Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 October 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.

October 23

Double negative law terminology

Why is it that various news outlets as well as politicians use various double negative phrases? For instance, I often see things like Most California voters still oppose gay-marriage ban, poll finds. In that instance, why not just say "Most California voters still support gay-marriage, poll finds"? The words 'oppose' and 'ban' give the headline a double negative tone. Dismas|^(talk) 05:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case isn't there an implication that gay marriages are currently allowed and some people are opposing it? That's the way it reads to me. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's saying that most people are opposing the ban, which is what's happening. If it said "Most Californian voters support gay marriage", it wouldn't bring attention to the ban. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, the implication is that gay marriages are currently allowed, a ban has been proposed and some people are opposing this ban?-- Q Chris (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes Proposition 8, but is not a supporter of gay marriage... AnonMoos (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the question? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it points out an error in my thinking that the example I provided and my re-write could mean the same thing. Dismas|^(talk) 13:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I should have actually read what I replied to. Sorry! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that in general such double negative forms are examples of a well-known old rhetoric device; it is named litotes and it's used to express an idea in a sort of mild form, and that's why it is typical of the politicians' speech. By the way, the sentence in the wikipedia article: In Latin, an example of litotes can be found in Ovid's Metamorphoses (...) sounds a bit odd (there are hundreds of examples in every latin author, as well as, of course, in any greek one, so that it's like saying: In English an example of demonstrative pronoun can be found in Dickens' David Copperfield ...) --PMajer (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a lot simpler than all that. On California's ballot next month there will be a proposition to ban gay marriage (Proposition 8). The headline is stating that most of those polled oppose this proposition, where "this proposition" is equivalent to "gay marriage ban." If there were a proposition on the ballot to allow gay marriage, then the headline could be written differently, "Most Californians Support Gay Marriage Proposal", for example, since headline writers do seem to enjoy wordplay. --LarryMac | Talk 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

They do, but in many cases the only wordplay they seem to know is the pun. They'll often employ a pun in the headline of an article about a deadly serious subject, which I've always thought was rather insensitive and inappropriate. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

George IV - date oddity on map

In London yesterday I was wandering past a shop selling antique maps when I noticed a map in the window dated 1809 that referred to "George IV" as "the king". I doubt they meant Elvis, so presume it must mean this bloke. I know he was the prince regent for some time, but even so the dates still don't seem to match up. How could a something dated 1809 possibly even refer to a "George IV"?--A bit iffy (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To start with, was the 1809 date on the map itself or could the store have gotten it wrong? --Anonymous, 07:25 UTC, October 23, 2008/

The date was on the map itself and did not look like it had been added later. I'm no expert on antiquities or maps, but the map sort of had a Victorian feel to it (but I can't put my finger on why).--A bit iffy (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

George IV was the son of George III. He was regent between 1811 and 1820, so at this time, George III was still king in name as well. The date on the map must be wrong. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The obvious explanation is that the map is a fake. Algebraist 07:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I concluded at the time (after repeatedly running through the dates of kings and queens of England in my head - old-fashioned rote learning at school does have its uses). I'll probably try to contact the shop (if I can find it again) and see whether it stays on display. Thanks all.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You could try dating it internally - look for geographic features that changed post-1809 and see if they got them right. Who owns Finland? It went to Russia in 1809 and stayed. The Papal States were annexed by France 1809-1814; the Netherlands were a French puppet kingdom until 1810, when annexed directly, and then an independent republic from 1815. 1809-1816, France owned Illyria (essentially the Croatian coast). The Confederation of the Rhine was in Central Germany 1806-1813. There are no doubt more of these, but I can't offhand think of any other major changes... Shimgray | talk | 09:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a map of Britain, showing a hundred or so numbered places they considered worth visiting, along with a brief description of each place (all towns and cities, I think) and a suggested route snaking throughout the country. I didn't notice any obvious blunders like railways.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

With antique maps, it's quite common for the publication date to be two or three years after the map date, i.e. a map of how Britain looked in 1809 might well not be published until 1812. It should bear a separate publication date somewhere.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

American elections?

