Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 30

= August 30 =

Inflation: people on debt vs. people debt-free
If a central bank decides to increase the inflation (increasing the money supply), would that mean that people on debt are getting their debt partially paid by people who have savings? Quest09 (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Increasing the money supply does not always cause inflation. The obvious example is when it alleviates the deflationary spirals of recessions.  It depends on where the increased money is spent, and in particular the extent to which it results in economic growth and/or additional savings among other outcomes. Please see  for more information. 99.36.74.131 (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But yes, to the extent to which inflation happens, people who owe money get to pay it back with currency that is worth less than the money they borrowed was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.243.32 (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Back to the question at hand: Yes, all else being equal, inflation makes it easier to repay debt (money borrowed yesterday had more value, and will be repaid back tomorrow with money of less value); and reduces the earnings from interest on savings in real terms. The interest rate may actually go up, but once inflation is subtracted -- i.e., "real" or "inflation-adjusted" terms -- the purchasing power of the savings account declines, or rises more slowly. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Public doman paintings of plum blossom trees
My friend is thinking about releasing her own line of alcohol based on plum wine. I'm trying to find examples of public domain images of old Chinese or Japanese paintings of Plum blossom trees that could be used in the logo. The wiki article on the tree has a section with three such paintings that are old enough to be in the public domain. Does anyone know where I can find more paintings of this type? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I found with an image search on [plum blossom parchment] but you might try 'calligraphy' or 'dynasty' in place of parchment. 99.36.74.131 (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Numerous paintings in Wikimedia Commons, examples below. Just search for 'Plum painting'.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   10:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Is China the only country in the world which keeps the exact number of their executions a state secret?
I asked this question twice a long time ago. The second time I asked it, it was mentioned by Lomn that according to a quick survey of this article, the People's Republic of China is the only country in the world to keep the exact number of their executions a state secret but since then, I have been wondering if there were any other countries which have this practice. The ones that were in my mind were Iran, Vietnam, Myanmar and North Korea and other communist countries or dictatorships. Are there other countries which keep the exact number of their executions a secret, or is it really only China? And please do not talk about secret executions, they don't count. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If an execution is a secret, how can it NOT be a secret execution? This tautology is confusing to me... -- Jayron  32  02:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, so they gotta count. For all you know, the US could execute thousands of people secretly, and then it would be a state that keeps the exact number secret. You can't really know if it's a state secret, because if they do keep the number a secret, none of us will know, because it's a secret. ^^ It wouldn't be one of those fake secrets like Israel's nukes or that big tower in Central Tel Aviv that you're not supposed to talk about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 03:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you got it all wrong. I already mentioned that I am not talking about secret executions. I was just simply asking if there were any other countries, aside from China, are known to conduct executions, but keep the exact number of the executions a state secret, as in "we execute people, but we won't tell you how many." Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer would be "some indeteriminate number between 1 and n, where n is the number of countries in the world". Any country could be executing people that we don't know about, and then by definition, they wouldn't be telling us correctly how many people they are executing.  -- Jayron  32  03:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You know about each execution, so you can count them, thus the number cannot be a secret. The ones you don't know about, you cannot count.Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 03:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That's also another angle; if China publicly acknowledges every single execution they commit, then the number of executions is also public knowledge, and not a secret. If the have executions they do not admit to, those are by definition secret executions, and they are likely not unique in that regard... -- Jayron  32  03:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This was actually pointed out last time the question came up Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 16. I think it adds an interesting perspective, particularly since what China's stance actually is remains somewhat unclear to me. Sure it's widely claimed in RS that the number if a state secret. But where and how did this come from? Does China say the number of a state secret every time it's asked? Did one random representative say it once and most representatives just refuse to comment? How high are the people who say it's a state secret anyway? For a country like China where transperency and openess isn't seen as important then in a lot of the democratic (particularly Western) world, it's probably the common for low level officials to say things are a state secret when inquisitive Western journalists let alone human rights groups ask about stuff the officials know are more controversial there (and to some extent, the default is to keep things secret anyway so it may be a secret if no one has authorised the complation and release of such figures). Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So to answer the topic, No, China is most likely not the only one. Can't give you a definite answer, but it is safe to assume that China is not the only one and that many nations probably keep their real numbers of executions a secret. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 03:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been alleged that as the rebel forces approached Tripoli, Gaddafi executed a lot of prisoners. Nobody seems to know how many. Does that count as a secret? HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If they were secret executions, then no. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the question is about nations which admit that they are conducting secret executions. Like Naruto said, "we execute people, but we won't tell you how many." I don't know if China is the only one. Staecker (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * God, what pedants some of you are! The OP wants to know if there are countries where the official number of executions is considered a state secret. That's not the same thing at all as what you are going around and around about up there. It's not a question of whether countries lie about their total executions; it's which ones have actual policies of secrecy regarding that number. And Jayron's comment that the answer is between 1 and the total number of countries in the world is the most useless "answer" I've seen in a long time. If you don't know, don't answer! --Mr.98 (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This article, reliability unknown, states that it the total number of executions in Vietnam is also a state secret. This one adds Belarus and Mongolia to the list. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In the earlier discussion it was suggested Belarus has not published a list since 2006 but it's not clear that it's considered a state secret (although as I noted above, I don't think we really know what China's stance is). Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Anglican saints
How does a person come to be recognized as a saint in Anglican churches? Thomas Becket lived back in the days when the Church of England was still in full communion with the church of Rome, and is considered a saint by both the Catholic and Anglican churches, but what about people who died in the last four-and-a-half centuries or so? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the article Saints in Anglicanism help? -- Jayron  32  03:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify the article in relation to the question: there have been no saints created since the break with Rome in 1534. However, all the Anglican churches accept the saints that were canonized beforehand and also "martyrs and heroes" of the Christian church since then. Each Province of the Anglican Communion has its own calender of days when these people are specially remembered. The calender for the Church of England can be seen here. It does include some who have who have been canonized by Rome in recent years, such as John Fisher and Joan of Arc; although they're not actually regarded as saints, but as Christians who set an example for the rest of us. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I should qualify that last remark. On the Anglo-catholic wing of the Anglican Communion, there are many who would hold all Roman Catholic canonizations to be valid, while not wishing to commemorate the leading figures of the protestant movement like John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the evangelical camp don't attach a great deal of importance to the idea of sainthood (Biblical ones excepted) and wouldn't endorse those who worked against the reformation like Thomas More or Francis Xavier. Those of us who occupy the centre ground, in true Anglican tradition, attempt to find the good points in everybody. Alansplodge (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Church of England was not "in full communion with" the church of Rome in Becket's day, OP. They were one and the same thing, inseparable from each other.  The Church of England had its first independent existence in 1534, under Henry VIII, 364 years after Becket's death.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It did turn out to be separable in the end ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article titled Saints in Anglicanism has a section on "modern" Anglican saints that says "The following have been identified as heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion:" and there follows a long list. So the question is WHO "identified" them as "heroes of the Christian Church"? The Archbishop of Canterbury? Popular convention? Some meeting of bishops? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "The addition of a new name should normally result from a wide-spread desire expressed in the region concerned over a reasonable period of time." In the case of the Church of England, I expect any new name would be approved by the General Synod, which is an annual "parliament" made up of representatives of the bishops, clergy and laity. I'll try to find a reference for you. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

