Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 November 18

= November 18 =

Side vent windows on cars
I am curious... What was the last brand and year model of car to feature the little triangular "vent" windows between the door windows and the windscreen? Blueboar (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We used to call them "wing windows", and the article Quarter glass implies that there are still some cars that have them. They had pretty much disappeared from mass-market cars by the early or mid 1970s. The article opines that it was to give a "streamlined" look. While that may be true, it might also have to do with the much wider use of air conditioning in cars. The nice thing about the wing window was that you could get some air to flow through without having to lower your main window and deal with a torrent when driving at high speeds. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Regional divide for political affiliations in Romania


What is the region for the regional divide in political affiliations in Romania? I've provided a map to the right which clearly illustrates said divide.

Example of what I'm looking for in other countries:
 * The US divide is most strongly correlated to rural/urban, religious/irreligious, and white/non-white.
 * Canada's divide (File:Canada 2011 Federal Election.svg) is most strongly correlated to rural/urban and minority status (including both French-speakers and First Nations peoples).

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Magog the Ogre, the main divides in Romania are ethnically based: Romanian 83.4%, Hungarian 6.1%, Roma 3.1%.  Uhlan   talk  04:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A 9.2% minority alone isn't enough to explain that strong of a regional difference. It looks to be a 30-40 point swing between the most extreme regions. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends if the minorities live exclusively in the regions that voted differently from the majority and if the population density is lower in these regions, then the regional divide could make sense. --Lgriot (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like quite a clear divide between Transylvania on the one side and Wallachia and Moldavia on the other. DuncanHill (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The division corresponds strongly with the parts of Romania that used to be part of Hungary, with votes for Hunor in the areas with very high ethnic Hungarian population (map) (and for Székely Land with low historic turnout ref). GDP and 1966 population and relief may also be of interest.
 * I don't know why this particular election showed such a strong divide but Iohannis was the mayor of Sibiu, which has been doing very well, and he is a German Romanian in an area where they have a reputation for being less corrupt and more efficient than other politicians ref. I would speculate that because in the campaign there was the perception that Ponta was trying to exclude the Romanian diaspora from voting ref and he made a point of stressing the centenary in 2018 ref that this didn't go down so well in Transylvania. JMiall  ₰  17:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Books on the admission of new states to the U.S.A.
What books treat the topic of admission of new states to the United States? (History, Constitutional and other law, politics, chronology, geography, whatever.) Michael Hardy (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is probably not exactly what you are looking for, but How the States Got Their Shapes touches upon the subject as it describes how each state determined its boundary lines.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's not a book, but How the States Got Their Shapes is a most excellent series, from which I have learned a lot more than any one history book on the subject. I'll have to find a book my mother had which my honors history professor endorsed highly, and get back to you. μηδείς (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, How the States Got Their Shapes is a book. The television series was based on the book by Mark Stein. There is a link to the book on the article about the series.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 05:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a book (an excellent read, as someone below pointed out). There is also a "Part Two" to that original book.  The Part Two book is titled How the States Got Their Shapes, Too, with the sub-title of "The People Behind the Borderlines".    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A major reason the series (and presumably the book) How the States Got Their Shapes is so good is that it goes into a lot more than just the obvious. The shapes and other characteristics of the states (including the circumstances in which they entered the Union) may seem arbitrary when you look at a map, but they are very specific and made total sense at the times they happened. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Baseball Bugs: yes, you hit the nail on the head. I agree 100% with your post.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A skimpy article: Admission to the Union. 2601:2:4D00:27B:2809:1B6A:2034:AB98 (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The book I was looking for yesterday is The Oxford History of the American People by Samuel Eliot Morison. It goes into detail on the wider historical contexts, such as the Line of 1763, the Northwest Territory, the Louisiana Purchase, the Admission of Texas, the Missouri Compromise, the Mexican-American war, 54-40 or Fight, Deseret and the Utah War, Seward's Folly, the Annexation of California, the Annexation of Hawaii, the Gadsen Purchase and the role of the railroads in western expansion. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See also, Manifest Destiny and Territorial expansion of the United States. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is Western Europe poorer than USA?
Question moved from the Science desk to the Humanities desk. -- Ariel. (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen GDP per capita statistics through time. Although some small Western European countries like Norway and Switzerland are much richer than the USA, the majority are poorer. The WE average seems to have been 75-85% of USA GDP per capita since before WW2. What are the biggest contributors to this difference? Many thanks, 79.97.222.210 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be easy to say that America is richer because it is bigger, but remember that Germany is the world's fourth largest economoy and it is tiny compared to the United States. Uhlan  talk  07:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * fewer natural resources, population density, wars on home soil, not as interested in money, longer holidays, etc etc. What's this got to do with Science? Greglocock (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The IP was correct in placing his question here, this is not the science section of the Reference Desk.  Uhlan  talk  07:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * GDP does have flaws when comparing different cultures. Some productive tasks may or may not be included in GDP and the percent of these tasks which are registered in the GDP may change with culture. A person who cooks their own meals, grows their own vegetables, takes care of their own children, and fixes their own car will have a lower GDP than someone who spends more time working to afford to pay others to do these tasks. Then you have the Informal sector where people are employed but not being reported to the government, for example, paying cash to a mechanic who never reports working for you. The USA has a small informal sector relative to their GDP compared to European nations meaning that Europeans have a larger economy then it seems by GDP charts. 99.224.235.86 (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hang on, who says it is? Have you done a direct income vs cost-of-living comparison etc? Also include costs not immediately obvious, such as health insurance and other things you don't need in the sensible European countries.


