From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< May 26	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 28 >

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 May 27 1.1 "Back up our battleskies!" 1.2 Paradox? 1.3 Foreign policy of Libya 1.4 Allusion too obscure? 1.5 Australia 1.6 The Aswan High Dam 1.7 Longest post-presidential career? 1.8 Fundamentalist Mormon Women 1.9 What are these architectural grids? 1.10 Origins of credit card size? 1.11 Latin American nationalism

[edit] May 27

[edit] "Back up our battleskies!"

There are a number of US anti-Japanese World War II posters which encourage people to support the war effort and have this phrase ("back up our battleskies!") at the bottom of them; this is one example. It's always accompanied by a particular cartoon, so it's all part of one campaign. My question for the collective intelligence of the reference desk: is a battlesky a thing, or is it just 'battle' with 'skies' added to be more endearing? — maestrosync ^talk — 00:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like "battleskies" is a coinage meaning skies where battles take place. Googling on "Back up our battleskies" took me here where we find out that the apparently meaningless phrase is actually the title of the Curtiss-Wright "morale song" of c. 1943. I was unable to identify the uniform the little guy is supposed to have on. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the uniform is Civilian Defense but couldn't find any pre-Cold War images to confirm that. Rmhermen (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a coinage by the aforementioned company from 1942 used from then until 1945 in the U.S. [1] , to make the point that "battleskies" are like battlefields. It also seems that "battleseas" [2] did not even get the limited usage that battleskies did. Edison (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting—I'd never thought of the word like that. Thanks for the insights, everyone. — maestrosync ^talk — 09:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paradox?

I have a house that must be re-painting before it can be let to tenants. For every day that it stays empty, I lose $40 in lost rent. On the other hand, every day I spent painting it costs me the equivalent of $200 in effort. If I postpone painting it for another day, I am therefore better off by $200-$40=$160. Why then should I ever start to do any work on the house? 80.0.110.30 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• 'Cause eventually you'll stop painting the house and start making money again? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just keep painting 'till you're a millionaire then find another house, do the same and become a multimillionaire! --hydnjo talk 01:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The error is "If I postpone painting it for another day, I am therefore better off by $200-$40=$160." In fact you are worse off by $40. The $200 pertains to days that you do paint, not days that you might have painted.

This is essentially the same error that advertisers try to tempt you into making when they say "Regularly $100, on sale today for $80, save $20." You only save $20 by buying the item today if you were going to buy it anyway, not if you mmight have been going to buy it. --Anonymous, 04:39 UTC, May 27, 2008.

Since painting the house is mandatory if you want to rent it out, you're committed to painting it if you ever want any more rental income from the house. So the $200-a-day painting cost is a given, but it has a finite end. The $40 a day you get in rent will go on indefinitely as long as you keep on letting the house out. The alternative is not to paint the house, not to let it out ever again, and it just sits there gathering dust and earning you no income, ever. Which option seems the better one to you? If you considered the cost of petrol is too high, you might decide not to fill your gas tank when it runs dry. Fine, except that you've then got an asset you can't use, and it's just become a waste of space, not a vehicle for getting you anywhere. To get somewhere, you'll still have to spend money on a bus, taxi, train or whatever. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This relates to another question I was thinking of asking - how can I make myself work harder and be less lazy? It may be related to the time-horizon one chooses - over one day, it is pointless to do the painting. Over five years, it makes sense. Perhaps we humans have inherited a short time horizon because in prehistory we had a high risk of dying, so a long time horizon was no good. The question then is, how do I lenghten my time horizon? 80.2.206.229 (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do the math more often? The house painting pays for itself in 5 rental days for each day spent painting. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem, from an economics point of view, is that you are confusing losses and investment. For a day spent doing nothing you are losing the opportunity to make $40. For a day spent painting you are not losing $200; you are spending $200 and increasing the value of your house by $200. Your balance sheet (if you had one) would not show a reduction in your assets of $200.

