Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 14

= February 14 =

Are the people from Equatorial Guinea in the U.S Hispanics?
Since Spanish is the most widely Spoken language in Equatorial Guinea, would the Spanish-speaking Equatoguinean people living in the U.S be considered not only as African Americans, but also as Hispanic Americans or even Latinos (after all, they come from a country where the majority of the people speak a Latin-based language known as Spanish)? Would it then be appropriate, acceptable, and accurate or not for a person from Equatorial Guinea to serve as the national Hispanic campaign chairperson or co-chairperson for the campaign of some U.S presidential candidate? In other words, can Equatoguineans in the U.S run for and hold positions that are ONLY meant for Hispanics and Latinos? Willminator (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of blacks in other "Hispanic" nations, like Brazil, so I don't see a problem. They should try it and see if they are accepted (would this make them Equatorial Guinea pigs ?) .  StuRat (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In the U.S. context, Hispanic just means that you come from a Spanish and/or Portuguese background, without regard for skin tone or race. There are a large number of Black Hispanics from the Caribbean, for example.  See Manny Ramirez, Roberto Clemente, Al Horford.  Also, I have no idea what is meant by "in the U.S run for and hold positions that are ONLY meant for Hispanics and Latinos?"  There are no public offices in the U.S. which are reserved for people of a specific racial or national or ethnic background.  -- Jayron  32  04:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder if there even are any such people. It's a tiny little country with a total population of less than a million. Looie496 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I just checked through the U.S. census website, . There was literally no one who reported "Equatorial Guinea" as either their country of birth (implying they were born there) or their ancestry (implying they identified with the country historically).  It's an option when searching (Equatorial Guinea is country code 632, so the census is at least prepared for collecting said data) and the search turns up no data in any of the Census's files which has any information about people from Equatorial Guinea.  By contrast, if you turn off "Equatorial Guinea" and turn on "Mexico", you get plenty of data on Mexicans in the U.S.  So, it seams that there just aren't any, or at least no one who self-reported as such on the American Community Survey.  Now, since the ACS is a representative sample, and not a formal census, very well could miss a very small number of people from Equatorial Guinea who do live in the U.S., but those people would be a very tiny number indeed, and the definition of "not statistically significant".  Still, it is possible there are at least a handful of such people living in the U.S. right now.  -- Jayron  32  05:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a few dozens. The US State Department's reports ("Immigrant Visas Issued by Foreign State Chargeability (All Categories): Fiscal Years 2003-2012") say that over the last 10 years, about 30 immigrant visas were issued by US consulates abroad to people born in Equatorial Guinea. (From 1 to 7 visa per fiscal year). Besides this, there must have been also a few people from that country who came to the US as non-immigrants (students [F and J visas], visitors for pleasure or for business [B], diplomats [A] - about 1200 non-immigrant visas were issued to EG-ans in 2012) and then managed to obtain an "adjustment of status" to permanent residence (e.g., due to a marriage, or as a result of  claiming asylum), or just overstayed their admission period, becoming, in American parlance, "illegal aliens". -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A "few dozens" would indeed be statistically insignificant, which is why the ACS hasn't picked them up, given the sample size of the ACS. -- Jayron  32  20:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jayron, you should know better than this. "Statistically insignificant" when testing what hypothesis?  What is the null and what is the alternative, and what's your level of significance?  I'm pretty sure you know what these things mean, but a lot of people don't, and use "statistically significant" to mean, well, not much really.  It's a precise term from inferential statistics that has no application whatsoever in descriptive statistics; the question here seems more related to descriptive than inferential stats. --Trovatore (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure where the idea comes from that Brazilians are Hispanics, since Brazil is not Spanish in any way. Neither are Philipinos or Catalonians usually described as Hispanic, even though they are or have been under the Spanish crown. The term in English is usually used to refer to native Spanish speakers in Spanish speaking countries outside Spain--where they are just called Spanish. But fullblooded non-assimilated Quechua in Peru would normally be called Native Americans, rather than Hispanics. Given French and Portuguese are also official languages of Equatorial Guinea, and well over 90% of its inhabitants belong to an indigenous tribe speaking a Bantu language as their mother tongue, calling them Hispanic would be an odd choice. μηδείς (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "Hispanic" (at least in my experience; i.e., common American usage) is one of the slipperiest ethnic definitions in existence. It is most commonly used in reference to those native to Latin America and their descendants. In practice, those described by the term are generally of mixed descent from both Spanish colonists and the Native Americans of Central and South America (we had a specific word for this -- mestizo -- but it is now practically obsolete). This is the case so much that any Spanish person with light or olive-tone skin is highly unlikely to be described as "Hispanic" by an average American, even though they could be considered the archetype by which the term should be measured. I have never been sure as to whether Hispanic-ness is measured by Spanish descent (i.e., having ancestors native to Spain) or merely cultural roots in a Spanish-speaking country -- a definition that would include those from Equatorial Guinea and other countries with absolutely no European ancestry.


