Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 15

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.

July 15

Historically accurate painting of Jesus' crucifixion

Does anybody know of a painting of Jesus' crucifixion that tries to be historically accurate? I've yet to see one that portrays Jesus as Middle Eastern instead of white, has "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" written on top in 3 languages, and features a T-shaped cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.16.144 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to be truly historically accurate since all evidence indicates that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, and even if you go with what people claim about his existence, it is filled with opinion, hope, speculation, assumption, conflicting ideas and so on. However, I guess this should be interpreted as a quest for the best historically accurate depiction based on what would likely to be the case, given where he lived, his ethnic background, the details of the common practices of crucifixions and so on. I looked but was not able to find much. See [1] and [2].--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That is just, well... wrong. There is no evidence afaik suggesting he didn't exist (none that I have heard about from several noted biblical archaeologists, all of whom are Jews btw). The earliest evidence about him is from 70 AD of course, so it's very sketchy. So there's no evidence suggesting he didn't exist, but no evidence that decisively says he did exist yet. To answer the OP. I'll bet someone has made a painting in recent years that matches what you're probably looking for. A man with olive complexion crucified through his wrists and hands. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I would go so far as to say that he definitively didn't exist. The best thing we can say is that we don't know how accurately the Gospels portay him in terms of historical accuracy, but there is pretty good consensus that he was a real person, in the same sense that other semi-mythic figures, such as the Buddha or King Arthur, that is there are real people behind the stories, its just that the details of their stories aren't well corroborated by other evidence. In other words, there was probably really a dude who lived in Israel at the time who probably led some sort of minor rebellion/heretical movement and may have been executed for it. How much of his story has been preserved accurately, and how much was embelished by his followers is, from a historical point of view, unknown, and possibly unknowable. But to say "all evidence indicates that he didn't exist" is plainly false also. --Jayron32 17:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And we have now wandered into a frequent topic at the Fringe Theories notice board, that of the Jesus myth theory. Jayron's view is, I believe, more currently accepted among scholars, but Fuhghettaboutit's view is also well represented among serious academics. You must realize that this field of scholarly research, more so than pretty much any other field, is tainted by the personal beliefs of those involved, and it can be hard for an outsider to truly get a grasp on how valid the current research is by different parties. Buddy431 (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What you refer to as "historically accurate" is based on opinion, not historical fact. With 2,000 years (about 100 generations) between the time of Jesus and the present, are you claiming that you are absolutely certain that the physical appearance of those around Israel/Palestine now is exactly as they appeared back then? If you want a factual example of how appearances change, look at Italy with African influence on the south and Germanic influence on the north. You can choose to have Jesus be anything you like. I live in a predominantly black area, so many people have paintings and pictures of Jesus as a black man, not white. I've also seen pictures of him as Asian. Then, there is the T-shaped cross. That is an assumption. There are historical records of using a T-shaped cross. There are historical records of using a pole. There are historical records of using a high branch of a tree. So, we just assume they used a T-shaped cross that time? Then, why three languages and that specific message? All in all, it is no more historical than the popular paintings. -- kainaw™ 00:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What I referred to as "historically accurate" was my impression of what most academics believe, not personal opinion. If you think the academic consensus is different, please explain why instead of trying to shoot down what you think are my own theories. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The current academic concensus afaik is that he did exist, but we don't have good enough evidence yet (hell, we didn't have evidence of Pontius Pilatus's existence until an amphitheatre dedicated by him was found). To some extent a lot of what people say is based on History Channel and NatGeo specials (that will piss off a lot of people, I know, but it's true). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact of Jesus' existence is hardly contested. Third century forgers simply would not have had the facts available to them to allow them to interpolate into Jesus' reported speech matters which have only recently become understandable through textual analysis in light of such long-lost evidence as the dead sea scrolls and so forth. Forgers would also not have inserted matters which are difficult for Christians to explain such as his brothers, his doubts on the cross, and his anger at the temple--these humanistic touches contradict the perfect and divine view that any would-be-forgers would have had. In effect, the imperfection of the 'forgery' proves its authenticity. There is nothing wrong with seeking out an historically plausible depiction of the event. But my favorite is Dali's Corpus Hypercubus. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Scholars, non-Christian and Christian, acknowledge that Epistles of Paul were written by him and probably less than 40 years after Jesus's death and so within living memory of those who knew Jesus. But a fierce Roman invasion of Israel and Jerusalem in 70 AD in which many people were slaughtered and whole towns raized probably destroyed much evidence. Yet a huge amount of non Christian evidence can still be got. The Roman historian Tacitus (first century) writes of Christus who suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Also the Jewish historian Josephus in his Antiqities who writes of "James the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ". Julius Africanus reported that someone called Thallus spoke of the darkness that came after the execution of Jesus. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) described the crucifixion/hanging of Jesus at the time of the Passover. Many of these sources also describe Jesus's activities some calling him a good man, a magician, a sourcerer. I think its fair to say that the man existed and that he had a following as a holy man in his own lifetime. --Bill Reid | (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