 * He means the official GDP requirements.  Uhlan  talk  08:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding "richer because it is bigger": no, the OP clearly meant a comparison based on GDP per capita not on total GDP. Contact Basemetal   here  09:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Historically, a major turning point was WW1. Britain, France, and Germany all lost a significant fraction of a generation in the trenches, and, of course there was massive destruction of infrastructure and property. After-the-war arrangements further reinforced this damage situation, with reparations on the one hand further destroying infrastructure, and on the other hand competing with local production. WW2 was the second massive blow - the US was a bit more involved, but again, compared to central Europe, was very much sheltered. After WW2, the US clearly emerged as the economic powerhouse on the planet. It also helps that the US has comparatively good natural conditions - very defensible borders, a very large territory even compared to population, and plenty of natural resources. However, one should also look at the Gini coefficient. You are comparing the GDP per head, i.e. average. Another way to look at this would be to look at the median income, and compare that. I suspect that the difference will shrink quite a bit - Europe is, on average, much more egalitarian than the US, and a few Gates or Buffets shift the average up without doing much for the median. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * An incidental (and elementary) question: How is GDP affected by material destruction? Suppose a building is destroyed. You clearly have a loss of "total wealth" in whatever country that building was located. But that in itself will not affect the GDP unless it may affect it positively in case someone was actually paid to destroy that building, right? Now if a building is built to replace the building that was destroyed the "total wealth" will be unaffected but the GDP will show an increase? Is any of this (in)correct? Thanks. Unforgivable as it is, I am an economic dunce. Contact Basemetal   here  12:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See Parable of the broken window. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, if the building housed businesses, there's the loss of GDP from workers who can't work there any more. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes but "loss of GDP" does not mean "negative increase". Correct? As by definition GDP can only be positive. GDP is, if I understand correctly, a measure of "value added" resulting from the economic activity of a country. But destruction of value is not taken into account. Correct? It may have consequences in terms of loss of opportunity (as in the example StuRat gives) and so a lack of growth that would otherwise have happened, but it is not directly taken into account. Correct? Contact Basemetal   here  17:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually had several ideas when I asked this question, I would like to know if they have any impact on the difference at all: (a) The brain drain of educated people from Europe to America (who often had free education!), and America's skimming of brains from every country on Earth (b) America's cultural homogenity and single language. Does this make marketing easier and does it make the labour force more flexible? I know translation is expensive and there can be cultural barriers to even the best translation. (c) America's political unity. The EU may have no barriers on trade, but laws and technical standards still differ between European countries. Do Americans need nearly as much support to expand their businesses into a new state? I'd be interested in hearing how relevant these hypothesises of mine are.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Communism may also have pulled Western European economies down a bit, too. In the case of Germany, there's the direct effect on former Eastern Germany.  For the rest of Western Europe, there's the loss of trade for decades during the Cold War and the later economic cost of absorbing Eastern European nations into the EU. StuRat (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why a few pundits in 1989 mused that West Germany might rebuild the wall to keep East Germany from dragging down the reunited country. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this difference comes down mainly to the limitations of per capita GDP as a measure. Do we really believe that citizens of the Republic of Ireland are much more wealthy than citizens of the UK? (Obviously, they have a beautiful natural environment, rich cultural heritage etc., but materially wealthier?) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As others have said, high US GDP per capita overstates the median standard of living because GDP per capita is a mean, skewed upward since a much higher share of GDP goes to the top US earners, after taxes, than in European countries. Because government services are factored into GDP based on their cost of delivery, whereas private-sector services are calculated based on the prices paid by producers and consumers, the GDPs of countries, like the US, with much smaller public sectors are skewed upward in international comparisons. The share of GDP deriving from healthcare is much higher in the United States than in most European countries mainly because in the United States, the private sector has a much larger role in delivering these services than in Europe, and private healthcare services are factored into GDP by their price rather than their cost or actual value.  There is also the fact that the US healthcare system has much higher costs with poorer outcomes than European healthcare systems. Because only the cost of government services figures into GDP, healthcare makes a much smaller contribution to European GDPs relative to the actual value of those largely government-delivered services. Because the government accounts for a larger share of GDP in European countries, their GDPs are probably understated relative to US GDP as a measure of the actual standard of living in European countries. So, I don't think we can really accept the premise of the question, that Western European countries are poorer than the United States, at least in terms of the median standard of living. Marco polo (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to Itsmejudith, the same dynamic is at play when comparing the Republic of Ireland to the UK as when comparing the United States to Western Europe. Government accounts for 18% of Ireland's GDP, compared to 22% of the UK's GDP, according to these data from the World Bank. Unlike the UK, Ireland has a large private healthcare system, and spending on healthcare in Ireland exceeds the EU average. On the other hand, there is huge regional variation in income and standard of living within the UK. Aside from some low-income urban enclaves, the South East of England, including London, is much better off than the rest of the UK. If you live in the South East, you may be familiar with a standard of living that is comparable to or higher than that in the Republic of Ireland. However, the Republic's median standard of living may exceed that in the North of England, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Marco polo (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Who first said this?
I have seen something like the following stated a number of times (I am paraphrasing): Looking for the original reference. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Two poor men, one American and one European, are walking down the street and see a rich man drive by in a fancy car. The American says: "Some day, I will own a fancy car like that".  The European says: "Some day I will make that rich bastard get out and walk like the rest of us."


