Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 March 31

= March 31 =

ChildFund
According to our article on ChildFund:

Why such a strict policy on communication? Is this to protect the child's safety from potentially pervy or psychotic sponsors? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the organizations contact form on their Website. If you want to know, ask them.  We cannot read their minds here, and thus are not able to answer for them.  This will not stop my colleagues here at the Ref Desk from speculating, guessing, or making stuff up on the spot immediately below this answer.  If you actually want to know the real answer, contact them as described on that page.  -- Jayron 32 00:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the Reference Desk and the OP asked a legitimate question. If you'd looked, you may have found this article in the LA Times which includes a quote from a ChildFund spokeswoman (fifth paragraph from the end) explaining their correspondence policy. Dalliance (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The skeptic's answer, which I'm sure you will never hear from them, is that they don't want to allow direct communication as that may lead to direct support, eliminating them as the middleman and denying them their cut of the action. StuRat (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A more charitable surmise would be that they don't want the donors barraged with requests for money without Childfund's knowledge and approval. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like everyone had good answers save one. Thank you.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Cross-dressing in ancient East Asian cultures
Based on info I have gathered from watching various movies and/or TV series set in ancient East Asia (e.g. China, Korea, etc.), if someone disguises as the opposite sex in order to join a profession open only to the other sex and gets caught (i.e. their true gender is somehow uncovered), this person would be deemed to have committed the crime of "misleading the majesty," which is punishable by death. Is this historically accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.73.98 (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does have an article titled History of cross-dressing. Sadly, it does not address this issue.  Perhaps if you find the answer to this question, it could be used to expand the article.  -- Jayron 32 02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, if history of cross-dressing does not address the issue, this demands redress. StuRat (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I always thought cross-dressing was when your wife gets angry (=cross) when you don't compliment her on her clothing (which she paid for on your credit card) for the evening out, so she gets changed....Am I wrong, or on the wrong planet? :) KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 11:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Many female writers in Old Japan used to use male names to get their writings accepted, such as Murasaki Shikibu, who wrote The Tale of Genji. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 11:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently, Hua Mulan's emperor thought it was hot, not treacherous, because he wanted her for a concubine after her jig was up. That made her punish herself with death. But like any Disney movie or remade ancient ballad, not quite accurate. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I found several references to who the real Hua Mulan was: http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_artists/2004-02/11/content_45971.htm http://ancientstandard.com/2011/06/17/the-real-story-of-mulan/ The story seems the same for the most part (of course Disney made the story kid-friendly). Here is also an interesting article (although not from China, but still in Asia): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/world/asia/malaysian-court-overturns-islamic-law-banning-cross-dressing.html I couldn't find any concrete evidence to back up the claim that cross dressing was punishable by death.Karij.jones (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Harry Houdini
Did the escape artist Harry Houdini once announce durring a show that he had a vision of somone (he knew the name) whose mother was in the audiance with blood ect. and it turned out at that moment he had gotten into a fatal motorcycle crash? Naytz (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely certain if the specific event is true or not, but I doubt it, given Houdini's very public disdain for claims of "psychics" and supernatural phenomena in general. Houdini was known to use the technique of cold reading to demonstrate how charlatans pretend to be "psychic", but he always did so letting the audience know he was debunking these "abilities", not pretending to have them.  Harry Houdini explains all you need to know about beliefs on the matter, which is why your half-remembered story is probably false.  It doesn't sound at ALL like something Houdini would have done or endorsed.  -- Jayron 32 02:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure Jayron32. "In the 1920s Houdini turned his energies toward debunking psychics and mediums" This may well have happened prior to the 1920s. --Naytz (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I remember, Houdini did claim that the voice of his own mother had led him to the escape hole in the ice when he did one of his stunts (diving into the frozen Thames in chains), and he had a fleeting 'vision' of her at around the time she died. Paul B (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Memory is a strange ability in itself. Confabulating, even. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Africans
Why is Europe much wealthier than Africa? 89.242.84.104 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure there's no simple answer, and instead lots of inter-related factors. I'd suggest reading through History_of_Europe, History_of_Africa, Colonialism, and History_of_colonialism. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Go to your local library, book store, Amazon, etc. and get a copy of Guns, Germs, and Steel, which is the definitive work on the topic.  Alternate explanations can also be found in the books titled The Columbian Exchange and 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, both of which deal primarily with the Americas rather than Europe, but would still help explain a lot.  -- Jayron 32 15:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Jared Diamond's book (GG&S) is very good and a useful starting point for answering that question, but there are lots of factors that GG&S does not address explicitly. For example, the lack of a tradition or ideal of meritocratic states, such as exists in East Asia partly as a consequence of Confucianism, helps to explain why Africa's development after colonial rule has been so much slower than Asia's. Marco polo (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a good book, but all readers should note that Jared Diamond started out in biophysics and physiology, then moved on to ecology. He is not a historian or political scientist. I don't think he's had any formal training as a humanist. So that definitely colors his view. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's also a PBS series, if you'd rather not read or can't get to the library. If you'd rather not buy it, it's on YouTube. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have long suspected (hoped?) that he meant to title it Grains, Germs and Steel, which would make much more sense: grains are more important than guns to the thesis, and guns are included in ‘steel’ anyway. —Tamfang (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason why Africa is generally poor is probably the same reason as why Africa's population did not really grow between 1500-1900 and then exploded between 1900-present as seen at World population. Unfortunately I'm not sure the reason for that. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, lack of economic development (among other things) limited population growth before 1900 but had nothing to do with the population increase after 1900, which actually reflected increased economic development and the spread of western medicine as a consequence of colonialism, which lowered the death rate but had a slight positive effect on the birth rate. While it is true that rapid population growth increases poverty if the economy is growing at a slower rate than population, which it was in many African countries in the late 20th century, I don't think a good case can be made that population growth slowed the growth of the overall economy.  If anything, the economy probably grew faster than it would have without the population growth.  Rapid population growth can retard development though, by increasing the labor force so rapidly that there is little incentive to increase labor productivity. Marco polo (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did word that poorly, Africa before and after 1870 were very different and the reasons for their poverty are very different. Post 1870 is all about colonialism, neo-colonialism, corrupt despots, extreme population growth, dutch disease, restriction from Western markets for selling non-commodity goods, low access to capital, low education rates, and brain drain. But I still think it's important to figure out what was causing both population and economic stagnation in the preceding centuries as if Africa had developed both in population and economy they would not be facing most of the post 1870 problems I listed above. Unfortunately the Great Divergence ignores Africa. 70.50.122.38 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Great Divergence, it briefly covers the reasons why Europe "won the race" to "Rule the World"(TM). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Or read "Masters of the Universe" by Daniel Stedman Jones, for how neoliberalism crossed the pond from Europe to rule the world from its new headquarters. Like He-Man, Eisenhower had the power. And like Stratos after the cartoon came out, African leaders (and "non-whites", in general) went from being marketed as enemies to portrayed as allies, but still strange, exotic outsiders, with minimal character development, except when it suits Castle Grayskull.
 * Seriously though, it's a relevant book. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been suggested (I forget by whom) that Europe has an advantage in the extraordinary length of its coastline, whereas Africa's is surprisingly short: it has few natural harbors, and deep regions poorly served by rivers. —Tamfang (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Adam Smith – here is a discussion of his argument. It’s probably from The Wealth of Nations, Book III chapter 3 . 184.147.117.34 (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In additions to Guns, Germs, and Steel and Great Divergence already mentioned above, see also the more recent attempt at a Grand Unified Theory of Development™: Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. And if you follow the reviews for that latest title (by Jeffrey Sachs; by Bill Gates, response by Ryan Avent; by Francis Fukuyama; by Jared Diamond, response by the authors), you'll have a rough idea of where the fault-lines in the debate lie. Abecedare (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