America and George III's insanity
What were Americans' reaction to George III's later reign and insanity especially those that had fought for the revolutionary war? --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that ordinary Americans had reliable news about George III around the War of 1812 period, because he would have been vilified in the press from the Revolutionary War through to his death. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Newspapers had very small circulations during the lifetime of George III, and most Americans were small farmers not much concerned about foreign affairs, so I doubt that most of them would have cared much about the insanity of George III, if they were even aware of it. To the extent that Americans were aware of his illness, I would expect a degree of Schadenfreude.  However, to confirm this, one would have to do research.  Unfortunately, none of the newspapers from that era have archives offering free access.  Marco polo (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so sure that is accurate marco... the US in the Federalist era had a very high literacy rate, and a huge number of newspapers (far more than we have today).  Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that most adults were literate nor that there were a large number of newspapers. However, most newspapers before the advent of the penny press in the 1830s, most newspapers had very small circulations.  The reason was that issues typically cost in the neighborhood of 6 cents each at a time when a typical worker earned less than a dollar a day.  If a typical worker today earns $150 a day (my very rough guess), a comparable price today would be $9.  As a result, newspapers in the early 19th century had a small, elite, urban audience.  Also, given the great expense and time required for travel and the relative unimportance of international trade, few ordinary Americans would have cared much about events in Europe, even if they had easy access to information about those events.  (Frankly, I don't think most ordinary Americans today care much about events in Europe.) The only real exception would have been during the War of 1812, due to the British threat to friends and loved ones in the US armed forces. That's when King George's status might have entered the popular discourse as a way of disparaging the enemy.  Marco polo (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that there were many backwoods farmers who didn't care, but the United States had very broadly-diffused literacy by the standards of ca. 1800, and each individual newspaper issue was likely to have many readers, and many people had an interest in major European news, which could have a significant impact on U.S. commercial/mercantile prosperity.  During a period when national politics was virulently polarized between allegedly "pro-British" Federalists and allegedly "pro-French" Democratic-Republicans, and foreign policy had a major impact on domestic politics (see XYZ Affair, Alien and Sedition Acts etc.) and the U.S. fought three naval wars (Quasi-War, War of 1812, and Tripoli), interest in foreign news was greater than you would seem to allow for... AnonMoos (talk)
 * Indeed, even the "backwoods farmers" were interested in foreign news that impacted them. Foreign trade was not unimportant, as claimed above, but was in fact vital to American farmers. Farmers followed news of things like Pinckney's Treaty and the Jay Treaty with great interest because the issues directly affected them. The early American republic was a relatively weak country surrounded by lands claimed by European powers; Americans of that era did not have the luxury of ignoring Europe the way that later generations would. Whether they learned about or cared about George III's medical problems, I don't know. —Kevin Myers 02:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I searched the archives of Google News for anything from 1776 through 1820 related to King George and illness, madness, insanity, indisposition, or retirement, and only found that in the news of his death in 1820, a US paper reprinted from the London Gazette mention of his "retirement" due to "indisposition" in 1811. It is likely that the indexing is far from complete. I recall that years ago in the pre-internet days college libraries had microfilms of major US papers of the colonial period and early 19th century, so it is a bit perplexing not to find some discussion of the king's faults. Would papers have used some other title for him? The incompleteness of the Google indexing is shown by my finding only 3 mentions of "George Washington" in that same period. Edison (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

