Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 September 1

= September 1 =

not Gini
(Unsure whether economics is a humanity, a science, an entertainment or miscellaneous, I throw caution to the winds and post the question here.)

Income and static wealth are correlated but distinct. The Gini coefficient measures the distribution of income. Is there a word for the analogous measurement of the distribution of wealth? —Tamfang (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is helpful, but according to our article, Distribution of wealth § Statistical distributions: Pareto Distribution has often been used to mathematically quantify the distribution of wealth, since it models a random distribution.   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Tamfang -- as far as the basic mathematics goes, the Gini coefficient is an abstract indicator of degree of evenness or unevenness, and is not tied to any one concrete measured thing... AnonMoos (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * However, wealth will tend to be more unevenly distributed than income, as poor people may never accumulate any of their income at all, as it is all spent on daily survival. Of course, there are always idiots who, despite multi-million dollar incomes, manage to get deep into debt (and business owners who took a risk that failed). StuRat (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * [In "List of Dewey Decimal classes", "Economics" (330) is classified under "Social sciences" (300), so economics is a subset of humanities.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)]


 * The Gini coefficient is also applied to wealth distributions. See for example the first sentence of the third paragraph of the Gini coefficient article "The Gini coefficient was proposed by Gini as a measure of inequality of income or wealth" and List of countries by distribution of wealth, which has a column for the wealth Gini.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that list. Full of surprises! —Tamfang (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

