Humanities desk
< April 9	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 10[edit]

Next president of Kenya[edit]

Who will be the next president of Kenya? Will it be Odinga? Since how many mor years until Mwai Kibaki leaves office in Kenya? By 2010? 2011? Is that when Mwai Kibaki expects to step down from being a president? Who will take over Kibaki. Kibaki is 77 right now. By 2012 he'll be 81.--69.226.39.155 (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Editors should not (and hopefully will not) speculate about the future of the Kenyan Presidency. This discussion is better left for one of the thousands of discussion forums on the Internet. -- kainaw ™ 03:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source said when Mwai Kibaki will leave. I don't know, I guess soon. That is because he's essentially old 77 years old, by December 2010-he'll be 79. Daniel Arap Moi left office when he was 78-that is December 2002. John Kufuor he is a ex-president of Ghana. He have been out of office since January 7, 2009, when he just turned 70 years old, and John Atta Mills took over him. I want to see if anybody knows when Mwai Kibaki will leave, I'm guessing Odinga will be next. I don't truly know. Maybe somebody else will be able to answer this question.--69.226.39.155 (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Kainaw has said, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If no source has discussed when Mwai Kibaki will leave, then it definitely does not belong here Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only know what I read on Wikipedia, but as I understand it, the President of Kenya is chosen by election (every five years, last one in 2007). If you want to know if Kibaki will stand for reelection in 2012, you'd have to ask him. The same goes for Odinga or anyone else - if they haven't made any statements to the press about running in 2012, then you'd have to ask them personally. Whether or not Kibaki, Odinga or any other person stands for (re)election, it's ultimately up to the Kenyan voters to decide who to elect. According to our Kenyan presidential election, 2007, the previous election was bitterly contested, with some claiming the election results were flawed (see 2007–2008 Kenyan crisis). With such an acrimonious result from the previous election, it is reasonable to conclude that any person running for the Kenyan presidency in 2012 will have difficulty establishing a clear majority of voters, so even if we did know who was running it would be difficult to predict the winner. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, you have written a slogan for a great T-shirt: I only know what I read on Wikipedia. Tempshill (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenicians trading with (Great) Zimbabwe?[edit]

And if so, when? See this diff, with later edits modifying and reverting the time of the supposed trade. See also this diff from the Zimbabwe article, changing Swahili people to Phoenicians as trading partners for Great Zimbabwe, which has survived several edits. I assume that both are vandalism, but ask here to make sure I don't mess up. --NorwegianBlue^talk 11:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been before the times of ridiculous inflation. The days of King Solomon's mines and all the gold you could eat have long gone. Sorry, this answer isn't remotely helpful.--KageTora (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is mostly nonsense particularly as Phoenicia and great Zimbabwe's time is separated by about one thousand years. It is partly due to the myth that a civilisation cannot be entirely new and indigenous to a region and must be somehow 'imported' from another more advanced civilisation. Trade was a lot more widespread and distant in the ancient world than is usually imagined and the Phoenicians and people from that area of southern Africa might have had contact as the Phoenicians are said to have circumnavigated Africa but it was most likely brief contact. Also, even if it were true that descendants from Phoenicians lived somewhere in Africa for 1000 years they could hardly be regarded as Phoenicians any more. meltBanana 14:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was willful vandalism or fanciful speculation, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. There is absolutely no evidence of any connection at all between the ancient Phoenicians and the more recent people of Great Zimbabwe. I have deleted the passage. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did some detective work on the Zimbabwe article and related articles. In the introduction to Zimbabwe#History, there's a sentence that reads: "Around the early 10th century, trade developed with Phoenicians on the Indian Ocean coast, helping to develop Great Zimbabwe in the 11th century.". It's been sitting there for a long time (since May 22, 2008), through many hundreds of edits. It was recently changed to "Swahili people" by the same anon that introduced the supposed trade route to the Phoenicia article, but was promptly reverted! In the Great Zimbabwe article, there's a referenced statement by James Theodore Bent from 1891, that the builders of Great Zimbabwe must have been either Arabs or Phoenicians, but the article proceeds by citing referenced research concluding that the builders were African. No mention of a trade route. The Swahili people article has this to say about the matter: "Materials attributed to this network of trade were also found at Great Zimbabwe." In early versions of the Zimbabwe article, the history section referred to "Muslim merchants", not "Phoenicians". Here's the diff of the change from "Muslim Merchants to "Phoenicians", on May 22, 2008, by a registered editor. I'm changing it back to "Muslim merchants", and leaving a note on the article's and editor's talk pages.--NorwegianBlue^talk 21:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenician connection I think is based on the early scholarship of Bent and others that saw similarities with the archeology of Phoenician colonies and hypothesized they had found a lost colony. This was soon superseded by less fanciful scholarship of indigenous builders although the Phoenicians were relegated to helping by being the main traders. The theory has remained current because people like epic founding myths and lost colonies over the slightly less thrilling explanation that local people did it, but also the colonial rulers did what they could to diminish the local African population and their earlier achievements. The east African coast has probably quite a varied but undocumented trading history and it is quite likely people from the Levant have traded there but probably not quite the influence sometimes accorded them. meltBanana 00:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Phoenician" connection, like the longterm resistance to the idea that man evolved in Africa, not Asia, is a symptom of 19th-century European thinking that nothing genuinely new and important could have come from Africa, quite unlike the Romans, whose opinion was ex Africa semper aliquid novi a phrase often attributed to Pliny.--Wetman (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is there a psychological reason for "code names" at companies?[edit]

