Humanities desk
< May 23	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 25 >

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.

May 24[edit]

Startup banks get pledges[edit]

Let's say there is an entreprenuer for an idea for a bank. That banks appeals to the U.S. Treasury. In order to startup (before the Fed. funds come in), can the Treasury make a pledge to that bank, of, say, $25 million? Is that too much, or is a pledge out of the question? --Ractogon (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why the Treasury would give startup capital to a new bank. They need to get their capital from investors, lenders and depositors like any other bank. --Tango (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the crisis in the banking system, with even old names going out of business, giving money to an untried new bank which could collapse at any moment seems rather stupid. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

canteens and cafeterias[edit]

Hello. Excuse my English, I'm french speaking Belgian. What is, in the USA the current level of dietary meals in the canteens? What are the efforts of governments to improve it? Thank you already --Égoïté (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except for requirements meeting general standards of health and cleanliness applicable to all venues serving food to the public, there is no governing body which oversees canteens and cafeterias per se. If you are referring to food services provided within public institutions such as schools or prisons, you will need to identify the institution and then the jurisdiction. Some school boards, or perhaps even individual schools, for example, are banning sugared drinks, and offering low sugar, low fat, main courses. // BL \\ (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about low salt? When I've visited the US, it's the amount of salt in the food that really amazes me. --Tango (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BL is correct; salt level isn't regulated, either, except, as mentioned above, in schools and prisons (because, presumably, these consumers depend upon the government for their nutrition). One thing I am uncertain about is whether there is a federal requirement for restaurants to disclose certain nutrition statistics on the food that is served. Tempshill (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your anwers. At what time come dietary regulations for prisons and public schools? Does the public, including parents, make pressure to improve the menus in other cases? --Égoïté (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School meal#United States and National School Lunch Act should help you out with regard to public schools. As the first article indicates, there is often a very large amount of pressure from the public to improve nutrition in school-provided food. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. --Égoïté (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Race question?[edit]

So here's the deal. My father is from India and my mother is from Kenya. Can I list myself as African-American? A lawyer's viewpoint would be lovely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.106.183 (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia's: Not so funny and oblique O jokes.--Radh (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you live in the United States then yes, you can easily list yourself as African-American. If you don't live in America, then no. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "African-American" a legal category? As far as I know, lawyers have nothing to do with it. --Tango (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would amend 98.217's assertion to "If you are an American citizen, then yes." If you are applying for a grant or scholarship only available to African-Americans, the granting body can likely tell you what the requirement means specifically. // BL \\ (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship is not strictly necessary. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read our African-American article, especially the the section African-American#Who is African American?. According that article, the US government defines African-American as "A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa." Usually having a black ancestor and self-identifying with the African-American culture is sufficient to claim yourself as African-American. Note that "African-American" is usually reserved for people with black ancestry. If, for example, your mother were from Kenya but was a descendant of European colonialists (and thus was white), the majority of people would raise eyebrows (or worse) at claims of being African-American. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a bit of a twisting of the natural meaning of the language? It's also a bit circular. What is "Black" and what is "of Africa"? What about someone from Africa descended from an Australian Aborigine? What about, say, Egyptians? Or some other less-than-very-black native peoples of Africa? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it only refers to Americans with these backgrounds. On its surface (A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa), it could mean that Nelson Mandela is an African American, but since he's not an American at all, he's not any kind of American, not even an African American. To the OP, you don't say where you live or anything about your nationality or citizenship, but I can only assume you live in or were born in the USA. If that's not the case, there's no way you can be an African - or any other kind of - American. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly thought this question was a rather bad joke. PC madness aside and why should not everybody call himself a Martian if she so wishes. How on earth can anyone with African ancestry only (Kenian) automatically be an AfroAMERICAN. Are all Africans Americans by birth? (Of course, the "blacks" only).--Radh (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the term "African American" does not mean "African" or "American". It simply means "Black". I work with a lot of Africans who are generically black, Middle-Eastern, and white. If they are simply brown (Middle-Eastern) or white, they don't qualify as African American. If they are black, they are called African American - even though they are not in any way American. It just comes down to a belief that referring to someone as "black" is racist. By replacing "black" with "African American", all racism instamagically evaporates. -- kainaw ™ 11:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, not everyone thinks that Black is the incorrect term (any less so than white). The NAACP uses "Black" about as often as "African American." I think white people are often uncomfortable with the terminology and reach for what they think is "safe", but that doesn't imply that what they avoid is actually "unsafe." Black is currently a perfectly acceptable term (unlike, say, Colored, which is only used in an historical context). --140.247.241.193 (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine after ten years or so, a new definition will arise, and the "African American" will become the latest trend in being regarded as offensive (like it happened a lot of times in the past). Why can't we stick with a definition everyone agrees with, and not change it every time a new trend settles in? --131.188.3.21 (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I once saw a wonderful interview with Kelly Holmes in which the interviewer kept asking her how did it feel to be an African-American athlete and poor Kelly kept saying "but,I'm British"..88.96.226.6 (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I once heard a speaker trying to explain Soweto riots to a group of Americans. He started: "Soweto is where the.." and then he paused as he tried to find a way to finish the sentence without using the word black, and lamely continued "...African Americans rioted in protest against the Apartheid government.". Given that the people he described as "African-American" were not American, and no less African than the people they were protesting against, the choice boggled my mind. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a classics professor who described Djimon Hounsou's character in Gladiator as African-American. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See An earlier discussion on the RD. Jay (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone has yet pointed to [[Black people]. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baron and Count[edit]

