Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 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.

June 23

Princess Maria Christina of Saxony (1770–1851)

Was Princess Maria Christina of Saxony (1770–1851), the daughter of Charles of Saxony, Duke of Courland a real princess? She was born from her father's morganatic union with Countess Franziska von Corvin-Krasinska which would mean should couldn't have been a Princess of Saxony.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of the title princess has varied widely over history and in different countries (see that article for a summary). I have no idea how the title was used in Saxony in that period. However, she did marry a prince, which would almost certainly have made her a princess. I don't know if she was referred to as a princess at the time before her marriage. --Tango (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

By her marriage to a prince, she would have been a Princess consort.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a description, rather than a title, though. She would still be called "Princess X". --Tango (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the German language has two quite distinct words corresponding to English "princess" -- Fürstin and Prinzessin. AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Princess consort is the wife of the sovereign of a principality. For example, Charlene Wittstock will soon become a princess consort; the Duchess of Cornwall is not a princess consort. Maria Christina's mother was created a princess by the Holy Roman Emperor five years after Maria Christina's birth, so I suppose Maria Christina was entitled to style herself as a princess even before her marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguing about women's pay vs. men's pay in US

It's pretty common to hear that women are paid less than their male counterparts, even if they are in the same field. This fact is then used by feminists to argue that there is gender inequality in the work world. But if this were true, that women will work the same for around 20% less pay, why would companies even bother hiring men? Couldn't they just hire women and pay them less, thus making a larger profit? How do feminists argue against this claim?  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 04:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, one possibility would be that the bosses simply favour men and are willing to pay them more for the same work, nevermind the profit margins. It's a classic mistake to think that everyone in the professional world cares only about their bottom line. It's certainly a concern, yes, but it is not always (nor should be) a single-minded obsession. Alternative explanations are that the bosses respect them more, or want to keep them around to a higher degree, and so on and so forth. Vranak (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Or that bosses hate paying women while they are out on maternity leave. Googlemeister (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A recent BBC Radio 4 programme about statistics discussed this topic (with respect to the UK, but the mathematics are universal): it's not as straightforward as it might appear. For example, a greater proportion of women than men (either through choice, or restricted opportunities, or both) work only part-time: if all salaries/wages of both sexes (whether in all fields or in a specified one) are being compared, this discrepancy accounts for a good deal, though by no means all, of the gross apparent inequality. Then again, women are more likely than men to have their careers interrupted by pregnancy (due to unavoidable biological factors) and child care (due to the avoidable but common gender task divisions in most cultures), lessening the compound effect of across-the-board annual pay rises: this accounts for a further portion of the inequality. Clandestine "glass ceiling" barriers to female promotion undoubtably sometimes operate, and restrict the total female "share" of higher salaries.

Bear in mind that paying a woman less than a man for the same work is illegal in the US following the Equal Pay Act of 1963, so US employers cannot legally employ the strategy suggested. It may be that as a result some jobs are exported to other countries where such discrimination has not yet been outlawed (or the measures are not enforced). If you haven't seen it, our article Male–female income disparity in the United States may be of interest. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On average in the USA, at any given time only 5% of men are "out of work and not looking for work," while 20% of women are "out of work and not looking for work." (Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States). That's a pretty big deal, macroeconomic-wise. 63.17.32.100 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

what is the oldest bottle of wine anyone has been verified to drink?

what is the then-oldest bottle of wine anyone, at any point in history, is recorded to have drunk? 80 years? 180? 280? more? how old? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.203 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently small measures from this barrel of wine from 1472 are regularly drunk, although it is frequently topped up with more recent vintages. This wine from around 7000BC was opened, although it seems nobody risked drinking any. Madeira wine appears to be the longest-lived, and several restaurants advertise late-eighteenth century bottles available to drink, at very high prices. Warofdreams talk 10:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Although this is probably not quite what you were looking for, at the royal court of Denmark it is a tradition that they serve a wine called the "Rosenborg wine" at their New Years celebration. It is Rhine white wine originating from 1580s which has been stored in caskets in the cellars of Rosenborg Castle. Though to be fair the wine has been constanly diluted with newer wine each time some of the wine has been used, so it is now only partially 1580s wine. The taste is reported to be quite awful, until quite recently where they filtered and bottled it, which apparently helped somewhat on the taste. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