price increases
Is there a web site where you can enter the bar code and date and add the price you paid to the database and then see a price map like the one at gasbuddy.com for gasoline? --DeeperQA (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it since you can get the same item which would presumably have the same barcode at different stores for very different prices, even in the same town. Plus the database would be massive since there are tens of thousands of products with a barcode compared to just 3 or 4 kinds of vehicle fuel.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Google (no offense or pundit) seems to have such a database of its own being able to look up prices of (most) any item you scan at other stores. However, it is accurate price increase that I am interested in tracking. Adding the date of the price allows this to be done and the database could not possibly be larger than this one. --DeeperQA (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find information on bride-bedding relevent to 16th century Scotland?
I am looking specifically for the formalities concerning the bedding of a royalItalic text bride. They vary from country to country and from anything to the display of blood-stained sheets from a window to prove virginity to the populace to the privacy granted to British royal brides today. Any information, or pointers to specific reference articles or books, would be very much appreciated. Thank you. reshistReshist (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest contacting the historian Alison Weir, but her website says she is too busy to respond to such queries. However, she does work with a number of other women historians, whose contact details are also listed on this page under The History Girls. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your best bet might be to pick out individuals with decent biographies from that period and work through them to find a reference to the ceremony, if any - it's more likely than a generic work discussing it. So who have we got?
 * James IV of Scotland married Margaret Tudor in 1504
 * James V of Scotland married Madeleine of Valois in 1537 (in France) and then Mary of Guise (by proxy, & in France?)
 * Mary, Queen of Scots married Francis II of France in 1558 (in France); then Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley in 1565; then James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell in 1567 (a Protestant ceremony)
 * James VI of Scotland married Anne of Denmark in 1589 (in Norway).
 * The best bet to research there would be James IV's wedding in 1504; James V's marriages were both likely to be done in whatever the French tradition was, ditto Mary's first, and Mary's second marriages were quite odd things and might not have been representative.
 * To my surprise, this seems to be it - defining "royal" as the direct legitimate children of monarchs, there don't seem to have been any others who survived to adulthood and were married during the century. (James V had at least one illegitimate daughter, Jean Stewart, who married the Earl of Argyll, but I doubt she was formally treated as royalty...) Going further back, neither of James III's brothers married, prior to that, James II of Scotland had several children; if you can find a description of the wedding of Mary Stewart, Countess of Arran it may be what you're looking for. Shimgray | talk | 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Personalized self help books
The Wikipedia article says they are personalized self helf books. Do anyone knao a publisher who is publishing those books, or a single book titel? I will be thankful for any kind of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoBo 2000 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure what you mean. Maybe something like this:

