Humanities desk
< May 21	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 23 >

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 22[edit]

net debt vs. accumulated deficit[edit]

What is the difference between net debt and accumulated deficit? Government financial reports give each of them separate sections in reports, but according to definitions I can find, they are both total liabilities minus total assets. 142.104.139.242 (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government foreign net debt is money owed by the government and its agencies to non-residents less money non-residents owe to the government and its agencies. Accumulated deficits are the sum total over a period of time (which may vary) of the federal budget balance. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War Question[edit]

Is it possible to know who he is? Here --SouthAmerican (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can make out the beginning of his name "R. C. Cog..", which may be of help. DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More information on the photo here. Seems even the photographer's name is unknown.--Cam (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No "R. C. Coo.." Kittybrewster ☎ 12:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know the fate of that particular soldier, but here's a list of the "C" entries at the Vietnam memorial in D.C.: [1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The surname could very well be Cook. The photo is of exceptionally good quality for that era; therefore bearing that in mind, I would guess it to have been taken in the early 1970s rather than late 1960s.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The third letter is clearly a "G". DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link given by Cam contains a suggestion that it is by Larry Burrows, which does seem likely to me. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would place the photo's date before 1971. The soldier is so young-he couldn't have been more than 18 or 19. I hope he survived the war.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date was August 3, 1965; see my "here" link above.--Cam (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blowing it up and lightening it up a bit, it's "R.C.COO"-something, not "COG" (there's a little discoloration in the middle of the second "O" that might make it look like a "G" at normal scale.) The fourth letter is a roundish blob, so probably not a "K". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was it standard practise for the uniforms to have the first name initials along with the surname? I have a photo of my cousins which was taken in Vietnam in 1967 and their uniforms just show their surname, no first name initials. However, they were Army and this is a Marine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could the name be McCoo?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Download the large version and expand it. It's definitely R-period C-period, and there seems to be at least one letter after the COO. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it's R.C. I also blew up my cousins' picture and I was mistaken as they have a lot of writing on their uniforms besides just their surnames. Could R.C stand for something other than first name initials? There is also writing on the side of his helmet. There's PET.. C0...--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they had ranks on the uniform name tag. In any case, I ran across this site[2] which doesn't answer the question, but it does have an even larger print, clear at the bottom, and farther up the page some well-known and not-as-well-known images from the war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They look like scenes from Platoon; in fact the guy leading the old bearded man reminds me of Bunny. If the guy survived the war he'd be about 63 0r 64 years old today. The writing on his helmet seems to be PE something.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a book online called The Marines in Vietnam 1965: The Landing and the Buildup. In the Chronology of Significant Events section it says that on 3 August 1965 (the date of the photo) Company D, 1/9 had conducted a one day operation (Operation Blastout 1) at Cam Ne, south of Da Nang, and a CBS crew did some filming. Perhaps our mysterious Marine was part of that company as the dates and places match!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said that he was (possibly) from the Company D, 1/9. I looked at the 1/9 marine website (http://www.thewalkingdead.org/home.html) I looked at the list of names (http://www.thewalkingdead.org/19veterans/rosternames.html) and found the name: Charles R. Cool. This is extremely close to R.C Coo_. (Dmango (talk))

But wait, the name you found was in Alpha Company. If this young man was indeed part of that operation, he would have been in D (Delta) Company.

Italianate or Stick-Eastlake?[edit]