For an interesting story about old wines, see Hardy Rodenstock and the story of the Jefferson bottles. Lots of people have drunk wines that are centuries old. The problem is there are also lots of people who think they've drunk wines that are centuries old, but didn't. And it's hard to tell who's in which group. Determining the provenance of very old wines is challenging. (FWIW, this week I received an offer in my email for 1868 Caves Bourdy Marc de Jura, from a reputable merchant, said to be direct from the winery's cellar. At $6,340/bottle, I didn't bite.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Jacques Cousteau cracked open an amphora that had been submerged since 230 BC and drank — here is a source about it that copies and pastes from the Guinness Book of World Records. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Brandt Report and American/British foreign aid policy

I am currently writing an essay on how the Brandt Report(1980) relates to the changing foreign aid policies of America and Britain at its time of publication. However, there seems to be little written on American or British aid policies in the 1970's and 1980's, and was wondering if somebody could suggest a good opening book/website which would familiarise me with aid policies at the time?131.251.143.244 (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Kovchitsy Vtoryye, Belarus

This is the spelling that appears in the gazetteer, Where Once We Walked, situated 133 km WNW of Gomel at coordinates 52•50'N,29•11'E. Granted that this romanization may be archaic or faulty, I'd appreciate some help finding out whether it has an interwiki page in another WP or other identifying information. I'm also curious about the word Vtoryye that I see here only with place names in Azerbaijan. (Also can't find the degree sign among the symbols in the editing ruler below.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's Ковчицы Вторые. Вторые means "second" in Russian and the name of the village is also written Ковчицы-2. Naturally, there's a corresponding Ковчицы Первые (Ковчицы-1) nearby. Both villages are in the Svetlahorsk (Svetlogorsk) County, Homel (Gomel) District. Ковчицы-2 appears three times in Russian Wikipedia's list of Belarusian righteous among nations.

The degree sign (°) is the fifth sign in the "Math and logic" section (use the drop-down button to get there). — Kpalion^(talk) 14:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

ACT

About how many people get a composite score of 36 every year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.251.114 (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

According to our article, "Nationwide, 638 students who reported that they would graduate in 2009 received the highest ACT composite score of 36." -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Final Exams

Hello. If my high school changes the final exam annually, why do they retain my marked exams? If my school auctions my exam after I become famous, I should receive a fair portion:) Seriously, why? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you appeal the result. It's also possible future colleges, employers etc. will want to see the actual exam. I know the Institute of Actuaries sometimes looks at the exam scripts when working out whether or not someone qualifies for an exemption from one of a professional exams (although that's university exams rather than high school). --Tango (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As Tango stated, I keep all final exams I give in case a student attempts to argue that his or her grade is incorrect. For a couple years, I kept a copy of the final exam. As I expected to happen, a student altered his answers for a few questions and then argued that I graded incorrectly. Because I kept a photocopy of the exam, I was able to point out that he altered the answers. Further, some students wait many years to argue a grade. It isn't until they are about to graduate that they go back and look at classes they had years before and decide to try to argue that a B should be an A. Having the finals on hand makes it possible to refute their arguments. -- kainaw™ 17:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If I were in charge, I would impose a deadline on appeals... (I think there was one at my uni, but they wouldn't let you see the marked paper when deciding whether to appeal, so any appeals were just shots in the dark so I never bothered.) --Tango (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's university level, not school, but I'm instructed to keep all exams for at least three years, as three years is the typical length of a degree, and that way they should be available in case of an appeal or the discovery of some other issue. At the end of that period we're allow to get rid of them using a secure process, but you'll find that most of us have filing cabinets full of old exams we haven't sorted out yet. As an aside, we would never be allowed to sell an exam, no matter how famous you would get, and disposal has to be done very carefully. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

major historical events of the era 1988-2000

such things as the fall of communism in many areas, the gulf war, the end of yugoslavia, civil wars in such places as afghanistan, somalia, sudan and sri lanka. can anyone think of any others? 80.47.24.27 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the end of Apartheid qualify? Also, the end of Yugoslavia was arguably overshadowed by the various fierce conflicts that accompanied or followed the breakup. There was also the genocide in Rwanda, ongoing warfare in Zaire/the Congo and Angola, and a shift toward democracy in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia. The economic rise of China was surely important, as were the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and the dot-com bubble. Marco polo (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent reunification of Germany (part of the fall of communism, of course, but worth a special mention given the size and influence of Germany in the modern world). The dot-com bubble. --Tango (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See our articles 1980s and 1990s. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No one has specifically mentioned the breakup of the Soviet Union. Marco polo (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The signing of the Good Friday Agreement which led to the cessation of The Troubles in Northern Ireland. The war in Kosovo was another major event.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lewinsky scandal :). Also there was the O.J. Simpson trial. --Soman (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1998 Omagh Bombing, and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you include events in the history of technology, 1990s in science and technology might interest you as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Watergate, I think should quatify. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That was 1972. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