First of all I carefully read the code name article. The relevant section is "Reasons for a project code name" (under the "commercial code names in the computer industry section"). However, of the five points identified, none of them are psychological (except for a 'fresh start' in the case of a failed project). My question is, is there a psychological aspect to giving a product a code name, ie one that would affect the team who is working on it. This is an aspect that is not mentioned in that article. I mean: if we assume the product will not be changing and already has its name, would there still be a psychological aspect (not pr or secrecy aspect) to giving the team a code name for it? For example, possibilities would be (wild guesses here) allowing the team to be more motivated or creative or in not to feel so much performance pressure on very famous products. Does anyone know if any of these are really a factor? 79.122.65.253 (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill thought so. He wanted code names for military operations to be single words and inspirational (powerful-sounding) if possible. Sorry, this is from memory of his The Second World War (the one-volume abridged edition) and I don't have a page number to send you to. Tempshill (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, but if companies rely on the psychological aspect it certainly isn't because Winston Churchill thought there was something to it! There would be recent, corporate evidence.

Also: the iPhone was codenamed "p2" (for purple2, after the first phone apple collaborated on, code named 'purple'). If anyone knew about inspirational effects it would be Apple, but they didn't pick 'p2' because it is inspiring...

Of course, in this particular case the overweighing aspect is secrecy. However, beyond the secrecy, does the fact that you're working on p2 instead of the iPhone have salutary psychological effects? I mean salutary from the point of the view of performance in creating the product... 79.122.65.253 (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree that companies need "corporate evidence" to make decisions, but that's off topic. Probably your speculation about motivation and creativity are usually factors in the choosing of these code names, just as inspiration was part of Churchill's criteria. I doubt there have been academic studies of this, if that's what you're asking. Tempshill (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could if the "Purple" project was an astounding success. It could give the workers a sense of achievement that they worked on something well known enough that the general public knows about it. Or, in the reverse, if the original project was an abject failure, it could have an effect on employees if they are still working on "Project Pileofcrap." But this is OR, and like Tempshill said, I don't think there has been any research on this type of psychology. Livewireo (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in this case by all accounts (including apple's, market and critical analysts' opinons, etc) "Purple" was a dismal failure both in terms of the end product designed and the reaction to it when it was brought to market. 79.122.65.253 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

