From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< June 25	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 27 >

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.

Contents 1 June 26 1.1 JER Investors Trust 1.2 John B Foster 1.3 The Eternal Recurrence 1.4 Cromwell and the Jews 1.5 Crime rate: Melbourne vs Sydney 1.6 Walkers Crisps 1.7 UK and another country economic data 1.8 Master Limited Partnerships 1.9 Baha'i Faith and evolution 1.10 US Congress: "Proceed to Debate" vs. debating 1.11 Bono's Guitar 1.12 Jack Kennedy

[edit] June 26

[edit] JER Investors Trust

Why is there no article for JER Investors Trust, an important player in the CMBS market and publicly traded company NYSE.

http://www.jer.com/JERIT/Default.asp?f=0

24.60.163.16 10:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Because no one has seen it fit to write about it yet. This is a wiki, so you can do it yourself. --User:Krator (t c) 10:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But please first read WP:N and especially WP:CORP. If you are associated with the firm please also read WP:COI and WP:AB. Even with all these guidelines, you should still be able to create a good article if you use objective prose rather than hype, and if you cite your sources. If you do not follow the guidelines, someone my nominate your article for deletion. YOu migh start with a very short article the cites tow or more reliable sources, and see if anyone complains. IF not, expand it, but stay within the guidelines. This is better that spending several hours only to have your article deleted. Good luck! -Arch dude 00:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John B Foster

I'm hoping someone has additional information for this entry. I can find very little. Thanks. Tempest170 01:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a very brief account of his life and work on Ask Art here [1]. Part of the entry is free. It hardly seems worth the cost to sign up to read what remains. Some people leave few steps in time. Perhaps a good art dictionary may be a better help? Clio the Muse 02:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible the questioner is talking about the sociologist John Bellamy Foster.--Pharos 02:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Pharos, but Tempest170 is in the process of creating a page on John B Foster the artist. Clio the Muse 02:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just one entry though. Tempest has created both John B Foster and John B Foster (Artist). Dismas|^(talk) 13:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And now John B. Foster (artist) has been marked for speedy deletion ("an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject") .  --Lambiam^Talk 21:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all that helped. I'll add more info as I can find it. Tempest170 11:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Eternal Recurrence

In one of his essays Borges does a fairly good job of destroying Nietzsche's concept of the eternal recurrence, calling it a monstrous abomination and half a dozen other epithets and siding with Augustine, who wrote that suicides and farewells lose their dignity if repeated too often, as would the Crucifixion in a universe like this.

I want to pose a hypothetical revision of the eternal recurrence, but I also don't want it to be incompatible with any theological or religious teaching, and that is the problem. Some philosophers, cribbing from Vico, have professed a belief that history is not a continuous circle but a spiral - in other words that it repeats itself with certain variations. In one version of history perhaps I exist, in the other perhaps I don't; in the next perhaps I do but Shakespeare never did; perhaps Christianity has to contend with an offshoot of Hinduism known as Lilanism and so forth. In every revolution history is affected by the history which came before - certain things carry over from age to age, though the rest is destroyed - and so while time begins anew, it begins anew in a slightly different way.

Theologically, however, the same dilemma is posed: why should Christ have to die again for a world that He already died once to save? Thus it is no more plausible than Nietzsche's idea.