John Major
Why was it that John Major won the 1992 election, after many years of a seemingly unpopular Thatcherite government, and why did he then lose the 1997 election? --Haolostav Belgrad (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Thatcherite government wasn't hugely unpopular, it was a very polarizing government. Among the people it was unpopular with, it was very unpopular.  However, among the majority of British people, it was popular enough to keep winning elections.  If you have 100 people voting, and 45 of them REALLY HATE one candidate, and 55 kinda sorta like the candidate better than the alternative, the candidate still wins.  The amount of disdain for a candidate is not taken into account with who wins election, only the number of people willing to vote for them over the other guy.  -- Jayron 32 14:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I heard that he "snuck in" more because nobody hated him (unlike the other candidates) than because anyone really liked him. StuRat (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In one word - "AWWWWITE!" Major may not have been particularly popular, but Neil Kinnock ruined his political career and Labour's chances of election in those two or three seconds as comprehensively as Howard Dean did a decade later. Tevildo (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kinnock falling in the sea didn't help much either! Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, Margaret Thatcher was very popular, even beloved, by many in the United Kingdom (though hated by others). John Major never had her popular appeal, and he was discredited by Black Wednesday and a series of scandals in the mid-90s.  (See the subheading "Sleaze" in his biography, which you've linked.)  Meanwhile, the Labour Party had largely abandoned a number of socialist policies, which had alienated many British voters, and rebranded itself as New Labour in a way that appealed to voters, many of whom were tired of Major's poor record. Marco polo (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that's the idea I was trying to put forth above. Thatcher was both hated and loved.  It just depends on who you ask, and who was voting at the time.  My impression of John Major vis a vis Thatcher is that he's seen similarly in the UK as the first George H.W. Bush was in the U.S.: As a milquetoast, unoffensive politician who lacked the Charisma of his predecessor, and who was really only there riding the coattails of the more dynamic predecessor.  The political situation in the UK and the US has interesting parallels.  The sequence of Callaghan-Thatcher-Major-Blair closely mirrors that of Carter-Reagan-Bush I-Clinton, in terms of personality, politics, and general historical trends.  Compare, for example Winter of Discontent to the Malaise speech, Reaganomics to Thatcherism, etc. etc.  -- Jayron 32 19:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You could be describing the situation in Chicago in the mid-1970s. Mayor Daley had endless enemies, but he kept getting re-elected. After he died, his successor, Mike Bilandic, did fine until the first crisis arose, and he was doomed in the next election. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My own recollection was that Major was perceived by Conservative voters as somebody who would continue the positive outcomes of Thatcherism, while mitigating the more extreme measures. Major's promise to replace the Community Charge or "poll tax" with the more equitable Council Tax was a major plus point. Once Major's government got underway, it was vilified in the media (see Spitting Image), hit by numerous scandals and failed to achieve much beyond the ridiculous Cones Hotline. Meanwhile Kinnock had purged the Labour Party of infiltration by the Trotskyist Militant Tendency leaving the way clear for Blair to create his "New Labour" project, which would appeal to Mondeo Man, the working class voters with middle class incomes who had swung the balance in the favour of Thatcher in the first place. Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it might be pertinent to add that although the Major administration was not without financial troubles, especially Black Wednesday, they generally seem to have made a reasonable fist of controlling inflation and government borrowing, from which the Blair government later benefitted. Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * At the end he had a minority government and he was too ready to give in to pressure to retain power. I think a minority government can be much better but one has to have some standards. For instance he is lauded as having started the Northern Ireland peace process - but when push came to shove he went and shafted it to retain the support of the Unionists. If he had shown some sort of principles and stood up to the worst pressure he wouldn't have lost so badly and the conservatives might even have engineered a win by having the government fall and then fighting on a principles base. Dmcq (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Social dancing, lead and follow
In ballroom dancing, can the lead and follow ever be of the same sex? Instead of a female being twirled, a male is being twirled by another male. Or is it always implicitly assumed that the lead is male and the follow is female? 140.254.136.178 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Historically, leads were males and follows females but like many things about gender that has broken down in recent years, probably initially in gay or gay-friendly circles. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 20:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, does that mean there are male-male partner ballroom dances that are not gay? 140.254.136.178 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dancers have sexual preferences. Dances do not.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It is certainly possible for a same-sex couple to participate in, and enjoy, ballroom dancing, as well as a wide range of other partner dances. I have been part of such a couple on many occasions. Some partner dance communities are more socially accepting of same-sex couples than others. For example, in London there is a thriving gay salsa community, and same-sex couples are common in zouk and modern jive. (I used to teach modern jive in my spare time, improbably enough!) Interestingly, modern jive also has variants which allow for three partners, typically two of one sex and one of the other.