The USA is supposed to be a rich, advanced nation, but how come they couldn't even organize an efficient election? F (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Long lines ≠ inefficient election. Lots of voters is desirable and the first word in that article is "unprecedented". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The lines are not the problem with the elections here. There are many problems. Lines, usually not. Unfortunately for all its riches, and the amount expended in election campaigns, the actual infrastructure of voting has been woefully neglected for decades, and when it has been "updated" it has been done so in the most ham-handed and unreliable fashions. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it an efficient use of public finances to invest in making a once every 4/5 years event more efficient? The electoral process, by and large, works. If the ballots of every voter can be cast over the course of the day, and the votes counted and a result annouced within a couple of days and the cost of hosting the election remains reasonably low (on a per voter cost basis) how could we consider that anything but efficient? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also a considerable investment, at least from the republicans, in ensuring that as few of the electorate as possible have a say in the matter. See, for instance Block the Vote by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. & Greg Palast. It is difficult for us non USians to see your electoral process as anything other than corrupt and broken. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, it isn't being fixed because both parties make it a partisan issue instead of working together on it. Wrad (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the States are responsible for elections, not the Feds, so it has to be fixed locally, which I think is a good thing, except that people don't seem to pay any attention to state politics. If the people actually cared and SHOWED it, maybe their votes would actually be counted right. Wrad (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

States are responsible for overseeing the elections, but local municipalities and counties actually run the election. Here in California, a county can choose any method of voting that the state Secretary of State approves - paper ballot, approved voting machine, punch card, whatever they decide is best for them, so long as it's on the approved list. Then the counties count the votes and report the totals to the Secretary of State. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Above, 194 says "The electoral process, by and large, works. If the ballots of every voter can be cast over the course of the day, and the votes counted and a result annouced within a couple of days...". In recent US elections there have been many disturbing signs of votes not being correctly counted. Dubious voting machines, hanging chads, Bush v. Gore, you name it. And there have also been allegations that in some places not "every voter" has a chance to vote. The Reference Desk is not the place to debate how much effect these issues may have had, but it needs to be mentioned that they exist. --Anonymous, 18:48 UTC, October 23, 2008.

To be fair, these problems are surely not limited to the United States? In Canada, elections are a federal concern and the voting process is the same for the whole country, but aside from that there are similar problems. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There may well be problems with Canadian elections, but they if so they will mostly be completely different ones, because the election procedures are so different. But I certainly don't see the same level of concern over whether Canadian elections are trustworthy as I do over American ones, and in any case the question was specifically about American elections. --Anonymous (Canadian), 22:54 UTC, October 24, 2008.

Oh, by the way, Adam's remarks about the voting process in Canada are correct for federal elections, but other levels are run separately -- which itself is a difference from common US practice, I understand. Municipal elections where I live use machine counting by optical mark-sensing, but federal and provincial ones use hand-counted paper ballots. --Anonymous, 17:40 UTC, October 26, 2008.

Because it's run by the government. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Inflation in Britain

I work for a primary school, and we've organised a Black History Week this week, as part of Black History Month. One of my colleagues asked me if I knew what a British doctor would have earned at about the time the Empire Windrush arrived in Britain. I don't know (unsurprisingly), and I can't think how I could find out. Can anyone help? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Could try this for a start (haven't looked through it to be honest). The NHS started in the same year as the Windrush arrived. --A bit iffy (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not an easy question to answer. NHS payscales for GPs were complex - they got an annual basic salary and then a per-capita fee for people seen. I've found one site quoting £500, but I think this is basic salary, and they could earn a lot more on top from capitation fees. In a hospital post, where it was a basic salary only, a registrar would earn "from £600 to £1,300 a year" [1].

