Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 7

Humanities desk
< July 6	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 8 >

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.

July 7

Who was the female student of Mozart?

I have heard, that although Mozart had many female students, he had only two female student in the subject of composition. Those two where Barbara Ployer and the daughter of the duke de Guines. What was the full name of the daughter of the duke de Guines? When did she live? She is often mentioned, but never her full name. As one of only two woman composer students of Mozart, she has significance. Does any one know? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

She appears to have been Marie-Adrienne de Bonnières de Guines, daughter of Adrien-Louis de Bonnières, duc de Guînes, later married to Charles de La Croix de Castries. Googling her name + "Mozart" seems to confirm Mozart giving her lessons in composition (unlike the article on her father, which talks about harp lessons, ... and unpaid fees for commissioned work and her lessons), but I can't link you directly to any text available online. Mozart does write about the lessons in this letter from May 14, 1778, but he refers to her as the Duke's daughter, and doesn't mention her name. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, here's one reference (Star-News online). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Funding Of Political Parties By The Government

Here in canada, our political parties are funded by the governemnt, not 100%, but the parties do receive money from the government for their campaigns. Our Conservative Government majority has vowsvowed to eliminate this.

I am wondering, is Canada the only polity that funds their political parties?Curb Chain (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Happens in Australia too. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Also in the UK and France. (And by the way, the Conservatives in Canada vow a lot of things that they're not actually going to do, like this, and get rid of the Senate, and have regular election dates...) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Really, the Tories want to get rid of the Senate? That's counterintuitive. I thought it was the New Dems. I know there are some style issues where Tories and New Dems are sort of similar, with the Grits being the odd man out, but I wouldn't have thought this would be one of them. --Trovatore (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That was one of their campaign promises two elections ago, but they've named numerous new Senators since then, trying to stack it with Tories (the Liberals did the same thing when they were in power, of course). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that the usual justification for government (taxpayer) funding of campaigns is to prevent politicians from becoming overly beholden to campaign contributors, as has happened in the US. A secondary benefit may be the ability of governments to control campaign techniques better, such as preventing outright lies, by threatening to cut funding. The main down-side, of course, is that taxpayers are forced to pay for the campaigns of politicians they hate. StuRat (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Lots of countries. This has a detailed list. It is a bit out of date.[1] --JGGardiner (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The USA has some state funding for presidential elections.[2] Theodore Roosevelt was one of the first to call for state funding of political parties instead of private funding, but after some false starts it only began in 1976, and in a limited form. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The USA also has a provision for federal funding. As with the states (at least the state I'm in), it's voluntary and has no impact on the tax or the refund. As regards keeping promises, Will Rogers once said that a politician may not stand for much, "but you can be sure he stands for re-election!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, opposition parties receive state funding for admin, expenses, etc but not specifically for campaigning. The party of power does not receive any funds as it has access to the apparatus of state such as the civil service. At any rate, the state provision is relatively small compared to the parties' actual needs and the bulk of party funding is donations from individuals, corporations and trade unions. And as Winston Churchill once said, Politics is not a game. It is an earnest business. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Modern monarchs

Has there been a child monarch in the last fifty years? I know there has been a lot in the past but there hasn't been any recently. It'll be interesting to know if a modern day monarchy can take the test of having a baby monarch like Alfonso XIII and persist. Also out of all the heir apparents in the world, who is the least ready to be monarch?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rudiki IV became monarch of the Toro Kingdom at the age of 3 in 1995. It's not yet clear to me how the kingdoms of Uganda work but the articles on both kingdom and king use the word "monarchy" a lot so there you go. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rukidi IV of Toro, King Oyo, seems to be the world's youngest monarch according to various news reports.[3]

