Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 19

= November 19 =

Texas Claiming a Part of Oklahoma in 1892

 * In the map above Texas appears to claim a small part of future southwestern Oklahoma. What is the story behind that? Futurist110 (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is used to denote an area where people in the territory of Oklahoma voted for Cleveland. If you look at the maps for the election before and after, the border of Texas and Oklahoma are the same as present day.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing is that U.S. territories cannot vote for U.S. President--only U.S. states can. I think this law was the same in 1892 as it is now. Futurist110 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Futurist110 is correct that votes in territories don't count toward the election of a president because territories have no votes in the Electoral College. This area appears as part of Texas on this map because it was claimed by Texas as Greer County, Texas.  Marco polo (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your response, Marco polo. Futurist110 (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The centennial book: one hundred years of Christian civilization in Hawaii, 1820-1920
In this book there a list of illustration from the early part of Hawaiian history. Is there anyway I can find out when they are dated and who made them. I know some of them but ones like File:Waimea, Kauai, an early sketch made from the wall of the Russian fort.jpg, I have no clue.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Buttoning the top button
Why was Tom Cruise buttoning the top button on every shirt he wore in Rain Man? Was that the style in 1988?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it was an attempt to make him look institutionalised. See this previous query; Highest button of a shirt. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine for Dustin Hoffman, who played the institutionalized individual -- Cruise was playing the fast-talking, wheeling-and-dealing immature brother?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Alansplodge (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Tom Cruise character in Rain Man has to display an unusual intellectual rigor to be believable as the character in relation to his intellectually compromised brother. I think the top button closed on his shirts conveys staunchly independent thinking. Visually the head is set off from the body by the absence of the skin of the neck that would otherwise be exposed. It is also simply odd because the majority of the time, in the absence of a tie, that top button is left open. The character Tom Cruse plays requires the viewer to believe that they are looking at an unusual individual because we are called upon to believe that a socially fluent person is interacting with a dysfunctional brother and doing so without missing a beat. That is the passionate thing about the brotherly relationship depicted. Whether or not the button contributed to accentuating that relationship I cannot say. But my guess would be that would be the reason for that attire choice. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean anything, per se... It means whatever it means in the context of the situation which gives it its meaning.  The top button buttoned could mean that he was being cool, or dorky, or gangsta, or whatever.  Fashion does have "meaning", but it does not have universal, contextless "meaning" devoid of connection to the social situation that creates that "meaning".  -- Jayron  32  17:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The "meaning" is the significance that a costume designer had in mind at this time. The clothing is not randomly chosen. And the actor doesn't choose his own wardrobe. These are choices made by a filmmaking crew. Their aim is to create distinct character. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing the top button up could simply mean that the wearer of the shirt doesn't give a damn about fashion, finds a button, and does it up. A perfectly rational question is "Why do shirts have buttons that followers of fashion never do up?" HiLo48 (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that one thing that buttoning the top button up conveys is a sense of artlessness. The message created is that the individual saw a button plus a buttonhole and made the quite obvious conclusion that it gets buttoned, without exercising any degree of sophisticated evaluation from a fashion point of view. OK, I am repeating what HiLo48 said above. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Therefore we can conclude that the purpose of a top button is to give a wearer an opportunity not to use that button. If that top button and buttonhole were not there, one could not make the personal fashion statement of leaving it unbuttoned. Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been a while since I saw the movie, but if I remember correctly Cruise's character starts off with the button undone... and starts to button it as he "bonds" with Hoffman's character. In this context, the buttoning would be a visual cue of that bonding.  It also makes a visual statement about the growth of the two characters... Hoffman's character starts off as being portrayed as a dysfunctional "geek" while Cruise's character is portrayed as being a functional "cool" guy.  As the movie progresses, these distinctions become blurred... "geek" becomes "cool" and "cool" becomes "geek".  This blurring of personalities is reflected in the clothing the two characters wear (by the climactic scene in the casino, both are wearing identical outfits... a "cool" suit and sunglasses... but with the a "geek" touch of no tie and top button done up.) Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All of these people have the top buttons on their shirts buttoned, and it means something different in each context. There is no universal meaning.  -- Jayron  32  18:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the question requires universal meaning. The context of the movie Rain Man and specifically the Tom Cruise character provide the setting in which any possible meaning can be found. Also, this question also indicates that there is a significance, at least among Wikipedia Reference Desk participants, to the top button being buttoned. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"'But Mr. Tite Barnacle was a buttoned-up man, and consequently a weighty one. All buttoned-up men are weighty. All buttoned-up men are believed in.  Whether or no the reserved and never-exercised power of unbuttoning, fascinates mankind; whether or no wisdom is supposed to condense and augment when buttoned up, and to evaporate when unbuttoned; it is certain that the man to whom importance is accorded is the buttoned-up man.  Mr. Tite Barnacle never would have passed for half his current value, unless his coat had been always buttoned-up to his white cravat.' -- Charles Dickens"
 * AnonMoos (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the need for an open top button probably is one of those weird neurotypical compulsions that people on the autistic spectrum have a hard time relating to, e.g. Wnt (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, your response (like the one by Alansplodge above) belies a confusion of the characters played by the main actors. Dustin Hoffman plays the autistic individual while Tom Cruise plays the normal individual.
 * My point was merely this: I was 7 years old in 1988 and can't appreciate what normal was at the time. The other male adult characters are either wearing ties (the doctors) or have their top buttons open (the black attendant at Raymond's institution, the court-appointed physician towards the end) -- so I just don't understand why Cruise would have been instructed to button his top button all throughout the film; I think it makes him look ridiculous, awkward and stands out from what normal people do.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 14:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It connects him to his autistic brother. I am pretty sure it was not normal then, since male fashion does not change that much. Anyway, also remember that someone like Tom Cruise is a trend-setter, not a trend-follower. I remember that many people copied his wearing of a tie stuck in the shirt, which was even more ridiculous . OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Male fashion, unlike female fashion, pivots on smaller indications, and there is an inherently greater component of practicality in male fashion. I think that the notion of the impractical implies feminine. It is not necessarily ridiculous to tuck the tie into the shirt as it serves the similar purpose of a tie clip or tie pin. Examples: . These of course serve practical purposes. Don't forget we are discussing minute changes. When one buttons the top button one has not committed a faux pas. The filmmakers were merely trying to cast their characters as they saw fit. We are all just hazarding a guess as to what the filmmakers had in mind. Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for something of a revelation, but I suppose this will have to do. Thanks to all!  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

