Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< January 6 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 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.


Contents


[edit] January 7

[edit] Best city in the US for a bootstrapped startup

What is the best city in the US for a bootstrapped startup?217.168.5.50 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Most modern bootstrapped startups exist primarily on the Internet. Therefore, physical location is irrelevant. If physical location is important, then by definition the "best" location is also the only location: wherever the startup is providing physical services to its customers. If your startup must provide face-to-face contact with geographically-dispersed customers, then the "best" location is near a major airport that as low landing fees and therefore lower ticket prices to other major airports. If your customer base is geographically unusual and also dispersed, then the best location is a function of the transportation costs to those customers. Example: if you are trying to sell blowout-preventer valves to oilfields in Siberia, you need to be in Moscow or Vladivostok. If you want to sell visualization monitoring software to major data centers, you can probably be anywhere that has very good internet connectivity. If you intend to eventually sell your bootstrap company to a VC or do an IPO to cash out, you are (slightly) better off to start in a major financial center, but if you really believe in your plan, you should ignore this and plan toe keep the company.In any event you need to locate in an area that has a good supply of the employees you will need to grow, or you need to figure out how to manage a distributed workforce. -Arch dude (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treason in the U.S.

From what I understand, in the U.S. the crime of treason is punishable by death. Who was the last person to be sentenced to death for treason? And if the answer is different, who was the last person who was actually killed after being sentenced to death for treason. Dismas|(talk) 03:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Read [1]217.168.5.50 (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks. That doesn't really help at all but it did make me notice the link to List of people convicted of treason. In that list there are a few people listed, most of which were released or pardoned. John Brown (abolitionist) seems to be the only one that was actually sentenced and had that sentence carried out. One other was sentenced to life in prison and died there four years later. Dismas|(talk) 04:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Our article on Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States says the last execution for treason in the U,S was John Conn in 1862 in Texas, but that of course was treason to the Confederate States of America... - Nunh-huh 04:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, to answer part two: apparently, after WWII, Tomoya Kawakita was tried for treason and sentenced to death, but his sentence was commuted and he was deported to Japan rather than hanged. - Nunh-huh 05:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Further, it seems John Brown was convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, and so was not executed for treason against the United States. - Nunh-huh 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed (in 1953) for espionage rather than treason, but it amounts to the same thing. --Sean 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they were executed for conspiracy to commit espionage, not even espionage itself. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
We also have List of people convicted of treason. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Midweek Bible Class and Sunday Night Services

When and why did the Church of Christ start midweek bible classes and Sunday night services? 208.168.242.101 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Church of Christ (disambiguation) as a name covers a lot of religious groups, including Christianity as a whole. To which specific "Church of Christ" do you refer? Bielle (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting that those "Churches of Christ" with ties to the Restoration Movement (the most typical use seen in terms of building name, such as the First Christianville Church of Christ) are wholly independent congregations. Any question about why a particular congregation did something can only be properly answered by that congregation. Try calling their office phone number and asking. — Lomn 14:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back-weighted primary victory - historically precedented?

I'm curious about the historical significance of the early primaries/caucuses in U.S. presidential elections. Specifically, has a candidate of either party ever won his party's nomination primarily or exclusively as a result of late primary victories? I'm curious because this is the avowed strategy of Rudy Giuliani and the evident strategy of Hillary Clinton. I know there have been many primary contests in which the eventual winners fared notably poorly in more than one of the early primaries, hence the "comeback kid" meme. Off the top of my head, I'm vaguely aware that Mondale, Clinton, Dukakis, and Kerry all exhibited some form of this phenomenon, but I know nothing about the Republican side. To narrow the question, has a candidate who won none of the early primaries ever rebounded against a candidate who won them all, except by the chance intervention of scandal, assassination, or some other catastrophic event? In other words, has a candidate ever managed what Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are apparently trying to do? I'm not averse to interpretation and inference, because my political memory isn't long, but my main interest are the bare historical facts: Is such a back-loaded strategy precedented, and if so, has it ever shown any success? Lantzy talk 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The best example I can think of is Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton did not win any of the first three events (Iowa caucus to Harkin, NH primary to Tsongas, South Dakota primary to Kerrey), then there were five events on the same day of which Clinton only won one (won Georgia primary, lost Colorado primary to Brown, Maryland primary to Tsongas, Minnesota and Idaho caucuses to Harkin). Thus, out of the first eight events, Clinton only won one. He then turned things around by winning in South Carolina and then eight out of eleven events on Super Tuesday. Mondale and Kerry both won the first events of their nomination year in Iowa, and Dukakis lost in Iowa but won in New Hampshire. McGovern in 1972 also did not win any primaries until the fourth primary of the season that year, although there were much fewer primaries at the time. As to the Republicans: the eventual nominee has always won at least Iowa or New Hampshire since the Iowa caucuses began through 2004, although no non-incumbent Republican has won both Iowa and New Hampshire over that period. The best example of what you are describing was in 1976, Ronald Reagan managed to run a competitive campaign against Gerald Ford for the nomination despite losing the first five primaries (he started winning after that), although of course Reagan didn't actually win the nomination that year. Before 1972, and even to some extent in 1972, the nomination system was so different that it's not possible to make a reasonable comparison; Hubert Humphrey didn't even enter any primaries in 1968 when he won the Democratic nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I should probably note that it would be easier for a candidate to come back after winning none of a group of primaries if the victories were split among multiple opponents, as was the case for Clinton in 1992 (the early wins were divided among Harkin, Tsongas, Kerrey, and Brown). That way, none of the opponents has an insurmountable lead. Reagan in 1976 had a much more difficult path for a comeback since he only had one opponent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for a very informative answer. I had a notion that the current primary configuration came about recently, but I wasn't sure how recently. For some reason I thought it was the early eighties. The Reagan '76 campaign is one I had forgotten about, and quite interesting. Lantzy talk 10:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magazines

