Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 20

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.

August 20

why did mike myers and Robin Ruzan divorce?

This question has been moved to the Entertainment Desk Exxolon (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

American search and rescue dogs

Did any American search and rescue dogs participate in the same efforts following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami?24.90.202.42 (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Weiyang Palace

How could Liu Bang justify the building of another monumental palace even larger than Epang Palace, six years after it's burning, which along with Qin Shihuangdi's mausoleum and the Great Wall had claim countless lives during the despotic rule of the previous dynasty?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The deal with an absolute monarchy is The monarch is the state, and so ostentatious displays of wealth and power mean not only that the monarch is able to build them, but by extension the state is also strong enough. Monarchs across cultures and time have always felt the need for ostentatious displays of their wealth, and by extension the strength of the state they lead. How is Weiyang functionaly different, in this regard, than is Versailles or Sanssouci? Look, despite being involved in numerous expensive wars across Europe, Louis XIV found the enormous amount of money needed to expand a little country cottage into the model royal palace for all of Europe, in terms of its size and expense, it made little sense. After all, one might say if Louis is going to get involved in all of these wars, and if wars cost money, why is he also blowing so much on this rediculous building? In the end its probably the paradoxical truth that the monarch in the weaker position financially needs to build the bigger palace. After all, how better to prove that you are NOT in financial staights than to blow large sums of cash on a huge palace. Its probably the same deal for most of these sorts of palaces. --Jayron32 03:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This complex is one of the major reasons why Japan has been so successful in modern times. Historically, they didn't have to prove to people they were so rich, because they knew their state was smaller than China, larger than Korea or the Ainu people, and threw out every other society except a small Dutch colony on an island in a bay in Kyoto. Because of that, they didn't have to impress foreigners, and when they almost deforested Honshu and southern Hokkaido in the 1500s from building opulent structures, the emperors and shoguns decided to be more environmentally sensitive. Because they didn't care about impressing foreigners, they were able to drastically cut back the number, size, and scale of new building projects, far more than they could have if they tried to compete with other societies. They started managing their resources better, and didn't get sucked into the same cycle as the Chinese emperors, who brought about their demises from draining the treasuries. And look where the two countries are now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Australian election count television?

Hi, is there any internet streams accessible outside Australia of tv coverage of tomorrow's Australia election vote count? 121.72.203.118 (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Australian does a decent job http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-analyser Jabberwalkee (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have heard a rumour that ABC will let non-Australian users view their live coverage on the webcast here. In the UK last time, the coverage from Sky News Australia was shown on one of the UK Sky News 'red button' selections. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 121.72.208.23 (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaving Berlin mid-1945 - going where?

Hi,

Something I've wondered since watching Downfall, and gotten more curious the more I read - according to our article, upon the announcement of Operation Clausewitz, "all ministries and departments" left Berlin. According to our article on Hanna Reitsch, in the final days, she left "flying the last German plane out of Berlin". My question is - to where were they going? When I visited the Imperial War Museum a few months back, a plaque read that the Allies had occupied the rest of Germany by this point, so where could Hanna land, and where did the ministries decamp to? And if there was unoccupied territory remaining to which people could and did flee, why was the capital not moved there, as surely it would be better to conduct the war, even its end, from unoccupied territory rather than an encircled, devastated city? --Saalstin (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This map shows, in blue, Axis territory in the last days of the war. I don't think Hitler was ever going to leave Berlin; for one, he was either too deeply resigned or in denial. Also, moving an entire government is more difficult than even moving all the people in it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, very interesting - thank you very much :) --Saalstin (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer your more specific question about Reitsch's final destination, our article states that Reitsch was instructed to join Karl Dönitz, who was head of the final Nazi "government" in Flensburg. So she probably intended to fly to Flensburg. Marco polo (talk)

See also Flensburg Government. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There was also some concern at the time that a national redoubt was being set up in the Bavarian Alps. As it turned out this was propaganda fabricated by Goebbels.Comradezombie1 (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

also see rat lines where catholic priests helped to smuggle Nazi's out of europe mostly to south america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Did the intelligence services of the US and UK assist high ranking Nazis in escaping so they could help in postwar anticommunist efforts? Did this extend to safehouses and fake papers, or just looking the other way? Edison (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the political and military leadership, but a large number of scientists and their research were brought out. I do not know how politically affiliated these individuals were to the previous regime, however. Googlemeister (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