How many people are dying in Gaza? (moved from Science Refdesk)

 * I've taken the liberty of moving this from the Science Refdesk. Wnt (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

For some reason the mainstream media is not reporting on deaths from the Israeli bombing, which I find suspicious because they love to go on and on about any civilian deaths in Syria from bombing. There is pretty heavy bombing going on right now in Gaza and presumably people are dying, is there any info on the number of people or civilians who have died so far? --Wrk678 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Saturday night (there) it was 45 - check Google and it'll probably be higher now. :(  Note this kind of question is better submitted to the Humanities desk - for example, if there's something tricky in how the statistics are counted I might not know about it. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not share your perception that casualties in Gaza are underreported, but it would not be surprising, since the scale of the conflict and the number of casualties is on a totally different level. At least 40.000 people are reported to have died in the Syrian_civil_war, and hundreds of thousands have fled their homes. 40.000 dead in 20 months is 2000/month, so about 67 every day. - Lindert (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Given they've been faking injuries I wouldn't believe any claims of deaths not certified by Hans Blix. μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason for this to be on the Science desk. Looie496 (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's amazing how many one purpose accounts we have asking questions like this. There is a suggestion on the talk page that we start a new Palestinian vs. Jew ref desk page where questions like this could be moved, which could almost be taken seriously.  In a better world I'd hat the question myself or plain out delete it, what with its offensively debate fomenting soapbox intro.  But that's just me, and everyone knows what a mad hatter I am.  So someone else please do it. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In the Wikipedia context: See Operation Pillar of Defense. it would be helpful that if you have issues with the content, list your concerns on the associated Talk page. Deborahjay (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just saw which says 96 now. Wnt (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have an updated source for how many have died on the Israeli side of the border? (the article currently says 3, but that may have risen since the source was written). Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Earlier this evening the score was at 106 to 3, but I won't even cite because I'm sure it's out of date by now. The Wikipedia article really doesn't have to be right minute-to-minute (it just needs to say when the count was done), though sometimes people get gung-ho and try to stay that on top of things. Wnt (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Freud's Civilization and its Discontents
Some years back I read Civilization and its Discontents and I seem to recall that somewhere in the book Freud stated something along the lines that the human capacity for happiness was finite but the human capacity for misery was endless — that nobody can feel joy all of the time, but you could feel sadness all of the time. I am trying to track down the exact quote if indeed my memory is correct (it may very well not be). Searching a Google Books copy has not turned it up when looking for words like "happiness" or "misery." Does anyone recognize this? --Mr.98 (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be something similar on pp 23-24? (pdf version here). Not as pithy as you remember, but he does say unhappiness is easier to experience than happiness. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Schopenhauer (as you might expect) has a similar point: "happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end. This explains the fact that we generally find pleasure to be not nearly so pleasant as we expected, and pain very much more painful. The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other." (Studies in Pessimism). HenryFlower 02:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, IP 184 for posting that link. Freud seems to echo all the best here, Nietzsche, Rand, Spinoza, Epictetus...