Is there any way round this? I feel as though my tweaking of recurrence should have improved it, but I still haven't been able to reconcile it with certain apparently irreconcilable metaphysical conflicts. Try your hand at it and tell me what you think. MelancholyDanish 05:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Well I should probably explain that I am an atheist sceptic, but coming up with a theory that isn'y 'incompatible with any theological or religious teaching' may well be impossible, as theological and religious teachings are most often incompatible with each other, and quite often incompatible with themselves. I wish you luck though, you certainly have lofty ambitions. Cyta 08:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I recommend The Dyer's Hand, by Auden and Isherwood. Auden was fully aware of Nietzsche and the competing fascist views, as well as his sometime hero Yeats's view of the "gyre." As a socialist, he was also always conscious of History. However, as an existentialist and a Christian, he sought another model, an answer to the various voices. I vastly prefer his answer to the dreary recurrences. (Not to take anything away from your reading experience, but history can spiral, move in lines, redouble, etc., but all of this is the permutation that leads to various moments that are the 'fullness of time.' These moments of fullness of time are connections between the divine time and the human. These singular conjunctions can neither be repeated nor avoided, but they wait for fullness, not sequential accomplishment.) Geogre 11:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not focus too narrowly on the eternal recurrance, MelancholyDanish, the relationship between Borges and Nietzsche is, perhaps, a little more complex than you seem to allow. Have you read Borges' Lecture on Buddhism? There you may find something of what it is that you are looking for. Anyway, here is a brief sampler:

The history of the universe is divided into cycles and in these cycles there are long eclipses during which there is nothing or in which only the words of the Veda remain. Those words are archetypes which serve to create things. La divinity Brahma also dies and is reborn. There is a quite pathetic moment when Brahma is in his palace. He has been reborn after one of the calpas, after one of the eclipses. He walks through the rooms, which are empty. He thinks of other gods. The other gods appear at his command, and they think that Brahma has created them because they were there before.

Let’s pause at this vision of the history of the universe. There is no God in Buddhism; or there could be a God, but it isn’t the essential thing. What is essential is that we believe that our destiny has been predetermined by our karma or karman. If I was to be born in Buenos Aires in 1899, if I was to be blind, if I am to be giving this lecture to you tonight, it is all the result of my previous life. There isn’t a single event in my life which hasn’t been predetermined by my previous life. This is what is called karma. Karma, as I have already said, is like a mental structure, an extremely fine mental structure. We are weaving and inter-weaving in every moment of our lives. For not only our volitions, our deeds, our semi-dreams, our sleep, our semi-waking are woven: we are perpetually weaving that thing [karma]. When we die another being is born who inherits our karma

There is, of course no act of redemption; no defining moment; no unique event; no singular point in time, and no Saviour. History, in other words, does not hinge on an instant. If Christ returns he will be received by The Grand Inquisitor. It is the same, but different. Clio the Muse 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! And as it turns out, his relationship with the Recurrence is a lot more complex than it seemed at first: fifty pages further on into the book there's a second essay entitled "The Eternal Return," which begins with the line "I seem to be eternally returning to the Eternal Return..." And there he adds that the only possible Return would be a Return that was different from the ones before. I expect there will be more essays on the subject interspersed at fifty-page intervals throughout the book, so I'll keep you informed. MelancholyDanish 16:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

[edit] Cromwell and the Jews

Oliver Cromwell is often said to have readmitted the Jews, exiled by Edward I, back into England during the Protectorate. I can find no confirmation of this. What is the evidence?

Luckily for you there's an article called Resettlement of the Jews in England. I am visibly impressed by Wikipedia tonight. Enjoy the article :-) MelancholyDanish 06:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Visibly impressed? Do supply a picture.--Sandy Donald 11:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There was never an official ordinance by Cromwell for the wholesale readmission of Jewish people to England, which, in the long run, was probably fortunate for them, for reasons that will be made clear below. Rather, by virtue of the monarchical powers he enjoyed as Lord Protector, he was able to extend a degree of toleration to a particular group, under some highly unusual circumstances.