But a day is like unto a year in the eyes of the lord, so, as always, anything Mac posts is completely relevant, and if you don't think so, you're ranting. 63.17.32.100 (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The death of Princess Diana in 1997.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If the questioner is asking for events of world importance, then I'm not sure events of importance to only one country, even a major country such as the United States or the United Kingdom, really qualify. If they do, then one could come up with a very long list of events from the national politics of India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, Germany, Japan, etc., etc. Marco polo (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The OP just says "major historical events", so I think something like the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, qualifies. It was a major news story around the world, not just in the UK. (It's still a major news story in the UK if you read the Daily Mail! ;)) --Tango (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still discussed here in Italy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely you mean the Daily Express? - Jarry1250&nbsp ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's possible... I don't read either and only know them by reputation. I could easily have got them confused. --Tango (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A little research suggests you are right. Thanks for the correction! --Tango (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are confusing media events in the rich world with events of world historical importance. What historian in a country other than the United States or Britain looking back on this period from, say, the year 2200, will bother with Monica Lewinsky, O.J. Simpson, or Princess Di? Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The wildfire spread of the internet in the 90s comes to mind, but that was not really a single event. Googlemeister (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In case someone is reading this in an archive many decades (or even hundreds of years) from now: I, who lived through the years 1988-2000, can tell you, the historian from the future: Nothing major happened during these years. The last time something major happened was in 1945, with the detonation of two atom bombs. There are also no major things on the horizon either. If you are the kind of historian who cares about fashions and how people live day to day, electronics came into very common use during this time, especially for communications: before this time, hardly anyone had a portable telephone, now everyone does, they're very small and in very common usage, and the Internet is similar: before this period, hardly anyone used it, now everyone does. However, other than this small change in fashion, nothing has really changed or happened. Again, I've lived through every one of these years, and can't think of a single significant event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.69.146 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The rise of the internet and mobile phones were very important. --Tango (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The hand over of Hong Kong was in 1997. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Much of South America beginning to make moves toward freeing itself from American/capitalist imperialism (see, e.g., Venezuela) -- that's as big a story as what happened in the former Soviet bloc, though of course our "free" press would never say so. 63.17.32.100 (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the biggest event by far during those specified 12 years would be the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the dissulution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. The end of the Troubles in Northern Ireland would have to come second, followed by the Yugoslav Wars and the first Gulf War. Princess Diana's death was also a historical event as she was easily the most famous woman from 1981 until well after her death in 1997. I don't think Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was a historical event as it didn't result in a war or coup d'etat. Most people honestly didn't care about her one way or the other.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking about famous women who died in 1997, then what about Mother Teresa? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tiananmen Massacre, the US running a budget surplus, Y2K bug, dot.com bubble, democracy in Taiwan and Korea, coups d'etat in Thailand come to mind. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1994 Rwandan Genocide.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would offer that the Oklahoma City Bombing (1995), the Waco siege (1993), and the Columbine Massacre (1999), are three that stand out in my mind. I live in Canada though. It wouldn't mean as much to a rural Malaysian, or a penguin in Antarctica, clearly. These are all events where one man had enough of these rules and took it upon themselves to, well, go a little crazy. Also, the growth of the internet over that time has fundamentally changed society. Vranak (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Also during that period, Jurassic Park revolutionized movie industry with computer-generated imagery in 1993; Dolly, the first cloned mammal, was born in 1996; Google was incorporated as a company in 1998; and Pfizer started selling Viagra in the same year. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk...how could you forget 15 January 2001? Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk right back at you, Nyttend. How could you think that that date fell in the period 1988-2000? Well?  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Life expectancy in some Southern African countries 1958 to 2003

One more thing I forgot to mention and which I think is significant, although not really a single event, is the AIDS pandemic which really took off, especially in Africa, at the turn of the 1990s (see the graph on the right). Also, public awareness of this disease began to grow around that time; the first World AIDS Day was held in 1988 (see also: Timeline of AIDS). — Kpalion^(talk) 12:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ! How have I never seen that graph before. D: 86.164.57.20 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

SMPs

What does Small and Meium Practices menas in the case of IFAC SNP? Thank you for your helpfullness. --Ksanyi (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that a small practice is one with only a few people working there, and a medium practice is one with only a few more than that working there. The IFAC stands for "International Federation of Accountants". It's a professional organization for accountants. Llamabr (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

EC: It's actually quite amazing how many pages of text I browsed through where they managed to not mention any type of context at all. I guess some documents are only meant to be read by those who already knows what they will say. Anyhow, the context of the IFAC, it means small and medium sized companies/organisations of Chartered Accountants. I'm not sure if that was your question, or if you knew that and wanted their definition of small and medium. In that case, I can not help./Coffeeshivers (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What did Aristotle tell us about Plato's life?