It would be worth leaving the house unpainted if you could do some other activity for the day which would make you enough money to get a $50 a day return on investing it, but that's a lot of money. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reminds me, though, of: "The more you study, the more you know. The more you know, the more you can forget. The more you can forget, the more you do forget. The more you forget, the less you know. The less you know, the more you need to study. So why study?" --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign policy of Libya

Where can I find the foreign policy of Libya and how it stands on the issue on Iran nuclear issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.2 (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did Libya voted in favour of UN Security Council sanction on Iran? Please answer this question. Thank you. Why anyone hasn't answer my question. 76.64.131.2

See Foreign relations of Libya. Also there are a couple of sentences about Libya's relations with Iran in Iran-Arab relations. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It did not help me a lot. I need more information on the foreign policy and the nuclear program in Iran. 76.64.131.2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.245 (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allusion too obscure?

"XXX is the Thomas Dewey of the twenty-first century."

Suppose this is in an essay on XXX's electoral campaign. Would this allusion be too obscure for a Canadian adult audience? --Bowlhover (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that would probably be too obscure even for an American adult audience. (Personally, as a Canadian adult, I know the "Dewey defeats Truman" picture, but I did not know his first name was Thomas.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My first reaction was to assume this referred to the inventor of Dewey Decimal Classification, so I would say yes, it's too obscure. -- Beland (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The context is what determines how well the allusion is understood. If your essay is about the fact that XXX has won lost an election that no one ever expected him to win lose, then the Dewey reference might be understood in Canada and the States. Otherwise, I'm with Beland, wondering what data classification system XXX has invented. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, the headline was wrong. Dewey lost an election that no one expected him to lose. I don't think many people other than history or politics buffs would be expected know this now, but maybe a political article is directed to that type of person. Why not take a moment to remind people about who Dewey was and then make your analogy? --Anonymous, 00:30 UTC, May 28, 2008.

[edit] Australia

Why did Australia become a federation on a DISGUSTING date? A date where people would be busy celebrating the new century? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 09:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The date was the first day of 1901. The public tends to celebrate new centuries/millennia in years ending with a double zero, not an oh-one, so the celebrations would have been long over. WikiJedits (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a recent social development. Back then, nobody would have considered 1 January 1900 to be the start of anything other than a new year. On the other hand, 1 January 1901 wasn't chosen as federation date because it was the start of the new century. The process of getting the colonies' agreement to federate took a number of years, and it finally reached fruition in 1900. The UK Parliament then had to introduce a law establishing Australia's constitution, which took some time, and Queen Victoria gave her assent in September 1900. 1 January was chosen as a suitable date for it to take effect, purely for administrative convenience, and the next available 1 January just happened to be the start of the new century, 1 January 1901. It was a nice coincidence for a new nation to be born on the first day of a new century, but it was still only a coincidence. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re the social development: I just took that statement from the Millennium#Debate over millennium celebrations article I linked to - maybe it needs correcting. In the New York Times archive there are at least three accounts of celebrations (pdf files) on Dec. 31, 1899 - up to interpretation of course whether they are for a new century or really only a new year. The editorial one seems to be a century review, but that doesn't mean the celebrations were. BTW, also found this interesting page about Australia's 1901 commonwealth celebrations! WikiJedits (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it disgusting? The start of the year seems like a good time to do big things, and the year 1901 itself is just the way it happened. (Incidentally, I don't think finding a date disgusting is a valid criterion for vandalising an article.) — maestrosync ^talk — 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this the same date that black slaves were originally made free after the American Civil War? (Or celebrated their freedom?) Don't diss the date, it makes a new start to God's Great garden Katana Geldar 23:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Aswan High Dam

Why did the Soviet Union help the Eygptians to build the Aswan High Dam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.164.190 (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cold War strategising, have a look at Gamal Abdel Nasser and Suez Crisis. Mhicaoidh (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To cut a long story short: the US had stopped supporting this project a few years earlier. The USSR saw this dam as its entry into Egypt, as a way to win the support of Egypt. Because Nasser was popular in the Arab world, it was seen as a way to win the hearts and minds of Arab leaders. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You might also check out the Non-Aligned Movement. Basically Egypt was one of many states that flirted with both of the major super powers as a way of trying to get the best of both worlds; they were better at it than most. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Longest post-presidential career?