Is the pictured house really Italianate? The National Register of Historic Places database, which is quite reliable in these matters, says that it's Italianate, and this is reflected in this Ohio Historical Society webpage; the picture proves that I didn't accidentally get a picture of the wrong house. To me, it seems much more of an example of Stick-Eastlake architecture, especially with its wooden walls and ornaments; it seems to be far from buildings such as this house. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this level of vernacular carpentry, the Italianate details (National Register of Historic Places's ambitious descriptions notwithstanding) are so rudimentary and elided, and so thoroughly converted to joinery and turnery and jigsawn outlines, that high-style designations are derisory. Is the projection of the front parlor to be read as a truncated tower, even though it doesn't rise above the cornice band? Is the projection of the cornice an Italianate feature? or simply carpentry? Is the paneled cornice band an implied statement of architrave, frieze and cornice in some fashion? Are those brackets substituting for architectural consoles or modilions? Is that an oriel at the side? or just a bay window? If the Jacobean antecedents of the spindles and carpentry of the porch are pointed out, are we bizarrely inflating the picture? The National Register of Historic Places' paperwork has blanks to be filled in with stylistic designations, and they do always fill them in. --Wetman (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not all blanks are always filled in — the Hugh T. Rinehart House, also in Ohio, is listed because of its architecture, but no architectural style is given. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I overstated. More typically, vernacular houses of c 1810-40 are categorized "Greek Revival" when such design features are limited to doorcase surrounds.--Wetman (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret this one as Italianate on the larger-scale elements and stick/Eastlake on the smaller scale elements. It's entirely possible to work at two differing scales in disparate styles. Acroterion _(talk) 16:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy breathing[edit]

I've heard that World War I aircraft had pretty high ceilings (c. 20,000 ft.). Did they have air tanks (or recruit Tibetans)? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many WW1 aircraft had a service ceiling below 20,000 feet, but the 1917 SPAD S.XII article says it had a service ceiling of 6,850 m (22,470 ft), so you may be onto something. Nothing said they had to routinely go that high, and the endurance (fuel supply) was only 1 3/4 hours, so they might have spent some time patrolling at altitudes where they could observe or attack things on the ground, rather than just going as high as the plane would go, for no particular reason other than to swoop down and surprise the enemy aviators, or to get above antiaircraft battery range, not a big problem in WW1. See Aviation in World War I. There is no mention of oxygen masks. Wiley Post experimented with a steel helmet and pressure suit looking like something like a deep sea diver might use, but long after the war, in 1934. He flew up to 50,000 feet and attempted stratospheric cross country flights. Edison (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When British fighters became proficient at finding and destroying German Zeppelin airships, the Zeppelin company developed a new design called the 'height-climber' which could go up much higher than the service ceiling of the fighters. The Germans knew that the crew would need Oxygen so supplied the crew with breathing apparatus, but they found that the crews didn't actually use them. When they asked the crews, it turned out that they knew the first man to put on the mask and use the Oxygen would be labelled as the wimp, so none of the crewmembers dared to begin. There was also a problem with the Oxygen which was full of impurities and gave the crew nausea when they did use them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and Mossad[edit]

Israel: I read an article stating that the "Mossad Men" (Institute of Intelligence and Special Operations) have killed American and British soldiers if it suited their purpose, specifically to keep the war going. Is there any evidence that this is a fact and is this organization presently in operation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.196.151 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved question erroneously posted in previous thread to new thread.Edison (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC) )[reply]

Response: Please clarify: Which war are you referring to? Mossad seems to be still in business, and its predecessor organization started operations in 1938, per the article. Zionist forces did kill British soldiers at times during the 1940's while the British had a mandate over Palestine . The killings may have been by other Zionist organizations (see Irgun, The Sergeants affair, and Lehi (group). The article Mossad does not attribute any killings of U.S. or British soldiers to Mossad. Edison (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the Mossad is generally recognised as one of the more competent services. So we wouldn't necessarily know. Let the paranoia flow! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do make occasional mistakes:[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The typical Wikipedian[edit]

This question has probably been asked before, but who is the typical Wikipedia editor based on sex, age, nationality, occupation, etc?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's been a survey taken, it would be unknown, since none of that info is required in the user profile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky there's this one then, isn't it Bugs? No seriously, it makes interesting reading. An overview of the whole report's findings (also covering usage/non-usage of Wikipedia, for example, is also available. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 11:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. I don't recall being surveyed, though. :'( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I remember that survey as I took part in it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Model Wikipedian 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I smile each time I happen to stumble upon that page. :-D Killiondude (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Germany, post 1945[edit]

