Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 29

= August 29 =

maximum revenue scheme
What percent(s) of income and what percent of assets would produce the greatest possible revenue without being unfair to the poor or to the rich based on the poverty line as still being fair? --DeeperQA (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you find out, let us all know, because there's thousands of highly-trained economists who can't seem to be able to work it out. -- Jayron  32  01:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fairness" is a subjective concept, so there is no absolute answer to your question. --Tango (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't stated an economic unit of analysis (firm? nation?  world-system?).  Many economic analyses avoid the concepts of "rich" and "poor", some simply substitute economic agents, others discuss class relations.  Similarly assets, income and revenue are all constructed terms, with varying meanings or analogues in different analytical systems.  A Marxist response would be along the lines of: economics cannot be fair, and any distribution of firm or societal social product between divisions I (production of productive apparatus) and II (production of things for consumption) will result in worse proportionate returns to workers, and eventually a radical reconfiguration of social production under the control of workers.  You might need to supply your assumptions and explore your terms. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In addressing your economic unit concern I quickly realized that the government need only set deduction and penalty constraints for such things as hardship or luxury existence for all economic units to determine percent and then use linear programming to find combinations which would fit revenue to expenditure. Thanks. --DeeperQA (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to the set of constraints, you also need a mathematical model. For example, you need to estimate what revenue will be for a given tax system. That is not easy to do. For small changes to an existing system, you can come up with a reasonably good guess (that's what governments do whenever they come up with a budget). If you want a completely new system, however, then you are going to have difficulties. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The constraints pretty much make the model. Total revenue is total expenses but this is one situation as I understand it where deficit spending is said to be justified in that you do not need to know ahead of time what revenue will be. Required revenue is then used as the goal of process which determine the amount of taxes from each resource that do not violate any constraints. You end up with revenue matching expenditures and all of the constraints being met. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Income equality reaches a point of diminishing returns when it affects productivity. The most progressive tax in the world may have been Sweden before the imposition of the European Union's value added tax (VAT) but they were doing very well before then.  So, there is only one way to find out. 99.36.74.131 (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mid-Pacific Magazine
I don't think I'm going to get much of an answer but does anybody know where I can find an online copy of the The Mid-Pacific magazine, Volume 37 from 1929. There is a google book version but it's only a snippet view.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You could try placing a request at the resource request page. Someone may have access to hard copies in an academic library or something and, if you ask nicely, they may scan some or all of the magazine for you. --Viennese Waltz 07:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Phantom Coach by Amelia Edwards
Is the writer of the short story The Phantom Coach this Amelia Edwards? --DinoXYZ (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. The story originally appeared in the Christmas number of Charles Dickens's magazine All the Year Round in 1864. Its first book publication (under the alternative title "The North Mail") was in Edwards's Miss Carew (1865). Deor (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Gath. (city).... Goliath
The last sentence in the following caption is incorrect.

"According to the Bible, the king of the city was Achish, in the times of Saul, David, and Solomon. It is not certain whether this refers to two or more kings of this name or not."

The list of kings, as per Biblical timeline references, is the historical account of the three consecutive reigning kings of Israel: first through third. As referenced in Samuel and I Kings.

