary supply and the banking system; protecting the interests of stock market investors and speculators is at best a secondary consideration.  In addition, there are many occasions on which he is obligated to speak, and others on which he may believe providing reliable public information is part of his job.  John M Baker (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the questioner could read today's news and realize that the base of his claim is simply not true. -- k a i n a w &trade; 20:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All I know is stock was about 60+ before he said anything, it dropped to -20 or so, and then eventually worked its way back up to end at 60+ or so yesterday. Probably just observer bias.  Googlemeister (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost all of Bernanke's public statements come from Congressional hearings, i.e. he is compelled to testify. Fed chairman have made an art of speaking without saying anything substantive at these hearings so as to avoid unduly influencing the markets. Alan Greenspan was renowned for this, though he occasionally slipped and said something immoderate ("irrational exuberance"). —D. Monack talk 03:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Retiree organization in USA
I can't recall the name nor find anything in the Category:Retirement in the United States - but I am almost sure there is an important organization in USA for senior citizens that has major influence on politics by lobbying... any thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about AARP? Googlemeister (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the AARP. Tempshill (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Are confessional booths always made of wood?
Are confessional booths always made of wood? -- 208.120.179.230 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They can be brick or stone as well.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When I was on tour in Europe 2 months ago I saw a church with a confessional made of glass, both the outer door as well as the panel between the confessor and the priest. The confessor spoke into a microphone which presumably had a speaker on the priest's end, and vice versa. Since the whole setup was glass, we could look in from the main floor of the church. It might have been Notre Dame (/me runs off to check his pictures...), yes it is Notre Dame. I have a not-so-good picture of one. Do our articles on confessional or Notre Dame particularly need a pic? Zunaid 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Notre Dame de Paris? Algebraist 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Buying share - online or physical broker?
I would like to buy some (maybe U.S/Cad) shares and I live in Canada. I'm treating this like gambling so I'm not really asking for advice on which stock to buy etc. I'm thinking of spending roughly 100 ~ 300 Canadian dollar per month. As a complete stock newbie (with no knowledge whatsoever, crazy, I know) which method would be better? Buying share online or go visit a physical broker? I tried Google, which return pages after pages of online share trading company intend on promoting their own services. The closest question I could find asked in the past here in the reference desk is "Stock exchange and share things", which quickly go off topic and not really helpful. What are the pro and con of each (buying online vs. broker)? Lastly, any link/book/advice to some intro material (basic lingo, very basic working on share/market) would be much appreciated. Thank you very much in advance. Royor (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You really want two things: First, how much is the charge for the service? It may be a monthly charge or yearly charge.  Second, how much does it cost to submit a transaction?  It may be a flat rate or a percentage or a combination of both.  With those two figures, you can budget how much the service charge will be, regardless of if you trade or not.  Then, you can add in the transaction charges when you plan your purchases.  When talking to brokers (online or in person) pester them to give you those two values.  Nothing else is important until you are a power broker and you need split-second trades to profit off the microadjustments in a million different stocks at once. --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The online service I personally use has a $US10 per trade fee and no other fees. Based on this, you would probably want to do trades of at least $500, maybe $1000 to keep the fees from eating too much of any gains you might get.  The physical brokers I know start at $30 a trade, so if you are not trading in large chunks of $, online will probably be the wiser choice.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think you can get trades in Canada for that low a price. I think the lowest you'd probably find for occasional (ie not over quite a few per month) is about $20CAD a transaction from online companies.  I asked at TD the other day and they said it was $29CAD a trade there.  As Googlemeister says, if you're only buying or selling small amounts you are going to pay a lot of it to the broker.  If you are just looking for a reliable way to invest money, I would recommend index funds.  As someone pointed out to me here a few weeks ago, you can get TD e-series funds with an MER of 0.31%.  You don't pay any transaction fees, and unless it's an RRSP you don't pay a yearly fee (if it is, it's $100 a year unless you have over $25000 in it, in which case it is waived).  You can set it up to buy an amount each month (see dollar cost averaging) and not have to worry about buying or selling individual shares which can be incredibly volatile.  Of course it's less fun - if you're just looking for the joy of speculating by all means go ahead, but be advised that it's quite possible you'll lose a lot of money doing it and your chances of "hitting it big" are probably less than you might imagine.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Another note that I've found many people to miss... Buying stock is a trade. Selling stock is a trade.  If you are paying $20/trade, you pay $40 for the entire buy-sell transaction.  Therefore, say you purchase 10 shares of stock at $10/share ($100 total).  The stock needs to increase to $14/share when you sell just to break even.  So, before you start gambling, see if any stocks you are eyeballing happen to be making similarly large jumps in value. --  k a i n a w &trade; 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't recommend this idea of yours, because the transaction fees are going to dwarf any profits. In addition to the regular commission to the broker, you are supposed to buy shares of stock in lots of 100, or else you have to pay additional "odd lot" charges.  Buying Intel will therefore cost you US$1,890 plus the commission to the broker.  I applaud the idea of experimenting and starting small, but a less expensive way to do it would be to find a website that runs a stock market simulation game, and play that for a couple of years until you have more money you're willing to gamble all at once.  Or invest in a stock-based, no-load mutual fund and follow its progress.  Tempshill (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In the UK i can trade stocks in any number and my charges are the same, not sure if this 'odd lot' charge is something unique to the US/Canada but never had it disclosed in any of my trades.