 * It must have been an Englishman and a Tory voter. Or Tony Blair. As those people are even more inclined to moronically stereotype Europeans than Americans themselves. It was they who coined the phrase 'the politics of envy', wasn't it? Just trying to help. Contact Basemetal   here  16:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a common enough trope. Ayn Rand could have said it, but didn't in those terms, so far as I am aware. She asked, given you had the same wealth and comfort in each situation, would you rather be the richest man in a poor country, or the poorest man in a rich country, and argues the latter is the far better state.  This would have been in her essay on Rawls in Philosophy, Who Needs It?  Wikiquotes does allow sorting by key words, so you can try car walk and bastard and see what you get. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "In the United States, you look at the guy that lives in the mansion on the hill, and you think, you know, one day, if I work really hard, I could live in that mansion. In Ireland, people look up at the guy in the mansion on the hill and go, one day, I'm going to get that bastard.". Not telling yet who this was. Any guesses? (No cheating) Contact Basemetal   here  10:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I cheated. How apropos! μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Group projects / group work
I wasn't sure where to post this (Humanities, Science, or Mathematics). I arbitrarily decided on this page, but if it's better suited elsewhere, just let me know. I am wondering if there is any research (or even, simply, theories) about what constitutes the "ideal" size when forming groups. There must be some information, data, and/or research in terms of: what size is the most efficient, most productive, and most effective; what size is ideal in terms of interpersonal relationships and communication; what size is ideal in terms of distributing work load and responsibilities; psychological and sociological aspects of working in a group; etc. I am referring to both (A) the product and results of the work that comes out of the group; and (B) the processes by which that work is achieved (i.e., interpersonal dynamics, etc.). If it helps any (and to be more specific), I am referring to having a relatively large group (i.e., a classroom) of, say, 30 or so students. And wanting to break the class into smaller groups for group projects. My "gut" instinct tells me that three or four is the ideal, but I am not sure. And, furthermore, I am seeking data, research, or theories – as opposed to just my gut instincts. Also, if it matters, I am referring to college students. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * you might be interested in Parkinson's_law and Dunbar's number although neither are really relevant to groups of the size of 3 or 4ish JMiall  ₰  22:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's a good start.  I'll check them out.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This paper seems to be the one everyone cites (you need JSTOR access, though). I also found this wikipedia article: Size of groups, organizations, and communities, though it has just three offline references.Taknaran (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That paper (by Hackman and Vidmar) seems directly on point.  I will see if I can somehow get it at a library or something.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Charlene Mitchell university education?
Hello,

I am doing some research on Charlene Alexander Mitchell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlene_Mitchell). In the short section titled "Early Years", it mentions that she took classes at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. However, I can find no other source that mentions this, or the years that she attended.

What is the source of this information? Is there an additional location which references her time at Moody?

Thank you, MaraK


 * Here's one more. Taknaran (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

vandalism of great artworks in modern times
I know in ancient times great works of art/architecture were destroyed all the time during wars, etc. But just limiting it to modern times (say post-WWII), what are the worst acts of vandalism against an artwork that have ever happened?