People who are "almost" saints
Does Wikipedia have any type of list or category for people who are "almost" saints? That is, those people who have gone through some (but not all) of the steps in canonization; as such, they are "one or two steps away" from being named a saint. I can't seem to find this. I am referring to saints in the Roman Catholic Church, named by the Pope. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The stages are venerable, blessed, saint. A lot of "list of saints" articles appear to incorporate venerables and blesseds (e.g. List of Mexican saints etc.). -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * List of blesseds may be a start, though, as the hatnote says, I don't think that list is exhaustive. People who have been beatified may reasonably be described as "one step from being named a saint". Deor (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Blessed Bronislava
On my Roman Catholic "Calendar of Saints", the entry listed for August 30 is: "Bl. Bronislava; died 1259; Virgin; patron saint of happy death; patron saint of disease prevention". Does Wikipedia have an article on her? I can't seem to find anything. (I believe that the name is also spelled as "Bl. Bronislawa", with a "w" at the end instead of the "v".) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing beyond that in Blessed Bronisława Chapel it seems. Other info here. Nanonic (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See Bronislava of Poland (I cheated and made one up). Perhaps somebody could check her places of birth and death for me, as there seem to be an awful lot of towns with the same name in Poland. Also, I'm not sure if she's technically a saint or not. Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. She is definitely not a saint.  That's why she is referred to as "blessed".  She is in the process of becoming a saint, but she has not yet completed the process.  She has been beatified; hence, she is "Blessed Bronislava".  But, she has not been canonized; hence, she is not "Saint Bronislava"  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I have edited the lead paragraph to say that she is "venerated in the Roman Catholic Church". Alansplodge (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for creating the new article. However, the article has many inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and concerns.  I listed some on the article Talk Page.   Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Venerated" is also not accurate; that relates to the stage of "veneration" (Stage #2 in the chart below). "Beatified" is the correct term; that relates to the stage of "beatification" (Stage #3 in the chart below).  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * See chart below. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... we have Saint Bronislava Catholic Church in Plover, Wisconsin and Saint Bronislava Parish in Chicago. Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Those are churches. I don't understand why you are mentioning them?   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to your statement 'she is not "Saint Bronislava"' above. However, I defer to your greater knowledge. Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I see what you mean now. I think they are using the word "saint" loosely.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Given that Bronislava is said to have been born in 1203, they are definitely not using the word to mean a defined stage in the modern process of canonization. (Their website calls her "Blessed Bronislava, acclaimed as a saint in Poland"), And indeed, before codification of the canonization process, acclamation was the means by which one became a saint: if there were enough people who believed, or said, someone had been a saint, they were called a saint. It's only much more recently that there's been an effort to clean up the calendar of saints, by removing those (at least) who had clearly never existed. - Nunh-huh 01:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Yes, I agree.  Even the church's websites refer to her as "Blessed", rather than as "Saint".  They are using the term "Saint" very loosely.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If venerability is a prerequisite to beatification, how is it wrong to say she's venerated? —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not "wrong". It's "technically" correct.  But, it implies that she is only venerated, and not beatified.  It's misleading as to her status.  It's like calling John Roberts a "Justice of the Supreme Court".  Yes, he is.  But, that implies that he is only a Justice when, in fact, he is the "Chief Justice".  A loose analogy on my part, but you get the idea.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I actually just thought of a better example that I wanted to add (to make my point). Let's say that a person is a college graduate.  In order to be a college graduate, he must – by definition – be a high school graduate first.  So, to call him a "high school graduate" is technically correct, but it is also very misleading.  It implies that that level (high school graduate) is the highest level that he achieved, and that he did not go on any further beyond high school.  It implies that he stopped after high school and did not proceed on to college.  So, can we call Hillary Clinton a "high school graduate"?  Yes.  I am sure that she graduated from high school.  But, it is much more appropriate – and far less misleading – to call her a "college graduate" or, better yet, a "law school graduate".   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be more appropriate to describe Roberts as "a Justice" than as "the Chief Justice" in a context of his doing something that any member of that Court can do. To write "As Chief Justice, Roberts issued an emergency stay" would misleadingly imply that his benchmates could not have done it.  Similarly, in listing who went which way in a decision, singling out the Chief ain't obviously relevant (except that when he's in the majority he decides who gets to write the formal Opinion). —Tamfang (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you are making my point. It may be technically correct to call Roberts "Chief Justice", but there are times when that moniker is misleading.  Ditto with the venerated/beatified distinction of Bronislava.  "Venerated" is technically correct, but misleading.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * When I hear that someone is "venerated", I don't generally interpret it as "declared Venerable by the RCC", but rather as "honored by some substantial body of people". Unfortunately there's no word for what the congregation does to the beatified. —Tamfang (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see your point. However, these words are being used in the context of this article.  And the article is describing an individual who is cycling through the various steps in the process toward sainthood.  So, in this context, distinguishing between "venerated" or "beatified" is significant.  In another context, it may be semantics and splitting hairs.  But, not so, in the context of a saint or near-saint.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I find all of these comparisons misguided. You become saint by living a saintly (that is, holy) life. You can only attain sainthood during your lifetime, not after your death. Beatification and canonization are just ways in which the Church officially recognizes your sainthood. They can only happen after you're dead, because then you can't sin any more. Beatification amounts to the Church saying, "this guy lived a holy life, so without a doubt he is in heaven now, which means we can pray to God through his intercession." Canonization is a reconfirmation of that plus saying, "this guy was so good, that he can serve as an example for the whole world and not just for his native country." — Kpalion(talk) 09:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I cannot follow the placement of your comments in this discussion thread. Which comparisons (in the above discussion) are you saying are misguided?   Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Which raises a point that's always befuddled me. Some people are approved for veneration only in certain countries, not world-wide.  Is there, like, a separate heaven for each country?  Surely not.  So, if someone is believed to be in the one and only Heaven, then that must be true for all people, or for none.  Can someone explain how it would be inappropriate for, say, a Cambodian to pray to a saint who's officially venerated only in, say, Denmark?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There are more Saints in Cornwall than in all of heaven. DuncanHill (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems that a lot of churches there were named for their local founders, who were eventually elevated to saints by the local people (without any formal central Catholic church recognition). Probably the sainthood of Saint Marinus was originally much the same... AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * JackofOz, I don't think it would be inappropriate for a Cambodian to pray through the intercession of a Danish blessed one. But the veneration of the Dane may not be officially encouraged in Cambodia; for example, he or she wouldn't be included in the Cambodian calendar of saints, so there wouldn't be a day set aside to remember him or her in all Cambodian churches. Joseph A. Spadaro, I was talking about all comparisons which assume that the canonization process is some kind of career. — Kpalion(talk) 09:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But I don't think the process of sainthood was being compared to a "career".  At least, that is not how I read the above conversation.  The analogy was made to "things that progress in a sequential order" (i.e., veneration, then beatification, then canonization, etc.).  That is why I used the comparison of a person (my example was Hillary Clinton) who progressed from grade school to high school to college to law school.  So, the analogy was not about the "career" per se, but rather about the individual's progression through a sequential series of steps.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Israel Defense Force rank distribution
List of Israeli soldiers killed in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict gives the rank of each IDF soldier who died in the conflict, and all are sergeants or higher. No one is identified as a private or corporal. How can this be? It is common for snipers to target high ranking officers in any war, and it was a tradition in some armies for there to be high casualties among officers leading charges, but the lack of low ranking casualties is still puzzling. Does every soldier in the IDF get quickly promoted to sergeant, like in the US military (musical) bands? Do those killed in war get posthumous promotions? The Jerusalem Post memorial article used as a ref for the memorial article lists Meidan Maymon Biton and Niran Cohen as corporals, but in the Wikipedia article they are listed as sergeants. Edison (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Our articles on Israel Defense Forces and Israel Defense Forces ranks both say that lower rank promotions are awarded for time served. Sergeants are those that have served 18-24 months, Corporals from 4-12 months. Nanonic (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So in combat, if a lieutenant tells a sergeant to "Take your squad and reinforce the left flank" the sergeant will likely command a squad of several other sergeants? That seems a bit odd, compared to armies where the sergeant would command a squad of privates. I don't find mention of the frequency distribution of various ranks in various armies. The casualty breakdown is still puzzling, sonce there should be some soldiers who haven't put in their 18 months to make sergeant. Edison (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember posthumous promotions being standard. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 22:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, posthumous promotions seems to be common in the Israel military. Just googling "posthumous promotions Israel" brings up news stories where most of the casualties are posthumously promoted.129.178.88.81 (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Posthumous promotion sounds like the explanation, along with becoming a sergeant after just serving 18 months. Most would apparently be sergeants at the end of their compulsory 3 years, so presumably they would retain the sergeant rank if called up for duty later. Otherwise it initially sounded like the newer soldier hanging back while the sergeants did all the fighting. If some elite force were assigned to hazardous duties, like entering booby-trapped tunnels or disarming bombs, then all members might have higher rank than the typical soldier, but perhaps that was not the case.  In the US military, retiring career soldiers often get a retirement promotion but I don't think they routinely get a promotion because of getting killed in action. Edison (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source to cite, but it's likely the case that recent IDF conscripts ("newer soliders") are still undergoing combat training after boot camp. Depending on the extent of their training, in the recent Gaza conflict they might have been assigned to security patrols on the Israeli side of the border, looking for infiltrators, etc., rather than going into cross-border ground operations. The conscripts' successive promotions to corporal and sergeant (also in non-combat positions) are not merely based on time served but on the training and responsibility they've achieved. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed the IDF does not subscribe to the "cannon-fodder" model of warfare - they simply don't have the numbers to afford it. They prefer to send more experienced (and thus more likely to rank higher than Private) people to do high-risk jobs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