 * As for who leads and who follows, the principles vary for different dance styles. For example, in ballroom dancing one person generally takes the lead consistently, while in other styles the lead can change, sometimes constantly throughout the dance. In answer to your question, it is certainly not always assumed that the leading partner is male and the following partner is female. RomanSpa (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Troika (dance) is another three-person dance. Rmhermen (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know from dances, but maybe someone can figure out whether Lee Marvin or Ray Walston is the "lead" in this dance (a little past the 1:45 mark). Nobody in the camp was gay, there just weren't any women around yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know which ones Lee Marvin and Ray Walston are in this clip, and it's rather hard to tell what's going on, but a good rule of thumb is that the "lead" is the one who holds his left arm away from his body, and uses his right arm to hold his partner. You can see this quite clearly in the pictures on the ballroom dancing page. (It may be that this is different in the dance style in the film; it is certainly not standard in ballroom dancing to punch your partner.) RomanSpa (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a rather dark print from Paint Your Wagon. At about 2:15, Lee Marvin (with the gray beard and top hat) is holding his left arm away, while Ray Walston (red beard) is holding his right arm away, so I guess that makes Marvin the lead - which makes sense, as he's a co-star of the film, while Walston is a supporting actor. As to what the rest of them are doing, it's mostly just jumping around, with a few touches of square dancing here and there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See the second paragraph here. Matt Deres (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * “Lead” and “follow” are more job descriptions than genders. In addition to the same sex couples mentioned by RomanSpa, here a few other examples of when I’ve seen the man follow or the woman lead:
 * To learn the other role to become a better dancer.
 * When there is a shortage of either men or women (mentioned in Matt Deres’ link).
 * A single instructor will often have to demonstrate both parts.
 * To learn new moves informally with friends.
 * --Wikimedes (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is one of the big advantages of folk type dancing in sets or other formations - there is no requirement for people to come along with a partner. There may often be more women than men, the other way round is much less common. Dmcq (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Editorial Independence.
I want to know when exactly the law guaranteeing editorial independence was passed. From what I found out by reading history books was that before and during WWII the newspaper owners determined the content of the publications. The independence must have been cemented by the US Congress some time after WWII but I haven't been able to find out when and what was the Act of Congress that did it. I wonder if anybody has this information. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No such law, so far as I can see; in my experience, owners stil hold sway. See also Freedom_of_the_press. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * One exception, in the US, may result from a merger. In order to not trip anti-monopoly rules, the newspapers, radio stations, TV stations, etc., may offer, or may be asked to, guarantee editorial independence to ensure that all the media outlets won't now be solely spouting the POV of the owner.  I'm unsure exactly how they guarantee that, though.  I believe the merger of the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press is one such example. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Prior to media deregulation starting in the 1980s, there were strict limits on the number of TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers one person or organization could own in any one media market and nationally. The national networks only owned a small number of Owned-and-operated stations, the rest were independent stations, and owners could only own a small number of media outlets, rules existed preventing one company from owning too many media outlets.  This all changed when the markets were deregulated, see Concentration of media ownership for a run down of the history, but basically in the U.S. all media is owned by a small handful of companies.  All music is basically controlled by four record labels, all Cable television is owned by 8 media conglomerates, Clear Channel Communications (recently renamed to iHeart Media) controls somewhere between 800-1200 radio stations (depending on how they are counted), Live Nation has a virtual monopoly on live musical entertainment, newspapers are basically controlled by either The McClatchy Company or the Gannett Company.  If you boil it down, due to Media cross-ownership in the United States, there are about 6 companies that control the bulk of the media outlets (of all types) in the U.S.  No matter where you live, chances are most of the media you consume in a given day in the U.S. is produced by one of those 6 companies.  -- Jayron 32 01:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, 6 voices is apparently deemed to be OK in the US, but a single voice in one or more markets is not. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I wish I had references on hand, I don't, therefore have to rely on my memory. There was an episode perhaps 2-3 decades ago when Ted Turner who was friends with Yasser Arafat decided to change the content of CNN and make it more anti-Israel. The editorial board shamed and rebuffed him and made it very public.