What is the difference between a baron and a count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.248 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Baron and Count. If you then have specific questions, please feel free to ask them here. // BL \\ (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A baron is the lowest rank of peerage, a count is one step higher. A count is equivalent to an earl (Britain has earls, the rest of Europe has counts, if memory serves). --Tango (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked it up, I must correct myself - a count is two steps higher, viscount is inbetween. --Tango (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, a baron was the lord of a single manor or village. I.e., no more than 1000 subjects. A count was the head of a larger district -- a county -- in which he was responsible for administrative functions in the name of a duke or king. So maybe 10,000 to 100,000 subjects. --Chl (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends largely on whether or not you are talking about the British or Continental systems (and even on the Continent there are likely to be disagreements). For example, Earls never really were the chief administrators of the Counties; the Sherrifs were. All of the peerage systems were pretty convoluted, and the systems of prescendence that developed over time were fairly fluid. As a classic example, originally the Count (comes in Latin), which were the closest advisors of the monarch, outranked the Dukes (dux in Latin), who were mainly the generals and military leaders. Once the titles became tied to land holdings in feudalism, the Dukes were given primacy, as their military role was adjudged to be more important than the advisory role of the Count. It gets really confusing in Germany, where there are a half-dozen or so varieties of Counts (Pfalzgraf, Friegraf, Landgraf, Margraf, etc.) as well as different levels of Duke (Herzog, Erzherzog, Grossherzog), and two completely unrelated titles (Furst and Prinz) which both get translated into English as simple "Prince". Then there are entirely unrelated systems, such as the Russian one, which provides no end of confusion when titles like "Knyaz" are translated into English.

If we get back to the English system, the term "baron" can often be used to describe the titled nobility in general (one often describes the Magna Carta as having been forced on King John by "the barons", though some Earls and Maquesses and Dukes were likely among the petitioners). However, it can also refer to a specific rank in the peerage. The most common ranking system goes something like:

Knight (not a peer, but still a title)
Baronet (not a peer, but still a title)
Baron
Viscount
Count/Earl
Marquess
Duke

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that ranking meant to be country non-specific, Jayron, or to refer to the UK? In the UK it goes from Viscount to Earl to Marquess, there being no British counts. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Picky picky... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) But the wife of an earl is a countess, weirdly enough. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comes is used as the Latin version of earl. I've read somewhere (though perhaps it was only speculation) that, while the pre-Norman earls of England were functionally equivalent to dukes on the Continent, the dukes of Normandy didn't want any other dukes in their turf so they called the earls 'counts'. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were no English dukedoms or marquessates in 1215. — Baronets (by that name) are unique to Britain, so I wouldn't include them in a 'most common' list, though hereditary knights do exist elsewhere. —Tamfang (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia[edit]