A large reason for code names is that naming is non-trivial. Marketing must make sure that the name doesn't mean something undesireable in a foreign language. Legal has to make sure that the name doesn't infringe on copyrights. The name is usually tested with a panel of consumers against other potential names. All of this requires a significant amount of time. Rather than wait until the naming process is done or resort to calling the product, "that new thing the dev people cooked up," a company will assign a code name. Wikiant (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the ultimate name is known early on, I imagine it's more fun and less confusing for the engineers to use a name that sounds like a name rather than "PSC 1410". —Tamfang (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly where I work high-profile/'secret' projects are code-named for privacy reasons. This way staff do not know that project Wensleydale is the company's secret project looking at reducing the workload by 20% or whatever. So from an internal perspective it can aid privacy and allow business-decisions to be investigated in a 'project' framework without being necessarily known about by many staff. ny156uk (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if a staff member hears about project Wensleydale and is curious what it's about then he will just ask someone. So how does that help – would the person who knows its content simply refuse to tell him? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 06:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes. The people on the project sign a confidentiality agreement whereby they are not allowed to discuss the project with anybody else (colleague, family or otherwise). Of course the purpose of the project is usually subject to rumours by people speculating what it is (or leaked info). ny156uk (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely psychological, but it also impacts corporate espionage. It's harder for your competitors to find out about your new sprocket design if it's code named Snickerdoodle. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens above! We will have to rapidly change our new products code name from Snickerdoodle; we thought it was our orginal!--79.71.217.59 (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poem[edit]

What's that poem in which the author says he/she hates to read because he/she feels more like the unreliable side characters than the protagonists? .froth. (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'A Study of Reading Habits', from The Whitsun Weddings, by Philip Larkin. LANTZY ^TALK 11:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're good. --.froth. (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Egypt[edit]

I discovered that a section on population got removed from the Nile Delta article. Can anyone here confirm what is said there and restore it to the article with sources? Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Marco polo (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is ninja blinding powder permanent?[edit]

I'm ashamed I can't find our article on ninja blinding powder, but was it intended to (did it) cause any permanent damange? 79.122.65.253 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not permanent according to this site [1]:

"Blinding Powder (external, immediate): Temporarily blinds the target unless they avoid getting it in their eyes and nose."

I cannot vouch for the site or the information // BL \\ (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is contradictory. 'Unless' = 'if not', so 'if they do not avoid getting it in their eyes' it is temporarily blinding. However, the use of the word 'unless' implies another possible outcome, in which they do in fact avoid getting it in their eyes, and would also imply a harsher effect, such as permanent blindness. Of course, this was written by a teenager, so all can be forgiven.--KageTora (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The implied alternate outcome (if the target avoids...) is that it does not temporarily blind. A genie, given the opportunity, would presumably read "does not temporarily blind" as "permanently blinds", but you're under no obligation to read it that way. —Tamfang (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Tamfang, 'unless' does not mean 'if', it means 'if not'.--KageTora (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, it means but not if; that is, unlike a simple if or if not, it has something to say about both branches of the condition. If the target does not avoid, the powder temporarily blinds; AND: if the target avoids, something else (which may be nothing) happens, as you said yourself. We're disputing what that else is. (Am I feeding a troll here?) —Tamfang (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a clue on a web site: "The powder used in the old days was said to be so strong that it would make a opponent blind completely..." which as you can see from the phrasing is a pretty weak reference. Anyone able to do better? 79.122.65.253 (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article Metsubushi (目潰し ?) says the blinding can be either temporary or permanent depending on the nature of the specific powder. In this case, I can vouch for the site, but not for the information. // BL \\ (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Team[edit]

What baseball team wears the hat with a capital A? Who is the guy who wears 34?68.148.145.190 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are refering to Nick Adenhart of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Rmhermen (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be the A's but their number 34 seems to be retired in honor of Rollie Fingers. APL (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Braves also wear a capital A. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Major League Baseball there are 3 teams with A's on their hats. The Atlanta Braves number 34 is Eric O'Flaherty. The Los Angeles Angels number 34 was worn by the recently deceased Nick Adenhart. The Oakland A's number 34 is (as noted) retired by the team, but it was most famously worn by Rollie Fingers. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]