I know he mentions his teacher in various places, but I'm not sure about biographical details that Aristotle reveals about Plato. Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Gen. McChrystal

Is he out of active duty altogether or just transferred to some other job? 71.168.5.253 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He resigned, he was not transferred, so he is no longer with the AD US military. Googlemeister (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He's either resigned or been relieved of his command, but according to this article, "A senior military official said there is no immediate decision about whether he would retire from the Army..." Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the lowest rank at which you can just say "I don't want to do this anymore" and they don't force you to stay?71.168.5.253 (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry, you missed the backstory: he made really bad comments and was fired. Being "allowed to resign" is just a nice way of getting fired, and I would assume EVERY single officer rank that can happen in: from first lieutenant to ... general McChrystal. 92.230.69.146 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

President of the United States. Anybody lower than that is in trouble - see Dismissal of (five star) General Douglas MacArthur. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The above two responses didn't carefully read 71's second question, in which he is asking: At what rank in the US military can you retire without the military being able to force you to stay in the military because your country needs you? Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

71 needs to clarify what "stay" means. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Stay as in not go. Just about everybody in the US military signs up or re-ups for a set number of years, before which you can't just decide you want to quit and go. I was asking if the ability to quit at any time appears past a certain rank. 71.161.62.100 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't know the answer, but Army lieutenant colonels are liable to callup. I know a man who retired with that rank as a chaplain, began to pastor a church, and had to leave a few years later because he got reactivated and is currently in Germany. He was definitely called up because of being a former officer; he hadn't been in the Army Reserves or the National Guard after retirement. Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

When you first sign up (as an officer or enlisted) you sign on for a set number of years (2 to 6, depending on service, rank, and position, I think). you are pretty much stuck in the job for the whole span, barring discharge for a small number of personal reasons (family hardship, dishonor to the service, etc.). If you decide to go career after that and re-up then it is pretty much like any other job - you do it for as long as you care to, and get a pension depending on how long you do it. there are a few exceptions - if war breaks out, you can't generally decide to just quit (though few career military people would even consider that as an option); if you're in a specialty service (nuclear submarines, fighter pilot, etc.) you may be subject to mandatory recall at need even if you do your full term. --Ludwigs2 04:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

USAF pilots set # of years is currently 10, so it can be even longer. Googlemeister (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you generally have to serve longer if you have received expensive training in order to pay the army back for that training. It wouldn't be value for money for the army to spend a year or two training a combat pilot and for them then to quit after only a year or two of action. An infantryman that receives 6 weeks of basic training and is then ready to go into combat can quit much sooner. --Tango (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

He may have to serve in the United States Army Reserve. From that article: "All United States Army soldiers sign an initial eight year service contract upon entry into the military. Typically, the contract specifies that some of the service will be in the Regular Army (also called Active Component/AC) for two, three, or four years; with the remaining obligation served in the Reserve Component (RC)...After the expiration of the initial eight year service contract, soldiers who elect to continue their service may sign subsequent contracts of varying durations consecutively until they finally leave the service; however, officers may have the option to opt for an indefinite contract, in which case the soldier remains a part of the military until they retire, are removed from the service for cause, or are granted authority to resign their commissions." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church "scripture"

All information I've encountered on this group that includes firsthand testimony from its members includes references to "Scripture" and assertions that their leader knows more about the Bible than any other living person, but at no point was there any qualification of their canon; which books are included or omitted, whether there are alternative interpretations of specific passages other than their widely-publicised, "hateful" comments, which may or may not be interspersed with direct references. Any help would be appreciated. 130.209.6.40 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What specifically is your question? Falconus^{p t c} 00:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess the question is "what do they consider to be canon? Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

They're Baptists, so they regard the Bible as canonic. Presumably they use a Protestant Bible, and they find any of the translations usually used by American Protestants as acceptable. That would be the default position anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

However, there's a strong King James Only movement among many American Baptists, so they may well reject all English translations except for the 1769 revision of the KJV. Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Michelangelo Quote

I have heard that Michelangelo said "Art is the gift of God and must be used for his glory. That in art is the highest which aims at this." Did he really say this, and if so, where? dlempa (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a line from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's unfinished drama Michael Angelo, actually said by Vittoria Colonna's character. Don't know if it is a paraphrase of anything Michelangelo wrote. meltBanana 22:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! dlempa (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)