So, in Australia, how many married couples are there where the bloke is called Bruce and his missus is called Sheila? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.8.231 (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good numerical calculating question for Wolfram Alpha, no longer in beta.....BrainyBabe (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had an uncle named Bruce and an aunt named Sheila, but they weren't married to each other. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never met an Aussie woman called Sheila. (Note: I am Australian, and lived here all my life). I know there are some out there, but not a great number. There are lots of men called Bruce, though. Sheila tends to be more of a (not very classy) word for "woman" than a name. Steewi (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally know at least two. I think the name is these days found only in ladies of a certain generation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rejecting the Nicene Creed[edit]

Are there any well-known sects other than the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who reject the Nicene Creed? --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Creed, "Some denominations, including Unitarians, Quakers, Baptists, Messianics, Restorationists, have rejected the authority of those creeds [that is, the Nicene and the Apostles']." There's a ^{[citation needed]} tag after it, though. Since the Quakers reject baptism, one can see that they would have some problems with the line about acknowledging one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Deor (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to Restorationists. I see that the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are part of that line, as are Adventists, including Seventh Day Adventists. Do the Seventh Day Adventists reject the creed? --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And some Christians reject the filioque clause, though not the entire creed. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As always, it's almost impossible to make generalizations about Baptists, but I think that while most of them would reject the principle of requiring people to believe in the Nicene Creed, in practice there's nothing in the Creed that they would object to. So they don't reject the content of the Nicene Creed per se, they just reject the notion that a believer has to subscribe to any particular written creed. +An gr 11:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nontrinitarians reject the Nicene Creed, and there are hundreds of such sects (though their total numbers aren't very big - a few percent of Christians). An gr's comments apply to many Evangelical groups as well as Baptists. They object to creeds on principle, claiming only the Bible as their source of doctrine. In most cases, as stated, there isn't anything in the Nicene that they would actually take issue with. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your responses. --Halcatalyst (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like political compass - but for EU parties[edit]

A few months ago, I seem to recall seeing a site (semi-official? Supposedly non-partisan) which would ask you some questions (much like political compass things) and, based on these, suggest which EU parties most closely matched what you wanted. The idea being it narrowed down your investigations, allowing you to be properly informed to vote in the European elections. I also remember that the site was not properly up at that time, but said it would be in April.

The elections now approach and I cannot find this site. Anyone know what I'm remembering? Or know something similar? I had to spoil my ballot last time and I'd really like to feel sufficiently informed this time. 80.41.42.73 (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euronet has a Profiler for the 2009 Elections. Go here and click on EU Profiler, mid page on the right. // BL \\ (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried it, it repeated the same two questions until I gave up (after 2½ cycles). —Tamfang (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried it and it appears to be operational. However, it declared my politics most closely matched the Conservative Party in the U.K. which would be a great shock to my family and friends. (Perhaps I should have pretended to be French or Italian.) The closest match in Europe was with one of the Estonian parties. I can't vouch for its accuracy, having given me a most surprising result (or I don't really know what the Conservative Party in the U.K. stands for). // BL \\ (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My politics (for Germany, where I live but as an American citizen am unable to vote) are apparently halfway between the far-left Die Linke and the far-right DVU. I guess it's weird to be a left-wing Euroskeptic in Germany. +An gr 11:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that was what I remembered. Not as helpful as I'd hoped, but a start. Oddly, while socio-economically I was dead-on for the Lib Dems (as I expected), I seem to be more Eurosceptic than I'd thought. About as Eurosceptic as the Tories O_o It would be good if the site featured more than the biggest 6 UK parties since part of my problem is the 12+ options. Still, the ability to compare my answers with the positions of those parties for each of the questions is really quite useful, so the more detailed analysis has given me some of what I was looking for. 80.41.88.220 (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It told me (accurately) that I am closest to the NPA in France and the Socialist Party (Ireland). But since it doesn't include details for No2EU in Britain, it suggested that I should vote green. If a tool like this does not include all options, it can be positively damaging, leading people to vote for a large party, rather than for one closer to their own views. RolandR 15:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can get it to show the dots for all the parties from all countries; the party closest to my views is the Cypriot Progressive Party of Working People. +An gr 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that, but it still doesn't show No2EU. RolandR 16:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]