Another thing I would add - the bid offer spread is something to consider. Some stocks can have a very wide spread which adds to your need for more returns. I would say - go for it if you can afford to (and are happy to) lose every penny, and are not expecting to make much - if any - money. I have enjoyed my trading (which has been profitable even during the current economic downturn, thanks to Barclays and Aviva) and whilst all the above is perfectly true, and yes trade-costs and other incidentals add to the need for returns, if you are interested in learning more about trading, business and financial-information I find there's nothing like having money ride on it to make you take an interest!

Oh and another thing - in the Uk you pay Stamp Duty (a tax). I've no idea for Canada, but similar taxes may apply, adding to how much your need for profit. ny156uk (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all the prompt replies. I have a few more related questions: Royor (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I heard about penny stocks, should a newbie try or stay clear of them?
 * 2) So suppose I buy stocks once every year (CAD$4000 worth) and hold them for say ... 5 year before doing anything to them, would transaction fee still dwarf any profit?
 * 3) Tempshill you mention the amount I'm willing to spend is too little to "buy-in". How much would be "enough", or at least worth the trouble?
 * 4) I’m already buying RRSP for tax purposes (from my insurance company) - if I want to use index fund or mutual fund of my choice (right now I just give the company money and they pick for me) as my next year’s RRSP who should I approach? Bank? Insurance company? Is it really recommended (to pick your own) or should I just believe in the pro who do this for a living?


 * Unfortunately, despite your not asking for stock picks, this is getting close to giving financial advice, and the Reference Desk is not supposed to give professional advice. Have you considered blowing a couple hundred to spend an hour talking with a financial advisor?  Or, at a minimum, read The Intelligent Investor.  I'll try to field some non-advice questions, though:
 * 1. Penny stocks.  These are simply stocks that trade for very low prices.  They are trading that low for a great reason &mdash; the companies have very little value, because they aren't earning much, their debt payments are larger than their foreseeable profitability, etc.  As the article states, their prices are pretty easily manipulated, and they are usually thinly traded.  A total crapshoot.
 * 2. This is of course impossible to answer because stocks are often like gambling, and nobody knows if there will be any profit at all.  If you're talking about "odd lot" fees, $4000 would avoid them if the stock price is $40 or under, because you could afford to purchase exactly 100 shares.  But then you are putting all your eggs in one basket.  You should settle down with the book I mentioned and then do some math and figure out what price targets make sense for you, or whether mutual funds are a better idea.
 * 3. See 2.
 * 4. I don't know the answer to the question, but a good thing to investigate is the common claim of the superior performance of index funds over time when compared to actively managed funds.  (Of course there are years, like last year, in which index funds lost millions of people a metric ton of money, despite their supposed superiority.)
 * Hope this helps - let me recommend that financial advisor or a lot of reading to you again. Tempshill (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think the Intelligent Investor would be a great book for anyone that wants to get started buying and selling stocks. TastyCakes (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. Financial advisor sounds good, any additional recommend reading? Royor (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Never heard of the odd lot fee. Googlemeister (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest reading about the Efficient markets hypothesis - implying that stocks picked at random are as good as any other. Warren Buffet is, by the way, consistent with this hypothesis, because out of the millions of investors, one of them by chance is going to be the best one. 89.240.217.9 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds totally bogus. Consider the following.  If stocks are picked at random, and I get a large amount of GM (who is extremely likely to have stock that is worthless) I would be better off with (random - GM).  This would indicate, that random stocks are not as good as picked stocks.  Now there is certainly uncertainty in the markets, but that does not mean that there are not some obvious bonehead plays.  In poker you never fold if you are holding a royal flush.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading Intelligent Investor now - and the funny thing is the Efficient markets hypothesis article on wiki read like it is AGAINST EMH and spend a lot of time disproving it. I also asked around and yes, in Canada, there is an "odd lot fee" when you purchase stocks. Royor (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality.
In Saudi Arabia, is it illegal to BE gay?. Or to engage in homosexual activity? --190.50.111.180 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia. Laws generally govern activity, not states of being (in part because a state of being is not usually prosecutable, while an activity is). In the cases of groups, religions, states, etc. that are against homosexuality, they generally don't recognize that one can be a homosexual if one is not engaging in homosexual activity (that is, they don't believe homosexuality is anything more than a "choice"). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Scandal 1872
Why did the pacific scandal lead to the resignation of Macdonald's government when all he did was ask for money from Sir Hugh Allan? Don't politicians ask for money from others all the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.144.211 (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We have an article about the Pacific Scandal. It wasn't so much that they were asking for money, but that it was so secretive, and there was apparently bribery going on. It wasn't much of a scandal at all really, but it's the best we can do in Canada! Adam Bishop (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)