I think this particular desk is most aligned with my interests, so.. My subscription to The Economist has just run out, and I'm not really inclined to renewing it again. What magazines do all of you read that I should subscribe too as well? Throw out your ideas at will. AlmostCrimes (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Some that may be of interest - The New Statesman, Prospect, the New Internationalist, the Times Literary Supplement, the Geographical Magazine, and (I believe that the sciences have much to contribute to the humanities) New Scientist. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I would add the London Review of Books. I have heard it said that the Scientific American is superior to the New Scientist, but myself read neither. Algebraist 14:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Scientific American is weightier, New Scientist more readable, and more "newsy". LRB is good. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)\
Just to let you know, I let my subscription to the Economist run out back in May (I was graduating and needed to save money since jobs were hard to come by), and sometime in December they finally cut off my access to the online version. So you may have a few more months of free reading of the online version if you already had that set up. I may end up resubscribing, but I read a ton I wouldn't really subscribe to: Discover, The Ecologist, the Economist, Harpers, National Geographic, New Republic, New Scientist, Psychology Today, Reason, and the Scientific American. But then again, I work in an academic library so I have plenty of access to these sorts of things. If I had to subscribe to magazines, they'd probably be: The Economist, New Scientist, and Reason. Also realize I am not reading every article in every magazine. I usually scan the contents for something that piques my interest and try to read that article. Psychology Today is usually quite horrible, but since I plan to go to grad school for research psychology, I try to see what all is out there.--droptone (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As a reader of The Economist (an excellent publication, surprised you wouldn't continue with it) If you are looking for a similar news magazine The Spectator isn't bad, if a little moralistic compared to The Economist. Also New Statesman as stated above ain't too bad if a bit too mean spirited. Personally I prefer New Scientist to Scientific American. Time isn't my bag, and neither is Newsweek (think that's the name). The New Yorker is a very enjoyable read and often has articles from Malcolm Gladwell, whom I could read every day. The Oldie is a bit bad to buy if you're my age (20s) but is surprisingly entertaining. I've never really gotten into too many of the ones that push their morality/ethics into the articles. Hope you find something good to read. ny156uk (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one's mentioned The Atlantic Monthly -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Once upon a time I subscribed to Science (journal) but soon found that everything in it that interested me was in the next week's Science News. As for Scientific American, unless it has improved in recent years, the writing tends to be dull and obscure. – I mean to restart The Economist any day now. —Tamfang (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I often enjoy reading Harper's, and just for some variety from all these stuffy literary and academic choices I reccommend Vice Magazine. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to a library and look at some. I enjoy ReNew.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As an American leftie, The Nation (weekly) is a necessity--but also The Progressive, In These Times, Dissent, Extra, The Humanist, American Prospect, and Mother Jones are good. I subscribe to all of them.--Eriastrum (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest continually functioning democracy