Conspiracy theorists on banking
So, a guy I know has started getting into listening to conspiracy theorists on YouTube. His hobby it seems is to sit at home watching these YouTube clips about why he doesn't have to pay his mortgage while his wife works to pay their mortgage. But I digress... The latest link that he's sent to me is this one which is nearly an hour long. I'm not asking you to listen to it. I'm just providing it for reference. I'm about 18 (painful) minutes through it so far. At somewhere around the 15 minute mark, the guest on this radio show starts explaining a few things. I'll try to list them:


 * The bank that lends you the money for your mortgage is essentially creating the money out of thin air.
 * Your mortgage isn't a contract, it's an agreement. How this makes a real difference in whether you need to pay your mortgage, I'm not clear.
 * Since the bank has likely sold your mortgage on to another institution and had it bundled into another security, you don't owe the bank. (16:30)
 * 14 people went to a judge and said that they didn't owe the bank for their mortgages because the bank couldn't produce the paperwork with the homeowners signatures on them. The judge declared that since the bank couldn't produce the paperwork, the homes belonged to the people and they didn't have to pay the bank any more money. (16:45)

What I'm looking for is some links to articles that explains these things from a non-conspiracy theorist POV. The more specific the better since I could start with mortgage and eventually find what I'm looking for but I'd like to save some time by getting to the heart of things and working outwards from there. By the way, my buddy and I are both US Americans. So I'm looking for things that deal with this from an American perspective, if it matters. Thanks! Dismas |(talk) 10:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously the law on mortgages varies from country to country. In the UK a mortgage is certainly a contract. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The first point is likely referring to Fractional reserve banking. See our article and  for various views/explainations. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He did mention fractional reserve banking. Thanks for the link!  Dismas |(talk) 11:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the bank has likely sold your mortgage on to another institution and had it bundled into another security - that's probably talking about Mortgage-backed_security, specifically Residential_mortgage-backed_security (Btw you still owe the bank even if this is the case) Royor (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Edited again to add detail and to correct own to owe, thanks bug. Royor (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably you meant "owe" the bank. This premise sounds like it's written by the same guys who write about how you don't have to pay income taxes. They usually write this stuff in their spare time between prison gigs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See Robo-signing. Banks can engage in practices in no way more reputable than this. Wnt (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I will address your points in order and then make a general comment.
 * It is true that banks create money out of thin air, though with some limits, as our article on fractional reserve banking hopefully explains.
 * In the United States, at least in most states, a mortgage is indeed a type of contract.
 * These days, few U.S. banks hold the mortgages they issue, but many service the mortgages that they have sold on. In this case, the new owners of the mortgage have signed an agreement with the bank that issued the mortgage to collect mortgage payments as their agent.  The owners of your mortgage have the right to do this, and in this case you are obliged to pay their designated agent, which may be the bank that sold you the mortgage but no longer owns it.
 * During the housing bubble of the O's or aughts or whatever we're calling the last decade, many banks bundled mortgages into packages and then sold off shares in those packages without keeping adequate records of who ended up owning what or without adhering to laws on documenting ownership titles. In some cases, banks or agencies collecting mortgage payments were doing so without clear authorization from parties with clear titles to those mortgages. When those banks or agencies try to foreclose on homeowners who failed to make scheduled mortgage payments, the law says that the people claiming a right to mortgage payments have to produce proof that they indeed have a clear title to the mortgage before they can enforce the provisions of that mortgage that allow them to foreclose on property.  In many cases, the bundling and reselling of pieces of mortgages was done without adequate documentation or adherence to the law, such that plaintiffs suing for foreclosure could not prove their right to do so, or even to collect mortgage payments from the purchasers of the property.  When these purchasers have valid title to the property, whereas the mortgagees lack a valid title to the mortgage, the mortgagees are unable to foreclose on the property or, in some cases, to demand mortgage payments until the status of the mortgage is clarified.  Of course, parties owning mortgages have put lawyers to work to untangle the mess that the banks created, and the owners of the mortgage may eventually end up with a valid claim to mortgage payments, including back payments, and a right to foreclose if those claims are not met.  So homeowners' relief from mortgage payments in these cases may be temporary.
 * Finally, you may want to read our article Criticism of the Federal Reserve. Your title refers to conspiracy theorists, and some critics of the federal reserve system, which is at the center of fractional reserve banking in the United States, see the Federal Reserve as a conspiracy by financial interests to control the U.S. economy for their own benefit. Marco polo (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This "creating money" or fiat currency is not at will. Commercial banks have a limitation on its amount and central banks have target like inflation and growth to fulfill.
 * it also sounds mysterious to me
 * Indeed, you don't owe the bank if it sold your debt to another institution. You owe this other institution, which is the same in terms of having to pay.
 * Sounds like an irregular foreclosure with insufficient documents.18:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs)
 * RE: Indeed, you don't owe the bank if it sold your debt to another institution. You owe this other institution, which is the same in terms of having to pay. A lot depends on how the specific motgage contracts are worded...  in some cases you might legally still owe the bank (and the Bank owes the other institution) In other cases you legally owe the other institution (but pay it through the bank).  In yet others, the bank acts as nothing but a broker... selling you a mortgage owned by another institution from the get go (in which case you owe and pay the other institution directly).  None of which make any difference in terms of you being legally obligated to pay someone... its just a question of who to write the check to. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)