As for GPs, this is how the system was anticipated to work out just before it came into force [2]:

...the average general medical practitioner who now has a panel and who has on that panel anywhere near the normal maximum allowed, which is about 2,500 plus certain increases for juveniles, if one assumes that he gets the normal signatures of the rest of the family, will automatically be entitled to the following. He will have compensation for the value of his practice of a substantial figure; a basic salary of £300 a year; fees amounting to not less than £3,000 a year, on that basis—a total of £3,300 of income from his State patients

Hope that helps! Shimgray | talk | 13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

US President and Vice President not allowed on same plane

I have heard that the US President and Vice President are not "allowed" to be on the same plane, for fear that they might both perish simultaneously. Is there any truth to this, or is this just a myth? If true, who sets such a "rule"? I will have a follow-up question, but I just want to make sure that I clear up this initial point first. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

You'll find this article useful. Credit to User:PeterSymonds from this October 10 question. Grsz^Review! 13:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The article was interesting, but I would not say "useful". Did I miss something in the article, in terms of an answer to my original question? My take of that article was that Eisenhower's personal preference at the time was to be prudent. Thus, his personal preference precluded flying with his VP. No? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

From what I understand, it's not a rule. But such occasions are probably more rare than we might think. After all, how often is it that you hear of both men (up to this point they have been both men) going to the same meeting or conference or disaster area etc. Not very often. They each have their own tasks and schedules. That being said, the designated survivor article may be of interest to you. Dismas|^(talk) 13:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The cynic in me suggests that Eisenhower didn't fly with his VP because he didn't want to spend several hours with Nixon for company... Shimgray | talk | 14:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not cynical, it's the truth. Ike disliked Nixon and wanted someone else (anyone else would have done) as VP for both his terms. Failing this, he completely ignored him as much as possible. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be a good Secret Service policy, but I doubt any law or regulation exists.NByz (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Secret Service could make recommendations, but if a Secret Service official actually had the authority to direct or forbid the movements of the President and/or Vice President, the U.S. would be in the position of the Roman empire, where the Praetorian Guard ran things. Besides, there is a line of succession which means that there would still be a president. Edison (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Much appreciated. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

What's the title of a newspaper called?

Does the title of a newspaper have a name in printing other than "title"? If, for example, an article appeared above the fold, which is a graphics term, what is it called when the headline appears above the title? Flag...something? And more importantly, why don't the articles for newspaper and broadsheet include the parts and layout of newspapers? --Moni3 (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Masthead (publishing). I always thought the word you were looking for was "masthead", but according to that article that is an incorrect usage. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at that, too. I think that is referencing the verso of a magazine, or the list of publishers on the inside page of a newspaper. I'm looking for the term that refers to where The New York Times is placed on the front page. --Moni3 (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec):The title of a newspaper (that is, including the logo and any other designs) is usually called the Masthead in BrEng but its correct name is a Banner (as Masthead (publishing) refers to the information relating to the newspaper's staff and ownership, or boilerplate in BrEng). The term flag is used for content hooks above the masthead pointing to stories inside (one assumes as flags fly on the mast..). You may find both [3] and [4] helpful. I would have expected to see the parts identified in our article on News design but alas that seems to be lacking too. Nanonic (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In pedanto-speak it may be the banner, but it's commonly referred to as the masthead. A couple of years ago I wrote to the editor of an Australian metropolitan newspaper arguing they should change their logo, which appears prominently in the centre of their masthead. They published my letter, as well as a couple of rather negative responses the next day. All the letters used the word masthead, and everyone know what was being referred to. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the top of the front page can also be called the "flag." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Buddha

Why do buddists care so much about the Buddha? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.209.76 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For the same reasons Christians honour Christ, Muslims honour Mohammed, Bahá'ís honour Bahá'u'lláh, and so on: as the founder of their religion. Check out Gautama Buddha for more information on the specifics.

