Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 29

= January 29 =

archives-Wettenberg, Germany
Trying to locate a flour mill in Wettenberg, Germany in 1860 and name of the owner of the flour mill. The name George or Frederick may be in the first name of the owner with a male child, 4 years old at the time-child was born in 1856. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathyjsb (talk • contribs) 05:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Presuming this is Wettenberg in Hesse, then the relevant archives would be held at the Hessian State Archives in Darmstadt. Valiantis (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is probably your best hope, though details about a local business such as this are more likely to have been kept at the Kreis (district) level, in this case, in the records of the district of Giessen. Unfortunately, the Giessen District Archives were almost completely destroyed during World War II, with very few records remaining from before that time.  Marco polo (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Roy Raymond
Does anyone know why did he commit suicide? --PlanetEditor (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a search through Google News for the time frame around his suicide: . I can find no evidence that he left a suicide note, so the answer is likely "no one knows".  -- Jayron  32  06:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This site claims he was upset by a failed business venture and the failure of his marriage, but I don't know how trustworthy that is; that cite doesn't seem the most reliable and I don't know where they got their info. -- Jayron  32  06:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, lack of suicide note put doubt on the suicide motive. Also he committed suicide 5 years after his company went bankrupt. If business failure was the cause, he would have committed suicide in 1986, not 1993. --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Finance Sector for beginners
I am starting a new job at a hedge fund in the City (London) and I'll be working within the back and middle office supporting the teams in both areas. I would like to find material or training that will give me a good overview of the industry, activities under taken within the back and middle office of a hedge fund and a glossary of terms used in the industry 176.250.129.58 (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick browse on Amazon brings up this which sounds good.  There is also this  in the For Dummies series which I don't like very much because I find the tone in which they are written somewhat patronising.  Some more general books on the finance industry which look relevant and seem to be getting good reviews are  and . There are plenty of others if you follow the links from those pages.  Note I haven't read any of these books. --Viennese Waltz 09:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Complete Idiot's Guide to Investing has a chapter on hedge funds. An idiot’s guide to hedge funds has a brief overview of the history of hedge funds. --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with VW, those dummies & idiots books can be annoying if you already know a little about the field. Since you've already got a job there you might want something more in-depth. I don't have any specific recommendations for those, but if you want to read some good stories about the industry I would recommend Michael Lewis' The Big Short (2010) which is sort of a follow-up to his previous books about working on Wall Street, Liar's Poker and The Money Culture. (He also wrote Moneyball btw). El duderino (abides) 11:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stupid question, but how did you get the job without knowing this kind of stuff? And since I'm currently unemployed, could you teach me how? 46.30.55.66 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the key to this is the OP's words "supporting the teams", which suggests to me that they are in an administrative rather than a front-line role. Knowledge of the profession you're working in is not a prerequisite for an admin role in that profession. --Viennese Waltz 14:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I always recommend the book that Warren Buffett always recommends: The Intelligent Investor. It is not specifically about hedge funds, but it is about investing, which is the hedge funds' purpose.  Tarcil (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Latham & Watkins, a U.S. law firm, has some iPhone/iPad apps called The Book of Jargon, including one for European Capital Markets and Bank Finance, described here. They're free, if you have an iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch.
 * The standard guide to back office operations in the U.S. is After the Trade Is Made ( or this link for the UK), but I'm not sure how useful it would be to you in London. John M Baker (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My lucky day, or not
If a friend gave me a small value coin (5, 10 or 20 cent piece) and said it was now mine, my reactions would range from quizzlement, befuddlement, suspicion, surprise and other things. I might even be tempted to be a little insulted, depending on how it was given to me. When I got past that and focussed on the monetary value of my new possession, I'd hardly be doing cartwheels of joy. I certainly wouldn't regard this as my lucky day.

But "This is my lucky day" is exactly what does go through my mind - fleetingly - when I see a coin on a footpath or a road. I always pick it up and pocket it, no matter how small the face value. Then I always remind myself that it's (usually) only of the order of 5 to 20 cents, and I shouldn't be buying the champagne just yet. But then I remind myself that I am, however marginally, better off than if I hadn't noticed it, and that can only be a good thing, however marginally.

So, what makes the difference in my thinking about these identical windfalls, apart from the first one being hypothetical? The first one is neutral at best, but the second one is a minor positive.