Regarding heirs apparent, it's less clear. Some monarchs are likely to produce an heir soon. King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck of Bhutan was born in 1980, acceded to the throne in 2008 following his father's abdication, and became engaged this year, so he could soon have a heir apparent running around.[4] The monarch of Monaco, Albert II, Prince of Monaco, recently married, though he has an illegitimate son born in 2003 who is not listed as an heir, as well as an older illegitimate daughter (succession in Monaco is to the oldest son: Line of succession to the Monegasque throne). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Moulay Hassan, Crown Prince of Morocco is heir apparent and born May 8, 2003. That's the youngest heir apparent I can find. Lesotho chooses its next king by council (see Line of succession to the Lesothan throne) so it doesn't have an heir apparent, but the king's oldest son is Prince Lerotholi Seeiso, born 18 April 2007. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Depending on your definition of "child", the currently reigning Mswati III of Swaziland was confirmed as successor to his deceased father in 1986 at the age of 14. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.220 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sweden had a relatively close call fairly recently: When Prince Gustaf Adolf died in 1947 it meant that the next two in the line of succession were the 64-year-old Crown Prince Gustaf Adolf followed by the 8-month-old Carl Gustaf. Between Gustaf VI Adolf's succession in 1950 and Carl Gustaf's official coming-of-age upon his 25th birthday in 1971 (when the king was 88 years old) it meant that the heir apparent was too young to serve as chief of state. Yes, I know a 20-something might not be considered a "child" (and definitely not a "baby") by your reckoning, but nevertheless — it's been speculated that if the octogenarian Gustaf VI Adolf had died in the years leading up to 1971 Sweden might not have been a monarchy today. Gabbe (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not quite within the 50-year period, but ISTR that one of the eastern (sorry, Central) European states had a very young monarch during the 1930s or 40s. (hunts) Michael of Romania was six in 1927, when he was proclaimed king for the first time (it was a complicated time in Romania...). A regent was in charge during his reign. More interesting though, is Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria, who reigned briefly during World War II, also from the age of six. His brief reign was also with the aid of a regent. After WWII, Bulgaria became a communist republic and Simeon went into exile. Amazingly, after the fall of communism, he returned to the country and stood for election, becoming Prime Minister in 2001! Grutness...wha? 09:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not For Resale in the U.S.

In the United States, are there State laws or United States laws that make it illegal to sell an item marked as "Not For Resale"? [5] Or is this just what the company wants you to do; and there are not laws about the resale? Lantern Red (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

My (limited) understanding is that this is the equivalent of "not for individual sale" labeling that is on, say, condiments that restaurants purchase. In that case, this is contractually enforced between the supplier (e.g. the condiment company) and the restaurant. If the restaurant buys a huge box of ketchup that is marked "not for individual sale" and then sells them off individually, the supplier could sue them for breach of contract. I don't think this has to do with the end consumer at all. If you bought something that was marked "not for resale," the problem isn't with you, but with the company you bought it from. (And up the line, until you hit the one who violated the contract. So if you then resold it, it's still not your problem, because you never signed the contract.) But this is my limited understanding, and is not legal advice. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you buy a box of a dozen oatmeal packets (or anything really) each package will say not marked for individual sale, because it lacks the nutritional info and other info required. Hot Stop (c) 16:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This straight dope discussion might be of use (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=550758) - one important thing to consider are local laws about trading. It's possible to have rules around what happens as things pass down the sales chain but as a 'seller' you are likely bound by certain local laws about what you must/musn't do (e.g. as mentioned in the discussion selling a food item that should have nutritional information but doesn't because it's listed on the larger pack it came from). ny156uk (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

See also the article "First-sale doctrine" regarding certain forms of media. Gabbe (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Find a fiction book: pilot's girlfriend must land small airplane when pilot falls unconscious

Dear reference desk,

I'm searching for a novel I've read some years ago. I don't remember the title, nor where I got the book from, though I'm sure I've read it in Hungarian. I thought the author was Ken Follett, but I've checked some of his books and couldn't find this one so now I'm not so sure about that.

The plot synopsis is the following. (Some details could be incorrect.) An airplane pilot takes his girlfriend flying in a small plane (they're the only ones on board). At one point, the pilot suddenly gets very ill and falls unconscious and thus unable to fly the plane. The girl tries to help him at first (I think she's a medical worker), but after deciding she can't help him, she cries for help by radio (she does not know anything about aviation). Some other aircraft hears the calls, and they promptly send her an experienced pilot (probably army) who also knows the type of plane the girl is in. The experienced pilot follows her from another plane and gives instructions through radio. At one point the girl's plane starts to fall uncontrollably until they realize she has to flip a switch to change to the other fuel tank. The girl eventually lands safely. The experienced pilot gets into trouble because he's had some argument and hit an uncooperating official before taking off (he wants to hurry because this is an emergency), and the official dies later that day.