Therefore, Shouldn't the sentence read something along those lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.202.208.148 (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The second sentence is badly written but this is not really the correct place to discuss it, which would be Talk:Gath (city). Since you've raised it here, however, we can probably discuss it a bit. I think the confusion arises from the word "this", it's not clear what the "this" refers to.  You seem to be reading it as referring to the kings of Israel, whereas I think it's intended to refer to the kings of Gath.  Achish says that there were two Philistine rulers of Gath by that name, and the sentence is basically saying that we don't know which of the two the Bible is referring to.  It could probably be rewritten to make this clearer, if my interpretation is correct. --Viennese Waltz 07:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, if your sentence is based "according to The Bible" you should removed Saul because he was not the legitimate king in Biblical chronology. Also, Since The Bible does not mention more than one Achish then we know that when it mentions him it is the same king, regardless of secular history saying there was more than one, that which I am not at all disputing. Schyler  ( exquirere bonum ipsum ) 15:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Schyler -- Saul's reign didn't end well, and he wasn't part of the "Davidic line" (as other rulers of the unified monarchy and the Kingdom of Judah were, or were claimed to be) but he started out being anointed by Samuel (after Samuel's elaborate disclaimer in I Samuel 8, a somewhat notorious passage which seems to receive very little attention on Wikipedia). And the problem with the single Achish hypothesis is that the guy would have had to reign as king for quite a long time... AnonMoos (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Regionalism
Do present day Libyans primarily identify themselves as Libyans or as nationals of their historic province (Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and Fezzan)? Also, even if they see themselves primarily as Libyans, do they still greatly identify with their historical region? Have their been any recent calls for autonomy for each of the historic provinces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.55.52 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The rebels and protesters have been flying the old Flag of Libya, which suggests they seem themselves as primarily Libyan. Some have even been carrying pictures of King Idris of Libya.  Although Idris was from Cyrenaica, as the principal campaigner for independence in colonial days, he seems to be a hero for Libyans from all parts of the country.  Prior to the recent rebel advances, there was talk in Western Europe of partitioning Libya between east and west but this doesn't seem to have had any support from either side in Libya.  --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I read some rebel-viewpoint websites and they make a point of Libyan national unity (e.g. here). It has been noted that Gaddafi was against the tribal structure, although it would seem this was pragmatic and the ground didn't always match the Libya-first rhetoric of the regime. The rebels, of course, have a battle on their hands maintaining any sort of unity and thus it is their clear interest to fight for the single Libya-first message on all fronts. I would say that King Idris was a complicated matter, it's just that the green flag, along with green square and other green things was the entire conception and execution of Gaddafi, and they needed something else that also meant "Libya". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The current heir to the throne is Mohammed El Senussi who's gone on record to say he wants the people of Libya to decide what government they want and he will return as a Constitutional Monarch if they ask - he seems a decent sort. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Intentionally blank pages at the beginning and end of a book
What is the name of the intentionally blank pages found at the beginning and end of books? I remember reading that they were popularized by toy books and that these pages had some technical name..but I can't remember what that technical name was.Smallman12q (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about toy books, but other kinds of books often have two blank fly leaves, one at each end of a book. (Leaves are portions of a sheet of paper protruding from the binding of a book, consisting of two pages each, one on each side of the leaf.) Fly leaves are often made of a thicker, sturdier kind of paper than the paper used for the printed pages of a book.  Fly leaves may form part of a book's binding.  As for other blank pages in a book, in my experience they nearly always occur at the end of a book.  Most modern commercial bookbinding methods involve the use of entire signatures.  Signatures are very large sheets of paper printed on both sides, then folded and cut so that they form the leaves and pages of a section of a book.  Signatures typically form a block of 32 pages, though 16-page signatures are sometimes used.  If a publisher does not have enough material to fill the last signature in the book (and doesn't want to cut material to consolidate the book and eliminate that last signature), it is often more economical to bind the entire last signature, including blank pages, than to trim it to eliminate those blank pages. I don't know of a name for the blank pages other than "blank pages" or "blanks".  Marco polo (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They were not popularised by toy books. The existence of fly leaves can be traced at least as far back as the medieval codices, since, as Marco polo mentions, they were an integral part of the bookbinding technique. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I also forgot what they were called, but in most book that I have, they don't have these blank pages and the ones that do only have a blank page at the front. According to a Google search I just did they are probably just called flyleafs or simply "Intentionally blank pages." No special name I guess. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There was some sort of fancy name...maybe I'll remember it one day=P.Smallman12q (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the front or back "free endpaper", sometimes abbreviated as "f.f.e.p." or "b.f.e.p." in book antiquarian catalogues? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That might be it (though I think it had a more technical name...). I found a relevant article on picturebooks for it so it's probably it:. Thanks again.Smallman12q (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hotel Room Rquirements Indiana