Who paid for the reconstruction of West Germany after WW II? Was it a loan or a gift or what? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Plan would probably be a good start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also try Reconstruction of Germany and Wirtschaftswunder. DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euro vs. US dollar and UK sterling[edit]

I have just read this article [4] and found it interesting but very pessismistic & a bit scarey (I live in the eurozone). And then there is an interesting first comment from a reader: "And the dollar?" attacking the article & writer and saying the dollar is just as theoretically vulnerable, next poster writes "excellent post", and then someone else writes under that: "And sterling?" too, and others say it is "alarmist nonsense". So with all this talk of the euro breaking up in the press that I keep reading, could anyone with economics knowledge please explain: Why is everyone so pessismistic at the moment about the euro - as the comments suggest, don't the US dollar or British sterling have just as huge problems and huge deficits and could default on their debts too? Please help understand, thanks, --AlexSuricata (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the Euro is used by multiple countries, each with their own fiscal policy. The lack of a coherent fiscal policy means it is very difficult to take any control over the Euro. Britain has a high deficit and lots of debts, but it almost certainly won't default on that debt since it can just inflate away the debt (and there are less drastic steps too involving manipulating exchange rates in order to change trade balances). A country like Greece can't do that without the help of the rest of the Eurozone, but what's good for Greece isn't the same as what is good for, say, Germany, so it isn't going happen (Germany has a strict policy of keeping inflation below 2% and it isn't likely to relax that since it is a good policy for Germany). The Eurozone is at risk of being pulled apart by the differing interests of its member states (personally, I don't think that will happen, but it may well take something big to avoid it and I don't know what that will be). --Tango (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More press piling on is a Newsweek article entitled, "The End of the Euro". Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tango's absolutely right about the problems/advantages of a unified currency. It's hard to inflate away your debt worries when you can't control the currency, then again you receive the monetary benefits that come with that (in the form of better borrowing terms) not to mention the political benefits. Shadowjams (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a declining euro isn't necessarily a bad thing for euro economies. Debt costs less (in terms of other value) and exports become more attractive to other countries. For a long time the dollar declines helped U.S. exports; the roles have switched somewhat, but a declining currency, especially if controlled, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Shadowjams (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the risk to the Euro is pretty similar to the situation with the old ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism), one of the precursors to the Euro, in that various countries were forced out of it by speculators exploiting differences in fiscal policy between member states or economic shocks to individual currencies. 93.109.243.13 (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tango got the essence right, but Shadowjams missed the knock-effect to prices that deflating the Euro vis-à-vis the dollar would generate: inflation. As we discovered here in Hong Kong, giving up monetary policy (in our case, by pegging to the US dollar; in Greece’s case by being part of the EuroZone) means that the adjustment cannot be made via external prices (devaluing), and so has to be via domestic prices. That’s deflation, and it really, really hurts. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a column by Paul Krugman arguing "We're Not Greece," "We" being the U.S. Similar articles have appeared regarding the UK. It's worth remembering that despite their wide budget deficits, there is comparatively little fear that either the U.S. or UK will default on its debts. Both countries still have an AAA credit rating from S&P, at least for now. Greece's credit rating is BB+, the same as Azerbaijan's. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown oil painting artist[edit]

I found this painting in the attic of the house I used to rent. I was wondering if anyone know who the artist is. The name on the painting looks to be "Harlt". It is an island scene.--76.22.134.203 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you upload an image to somewhere like Flickr and link to it, so we can take a look at your painting? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a pic of the signature at the bottom. http://www.seehere.com/frogmaster/paintingsig --76.22.134.203 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks mostly to be a souvenir type of painting that are usually produced in great quantities and, at least here, can be found on the walls of cheap pizza parlours and other such places. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, what about the picture of the painting suggest that is it is a cheap mass produced souvenir painting? I am not delusional enough to think that it is a valuable painting, and I do not know much about art, but the painting is rather intricate and looks to be done by a professional with a fair amount of skill that spent a decent amount of time on it.--76.22.134.203 (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting money for US Healthcare[edit]