By worst I mean both that the work of art was very important and that the vandal irreparably damaged or even destroyed the artwork. I know there are things like the guy who took a hammer to the toe of Michelangelo's David, but I am wondering if there are any far more destructive acts than that.--Captain Breakfast (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For starters there are the Buddhas of Bamiyan a World Heritage site destroyed in 2001 by the Taliban. 86.175.169.103 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * One famous serial vandal was Hans-Joachim Bohlmann. Of the total damage of 270 million Deutsche Mark he generated (the German Wikipedia article gives 130 million EUR), just restoring Jacob Blessing the Sons of Joseph cost 25 million DM, so I guess that would be about 12 million EUR. We do have an article on vandalism of art with a number of examples (though I haven't checked for the most destructive or worst yet). A very recent example from last February was the irreversible destruction of a vase by Ai Weiwei estimated to be worth $1 million. ---Sluzzelin  talk  23:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Much worse than David's toe was the damage caused to Michelangelo's Pietà in an attack in 1972. Rembrandt's The Night Watch has also been seriously damaged a few times.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A cartoon showed the vandal with hammer in hand looking puzzled and saying "Pietà? I thought the sign said 'Piñata!' " Edison (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, by the way, I did not read the question well at all and focused on the vandalism-part, while halfway ignoring the "irreparably damaged or even destroyed" part and completely ignoring war as an example. Destruction in war is often incidental or at least not the actual target of course (though 86.175's example fits very well, and is certainly a very good candidate for monumental and highly relevant artwork being targeted and intentionally destroyed forever. Art_destruction has some more links and examples, including works of art lost in 9/11 (total worth of $100 million) listed under "intentional destruction". ---Sluzzelin talk  00:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Besides Art destruction, there's also Vandalism of art. Taknaran (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (Erm, yes, I linked to both, but I guess you gave a fair and concise summary of all my babbling ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk  00:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, so you did! So sorry Sluzzelin, I did not see your first link. Apologies for the duplication, Captain Breakfast.Taknaran (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also Category:Vandalized works of art, which lists many more examples not covered in Vandalism of art. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The greatest damage to artworks since the Second World War has arisen through incompetent 'restoration'. There is a brief article on ArtWatch International which is the chief campaigner against this stupidity, but does not really do the subject justice. The (British) National Gallery has a well-deserved reputation for over-restoring pictures; in the 19h. century, there were complaints about the 'restoration' of the Gallery's Canalettos, with the skies allegedly being titivated by John Constable. The Gallery's Bacchus and Ariadne was a notably controversial restoration of the 20h. century. The restoration of Holbein's The Ambassadors was televised for a documentary, and in one sequence showing the 'cleaning' one can actually see the pattern of the carpet being completely changed - ie. it has been repainted. Another picture that has been comprehensively buggered-up, in America this time, is Renoir's Luncheon of the Boating Party; not that you'd know that from the article, because Sarahobender appears to have taken it upon herself to remove all details of that from the article. Thanks Sarah! 91.228.232.195 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant to what the OP is asking about, and you are wrong to push your POV that restoration = vandalism. --Viennese Waltz 16:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, when one interferes with an original, unique artwork, it does not matter whether the intention is to restore or vandalise the artwork because the end result will be the same - that the original will be changed, almost certainly irretrievably. It is particularly noticeable in pictures because restoration almost always involves removal of covering varnish and it is impossible to distinguish between that and underlying glazes; hence the overly bright and flat appearance of restored pictures. This interference is nowadays unnecessary in any case because it is very easy to manipulate images electronically without touching the original. The extraordinary extent of modern 'restoration' - and what we are really talking about is repainting - represents a huge cumulative and irreversible cultural loss. This is, however, a subtle point and might have benefited from more than a knee-jerk response made within 3 minutes of my original post. 185.16.162.40 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, this discussion parallels a phenomenon which often arises on Wikipedia: The sometimes blurred line between deliberate vandalism and good-faith incompetence. It's fairly clear the OP was asking about the former. The IP is talking about the latter, but he would be better off taking up that discussion on the talk pages of the articles he mentions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am quite capable of understanding, interpreting, and answering the question myself. For a famous recent example of incompetent restoration amounting to vandalism, see Cecilia Jimenez. As for making the effort to argue with some know-all on an article's Talk page, I can't be bothered; and it is only one article that I am complaining has been affected (the Luncheon of the Boating Party) by the removal of cited text, not multiple articles. 37.25.46.59 (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Some more links and examples of ancient heritage sites destroyed recently, intentionally or at least acceptingly, not accidentally: List of heritage sites damaged during the Syrian Civil War, or very recently destruction of cultural sites in Mosul. For another angle (since we're defining vandalism freely): Ancient monumental architecture destroyed for profit, to cut corners, whatever, this is what I meant by acceptingly: San Estevan (1990s), Nohmul (2013), El Paraíso (2013). ---Sluzzelin talk  21:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)