As the Wikipedia article makes clear, this was a matter that had long been on Cromwell's mind, and he first raised the possibility openly at the Barebones Parliament in 1653. However, it was the petition presented to him in 1655 by Menasseh Ben Israel, who had travelled over from Amsterdam, that finally prompted him to act. The Council of State, the executive authority of the Protectorate government, was deeply divided by the proposal, so Cromwell summoned a gathering at Whitehall of a number of influential individuals to debate "some proposals made in reference to the nation of the Jewes." He may have hoped that the combination of his authority, and the appeal of Ben Israel, would have ensured that matters went according to his intended design. If so, he reckoned without William Prynne, one of the most notorious pamphleteers of the day, and a committed anti-Semite. On the day the Whitehall conference opened on 4 December, Philip Nye, a leading Puritan divine, engaged Prynne in conversation, saying that that the lawyers present were in favour, as the expulsion by Edward I had not the force of statute. Prynne insisted that the lawyers were wrong-"The Jews were in the year 1290 all banished out of England, by judgement and edict of the King and Parlament." Returning to his rooms at Lincoln's Inn, Prynne was further disturbed by growing rumours that Cromwell was even planning to let out St. Paul's Cathedral as a synagogue. He responed in his usual manner, retreating in to his library, and dipping his pen in vitriol.

Even in Prynne's absence matters did not go well: the lawyers may have been in favour; the merchants, fearing competition, were not. The Jews were accused of being addicted to 'evil practices', like usuary and the debasement of the coinage. The hostility of the traders found an echo in that of the divines, who argued that the Jews were blasphemers. Matters were bad; they became much worse on 18 December, the last day of the conference, when Prynne appeared with his own response, A Short Demurrer to the Jews. In this he called for "...a perpetual Barr to the Antichristian Jews readmission, both in this new-fangled age, and all future generations." His venomous words galvanized the opposition, and Cromwell, faced with a hostile outcome, abandoned both the conference and the whole idea of readmission. There the matter might have ended but for new turn in English foreign policy, that brought a partial rescue to the scheme.

In 1655 England went to war with Spain. As a consequence, the following year the Council of State announced that all Spanish property in England would be confiscated. Many of the Spanish merchants living in London were Morranos, outwardly Christian but secretly Jewish. Faced with ruin, they openly renounced their Spanish citizenship, declaring their true faith. In March a petition was sent to Cromwell, signed by a number of prominent Morranos, desiring to live peaceably under the government of the Protectorate, and asking permission to build a synagogue-"We thank you for leave to meet in our private houses for devotion, and beg to have protection in writing, that we may meet without fear of molestation...Also we beg licence that those of us who die may be buried in a place out of the city, with leave of the proprietors." There is no evidence that Cromwell ever responded in writing, as the petition desired, but their request was clearly granted by the exercise of his prerogative powers alone. That same year building work began on a new synagogue in London at Creechurch Lane. There was no 'readmission', there was not even an edict of toleration; but the wall set up in 1290 had at least been breached.

So, why was it fortunate for the future well-being of the Jewish community that the London conference did not decide on a change of policy, and that Cromwell issued no ordinance in their favour? Because after the Restoration of the old monarchy in 1660, in the person of Charles II, much of Cromwell's edicts and law-making was reversed, making it appear, in legal and constitutional terms, as if the Commonwealth and Protectorate had never existed. It is almost certain that any measure in favour of the Jews would have been swept away in this Augean cleansing. As it was, they were able to build, piece by piece, on the uncertain foundations of 1656. Clio the Muse 12:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crime rate: Melbourne vs Sydney

Quick! Help me settle an argument between me and my friend; which city has a higher crime rate? Sydney or Melbourne? I think Sydney. Need relevant statistics to back it up! --124.180.103.210 10:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be Sidney: [2]. You could also look at Crime in Sydney and Crime in Melbourne - although both are marked as biased. Maybe when you and your freind sort it out, you could help with those articles.--Sandy Donald 11:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walkers Crisps

How much profit did Walkers (the UK food snack company) make in 2006? I'm interested in just their UK operations; I've looked at their website but cannot find anything. Thanks. 82.153.126.93 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

They are part of PepsiCo - try them. DuncanHill 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tried them, they are actually part of Pepsico International, which made 2Bil$ last year, but I was hoping for just walkers.82.153.126.93 17:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Have just browsed through PepsiCo's annual report - it does not appear to have a figure for individual brands. Suggest contacting Walkers and asking them. DuncanHill 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll probably do that as a last resort, was hoping to try here instead. 82.153.126.93 17:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK and another country economic data