About which, see the article Operation Paperclip. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the US imported Von Braun and other relatively non-political Nazi rocket scientists, who scaled up the V2 to create the Saturn V and achieve the 1969 moon landing, but I was more interested in German intelligence officers who were in various ways sheltered by the Allies because of their usefulness in fighting Communism during the Cold War. Edison (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Gehlen Organization fits the bill? Recruiting former SS officers to spy against USSR in postwar. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See also, ODESSA. P. S. Burton (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Blimp/Zeppelins

While watching Saving Private Ryan, after the storming of the beach, you can see many troops and artillery entering the beach in the background. There appear to be a few blimps attached to the landing craft, and I was wondering what the purpose of them would be. I've seen similar images on other war time films over cities, and I assumed they might be used for observation, but it doesn't make as much sense there. My only other thought would be that they could somehow stop arial assaults, though I can't see how. -- WORMMЯOW  13:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind - I've just found Barrage balloon-- WORMMЯOW  13:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Sonnet 12

I read the following statement concerning Shakespeare's Sonnet 12: "The placing of the sonnet within the sequence matches the number of minutes (60) in an hour." What does this mean? I cannot figure out what they are saying. What does the ordering of this particular sonnet as number 12 have to do with the number 60? I am confused. Can anyone offer any insight into this? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

The statement in question appears not in the Wikipedia article but in "Sparknotes.". It does not make much sense, so perhaps you should contact the author of the Sparknotes in question. The number 12 recalls the numbers shown on a clock face. Another crib, Cummings, talks about the mention of minutes in Sonnet 60, which makes a bit more sense. Edison (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this is typical academic over-analysis. I seriously doubt that Shakespeare themed his sonnets based on the order in which he included them in a folio. I mean, I'm sure there's all sorts of mathematical relationships that you can pull out of this: 12 is 1/5 of 60, there are 5 feet in every line of a sonnet, there are 12 lines in the main body of a sonnet... and lo, I count the moments of the days; with metered lines to give the hour its praise. poppycock... --Ludwigs2 17:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The brain is a wonderful pattern matching tool. Over-analysis of the Bard or conspiracy theory (the Bard didn't write anything himself, the greatest lie in literature), it all comes from the same part of the brain! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So, once again, can anyone offer insight into what the author of that quote may have meant? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

Not without seeing the quote in context (that page is not provided in the online book preview that was linked). --Ludwigs2 20:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There really is no context. Page 1, for example, is titled Sonnet 1 ... and it discusses Sonnet 1. Page 2 is the same for Sonnet 2 ... and so on down the line. Page 12 is titled "Sonnet 12", and there is a footnote after the title. The footnote is the quote listed above. Namely: "The placing of the sonnet within the sequence matches the number of minutes (60) in an hour." Thoughts? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

My thoughts: a hastily put together badly edited book. I suspect the author wished to make the point that sonnet 12 deals with time and has an encoded reference just as sonnet 60 does, but managed to fumble the remark (why mention there are 60 minutes in the hour anyway, not many don't know that). There are much better works analyzing the sonnets but you could try this site first. Also sonnet 81 mentions other significantly numbered sonnets and discusses climacterics. meltBanana 04:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The line would make perfect sense as a footnote to sonnet 60, which speaks of minutes. Maybe somebody was copying and pasting but forgot to change it to "the placing of the sonnet within the sequence matches the numbers (12) on a clock." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yes, that makes the most sense. It was probably intended as a footnote for Sonnet 60, and it fell through the cracks of the editing process. Or, the wording was incorrectly edited if indeed it were intended as a footnote for Sonnet 12. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

PLA Woman

Who was the woman, quite prominent in the PLA, during the time of Arafatt (?). ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanstaple (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hanan Ashrawi? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks jonny- this was one of those occasions where it seemed easier to prod a person rather than submit a cluggy google query- thank you again- Stanstaple (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Gini coefficient of a commercial entity

Has any commercial entity ever publicized its own internal Gini coefficient? -- Wavelength (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know -- but many news stories have contained stats along the lines of that in Japan the average income of a top executive is something like 7 times the average income of an ordinary worker, while in the U.S. it's more like 100 times (though I don't remember the exact numbers). AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha! - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the Gini Coefficient is a measure of income distribution within a population, if a commercial entity (company?) were to “publicized [publish?] its own internal Gini coefficient,” it would have to measure the income distribution, say, in Microsoft, and do so based on (one assumes) the extremely narrow salary and other company-provided data. Since the human resources department already has all the salary-and-benefits data it might need, I find no reason why anyone would want to calculate a Gini Coefficient about a specific company. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben & Jerry's ice cream company used to have a policy that no employee's pay would exceed 7 times that of the lowest-paid worker, which effectively states their worst-case GC (of income). --Sean 14:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)