Before WWII Chicago Tribune owner was at loggerheads with President Roosevelt and published a lot anti-New Deal stuff. Right after Midway one of his reporters, I think his name ws Anderson, happened to take a glimps at a secret report by the Navy on one of the American destroyers. He probably took photographs and the newspaper published an article saying that the Navy decoded Japanese messages and that resulted in the Midway victory. A few thousand American sailors subsequently died as a result of it because Japanese immediately changed their encription. The point here is that a hatred of single man, the newspaper owner resulted in a decision that cost Americans dearly.

It appears that in the intervening years the Legislature has cemented Editorial Independence but I do not know when. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Buying stock
If a person buys a share of stock in a company today, say Wal-mart for example, then Wal-mart doesn't actually get that specific person's specific money, right? Because the shares are all bought already and the person is just buying it from someone else who got it from someone else who.... paid Wal-mart for it.

I thought that I had this straight and then something I heard got my head all mixed up. Sorry for the basic question. Dismas |(talk) 23:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Usually, yes, the stock broker buys the stock from whoever is selling it, which most often is no longer the original company. However, some companies do offer stock directly for sale, in which case the money would go directly to them.  But note that, theoretically, buying Walmart stock helps Walmart out, whether or not they get the money directly.  The increase in demand increases their stock price, and thus Walmart can sell more stock at a higher price.  StuRat (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How does the fact that someone has bought shares indicate an 'increase in demand'? Sure, they have bought them - but someone else has sold them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Their decision to buy shares will not affect how many people are trying to sell shares, at least until the share price rises, as a result of this increased demand. (Of course, buying a few shares isn't enough to have any measurable impact on share prices, so this increase is theoretical only.) StuRat (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See Public offering. -- Jayron 32 01:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

When shares of stock are issued, there is a certain amount of shares chosen to be issued by the firm. The shares are bought almost instantly after the price of the stock is determined. When people "re-buy" the stock the money does not go directly to the firm because the firm already received money when the shares for initially issued. When there is a high demand for the stock, the price per share rises.The higher the price per share the more money wal-mart will be worth. Jrse225 (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)