 * As far as the Portuguese are concerned, our article Hispanic defines the term as "an ethnonym that denotes a relationship to Spain or, in some definitions, to ancient Hispania, which comprised the Iberian Peninsula including the modern states of Andorra, Portugal, and Spain and the British Crown Dependency of Gibraltar." So that would mean... maybe. Kind of... A little bit. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Brazilians are indeed called Latins or Latinos, but not Hispanics except by Americans who think they speak Spanish, as that usually refers to the Spanish speaking natives of Spain's new world colonies. (Of course Italians are Latins but not Latinos in the US.) One is entitled to use a word how one likes if one defines it within reason and is consistent. None of this really matters, but Americans are simply not going to call Bantu speakers from EG Hispanics. μηδείς (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have an idea. Just call them people. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, if the government just calls them people, it does not prevent the other people within the country, and the political, social and economic systems of that country from discriminating against such social groups. Being able to identify what groups of people are being so discriminated against is a necessary prerequisite to providing relief for said discrimination.  In other words, Hispanic people in the U.S. would still be treated poorly even if the Government refused to identify them and collect data on them, except that the government wouldn't be as well informed about the nature of the problem and wouldn't be able to respond to said problems.  -- Jayron  32  13:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This US Census site (first page after acknowledgements) (dating back to 2004, but I doubt they would have changed their definitions much since then) says


 * The federal government defines Hispanic or Latino as a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.

How's that for clarity -- the wording implies that anything Central or South American is "Spanish" in culture or origin. (Suriname? Guyana? French Guiana? Brazil?) But since it does eventually narrow it down to Spanish culture or origin, that would preclude Brazil etc. On the other hand, it includes Spain, and the list in the table includes "Spaniard". Duoduoduo (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So, where would the people of Equatorial Guinea fall under the federal government definition? So, would it be right for a Equatoguinean in the U.S (if there are any) to put in the Race section of a job application or other applications any of the following options other than the "Black or African American" option: "Hispanic or Latino," "Two or more races," or "Other?" Willminator (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As others have said, the concept of "Hispanic" is not well defined, but it normally involves Spanish ancestry or cultural heritage. I think that an Equatorial Guinean with Spanish ancestors or who is a native speaker of Spanish could qualify as Hispanic, but probably only a small percentage of Equatorial Guineans meet this criterion.  On the other hand, the United States doesn't regulate individuals' racial or ethnic status. (That is, individuals are not registered with racial or ethnic categories by the government, though government workers might label individuals by race for purposes of identification.) On job applications and census forms, people are generally accepted to be whatever they claim to be, though a blond-haired blue-eyed person without any obvious African American or Hispanic cultural attributes might have trouble being accepted as African American or Hispanic for affirmative action purposes when they show up for a job or school admissions interview. So Equatorial Guineans, especially those who speak Spanish, could probably get away with claiming to be Hispanic, "two or more races", or "other", according to their whims.  Marco polo (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, there is no qualification of such terms. The U.S. census doesn't require people to prove their ethnicity by documentation or anything.  It's all about how a person identifies themselves, because a person knows best how they relate to various cultures, and which culture they think of themself as belonging to.  There's no qualification to be had.  The census asks you if you're Hispanic, you say yes if you think you are.  That's it.  -- Jayron  32  20:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me mention that their street and building signs in Equatorial Guinea seem to all be in Spanish, based on some pictures and YouTube videos I've seen from there, like it is in all other Spanish-speaking countries, which indicates to me that Spanish is very widely spoken there. Willminator (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Jewish population