Can you point me to this novel? Thanks in advance, – b_jonas 14:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly Talk Down by Brian Lecomber (1978)? [6] on Amazon, and see this forum thread. I remember reading it (or a novel with a very similar plot) at around that time, but I can't swear that the book I read and/or the book you read were the same one. Tevildo (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That does look promising. A translation is available from libraries (Az egyetlen esély, Árkádia, Budapest, 1989, translator Simóné Avarosy Éva), so I'll check it out and read it and tell whether it was the one I needed. Thank you – b_jonas 21:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the book out of the library. It's indeed what I was searching for. Thank you. – b_jonas 10:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What percentage of people born into poverty end up financial successful?

What percentage of people born into poverty end up being financially successful?

Dealing with cases in the United States, more recently the better. JohnQposter (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• See the economic mobility article. There are lots of ways to organize this sort of data, and it depends on how you define "successful." Most poor children in the USA end up making more money than their parents, but less than 1% of them end up in the top 5% of incomes. --M@rēino 19:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If 1% of the born-poor end up in the top 5%, that means a really big share of the top 5% were poor. Quest09 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice Mareino wrote "less than 1%". That could mean anything from 0 to 0,999%. I don't know where that number comes from though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article, it makes it pretty clear that this is a pretty complex economic measure. The answer isn't given in a single percentage. There are different rates of mobility (both absolute and relative, both of which are important) for different quintiles of the population (organized by income). Even if you have that data in front of you, making sense of it isn't easy, and various economic experts would debate the meaning. If you Google around "economic mobility United States" (or whatever country) you can find a lot of different analyses of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked about this before. (I asked about left-wing opinion). It seems that the left-wing (I mean far, fringe) is that the part of the people born into poverty who are financially "successful" is everyone who doesn't become a millionaire - the people who do are failures, in the moral sense. 188.28.229.129 (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's true at all, even amongst the really fringe. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, just sounds like a very fringe view from someone who like simplistic labels. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like the Biblical warning about gaining the world and losing the soul. This viewpoint is not fringe, it's the viewpoint used to justify or brag about not being financial succesful - and it's a view encouraged by those who are successful, as "they do not seek company." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not "simplistic", it is very nuanced! I have the chance to make a billion dollars, but asked how much of it I should give away before the far-left are happy that I have more (say, a few hundred million) than everyone else. The answer was pretty much "100%". People told me, why would I need several hundred million to live lavishly? So, if I made and kept of several billion, $100m, it seems I would be a moral "failure". For this reason, I am not keen to invest 120 hours a week for 5 years, to have my $100m. Instead I will stay poor, just as I am now as a student, and then no one on the far, fringe left (where I sit on the scale as well) will complain. You can scroll up to see this question and answers. 188.29.193.67 (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Terms like left wing and far left are hardly "very nuanced". To me they sound more like straw men. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would you make yourself a slave to whatever some particular political group thinks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Because I think that particular political group is "right"? However, obviously it is "wrong" to imply that the idea is that I have an obligation to work 120 hours per week for 5 years, in order to make $1b and give away $999,999,998,000 away -- so, the question is, what is the obligation on my part to give away? (According to the fringe, far left, and in my opinion, "correct", viewpoint?) 188.29.193.67 (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take the libertarian view, or "enlightened self-interest"? I think of that view as being like when they tell you on an airplane to put your oxygen mask on first and then help a child or someone in distress. If you're wanting to be generous, figure out how much you need, to survive and to live as comfortably as you want to; and then give everything else away. And not just by tossing it to the wind. Instead, create a non-profit. Call it the "188.29.193.67 Foundation" or something like that. Hire some trusted staff to manage the distribution of the money, to be sure it's not being wasted but is instead going to specific causes you support. That's how the fat-cats do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, why would you feel an entitlement to so much money? Alone on an island, no-one can make the equivalent amount of stuff, so modern society obviously is a major enabler of nearly any personal success story. Isn't it simply fair to return an appropriate amount to society? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel "entitled" to it. I have the CHANCE to produce $1b+ in value, at a personal cost of 120 hours per week for 5 years (no breaks). I am more than happy to then proceed to give away $900m of it. However, the question is, what is an "appropriate" amoun tof money, Stephan Shulz? Of the $1,000,000,000 - say - is an "appropriate" amount of money to return, $900,000,000 or $990,000,000 or $999,000,000 or what? Why should I work at 120 hours per week for 5 years to make only $2000, however, by making $1,000,000,000 and giving away $999,999,998,000 of it away -- that doesn't make sense (nor is possible, as I would have higher direct costs). So, it seems you are arguing that I should not create huge value for society, gaining $1b in profit during the interim, even if I want to give 95%+ of it away? Only if i want to give 100% of it away? But then why should I have to work 120 hours per week, when no one else does... ? 188.29.193.67 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer was not "pretty much 100%". The answer, which you were given repeatedly, was that there is no single viewpoint or consensus on this among the left, the "far fringe left" or any similar group. There's no point in continually making the same point if you ignore all the responses. Warofdreams talk 16:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear: I want the BIGGEST number (closest to 100%), i.e. that would make the MOST, the farthest extreme left happy. How high should that number be to make everyone happy in this specific case outlined? 188.29.193.67 (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no number that will make everyone happy. Remember the saying, no matter what you believe, at least 50% of people will disagree with you. You will instead get a spectrum, running from Ghandi who would probably tell you to give it all away, to whoever is the greediest person on earth who will tell you that you need to stiff the kid down the street on the $20 you owe him for washing your Ferrari. Googlemeister (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