19th century Great Britain - No dowry, no marriage?
Is it true that in Great Britain in the 19th century that if your daughter had no dowry, then no man would want her? Could this have been the scenario behind A Christmas Carol? There was this girl who did say that she was "dowerless". How much money would be sufficient? Did really poor, rural people had to prepare dowries for their daughters too? What would happen to empty-nester parents who had married off their daughters? Would they live with one of their daughters and her spouse? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Dowries in the strict sense (a payment by the bride's family to the husband's family, as in India today) were only the concern of a narrow aristocratic elite at that time. What was more broadly true was that it was considered imprudent and "improvident" for a couple to marry unless they had enough resources to set up a household in the manner expected of their social class.  Both men and women who were socially ambitious often sought to raise their status by marrying someone with wealth; the difference was that women had extremely few opportunities to acquire wealth by working. So if a woman had land or money to bring to her marriage, it certainly potentially increased her choices... AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Scrooge still should have married that girl when he had the chance. He could have had children, and the children could be very profitable in the long run by earning money for the family. But that's more of a collectivist approach to gaining wealth. 65.24.105.132 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * From the story, it seems clear that the young Scrooge had to work like hell for several years to establish himself on a solid financial footing (which was a prerequisite to getting married), but gradually working and accumulating money became goals in themselves, and more important than his attachment to his fiancée... AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Up until quite recently in England, it was commonplace for a young woman to have a "bottom drawer" in which she would store things for her marriage, that would help her set up home. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In some places, this is called a hope chest; my French Canadian family also calls this chest a trousseau. -- Jayron  32  17:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * A Christmas Carol was written in 1843, and Scrooge's romance with Belle would have been many years earlier, in the early 19th century. At that time dowries were common among the middle class, and a young woman without a dowry, which was a fairly common situation, would have difficulty in making a good match.  A dowerless middle class woman might choose an older and less attractive man with money, marry a poor young man whose poor prospects would consign her to a life of drudgery, or seek to support herself on her own without a husband (stereotypically by taking a position as a governess).  Poor people (which is to say, the large majority of the population) could not expect there to be a dowry, although sometimes that woman or her family was able to scrape something together.  The amount of the dowry varied enormously.  John M Baker (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Does the president read and check all bills he signs?
As I went through the Law Books of the US federal government (Statutes at large), I was really surprised how much legislation is passed. Particulary in the 20th century, when there was not so much gridlock in Congress. By such a large amount of legislation, did the president read and check all bills before he signed them into law? Sometimes there are more than a hundert pages of laws, that were signed the same day. Even around 500 pages in a week or so. Does the president have so much time to read, check and understand all that, or is there a large staff to read all this? With making recommendations to the president whether to sign it or not? --89.13.199.71 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a staff, and it's part of their job to check bills that the president signs... AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Nixon wrote that on his first day as President, he was given a draft of a treaty with some country. He opened it and started going through it marking things with a blue pencil which he felt needed improvement or clarification, and realized then that he could not act like a lawyer and get all the presidential work done. He instead had to staff out the detail work to trusted and qualified staff, who would present him with an executive summary, and a listing of his options with the pros/cons. Eisenhower had used a similar system. Some elderly or short-attention-span presidents have basically just done what their staff told them. Edison (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are so polite. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the name of this musical instrument being played on this sound file?
http://www32.zippyshare.com/v/51916082/file.html

Check this link, there is a 30 second sample of a song, where some instrument start to play. What is the name of this musical instrument playing?201.78.137.77 (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It could be one of several double reed instruments. An arghul comes to my mind, though that may be because Egypt takes up so much of the space in my brain these days. A. Parrot (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's definitely double reed, and my own guess would be some class of bagpipe, as the player doesn't stop to draw breath. The key appears to be E flat minor, which you could get by cross-fingering Breton small-pipes (Binioù), but I think it's too low, and something more exotic. On the other hand, it could be a specialist set custom made by a modern maker (I saw a custom chanter in York recently with an extra thumb-hole to give a minor third). There's a lot of echo, so this won't be easy to nail down unless you can find a match in another sample. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)