How many jews live in this world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.88.221 (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See the Wikipedia article titled Jews. -- Jayron  32  04:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given I'm unaware of any offworld colonies, I suspect they all do. Althoughμηδείς (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You beat me to the punch line again! OK, here's another one, from Myron Cohen. I'll keep it short: A Martian lands in a Jewish section of New York. His spacecraft has a flat tire, so he buys a bagel to replace it. The store manager asks, "Do you all you Martians have green skin?" "Yes." "Do you all have 3 eyes?" "Yes." "Do you all wear those little beanies?" "No, only the orthodox." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Life is hard. It would be better never to be born at all. But how many are so lucky? Maybe 1 in a hundred." Gzuckier (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * According to this source -- http://books.google.com/books?id=-MChymxEfdsC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=jewish+population+world+2012+13,746,100&source=bl&ots=J4ALyZzalY&sig=vvHeAA11wpXiWSLi0gpEB-698_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-pEcUZnjJIrliwLn64GwBA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jewish%20population%20world%202012%2013%2C746%2C100&f=false -- 13,746,100 at the beginning of 2012. Futurist110 (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between political philosophy and political theory? Or, is there?
The two titles have been used interchangeably. In one reference, for example, Aristotle was referred to as a political theorist and a political philosopher. In graduate schools' websites, political theory and political philosophy are both used to refer the ideas of Marx and Kant. And according to some other references which points out the difference between PP and PT, political philosophy is more on the metaphysical and ethical side, while political theory is on the realist side. But, in my very humble opinion, they may have different ways of arriving to a conclusion, but they are basically talking about the same thing. So what exactly is the difference? Or, are they just the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Try clicking this blue link: Political theory and you'll get your answer. -- Jayron  32  04:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A theory seeks to explain; a philosophy to convince. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Other ethnic-dominanted gang in Europe
36 Boys in Kreuzberg, Berlin, Germany mostly of Turkish background. Is there any gang in Europe that are of an ethnic dominant group like Bangladeshis, Indians, Sikhs, Pakistanis, Iranian, Arabs, Somalis and etc?--Donmust90 (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90


 * The Sicilian Mafia of course. Scotland Yard says 47% of 180 crime gangs it has identified have members "bound by a common language or homeland". The Black Cobras "are mostly of Turkish, Albanian or Russian origin." In Scotland, there have Albanian, Chinese, Bangladeshi and Czech gangs. Gangs in the United Kingdom says that "in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, the majority of the gangs are Bangladeshi". Etc. etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Somalis are apparently the latest addition to the British gang scene.  Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Scotland Yard's 47% includes gangs whose members' "common language or homeland" is English and England, or Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Is "ethnic" here being used to mean "having a foreign ethnic background"? According to the standard definition of ethnic, a gang of ethnically English young men who share the English language (and perhaps a regional variety of that language) would be an ethnic gang too, right?  In fact, as described, the Black Cobras don't qualify, since Albanians, Turks, and Russians do not share a common language or homeland. I would think that the Black Cobras are an exception, and that most gangs do share a common language and homeland (such as English and England), since a common culture would ease communication and bind gang members together. Marco polo (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But being from the locality's majority culture, language, or homeland, while easing communication, is not going to bind the members of the English-speaking gangs together. "What we share in common is the culture of most of the people in our city/region -- it's us against the world!" isn't going to bind them together. That's why in common usage "ethnic gang" refers to a gang of a minority ethnicity. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. There are plenty of racist or xenophobic gangs whose binding ideology if you will is their majority ethnicity, culture or point of origin. Kicking out, bashing or burning the homes or shops of people of minority or different ethnicities have been heard as rallying cries everywhere and throughout history.