Is a Telephone required to be in a Hotel room in Indiana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.191.50 (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you can have a telephone in your house, in your office, and I've seen people in Indiana carrying them around as well. I don't know why you would want to keep them all in hotel rooms?!? -- Jayron  32  18:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say almost definitely not. I don't have any references, but a search for "Hotel telephone law" comes up with nothing for any state.  Until recently telephones where not ubiquitous in hotel rooms and I don't see any reason for such a law.    -- Daniel  18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While I agree it is unlikely to be required by law, it probably is required by various hotel rating systems. For example, a basic phone is required for even one diamond under the AAA's rating system ( - page 24). --Tango (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's right. They may have been required for emergency services in the '50s-60s before smoke detectors became common. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They might still be required in some places, for medical emergencies, to report crimes, etc. (I suppose there will come a point where everyone can be assumed to carry cell phones, but I don't think we're quite there, yet.) StuRat (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While it's possible, I would be surprised if a hotel needed to have a phone in every room in the 1950s-60s when I'm guessing a fair number of people didn't even have them in their homes (perhaps a phone on every floor or something seems more likely). This claims hotels are required to be able to identify to emergency services in the US (911) the room a guest is calling from and both that and  suggests hotels consider them important both for safety reasons and for internal communications (but they cost a lot). They also mention concern over coverage and the ability to identify precisely where the guest are calling from are concerns with relying on mobile phone for emergency purposes.  suggests in the US water recreational facilities must have an emergency phone and also that hotels may be found liable for problems guests face due to the lack of communication devices (both which is different from saying it's a legal requirement to have one in every room) Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Debating tactic?
I'm looking for a debate team tactic that involves demanding that the opposing team prove from first principles the ideas of logic before their proposal can be considered on its merits. What is this called? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.218.204 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pedantry. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that's not what I was looking for though - when it was first used it was not against the rules - it was tremendously controversial though. It basically attacks the argument philosophically by questioning the nature of truth, and leads to very technical debates that are not about the topic. It is largely outlawed in most leagues - it has a name, but I can't remember it.... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When I was in high school, pedantry wasn't against the rules, but it would never get anywhere with the judges. The most effective response was to call the pedantry "absurdly pedantic" and move on to evidence, conclusions, and the fact that the pedant is unlikely to have supporting evidence since they resorted to pedantry. Synonyms per thesaurus.com include dogmatism, pedagogery, and pretension. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally would call it the Tortoise strategy, after What the Tortoise Said to Achilles, an essay by Lewis Carroll illustrating it (available at Wikisource). Looie496 (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something like diversionary meticulousness.Phalcor (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - but these are not it - it's considered by some to be a legitimate debate tactic - attacking the assumed philosophical underpinnings that the team is asking us to take for granted and without question, and it has a name... It is not considered pedantic by its advocates, but rather rigorous - if the opposing team is not willing to justify the assumptions behind their position then they do not deserve to have their argument considered on its merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys - I found it - it was Kritik - http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope that's not illegal, because questioning premises is a legitimate and appropriate choice when the premises are questionable. For example if the opposition asserts that your evidence or conclusions are flawed because you are a bad person for whatever reason, then it's proper to question the implicit assumption that the value of an idea is dependent on its proponent.  In fact, the value of an idea is independent of its proponent, so it's legitimate to oppose that kind of ad hominem with what seems to be called "kritic" in the charter.net link. 99.36.74.131 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what those links are saying. It isn't about questioning general presuppositions, it is a very strange and specific case of trying to bring in critical philosophy to policy debates. Which seems quite odd to me, though I'm a complete outsider to the debate world. "Critical philosophy" is a specific thing, not just "philosophy that is criticizing"; it seems like the issue in question is bringing Derrida into a discussion about international relations, or using Wittgenstein to talk about evolution vs. creationism. I can see why debate team people find it tedious. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The fallacy you are describing is sometimes called Kicking the problem upstairs. There is no WP article on that topic, but it is in the requested articles list under logic. Greg Bard (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I found Wikipedia has an extensive article on it, including which leagues it is allowed in. Thanks!
 * May I suggest How to Argue and Win Every Time by Gerry Spence? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fairer sex?
Hi, I'm a male and got into a debate with a friend about what in terms of facial features makes a woman supposedly more beautiful than men. Up until yesterday, I just thought that it was equal and that since I'm attracted to women, it would be reciprocal for the female population to view the male face as more pleasing to look at than the female face.