While that's correct enough for Bhudda, it's worth noting that the Christian view of Jesus is not the same as the Muslim view of Muhammed, and "founder of the religion" is a difficult phrase to apply to either (it's probably closer for Jesus). — Lomn 17:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Gautama Buddha, the founder of the religion, is not identical to Buddha, the state of being. Pfly (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right. When Buddhists venerate the Buddha, they are primarily worshipping an ideal to which they aspire. The stylized Buddha figure on a Buddhist shrine is intended to represent this ideal human being rather than the historical Buddha.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Invention

In what year did William Baldwin invent the heater? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.17.247 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had a little bit of a search around and can't find anything that really answers that. Do you know any more about roughly when this would have been? Or which sort of heater it is? A search of 'heater' on wikipedia lists the different sorts so I think this would be a good start. Weazelcheese (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A History of the American Locomotive By John H. White at [5] says that in 1847 four eight-wheel locomotives were fitted with feed-water heaters from Baldwin. Patents by Trevithick and Vivian (1804), Winan (1837) and Perkins (1849) are mentioned, but nothing on Baldwin. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

what had the greater total sum effect on human civilization?

in all earnestness, which of these, to date, has had the greater effect on human civilization:

• The splitting of the atom (and subsequent use thereof).

• The popping of corn (and subsequent use thereof).

Thanks.

If you're really earnest about it, why don't you explain why you think there's an argument for pop corn being at the same level of importance as nuclear fission. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

AGF: As to the question: Consider, as an example, nuclear power in France. It produces some 430 TWh of electricity via nuclear power stations, this being 87.5% of the total power output of France´s power stations. You simply have to decide if electricity or popcorn is more important to the functioning of a society.

Of course, I forgot MAD and the cold war, nuclear medicine and other aspects, but I may be temporarily confused after colliding with a large hadron.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the end of the 2nd World War, that had quite an effect on human civilization (especially those parts of it in certain Japanese cities). --Tango (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would have ended without the bomb. The question is just when and how. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A better question might be "which has had the greater sum positive effect on human civilization? The French power example only provides a benefit equal to the net cost of the next best alternative minus the net cost of using nuclear power. MAD * the chance of it happening would be quite a downside to overcome, regardless of how slight you may have believed that possibility to be. But everybody likes popcorn.NByz (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

MAD and the Cold War isn't necessarily a down-side. I see it more ambivalently. You had to balance the possibility of destruction with the fact that the weapons did reduce major conflicts between superpowers. They did bring some stability to things, it could be argued. All I'm saying is, it's not like the alternative history where they didn't exist was necessarily better in that regard. Personally, I don't go for popcorn much. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd argue that beneficiality is impossible to measure. Take what is just about the maleficial thing I can think of, the Holocaust, after its existance became widely known anti-semitism, which had always been rife among the West, was whiped out and became politically incorrect (in the best sense of the phrase) within a few years. Alternatively, the Cold War, a period of huge tensions between nuclear powers, actually secured a period of peace for the world's developed nations. The fact is that it is impossible to know what a cause's effects might be just a few years down the line. Nuclear fission could be perfected soon and become a source of unlimited energy, and likewise, popcorn could be revealed to contain a deadly neurotoxin that has been gradually killing us for the past century... 218.48.66.96 (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe future alien archaeologists will take the view that we should have stuck to popcorn. Leaving WW2 aside, it's a virtual certainty that sooner or later nuclear weapons will again be used in anger, and losing just one city will wipe out all the good things that have come from fission (medicine, power, etc.) on the scale of total merit, in my opinion. --Sean 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why bother getting up in the morning, Sean? The scenario you paint is not "a virtual certainty". That may be your opinion, hypothesis, call it what you will. Mine is that it's a virtual certainty nuclear weapons will never be used again in anger. Unfortunately, my hypothesis will never be proven, but your's might. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, nuclear weapons have so far only been used in anger once and that was when only one country had them. Since multiple countries have had access to nuclear weapons they have never been used despite people being certain they would be for the past 59 years. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)