I'm wondering which US President lived the longest after leaving office. Was it Herbert Hoover, at 31 years?Woden325 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

According to our page List of United States Presidents by age, Gerald Ford had the longest retirement; however, Jimmy Carter will beat him sometime in the next three years. WikiJedits (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, no, you're right. I missed Hoover in that list. WikiJedits (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for. I was guessing based on this: Timeline of Presidents of the United States, but it's not nearly as precise. President Carter may well break Hoover's record, he's only a little over 4 years off. Woden325 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamentalist Mormon Women

Are fundamentalist Mormon women allowed to use hairspray63.215.26.209 (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I imagine "rules" would vary from sect to sect. A common theme, I would expect, is that they dress modestly and avoid vanity. So I would suspect that hairspray may be frowned upon in many of these communities. Friday (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What are these architectural grids?

These days I see lots of grids hanging off the sides of new buildings, which look like pergolas, but are extensions of the roof and have no vegetation. Is there another term for such a thing? I had thought for a while that this was some sort of Asian-influenced architecture, but I assume pergolas are Roman? -- Beland (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If they contain slats and louvres and aim to shade the building, then they are brise soleil. The illustrations in this article are a little atypical, more common is a grid over the whole face of the building, generally horizontal louvres to the south (in northern hemisphere) and vertical to the east and west, to deal with the varying altitude of the sun. There is an increase in this technique around the world as it's a passive, sustainable form of solar control as opposed to air conditioning. Slats and louvres are also fashionable at the moment compared to the tinted or reflective glass popular as solar control in the 80s. Mhicaoidh (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If your grid is not just an extension of a roof, but covers the side of a skyscraper downtown, it might be a structure designed to prevent "street canyon" wind effects that might damage the building or knock pedestrians off their feet. There was a building in one of the cities I lived in, where they had to install structures on a new high-rise after passer-bys found it close to impossible to walk in the street in high wind conditions. --Lisa4edit (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, they look exactly like the picture on Brise soleil from the Yorkshire Sculpture Park. Thanks! 8) There are also things like what's in Image:TropicalVerandah.jpg which seems less functional.

I'm still wondering if there was a strain of Asian architecture that had this kind of feature in it; check out the picture, for instance, of the Chinese building on latticework. I've added an expansion request to that article, if anyone's interested in researching the history of this decorative feature. -- Beland (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of credit card size?

I was curious if anyone knew the history of the size of credit cards? Why are they the size they are and not longer or shorter or square? The Credit Card entry does't seem to shine any light on this. Is it perhaps linked to the size of American business cards? If so, why are business cards the size they are? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably to fit in a wallet. I have Boy Scout merit badge cards from 1930–1940 that are a similar size. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In mathematics, there is an animal called the golden ratio. It is a ratio of length to width that repeats throughout nature and which is (purported to be) attractive. Credit cards are sized according to that ratio. Note: The golden ratio is such that the short side / long side = long side / (short side + long side). Wikiant (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

But they aren't. It says here that the dimensions are 85.60 by 53.98 mm, and measuring my own credit and bank cards confirms that. The golden ratio would give 87.34 instead of 85.60 mm (or if the 85.60 was kept the same, 52.90 mm instead of 53.98).

Googling for that standard together with the word "rationale", I find that the question has been discussed on the Reference Desks at least twice previously, and nobody came up with a reason then for the specific size. --Anonymous, 00:50 UTC, May 28, 2008.