I assume here that others have similar mental processes. If not, I'd be pleased to hear about how it is with you. Oh, I realise this is a reference desk, so if anyone knows of any studies about how people deal with windfall gains in different types of circumstances, I'd be grateful for the refs. Thank you. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd also be puzzled if a chum randomly gave me a five cent coin. But it shouldn't be about the monetary value that makes one happy when receiving money from a friend; instead it is the action of giving that counts. The love and joy of giving. Of course, it also depends on how it's given. I'd be pissed off if the friend were to just throw it to me and say its now mine without any feeling. The second scenario would certainly make most people happy – to think, free money that I myself found! But I would feel sad for the guy who dropped his money. An even more joyful scenario – you finding your misplaced money at the exact spot where you lost it. Double joy!

Though it really is because of your mindset, actually. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Side note: My motherr says, don't take things that are not yours! E.g. Coins on the pavement. As they may be cursed! Hehe, what hokey. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 11:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there's something to do with perceived relative values or some such going on here. See "Less Is Better: When Low-value Options Are Valued More Highly than High-value Options". The study shows that if participants were given two gifts from 'friends', one being a $55 coat and the other a $45 scarf, the scarf was perceived as a more generous gift, when revealed that the coat was from a shop selling coats priced from $50-$500, whilst the scarf was from a range priced $5-$50. In your case, you are obviously assessing your friends generosity in giving you a gift of less than $1 against his ability to give gifts of higher value (as he presumably is if he lives in a Western country). However, you have no such expectation of a gift from the pavement, so any money you do receive from it has a higher worth relative to your expectation.
 * Basically, Jack, you're just a selfish pig who has an overinflated sense of his own self worth! ;-) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that illuminating analysis. I must now re-examine my life and my purpose for existence.  Please hold your breath while watching this space until I get back to you in the fullness of time.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Disregard Cuke's personal attack - it's hogwash. We American old-timers have a saying when we find a coin (even a one-cent piece): "I'm rich!" Now, consider this: Many times that cent I've found proves to be just what I need to make exact change when buying something soon afterward. That's not like winning the lottery, but it's good luck on a small scale. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comfort, but you seem to see personal attacks in places I don't, Bugs. That was a bit of (admittedly sharp) humour, as evidenced by the smiley at the end.
 * Today was my lucky day again: I found a $2 coin on the footpath. I went and bought a coffee on the strength of that (now for the truth: I was going to anyway, but I no longer needed to break a note, as I was able to use the $2 I found and add it to my other change to come up with correct weight).  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad you got the humour, Jack, and I'm pleased I can stop holding my breath now - it was starting to become a little difficult, especially around breakfast time when I had to ingest my cereal through my ear. For the avoidance of doubt, I was trying to jokingly make the point that all of humanity (or, at least, the people in the survey I linked) experience disappointment upon finding that a friend has given them a gift which is low in value compared to their capacity for giving. Jack being assumed, for the purpose of this joke, to be human, is therefore selfish and self important. Me too. Jokes: being improved by explanation since 1734. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hence the response "Hogwash". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, many have had similar reactions when I say I'm from the same planet as they. They should get out more.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