According to the Electoral College, the United States is "the oldest continuously functioning democracy in the world". By what strange and pedantic criteria is this claim made? I would have thought there are a number of countries in other parts of the world that have a greater claim. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Iceland as part of Denmark-Norway was not democratic, nor was Switzerland "continuously functioning" while conquered by Napoleon I. The UK's democracy may be older, but a writer seeking to establish a certain view may just as well argue that one of the 19th century parliamentary reform acts (such as the 1832 one) was the beginning of democracy in the UK, because the Lords (parliamentary, yes, democratic, no) held most of the power before that. User:Krator (t c) 13:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that the Commons had little claim to be democratic before the 1832 Reform Act. A different brand of writer would point out the New Zealand boasts the world's longest history of universal adult suffrage. Algebraist 14:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As to Switzerland, some of the Old Swiss Confederacy's constituent republics were indeed democracies, but most were aristocratic city-states with very limited suffrage. Sandstein (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
For the OP's question to work, we need to be rigorous in our approach to what democracy is. It might be a problem that women's suffrage didn't arrive in Switzerland at the federal level until 1971. The Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution came into effect in 1920. Xn4 17:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, how old is democracy in the US ? Would you date it from the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Constitution a few years later, after the Civil War when blacks theoretically were given the right to vote, or after the Civil Rights era of the 1950s and 60s when blacks, in reality, gained the right to vote ? StuRat (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
List of constitutions by age may shed some light on this (and suggest the US is trumped by San Marino) Rockpocket 18:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it would if it weren't such a dreadful page. It reckons a country is defined by its government rather than its borders, but then claims that the UK dates from 1927, a claim which can only be based on that being the year in which the current border was settled. The British parliament today is a direct and uninterrupted descendant of the parliament called by Simon de Montfort in 1265, which rather puts San Marino in the shade. And don't give me that line about Britain not being a democracy before 1832. Democracy is government by discussion. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It does what it says on the tin. Irrespective of how old one wishes to argue Britain has been a democracy for, it doesn't have a constitution. Therefore by that "strange and pedantic criteria" Britain isn't in the game. The US is, however, and this is probably the basis for the claim the OP cites, but it actually loses to San Marino by a couple of hundred years. Rockpocket 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The United Kingdom does have a constitution. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that the page the original poster cites is just one guy's opinion. "The Electoral College" is the title of the page. The U.S. Electoral College itself has no permanent existence; it's just something that happens once every four years. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
When did US citizens gain the right to elect Senators, rather than them being appointed by legislatures of the states? It was with the 17th amendment to the Constitution in 1913. Was the US much of a democracy before then? And the Electoral College selects the President. Under US law, the electors could be selected by the state legislature, or they could in turn select someone such as the governor to appoint the electors. Not really a democracy. Edison (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Amendment XIV section 2 appears – backhandedly – to require popular election of the presidential Electors. —Tamfang (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
No. You're talking about the words "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof". Since it says "any election", this includes the possibility that there are no such elections and the right to vote does not apply. --Anonymous, 19:25 UTC, January 8.
Twice since the 14th amendment was ratified, states have had their electors chosen by the state legislatures rather than the voters, so the inference is invalid. Edison (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Anon: good point, thanks! And Edison, thanks for backing it up. —Tamfang (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
<pedantry> I note that the question is not explicitly confined to sovereign states. How about nongovernmental organizations that run on democratic principles? —Tamfang (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Many women would argue that the US was fundamentally undemocratic prior to the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in 1920. As Algebraist points out, New Zealand gave women the vote in 1893. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
And Wyoming in 1869! Since all elections in the U.S. are conducted by states and localities, you could make the case that the "Equality State" is the world's oldest democracy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Or the Pitcairn Islands (see Timeline of women's suffrage). Ironically San Marino apparently didn't grant universal sufferage until 1959... BTW Wyoming wasn't a state in 1869 (but they were a state before 1893). Incidentally this is of course only theoretical democracy. New Zealand had and still has Māori seats. Nowadays with MMP and the requirements for each seat to be roughly equal in proportion this means Māori have an equal vote (well some would argue it's easier for them to effectively split vote and gain extra representation but that's perhaps a little to complicated). But History of voting in New Zealand suggests that at the time of their establishment there were only 4 despite their population warranting 15. I don't know when they began to have a fairer proportion of representation. Wyoming obviously didn't have this but did they have anything else like the literacy and poll taxes sometimes used to disproportionality deny the minority vote in the US prior to the Voting Rights Act? From what I can tell the answer is no, Disfranchisement after the Civil War doesn't mention Wyoming as having any test and they have a tiny black population anyway and were obviously not one of the southern states who were part of the confederacy or had widespread slavery so I'm guessing there were no such issues there unless it was for the native American population. Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Detective Author

Hi, A very good detective story was stolen from me, I would like to buy it again, the only thing i remember was that the author was famous for two detective characters, one lived in lndon and the other lived in paris. Does anyone know this detective author? 196.205.146.246 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Sultan

A E W Mason had Inspector Hanaud? - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Try Category:Fictional_detectives. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean London right? (Not being pedantic, lndon looks like Indon in the default font for display) Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
John Dickson Carr? Rhinoracer (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a cheap shot, but can I just point out the irony of a detective story being stolen? On a different note, I know you didn't ask, but if you like detective stories, the Lord Peter Wimsey books by Dorothy L Sayers are very good. 86.137.88.172 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty of Servres

Does Wikipedia have an article on this ? Am I spelling it correctly ? Perhaps it has some accent marks ? If we don't have any such article I would be interested in creating one and linking to it from our Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan and Kurdish people articles. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Sèvres. Jacques l'Aumône (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. My spelling was apparently too far off for Google to fix (it suggested "treaty of servers", the end of the Internet Wars, perhaps ?) StuRat (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, you can get there by typing "Treaty of Sevres", which is helpful for those of us whose American keyboards don't make it easy to type accents. --LarryMac | Talk 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a good idea. We could probably also use some mentions of the treaty in the articles I listed. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I see someone has added a redirect from my spelling. Also, parts of that article look like they were written by someone who speaks another language, it badly needs some attention. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MAJOR help Needed. Guarani Primary Sources!

Hi everyone, If anyone knows some links to a primary source dealing with the Guarani during the 17th and 18th century, please help me out! Any type of source is fine and i need two. Even if you have only one, please do help me. I can not find any links not even things like a Jesuit's diary or A guarani's diary about the Guarani War or Treaty of Madrid (1750). Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.38.106 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The contemporary Pedro Lozano's Historia de las revoluciones de la provincia del Paraguay (1721-1735) can be found online at http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/35772730101144831754491/index.htm William Avery (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)