Ugh! For a school project I need GDP Data, Unemployment figures, Inflation and Interest rates, and any other good stats about the UK and one other country dating from at least 1990 to the present day. I have scoured the IMF, World Bank, Statistics.gov.uk and many more, but can find almost nothing. Help please!82.153.126.93 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to find all that on the website of the OECD [3], but you might have to browse around a bit - it's pretty badly designed site. Random Nonsense 17:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook is pretty handy for tracking down all sorts of demographic information. Donald Hosek 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Master Limited Partnerships

Question moved here from Wikipedia talk:Talk page

hi, can somebody please explain to me as to why are MLPs disadvantageous to tax deferred funds.(what are tax deferred funds by the way?)

RegardsUnicorn14 15:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baha'i Faith and evolution

Do Bahai's accept the theory of evolution? Heegoop, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

See this page for what they have to say about that. ◄Zahakiel► 20:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That link seems to be a good one, so I would only add that, as a Baha'i, it is likely to be somewhat contentious for the foreseeable future. There are many statements by Abdu'l-Baha that raise objections to the idea of evolution, especially in Some Answered Questions, none of which has an obvious interpretation. Abdu'l-Baha, the son of our Prophet, is regarded by Baha'is as infallible, so we have to accept these comments. Our article states that the contentions with evolution are probably of a philosophical nature only, although it doesn't clearly explain why. The thing that supports this (which I may add to the article after further research) is that throughout Some Answered Questions, wherever the subject is mentioned, the criticisms are aimed only at the philosophers, never scientists. For example:

This theory [that humans descended from animals] has found credence in the minds of some European philosophers, and it is now very difficult to make its falseness understood, but in the future it will become evident and clear, and the European philosophers will themselves realise its untruth. [S.A.Q Ch. 46, p.177]

But: the original is in Persian, so I cannot say for sure if the choice of word depends critically on the translation. 203.221.127.1 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Congress: "Proceed to Debate" vs. debating

In the US Congress, what is the difference between "proceed to debate" that takes places after a successful cloture vote and debating as commonly understood in non-procedural terms? - MSTCrow 21:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean "proceed to consideration" instead of "proceed to debate" (based on the fact that you're asking the question today, you probably saw this after today's successful cloture vote; unfortunately, I won't be sure until the Congressional Record comes out tomorrow. C-SPAN has a definition of "proceed to consider" as well as the US Senate website. Given the use of the procedure, I do not think that this procedure occurs in the US House (where floor debate is much more tightly controlled). The gist of what appears to be going on is that after a motion to invoke cloture, debate is not closed per se (although by unanimous consent a vote can occur on passage), but if the chamber wishes to proceed to consider some other piece of legislation, they must officially move to proceed to consider it (it would not be in order at that point to debate the new measure). As the links mention, the motion to proceed to consideration is debatable (although not in some circumstances that are beyond this answer), but often times, it will be handled by unanimous consent.

Hopefully I've explained this clearly, although I fear that I may have couched it too technically. I'll try to give a better answer tomorrow if the Congressional Record gives me some inspiration. –Pakman044 00:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a very technical question. Basically, the Senate has a calendar of business, which provides that legislative business proceeds in a certain order. Since it would hamstring the proceedings unduly to adhere rigidly to that order, there are procedures to move to items other than the next one on the calendar. Normally this is done by unanimous consent (someone proposes to do it and no senator objects), but if necessary, it can be done by motion, which is called a motion to proceed to the consideration of [whatever]. This is a debatable motion in the Senate. If the measure is very controversial and it's not the next one on the calendar, then sometimes two votes will be required, one on closing debate on the motion to proceed, and then another on closing debate on the legislation itself. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 00:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of my Senators, Senator Gregg, voted yea on cloture for S. 1639. Then his office issued a press release titled "Senator Gregg Votes To Continue Debate On Immigration Reform." I took this title as to be misleading at best. The first sentence states "U.S. Senator Judd Gregg today joined 63 of his colleagues in supporting a motion to proceed to debate on S.1639, a comprehensive immigration reform package." That's where I got "motion to proceed" from. Press release: http://gregg.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=69562766-802a-23ad-48cf-cf8a9f07b9b1 - MSTCrow 02:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The result of a motion to invoke cloture in the US Senate is not necessarily a vote to end debate; rather it is a vote to limit debate on the clotured measure (otherwise, without unanimous consent, debate could go on indefinitely unless the debate was suspended or there was a true filibuster that got waited out). What cloture does is limit remaining debate on the measure to 30 hours including all the fun parliamentrary procedure and shenanigans Senators duly enjoy (okay, so that might be a bit on the sarcastic side!). The press release is an technically correct, but sounds like a means to spin the action (because after the 30 hours are up, the field is pretty much cleared to take a final vote on the measure, which otherwise could be prolonged indefinitely). Thanks Newyorkbrad too for clearing up my misconception! –Pakman044 04:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bono's Guitar