Don't know about proportions, but the scale relates to the human hand or palm in a general way. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Human features generally follow the golden ratio, so fashioning the card according to the average human palm would also give you the golden ratio. The measurements you give are only 2% off of the golden ratio -- close enough. Wikiant (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It need not to be a rationale. Someone got to design a credit card. Cut a paper board and the others copied it. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the golden ratio rounded to the nearest 1/8 of an inch. --Carnildo (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's close to that, but it's not. The exact dimensions of 3+3/8 by 2+1/8 inches would convert to 85.725 x 53.975 mm. 53.98 is a reasonable rounding of 53.98 to hundredths of a millimeter, but 85.60 is not a reasonable rounding of 85.725. And 3+3/8 by 2+1/8 produces a ratio of 27/17, but 28/17 or 3+1/2 by 2+1/8 would be closer to the golden ratio. --Anonymous, 23:07 UTC, May 30, 2008.

It seems to me your starting from the wrong point with the second one... If you want to start with 3+3/8 inches, 2+1/8 is closer to the golden ratio then 2 inches. But I agree, it seems unlikely 3 3/8 inches would have become 85.60 mm Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest another angle, perhaps they were printed in factories already geared to produce similar cards such as drivers licences or IDs. Or it could have been related to how many you can get out of a plastic sheet with minimum wastage. Or perhaps the most efficient size for one of the early manual "swiping" machines. I recall it was quite an effort to imprint a card on the docket in one of those, incidentally is there a proper name? We called them "zip zap" here. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The current standard seems to be ISO 7810. Does anyone know, is it based on the size and shape of the original Diners Club card? Xn4 16:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Time Magazine [3] (1958), when Diners Club introduced their card in 1950 and American Express in 1958, they were joining earlier cards which had less general usability, including hotel cards and gas company cards. The credit cards probably followed the earlier size standard of those earlier cards, which had to fit in wallets sized for drivers' licenses, social security cards, and other ID cards and permits, pushing the size decision farther back still. Credit card says that such cards were used for fuel purchases back in the 1920's. Edison (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked VisaUSA the question, and they've kindly responded at length:

"The first cards were actually paper, and required frequent issuing and migrated to metal plates about the size of dog tags. It's believed that the size of the current payment card (also known as CR80 size) was created by the companies that made the equipment used to imprint and emboss the cards with - Farrington Manufacturing Company and Addressograph-Multigraph Co. Farrington was the inventor of the metal charge-plate system, but metal plates proved to be bulky and heavy for consumer use. Farrington Manufacturing Company is believed to be the first to have experimented with the use of plastic for a card material instead of paper or metal. It's believed that size of the card was derived from the size of the metal plates used in their equipment and from there evolved into the standard ISO compliant dimensions we know today."

"Unfortunately neither Farrington or Addressograph exists to validate this story, and I think most of the employees are since deceased. It would appear the rest of the world has been unable to arrive at the answer to this mystery of the cosmos so I am pleased that Visa can help."

I think that's about as much as we're ever likely to get. I am bowled over that Visa would take the time - several days - to research the answer; kudos & much thanks to them. -Tagishsimon (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin American nationalism

How come in the Americas, the Spanish-speaking countries don't have parties that deals with Latin American Nationalism like "Arab Nationalism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.131.33 (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A marxist would tell you nationalism is an illusion anyway. They don't have to have national or nationalism in their title to be nationalist. I've done African nationalism at University, and there was also a course on Latin America but I never did that one. African nationalism is quite unique, so I suspect there are unique features to Latin America too. SGGH ^speak! 09:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because colonialism is much further in the past for Latin America than it is for the Middle East (and Africa), and they have since sorted out their borders with plain old-fashioned wars. Perhaps also because, aside from the natives, everyone is a Spanish-speaking Catholic, so there are no ethnic and religious struggles. The big political movement in Latin America is liberation theology, isn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)