English proverb: "Find a penny, pick it up, / All day long you'll have good luck. / See a penny leave it there, / bad luck comes! and so beware!". Alternative English schoolboy joke: "Find a penny, pick it up, / All day long you'll have a penny". Alansplodge (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The difference is that the coin on the ground is free while the coin from your friend carries a social obligation, however small (i.e. he may ask repayment at a later date or ask for some other favour down the road "in return"). Being indebted is usually not a pleasant feeling - espcially if the upside is only pocket change. Marcel Mauss explored some of this in The Gift. Matt Deres (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's confirmation bias or hindsight bias. If not, then the OP probably has to specify or define "lucky". Does it mean "feels lucky" or does it mean "just so happens to be this way" or does it mean "the occurrence of an unlikely event" or does it mean "the occurrence of a seemingly unlikely event"? 140.254.226.197 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds a little similar to the ultimatum game. Imagine I offer a sum of money to A, on the condition that A offers at least some of it to B. If B accepts, the deal goes ahead, otherwise I keep all of the money. If A and B were the rational agents that economists often assume humans to be, B would accept any offer (because something is better than nothing) and so A would offer the minimum possible amount. However, in practice, A tends to offer a significant sum (often close to half of it, though people in small, isolated societies can behave very differently to the rest of us), and if A's offer is too small, B will often get offended and reject it. There is a variety of possible explanations for this: it could be that, to some extent, we are hardwired to be fair to others or punish unfairness, or that we expect that our actions will have an effect on other people's behaviour in the future. Obviously, none of these social factors are involved if it is just a coin on the ground. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Which naturally leads me to ask what the foregoing was actually in reference to. I couldn't relate any of it to being handed some money by a friend, without any conditions, which is what my question was about.  Thanks for the effort, though.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Study that confirms that emotion and reason are intertwined...?
There was one time when I reading a psychology textbook which gave an example of a person who had surgery performed on him and how he could no longer have emotion, and by that, could also no longer have proper reasoning abilities. Just recently, I read a similar article on Psychology Today that confirms this notion: that reasoning and emotion are intertwined or reasoning is based on experiencing emotion. I am just wondering if there is that study or a similar case study or experiment involving such a concept. Such a concept makes sense to me, because I feel that some religious skeptics are overcriticizing religion or trying to find support to justify their preconceived notions that "religion is to some degree evil". Such persons may criticize a religious text (e.g. the Bible) to what it seems to be beyond reason without taking into account that people do study the Bible in academia using well-accepted historical-critical methods to analyze the text. 140.254.226.197 (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There was an article reviewing some of the links between emotion and reasoning "THE NEUROSCIENCE OF EMOTION AND REASONING IN SOCIAL CONTEXTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR MORAL THEOLOGY" in Modern Theology; Apr2011, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p339-356, 18p. Sounds like the sort of thing you are looking for.  nonsense  ferret  17:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Link to articles here nonsense  ferret  17:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Logic is not based on emotion.  An emotionless computer performs logical operations all day long.  2.  Your statements about religion do not appear to be a question for the Reference Desk.  Tarcil (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * not sure that a computer performing logic operations is a particularly good analogy to the process of reasoning in the human brain. nonsense  ferret  19:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you perhaps looking for something like this:
 * " The 30 partisans in this study were presented with contradictory quotes from Bush and Kerry, but also from Hank Aaron, Tom Hanks and the writer William Styron. They processed the information about the non-politicians with the reasoning centers of the brain. It was politics that short-circuited them. source Ssscienccce (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For the case of the man whose loss of emotional connection made him unable to reason properly about means and ends and risks, etc., see Antonio Damasio's Descartes Error. There is also the classic case of Phineas Gage. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Stock splits' effect on prices
Is there a good writeup somewhere about the historical effects of stock splits on stock prices? Anecdotes and sales pitches related to splits seem to abound, and the typical theory is that they ought to increase the price of the stock because demand increases, since the typical low-end 100-share buy (to avoid odd lot charges) is more affordable. However, despite an abundance of stock splits over the decades, I haven't found any good analysis of this data. Tarcil (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's complicated, because as our article says, splits often occur after a substantial run-up in the price, so any post-split price increases might be due to the split or might be something that was going to continue happening anyway. My own feeling would be that the argument "they ought to increase the price of the stock because demand increases, since the typical low-end 100-share buy (to avoid odd lot charges) is more affordable" doesn't hold water. Any investors who are freed up to buy the stock once 100 shares become affordable are going to be collectively a very small part of the market compared to the numerous big institutional investors. And those big investors probably already had the market pricing the company at whatever they considered its true value, so if enough new investors did come in and incipiently increase the price, the increase would only be extremely fleeting as the big investors backed away from what they considered to be an incipient overvaluation. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you go into http://scholar.google.com/ and type in stock split, a bunch of potentially useful results come up. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this racial profiling?
See this article - http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/Cannabis-worth-100000-seized-19072012.htm

It claims "people often of South-East Asian appearance may be seen visiting". Is this racial profiling?--Anna Do You Want My Banana (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. "If Asians visit the house at night then it's suspicious" is what I read in that article.  Tarcil (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought that as well, but I'm not sure that that newspaper is overly concerned with political correctness, instead its attitude is more that of a parochial pragmatism.--Anna Do You Want My Banana (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the UK police have "community outreach" (or similar) efforts that are a bit laughable. Basically in some of these cases a junior policeman (or non-uniformed employee) has been told to get on email or twitter or something and give out some useful tips. I think one that was especially ridiculed a while ago was something about avoiding opportunist crime while away on holiday, and managed approximately one grammar or spelling error for every two words in a thirty word message. This isn't quite that bad, but it is an indication of material being sent out without sensible editorial oversight.