Seems to me that Healthcare is more important than libraries. Lets say we close down all the libraries in the US. About how much money would that free up to pay for Heatlhcare? ScienceApe (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might that shut down wikipedia in the process? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume ScienceApe is referring to publicly funded libraries. Wikipedia is not publicly funded and shutting it down would not contribute anything towards healthcare. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would finally stop people from asking and responding to medical advice questions... Matt Deres (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you see the fallacy of the either/or approach to these particular two issues. (I think Healthcare is more important than your house—let's sell off your house!) I'm not sure how easy it is to figure out total public library expenses. The American Library Association says that "Public libraries in the U.S. are set up under a local governance model, as the majority of funding for most public libraries comes from local taxes. On average, nationwide, local taxes are responsible for over 80% of public library funds, with 10% coming from state sources; federal interests contribute less than 1%." So most of the funding is local taxation, not federal. Federal funding is something like $170 million. So one could estimate, given those percentages, that total is probably something like $10 billion (combined state, local, and federal). Which is pretty much peanuts. Note that in 2007, the US spent $2.26 trillion on health care. Even with a healthy guess of how much one might save under more ideal systems, $10 billion isn't going to make up the difference, and it would probably not be the best trade-off anyway. One could much more easily trim $10 billion off of the military, for example, with little obvious effect to the whole of society (they'd be out a few planes and a couple tanks, but they'd still exist in pretty much the same form). Trimming all library budgets—which isn't possible anyway, considering how the taxes are allocated—would have probably a larger effect on people's daily lives than you probably guess (I assume you are not a library user), and have an entirely negligible effect on health care services. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the net effect on the health of the nation would be negative. You would have a less intelligent population, which means less competent doctors (or more spending on training doctors, cancelling out the savings). There is also a correlation between education and health - poorly educated people tend to lead less healthy lifestyles. That means more people needing healthcare, increasing the required spending. --Tango (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that argument is really convincing. I don't think education at libraries probably amounts to a significant change in health care costs. I think you could argue, though, that removing libraries would reduce the quality of life for a significant number of people, would negatively impact the poor, the young, and the elderly disproportionately, would reduce literacy by a real amount (libraries are chief sites of adult literacy programs), and would probably involve other unexpected costs (e.g. ending after school programs). You'd also be slashing a good number of jobs. None of these costs are really justified by what you would gain from the cost cutting, which would be a very small drop in a very large bucket of funds. To me, that's enough of an argument to make the idea seem rather silly. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the increase in costs wouldn't be very significant, but the change in health care costs only needs to be very small to cancel out the benefit, since libraries only constitute a very small portion of US public spending. Imagine the closure of each library results in one more case of type-2 diabetes a year (which is plausible). The cost of treating just that (for the remaining life of the sufferer) would probably match the cost of running the library (I haven't actually looked up the costs of either treating diabetes or running libraries, so this is just a guess, but you get the idea). --Tango (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I buy that. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the money could be redirected - I don't think it would make a dot of difference - consider a library's cost - a few staff, the upkeep of the building, plus the books. this [5] gives some figures for UK and US - only higher education librarys - compare the figure £430 million pa (uk) with the NHS budget of £65,000 million that year. Note that higher educational library costs are higher than public librarys due to high costs of books/periodicals. Maybe someone else can find the figures for the USA.87.102.18.191 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going with the 10 billion estimate, that's US$30 per inhabitant. Or, in other words, about one full-strength Aspirin per day. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic rambling by now-blocked user. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think you will find... ScienceApe... that a great number of philosophers and writers have placed learning and education (an ideal supported by public libraries) at the center of human improvement, while palliative care is just that -- palliative. And remember the old admonition -- "Physician, heal thyself". It questions the whole notion that doctors are really all that effective at preventing incontinence of this organ or that, in the end. Vranak (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who mentioned palliative care? --Tango (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]