You, JOE SMITH, who live on 123 MAIN STREET, with your pet CAT named FLUFFY, can overcome your addiction to ALCOHOL and resume your hobby of STAMP COLLECTING, if you do the following...


 * StuRat (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yea that is exactly what I'm thinking about. Do you know any book like this. I'm only looking for self help books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoBo 2000 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The claim in our article is unsourced. I suspect it's true since it's likely someone has done it but it doesn't seem to be common. It seems easier to find personalised romance novels  (in case you're wondering the first I found in an ad while searching for personalised self help books) and hyponosis tapes  . I do find discussion of personalised self help programs for addicts which I guess includes personalised reading material     but probably not in the form of books. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There used to be a range of yellow jacketed book titles " Teach yourself (whatever)...." 85.211.230.86 (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd think they could customize and deliver such books far more cheaply online, so that might be the place to look, or do you require a physical book ? StuRat (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

effeminacy
I've noticed that a lot of married men are effeminate but not homosexual but that many who are effeminate and single are labelled homosexual while they might be effeminate are not homo sexual. So which is it being effeminate or being unmarried or the combination of both that makes people label someone as being homosexual when they are really not? --96.252.216.15 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Both. Despite the fact that some married men do, in fact, come out as gay later on, having a serious relationship with a member of the opposite sex (as marriage implies) makes it a lot less likely they are homosexual, since this is not something most gay men would do. There are plenty of people who are effeminate but not gay, it's just that since you're more unlikely to know if someone is homosexual than if they are married, the conclusion is more easily drawn in the first case. (i.e. One has little evidence to the contrary, thus the conclusion is more easily drawn, even if wrong.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How are we defining effeminacy in men? Bus stop (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am as described in the effeminacy article; it has a section relevant to this article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can women also be effeminate? Card Zero  (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the lesbian community refers to butch women (who look more masculine) and femme women (who look more feminine), so I guess they can. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and most are, with a few being masculine. Note, however, that being masculine doesn't necessarily mean they are homosexual, and being feminine doesn't necessarily mean they are straight (for example, Portia de Rossi is both feminine and gay, a so-called lipstick lesbian).  The reverse also applies to men. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article might need updating. ("Effeminacy describes traits in a human male ... Effusive emotional expressions among other males ... ") You seem to have switched topics to femininity, though, Stu. Card Zero  (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It could use some scientific input, like how the relative levels of various hormones, such as testosterone and estrogen, change physical features to be either more masculine or feminine. It could also be extended to non-human animals, such as the freemartin. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that an effeminate, straight man is sometimes called a metrosexual. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Prejudice, basically
 * ALR (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Think of them as collateral damage of stereotyping and homophobia. Most of the kids I know who were bullied in school for being 'gay', weren't. A lot of them are now married with kids. I, on the other hand, who is gay (though not out then), wasn't teased because I wasn't effeminate and they concluded I couldn't possibly be gay. LOL Go figure.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   19:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of this comic about gay stereotypes. Pais (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * roflz!--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny. :) Jack Benny, who was straight as can be, was sometimes teased because of his supposedly "effeminate" mannerisms. On Carson once, he pooh-poohed the notion by looking around at the men in the studio crew and saying, "Have I ever 'bothered' any of you fellows?" In contrast, there's Rock Hudson, who seemed totally straight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Seemed totally straight" - that sort of says there's the notion that if you act in certain ways, you're assumed to be straight; and therefore if you act differently, you're assumed to be gay. Such assumptions are very often very wide of the mark.  Unfortunately, this paradigm also has a foothold in the male gay community.  Many men who seek other male sexual partners specify they're only interested in "straight-acting" males.  What a laugh.  Just exactly how do straight males act?  If what they mean is "not effeminate" or "not camp", and it is, I just wish they'd say so.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * John Barrowman was allegedly turned down for the role of 'Will' in Will and Grace because he "wasn't gay enough". Quite how you can get more gay than actually being gay I don't know. They hired a straight actor instead, who apparently acted more gay. People are idiots: I don't know how much more we can say there is to this. 86.163.211.187 (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Naval Conference

 * Paris Peace Conference, 1919
 * Washington Naval Conference
 * Woodrow Wilson (D, March 4, 1913 – March 4, 1921)
 * Warren G. Harding (R, March 4, 1921 – August 2, 1923)

Woodrow Wilson was too sick to do anything from Sept. 25, 1919 to the end of his second term. He probably would not agree with Harding if he was in good shape.

Did Woodrow Wilson ever said anything about the Washington Naval Conference? Did he know it?

Did any country attending the conference used Wilson's idealist ideas to against the U.S. in the conference?

Generally, the first thing you want from your adversary is to get away from his place. If he choose to fight you in a bar, you try to go outside. If he sues you here, you ask your lawyer to move the case to another courtroom. You don't want your enemy to choose your battlefield.

Did any country propose that instead of letting the U.S. held the party in their own capital city, they'd rather brought the U.S. to the League of Nations whether or not the U.S. was a member of it? -- Toytoy (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the conference was not to establish world peace, it was to prevent a re-run of the British-German naval arms race of the decade of the 1900s, but this time in the Pacific. It was largely successful for a decade or so. AnonMoos (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Huge numbers of warships, including submarines, which were built in WW1, even near the end of the war, were scrapped as a result of the conference. Not all the surviving ships were obsolete and useless even by WW2. As for the League of Nations, the US did not join it because of strong opposition from US politicians, so it is doubtful the US would have participated in any disarmament conference under LON sponsorship. If all the other countries wanted to scrap their subs, destroyers, cruisers and battleships while the US kept theirs, it would have been fine with the US, but the proposal would have been doubtful of acceptance by anyone else. Edison (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hindi ज्ञ jñ
I used to know this, but now that I've forgotten I can't find it anywhere. How do you pronounce ज्ञ jñ in Hindustani? (specifically). — kwami (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A pronunciation guide gives:
 * ज्ञ          Coupled sound of ‘j’ and ‘n’= ‘jn’
 * Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that site is incorrect. Besides not being what I remember, they say that क्ष is a Coupled sound of ‘k’, ‘s’, ‘h’, which is absolute hogwash. Jñ is an unstable sequence that developed into different things in different Indic languages. In Gujarati, for example, I think it's gñ. — kwami (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * May get more specific answers on Language Desk... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Duh, okay. :-| — kwami (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (I meant the 'duh' for me)