 * The kind of approach used by Scotland Yard begs the question: are they policing for everyone, or just the "majority" (however they see that concept)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the key classifier in that case is "hate group". When they talk about ethnic gangs I don't think hate crimes is the usual activity that they're trying to police. They may well have a separate list of hate groups. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I get the distinction you're making here, D3, but at the same time there are plenty of cases where the two overlap; as one example, many of the more violent white supremacist groups, especially the ones with really refined hate-genetics, are, more or less by design and definition, going to be ethnically based, even if they are also based on a shared philosophy, rather than more general cultural adhesion.  There are also plenty of white gangs in the U.K. that aren't particularly activist in their racial beliefs but a little more racist than the usual (which in the U.K. can translate to "still pretty damn racist") that are nonetheless all-white (and typically all from a much more specific white ethnicity who none-the-less think of themselves as British-descended) and speak only English.   This is all without taking ethnic polarization in Northern Ireland into account, mind you. Snow (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI's Name
Once Pope Benedict XVI leaves the Papacy, will his official name remain Benedict XVI, will it become something like "The Former Benedict XVI", or will he receive the same name that he had before he became Pope in 2005? Futurist110 (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See the sub-question titled "Ex-Pope" above. (Or, if you prefer, "Ex Benedict").  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. I'm not a big fan of Hollandaise sauce.  -- Jayron  32  19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! Snow (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(I expect we will get this question several more times over the next few weeks. Please be patient with those who don't look to see that it has already been asked and answered.) Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Why have I not heard of a single lady composer before 1900?
To anyone uninitiated in pop-music, and who does not read the title to clue them in, this piece sounds like it's from 1811, although in reality, it was made about 200 years later.

We hear so much about Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Handel, Tchaikovsky, and so many others.

However, can you think of any major women composers before 1900? Me neither, so why not?

Why couldn't women get musically prominent until recent times? Or did they get prominent without my knowledge? I would hope that Madame Germanotta here was inspired by prior women composers who did their pieces before her time. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For examples of female composers in history, see List of female composers by birth year. For women to compose music was contrary to societal norms for a long time, although there were no such restrictions on performing music. And even today there are some musical areas where women are quite underrepresented, for example, this top 20 of film music composers alive consists entirely of men. It's hard to give a definitive reason for this, whether it's purely cultural or if there is some biological factor to it. - Lindert (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) We have an article: List of female composers by birth year. The only names whose music I know that I have heard are Hildegard of Bingen and Elena Kats-Chernin (of the British Lloyds Bank advert fame).