(Responding to Jayron, the original responder before Say Shalom! interlineated above him) I don't think you mean that article but probably Historicity of Jesus. Doesn't matter. We don't have an article that deals with the issue in any proper way. The evidence (mostly negative evidence, with both for and against being, by necessity, inductive in nature) is that he did not. The area is so full of apologetics and confirmation bias, a great deal of the scholarship coming from those assuming the truth of the question at issue and working to find evidence to support the result, that a statement about the consensus of scholars in this area is worthless until your separate out who are approaching the topic from an untainted place to actually consider the question from a logical standpoint, seeking to find the answer to a question, wherever evidence and logic would lead them. This is not an atheistic thing, though I am an atheist. I find religion fascinating, and have no stake in finding one way or the other, but it is very difficult to let the evidence take you were it will when one is a believer which, perforce of that belief, assumes already that of course Jesus existed, making it near impossible for one to approach the question scientifically. From the standpoint of someone examining it like an archeologist, the lack of evidence where it should be seen is startlingly and the arguments for his existence are, where they aren't begging the question which is seen in a vast amount of the scholarship, relatively weak rationalizations. To get into a vast debate over the evidence is probably beyond the scope here. I have read much in the area and stand by what I said.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Three languages - see

• Christ Crucified (Velázquez) 1632
• Christ on the Cross with Saints Mary, John the Evangelist and Catherine of Siena 1575
• this crucifix 1492

T-shape - see

• White Crucifixion 1938
• Starck Triptych c. 1480
• The Beautiful Mess contemporary
• Freiburg altar 1512 (may also have three languages but it's hard to tell)
• Crucifixion by Jorg Breu the Elder 1524
• this sketch by Michaelangelo
• Tergensee Passion 1446 (though this looks like an old man, so I'm not sure if it is supposed to be Jesus)
• this by Master of the Virgo inter Virgines 1490 (though maybe it's just cut off at the top of the image)
• Crucifixion by Paolo Veneziano 1390
• Crucifix in Assissi by Cimabue 1280

Your other criterion I'm not really sure how to evaluate. Jesus has a darker skin in this image. 184.147.120.65 (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Black Madonna discusses Maries with a dark skin tone; I'm not sure about pictures of adult Jesus. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing a source numerous times

I'm writing a rather lengthy research paper utilizing 45 different sources. I'm using the Tiburian citation style because it is footnote friendly. I know how to use the style when listing in footnotes and the bibliography, but what if I cite 2 or 3 of the same books over and over again? Is there an abbreviated format in Tiburian style that I can use, like "last name, page #" or "last name, book name, page #"? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean Turabian. There is an abbreviated footnote format. See this guide. You usually use "Last name, Abbreviated book name, page #." You can also use "Last name, page #," too. Just be consistent either way. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

ibid. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

2 part question about ADOLF HITLER

ok the first part of this question IS. Does Hitler have any living progeny or relatives, and if so have they been OUTED. if they have been outed, so to speak, do people harrass them because they are related? I think harrassment is wrong, so you don't need to list their names here, I am just wondering if it has ever happened.