An equally interesting question would be, what percentage of people born into wealth end up in poverty? And for that matter, what percentage who become financially successful at some point, still end up in poverty? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And then there are these words of wisdom. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

They were all turned into Newts. But they got better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think IP 188 misunderstands what the extreme far left represents (Communism), they don't want higher taxes, they want a complete change in the global economic system and the the elimination of the class based society. Someone like Karl Marx would say, "from each, according to his ability and to each according to his needs." A communist would argue that you ability to conceive and execute your billion dollar plan is largely a function of your class (and luck). --Daniel 23:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And as the eminent philosopher Frank Zappa once said, "Communism doesn't work, because people like to own stuff." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

'Major players' in the financial world

Hello all, I guess you can file this under 'economics' if it helps - I need a good deal of help so this may turn into a long discussion!

I'm working on a financial research project at the moment and my boss has asked me to look into all the largest economic powers in Asia (country by country), and then research all the "major financial players", to quote him, in each of those countries. Now he isn't the sort of person you want to make repeat himself, but since I really wasn't sure what he meant, I asked what sort of major financial players he wanted. He replied "you know, things like banks, asset managers...", and this is where I'd like your help. I'm not going to get you to do my specific research for me of course on what these specific institutions are, but what other types of important financial institution other than banks and asset managers do you think one would expect to see in such a list? For example, both retail and investment banks, possibly major insurers, asset managers, hedge and private equity funds, and not long after this I begin to run out of ideas. All suggestions welcome, just anything you personally would consider a 'major financial player'! (And since I don't know a great deal about finance in the Asia region, if there are any Asia- or country-specific types of financial institution which don't really exist elsewhere, feel free to throw them in if they're important in the regional economy...)

Many many thanks in advance for all help! Frimgandango (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, in several Asian countries (China, Iran, Pakistan, etc) the military should probably be considered a major financial player. Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, the government (treasury, finance ministry, central bank) is a major player in any country. Pension funds are another category to consider. Some terms you should know include keiretsu and chaebol. Marco polo (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would add sovereign wealth funds, which in some countries can be quite extensive. Gabbe (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

To the above, I would add that it's easy to use Google or Bing to find lists of the largest companies in each country; for example, we have an article, List of the largest companies of China. (One unique point about China, which Looie496 and Marco polo alluded to above, is that some of these top Chinese companies are partially owned and controlled by the Chinese government or military.) That's only a starting point, though; some of those companies are going to have active investment arms and thus be "financial players", and you'll have to do a lot of legwork if you want your research to be of high quality. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)