 * I don't know the answer to your question - although there was a strong bias against creative women in earlier centuries, that hasn't applied for a while. Several really famous male composers, Vivaldi for instance, were barely known before the mid-20th century, so there really isn't a bar on earlier women's music being "rediscovered". Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Our article on Maria Anna Mozart might give you some idea of the challenges faced by female musicians and composers at certain periods. From that article: According to New Grove, "from 1769 onwards she was no longer permitted to show her artistic talent on travels with her brother, as she had reached a marriageable age." OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just this past week I heard a radio program about Fanny Mendelssohn, a composer in her own right. None of her own work was published during her lifetime under her name; she primarily composed for her own performances and kept her own manuscripts of her compositions, though a few of her works were published by her brother Felix under his name.  -- Jayron  32  13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The puzzle is why we aren't listening to their music today. Is it because it's not terribly good? Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's because there's not very much of it, proportionally speaking, in the overall scheme of things. But it's far from unknown: I've had an LP of Clara Schumann's music for too many years to remember (not that I play it very much, but then, I play very few of my LPs these days; but that's irrelevant, as there are millions of CDs of music by women composers).  What I've heard of Fanny Mendelssohn's music is high quality indeed.  I've been practising Elena Kats-Chernin's Russian Rag for a few months; for a couple of years it was the theme music for Radio National's Late Night Live, having supplanted a Bach concerto that had a very good run of close to 20 years; the Russian Rag has since been replaced by Kats-Chernin's Wild Swans theme; so the score is: Compositions by male composers - 1, Compositions by female composers - 2).  (Personal anedcote: I picked up the Russian Rag score in a Sydney music shop that has a jolly decent second-hand section.  Pasted inside the back cover of my copy is a photocopy of an email from the composer to someone called "Phyllis", pointing out numerous errors in the printed score, which that owner has duly marked in pencil; the email gives Kats-Chernin's private phone numbers (landline and mobile) and email address. I'm tempted to call her out of the blue one day and tell her I've never heard a work of hers I didn't like.)
 * If your knowledge of classical music is governed by what you hear on radio programs or at live concerts, then be aware that they all have their own biases and agendas and they tend to pander to the mainstream most of the time. For every little-known female composer, there are 100++ male composers the general public has never heard of at all.  We can read about their magnificent achievements in obscure places like Wikipedia, but as for actually hearing their music ....  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c - refers to Jayron's comment on Fanny Mendelssohn) Likewise, Clara Schumann composed a lot of music, but, in addition to the societal effects mentioned above, was somewhat overshadowed by her more famous husband. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OP, I'm not sure where you got 1811 from with that baroque-sounding fugue. 1711 would be closer to the mark. 1811 was the year of Beethoven's Emperor Concerto and Archduke Trio, and Weber's Clarinet Concertos.  We were at the birth of the Romantic period.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  18:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is SPY trading at 13 cents above the index?
Half a quarter until ex-div, so shouldn't it have accrued half the dividend, or 55 cents, by now? 67.243.3.6 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Care to tell us what company "SPY" is, and what exchange they trade on ? StuRat (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this is what the OP is talking about. It's daily and commonly referred to in Australian media and financial circles simply as SPI (or SPY?). Although the OP's IP address says New York, so I dunno. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * SPY is also the NYSE ticker symbol for one of the Standard & Poor's Depositary Receipts.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF. 67.243.3.6 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tracker funds never track perfectly. That would require too many trades to keep rebalancing the portfolio and the transaction costs would be too high. See tracking error. --Tango (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * SPY is traded so heavily it tracks the index extremely well. It's just that it doesn't seem to account for the upcoming dividend payment. 67.243.3.6 (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

who discovered air
I even searched in the page about air and it all mentioned what is air but no where it is mentioned who discovered. Hope you bring the answer. Thanking you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashas.ameeplanet (talk • contribs) 17:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Either the first person who saw tree branches moving in the wind and thought about what was going on, or Lavoisier... AnonMoos (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But I wonder when was the first time that people realized or seriously hypothesized that air is the same kind of substance as liquids or solids, just thinner and invisible, as opposed to something that's not really there but can make things happen anyway. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but gadgets such as bellows that make air behave in a similar way to a fluid (maybe?) must have been a big clue, and they have been around for thousands of years. But I'm not an expert, perhaps someone who knows more than me about early science could comment? Alansplodge (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thales (c. 570 BC) seems to have known that air was comparable to water (see Aristotle's report in De Caelo II, 13; 294a). At any rate, it's clear that Aristotle (c. 350 BC) understood that air was a fluid with inertia (see Physics IV, 8; 215b). Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Air has been known about since ancient times, although their understanding of it seems a bit odd today - see Air (classical element). Joseph Priestley is generally agreed to have discovered oxygen, which he called "dephlogisticated air". Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Occultism / Vril
God Day, If I may trouble you for information on an author of, the Vril Society by Theo Paijman. The publisher states of this book that "After more than two decades of painstaking research, this book unveils the darkest innermost secrets and history of a secret Nazi occult order, The Vril Society." Publication date is 2008. Whom is this author, his background, his religious beliefs, etc. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.55.218 (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To begin with, his name is Theo Paijmans - you may have better luck finding information about him via internet searches if you're using the right spelling. Wikipedia does not have an article devoted to him, but he is mentioned in 4 of our articles, as you will see by inputting his name into the "Search" box at the top right of this page: some of their references to him have links to items elsewhere on the internet.