 * They're probably not helped by the great rarity of people of south-east Asian appearance in their part of Scotland. You can help to educate them at http://www.northern.police.uk/contact.html if you so wish. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I don't think I will bother with doing that.--Anna Do You Want My Banana (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to agree I doubt it's worth it. The phrase seems fairly common  since at least 2009, common enough that it's already been picked up by the BNP. Strangely enough most of these seem to say Southeast Asian in particular. Some even say stuff like most of the people involved were of South East Asian origin. However one source I found which actually comments in more detail on the ethnic identity of the participants suggests that a large percentage are Chinese with most of the rest being Vietnamese . From this, it's easy to find other sources saying something similar   . Things brings in to question the claims that most of the people were of Southeast Asian origin, Vietnamese are generally considered Southeast Asian (sometimes also East Asian) as in modern geopolitics, Vietnam is part of southeast Asia. Some Chinese, e.g. from Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and other parts of Southeast Asia can be said to be of Southeast Asian origin. But I suspect quite a few of the people involved are from China (including Hong Kong) and perhaps some from Taiwan as well or perhaps somewhere else. For many reasons, you could perhaps say they look like they're of Southeast Asian origin, but China and Taiwan are rarely considered part of Southeast Asia so unless they use some rather odd definitions in Scotland, the claim of most of the people involved being of Southeast Asian origin seems possibly incorrect. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't forget we took in a number of Vietnamese Boat People in the early 80s in the UK and I think there are quite a few in Scotland. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Long time later but I guess I didn't consider that it may have been a number of Hoa people and Ngái people working with the ethnic Vietnamese. I still find it hard to believe nowadays that there weren't a fair few Chinese Chinese (mostly from China but perhaps also HK & Taiwan) though if a large percentage of them were Chinese. I don't know that much about the ethnic make up of the UK on these levels though. I guess the bigger point is that it can be difficult for particularly at night & when you don't want to be seen, to tell some SEA and EA apart, so it's not likely to make much sense to talk about SEA only if you're talking about people where that's likely the case (unless the people you're talking to would really have no idea if you say EA or SEA origin, which seems unlikely). Edit: Looking at sources again, it seems I may have been right the first time. The source doesn't just say they were Chinese, but also says they are mostly recent illegal immigrants working of debt. This further suggests to me that many would be from China. That said, one thing I don't think I considered last time. It still could be most of the visible visitors are SEA even if a fair majority of the people involved in the operations are Chinese/ Nil Einne (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo
Which, UN organizations (eg FOA), Kosovo is a member of? And if no is the so members of other international organizations? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_Kosovo. --PlanetEditor (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does Canada intervene in Mali?
Is it under the pressure of some country? or sovereign decision? Kotjap (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Canada is a sovereign nation. However, as it has formal relations with many other nations, virtually any action it takes is undoubtedly influenced to some degree by the positions of other nations (and such is the case for any other country).  Per our article on the ongoing matter, non-African foreign intervention is primarily being headed up by France.  As such, I would expect that France formally asked Canada for assistance, though it could have been a request from the Mali government or AFISMA, among others.  I feel confident that Canada's sovereignty was not undermined by whatever process occurred. &mdash; Lomn 22:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Canada's intervention is one transport plane helping the French and some humanitarian aid. Rmhermen (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also it bears noting that like many sovereign nations around the world, Canada benefits from a world with more political stability, and so has a real measurable interest in seeing this particular conflict resolved in a favorable way. West Africa is a place with lots of natural resources (especially petroleum and natural gas), and conflicts there are bad for the global economy, and so bad for Canada.  -- Jayron  32  04:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems that Canada's involvement is quite limited, considering they have been one of the largest aid donors to Mali in the past. Ssscienccce (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This question reminds me of the ones asking asking about the sovereignty of Pacific Island countries that support Israel. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Another factor is that by participating in various multinational undertakings like the one in Mali, Canada can maintain or increase her influence amongst her allies. Also if Canada was ever in trouble, she could reasonably expect other countries to reciprocate - a bit of "do as you would be done by". Alansplodge (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Julian, Lord Fellowes
I am watching Great Houses which he wrote and presents. Episode Goodwood House. There is a black tie party where Lord Fellowes wanders around wearing a diagonal wide band narrow blue either side of orange. He came as Komarovski. What does the band signify? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you find it in sash? --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Probably Order of Nassau. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)