I was reading this website, http://dumbscientist.com/archives/ar...the-fairer-sex, and thought it made some interesting points, especially since the we live in a man dominated world and that attractive women are used in advertisements that straight women watch to, it would be understood that there is more of a universal beauty among females than their is males.

So my question is, in terms of face and face only, if you compared the most handsome man in the world vs the most beautiful women, who would be considered more beautiful?

Or is it equal or subjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.167.82 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Subjective, and variable over individuals from moment to moment and day to day. However, has a good analysis of the weak findings of component studies such as  and . 76.254.20.205 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Subjective. Totally.  The thing is, we don't just live in a male-dominated world, we live in a straight male-dominated world.  --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that there is milage in this psychologists use average ratings of attractiveness to guage these kinds of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.106.4 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's subjective. I describe women's faces as 'beautiful' more often than men's, but only because the predominantly heterosexual male meaning of the term specifically implies traditionally female qualities. Notice how even the debate uses the term 'fair' which has both the implications of being unblemished (virginal), pretty, and fragile; qualities most straight men look for in their ideal woman and thus never usually applies to a man.


 * Nonetheless, when it comes to which is more pleasing for me (as a gay male, and I expect the same thing for females) to look at, I'd pick the handsome man any day, heh. "Beautiful" or "handsome" have gender-specific meanings that don't exactly make them synonymous to "attractive" for both sexes.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In the 19th century, when "fair" was used in a specific meaning to refer to human beauty it usually meant light-haired or pale-skinned, as opposed to "dark" (as in the old clichéd description "tall, dark, and handsome") -- "dark" in this sense did not necessarily imply racially non-white... AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Also note that back then most women worked inside the home and men outside, so men would be expected to have darker tans. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hence unblemished and fragile. :P Note most common usage of the word in the sense of 'attractive': "fair maiden" and "fair youth", feminine and androgynously feminine. When a man is described as fair (e.g. "fair warrior") it usually has nothing to do with whether he is pleasant to look at or not, but only on whether his hair is blond.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   21:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that why a cute blond policeman is called "a fair cop"? :)  --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Only if you cop a feel. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair and square. :P --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   22:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are other meanings of "fair", though, and if I heard someone described as a "fair warrior", I'd probably take that to mean he isn't very good at being a warrior. Not an excellent warrior, nor a good one, but only fair. Pais (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Beauty itself is but the sensible image of the Infinite. Schyler ( exquirere bonum ipsum ) 20:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The ultimate question is obviously subjective... but don't kid yourself... beauty has a strong evolutionary and biological basis. Beauty generally correlates well with health, and so if you're planning on mating with or eating something, that tends to be important. It's not surprising too that, somewhat superficial cultural differences aside, pull people from any corner of the globe and they'll consistently tell you who's more "beautiful" when comparing.


 * That said, women's beauty tends to be more purely physical while male attributes of attractiveness aren't captured in a picture as well. These are of course all coarse generalizations, but there's an evolutionary basis for it. Undoubtedly culture can warp this, and there are extremes that can catch on (think of various extreme body mutilation), but the majority of attraction to individuals seems to be innate. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Socrates: true or false quote
"I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." Socrates, from Plutarch, Of Banishment. Are the quote and source cited above true or not? Plutarch doesn't seem to have a work called 'Of Banishment.' And his work Parallel Lives doesn't include Socrates in it. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the essays in Plutarch's Moralia is De exilio. You can see a translation of the relevant passage (where Socrates' statement is recorded in indirect, rather than direct, discourse) here. Deor (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That was fast. Thanx. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to add, the corresponding Greek is in the penultimate line of the text here. Deor (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)