In When Love Comes To Town on Rattle And Hum, Bono plays a guitar that looks somewhat like a Telecaster, but has parts (notably the electronics) which are completely different. What is it? Geoffrey Sneddon 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This forum lists The Edge's entire gear, and mentions a "197X Fender Telecaster Deluxe (Black. Built in the 70's. Played on Rattle and Hum . Also used by Bono on the track, When Love Comes to Town in the official Rattle and Hum video)". Fender's website shows an image of the reissued ‘72 Telecaster Deluxe "Black Maple" version. The site allows you to enlarge the picture for closer inspection, and to view the special features as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, be aware that not all musicians play entirely stock. Many will replace pickups, and long, long life will often mean a new neck or machines. Then there are some boutique brands that look very much like Fender or Gibson guitars but have entirely premium components (e.g. the Schecter "Telecaster" Pete Townshend played for "Eminence Front"). I.e. what you see isn't necessarily what it is, and there is little reason to believe that what you see is even what was used on a given record. (A lot of folks may show up in a video with Hoffner guitars, because they "look cool," but they don't play all that well.) Geogre 12:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Kennedy

Why is JFK often referred to as "Jack Kennedy" even though his first name was "John" and middle name was "Fitzgerald" (or something like that)? -- Slacker 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Jack" is a nickname used by and for people named "John." See Jack (name) for a possible etymology. -- Mwalcoff 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example: Jack O'Neill. - MSTCrow 22:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And in real life, Jack Vance. But do we need examples? —Tamfang 01:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

However, Jack is becoming a separate name. Many people nowadays name their children Jack, not John. There was a time when that was virtually unheard of - all Jacks could be expected to be formally Johns. I've had difficulties at airports when I show my ID with my legal name, John, which doesn't match the name under which I've bought the ticket, Jack. The (typically) 20s-aged desk clerks seem to be unaware that Jack=John is like Bob=Robert or Jim=James, and have taken some convincing that I am who I say I am. So I now book flights under my legal name and avoid the hassle. -- JackofOz 01:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• So ,you're all right Jack?hotclaws 01:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm all right, hotclaws. Thanks for caring; it means a lot to me. -- JackofOz 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

ompare Jimmy Carter. No James there.-Wetman 04:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No? Click it and read the first line. —Tamfang 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've always known about Bob/Robert, Dick/Richard, and Bill/William, but for some reason I always thought Jack was a regular name or perhaps short for Jackson. Thank you all. -- Slacker 10:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know we're not really doing examples, but Peggy/Margaret is a particularly fine example. DuncanHill 12:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And indeed Molly/Margaret. I'd guess it's the historically most common names which have the most, and widest ranging, nicknames. Anyone have any leads on that? Skittle 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll wager Elizabeth has more shortforms than any other name in English, but Al can stand for umpteen names Mhicaoidh 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought Molly and Polly belonged to Mary. Lord Peter Wimsey has a sister Mary whom he sometimes calls Polly, if memory serves. —Tamfang 02:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)