 * We have an article section on the Vril Society if anybody is interested. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I used to participate in a Usenet group in which Theo also participated, but I don't really know anything about him other than that he's Dutch and seemed like a nice guy. He may even be a dog. Deor (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany question
I'm like obsessed with the history of Horst-Wessel-Lied because at 22 he already was important within Nazi ranges. And he was made a martyr after his death in 1930. My question is, why was he killed? because of the song he wrote against the Reds and rebels? or what? Thank.Kotjap (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hopefully you have read our article: Horst Wessel? If so, you will have seen that it might have been a political assassination or the result of an argument over unpaid rent. Perhaps we'll never know. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The song article does say "Wessel was murdered by Albrecht Höhler, a Communist party member, in February 1930, and Joseph Goebbels made him a martyr of the Nazi movement", but there is more in the last paragraph of Horst Wessel like Alan says.
 * Note that the Nazi party of 1930 was violently anti-communist so it is not hard to believe that the communists fought back. Murdering the writer of the Nazi party's anthem was almost certainly a good choice to act against the Nazis and probably a lot easier than trying to hit at someone higher up in the party, a member of the "Leadership Corps" (Korps der politischen Leiter) for example.  Astronaut (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the song didn't become the Nazi anthem until 1933 and had only been published three months before Wessels' death in a party magazine, so my guess is that the Communists didn't even know about the song. I suspect that they were more exercised about Wessels' beating-people-up-in-the-street activities than his supposed musical talents. Personally, I prefer the rent money story. Alansplodge (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh Thank you, I had read Horst-Wessel-Lied but not Horst Wessel. Kotjap (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, in the Horst Wessel article, you only got as far as the picture? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Kotjap, you inserted a link to that article in your question yesterday. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking specifically of this item from Monday, where the OP was asking about the picture. I guess he didn't actually read the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. BTW, my previous comments were addressed to the OP too, I didn't phrase it very well. Now corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Heinz merger and shareholders
In hearing that Heinz's board of directors approved the buyout offer by Berkshire Hathaway, I was confused that nothing was written about the shareholders approving the deal. Do the Heinz shareholders have to approve the deal or is that not necessary because it's clear that it is more of an acquisition for Berkshire Hathaway than a true merger?71.229.194.243 (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * erm, wouldn't it have involved buying the shares from the shareholders? nonsense  ferret  21:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are being paid a premium, but there was nothing about them actually voting on it.71.229.194.243 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's because the actual vote has yet to take place.
 * "The takeover has been approved by the company's board, but still needs to be voted on by shareholders."
 * "The deal is subject to approval by Heinz shareholders, and is expected to be completed in the third quarter of this year."Dncsky (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That answers that, thanks Dncsky. 71.229.194.243 (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome.Dncsky (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To cut through all of this to the central point, this depends on the rules in the State of incorporation, often Delaware, but occasionally other places. Those rules have specific requirements about various corporate changes, and it also depends on the way the "merger" is structured. Reverse mergers, and buyouts are all possible variations. Almost all large companies will have shareholder say on critical decisions like this, as a general rule. But if you want to get detailed, you need a lawyer who's familiar with the particular state's corporate law. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)