My second question is about the surname HITLER. Before World War II, was it a common name in German-speaking lands? or was it highly unusual?--Fran Cranley (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so we know at what level of knowledge that you're starting from, have you read the Hitler family article? Dismas|^(talk) 04:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you ask that question. I did read some things on Wikipedia about Hitler's relatives but I can't find anything about his relatives that are alive TO THIS DAY, nor about whether they have experienced harrassment. I am not talking about the 1960s, etc, I mean in contemporary times.--Fran Cranley (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no members of his immediate family still living. His sister, Paula Hitler was the only one of his 5 siblings to reach adulthood, and she had no offspring. Hitler had none, either. That line is finished. The article Hitler family shows lines at the level of the siblings of Hitler's parents and grandparents who may have living descendents, but the last date there, and it is for the Braun family rather than the Hitlers, is 1972. Bielle (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See Leo Rudolf Raubal Jr, who was Hitler's half-nephew (the son of his half-sister Angela Hitler). Leo Rudolf Raubal Jr is deceased, but he had children who appear to be still alive; his children (which would be Hitler's half-grand-nephews and half-grand-neices) would be Hitlers closest relatives still alive. Hitler had several other half-siblings as well, and their grandchildren (such as the living children of William Patrick Hitler) would be equally as closely related. There appears to be roughly a half-dozen or so living "half-grand-nephews/neices" of Hitler roaming the planet, and these are his closest living relatives. --Jayron32 04:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your second question, see this archived question. "Adolf's father, Alois Hitler, was illigitimate, but took the surname of Johann Georg Hiedler who married his mother when Alois was 5 years old. The name Hitler seems to have been the product of a bureaucratic spelling mistake.". Alansplodge (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The name Hitler was unusual or unique in the German-speaking countries and now appears very likely to have died out (though distant relatives with other surnames are alive today). Marco polo (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed a Hitler in the German telephone guide. I suppose he is the subject of constant telephone pranks by German teenagers.

Purchasing power in Russia and the Baltic states.

I've been using an interesting website - http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/ - for getting information on average salaries, cost of living and costs of individual products and services recently. Curiously, their information on the local purchasing power seems to suggests the purchasing power (and mean salaries) are higher in Russia, compared with Latvia or Lithuania (they still have Estonia's purchasing power as higher than in Russia).

To be honest, I find this really surprising. Can anyone corroborate this or dispute their findings? For I've been expecting the purchasing power and salaries in Russia to be lower than in those two Baltic economies (other statistics give Russia's HDI as much lower than in those countries). Does anyone have information on the data offered? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Statistics from the European Commission have some information on the cost of living in Lithuania and Latvia; there's also some more information in the Working conditions > Renumeration section. Comparing these with the figures for Russia from Numbeo, it does appear that salaries in Russia are higher, as are the costs of goods (providing I'm not reading/converting incorrectly!) --Kateshortforbob _talk 13:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not all that surprising to me, as Russia quickly moved to capitalism, while many of the other communist nations were slower to adapt. This, combined with a lack of subsidies from Russia and trade with the Warsaw Pact, in many cases led to stagnant economies, such as in Cuba. StuRat (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. In particular it is not true when comparing Baltics and Russia (though I guess it's true for Russia vs. Cuba). Anyway, I'm not sure what the surprise is. Cost of living is usually higher in richer countries - see Balassa-Samuelson effect. So the fact that it is higher in Latvia and Estonia should come as no surprise. The only weird thing is the "Local Purchasing Power" entry - but really, who knows how they came up with that, what it actually represents or how they got their data. In fact, this sort of looks like it's just a user generated site where anyone can enter whatever they think happens to be right. Overall, this is junk.

If you want real numbers then you got to go to international organizations which actually invest a buttload of money in gathering data, double checking it etc. You can also see official government websites but those usually are not going to adjust for purchasing power parity deviations (i.e. different prices across countries). You should also be suspicious of any place that gives you "up to date" (like 2011 or even 2010) data. Quite simply it takes about 6 months just to collect the data under ideal circumstances (in the richest countries) and at least another 6 months to process it. So anything that's remotely accurate is going to be for 2009 or before.

So, looking at World Bank data really quick gives:

Converted at market exchange rates, Estonia's 2009 per capita GDP is 6113$, Latvia's is 4973$ (down from 6296$ in 2007 because of the recent crisis) and Russia's is 2805$. So Russia's per capita GDP is 45% of Estonia, and 56% of Latvia's (even taking into account that Latvia was especially hit by the financial crisis). Now, of course these numbers don't adjust for differences in cost of living across countries.

So, converted at purchasing power parity adjustment (this is done relative to the $, hence, implicitly to each other), Estonia's 2009 per capita GDP is 16132$, Latvia's 12847$ (down from 16265$ in 2007) and Russia's is 13611$. Russia's PPP adjusted per capita GDP is then 84% of Estonia's and it is 5% higher than Latvia's. What this means is that yes, cost of living is lower in Russia than in the two Baltic countries (I forgot to pull Lithuanian data and don't feel like doing it again). The fact that stuff costs more in Estonia reduces the gap between it's average income and Russian average income from a 55% difference to a 16% difference. For Latvia it goes from Latvia being seemingly richer by 46% to Latvia being poorer - once costs of living are taken into account - by 5%. Again, for Latvia this comes from the fact that the financial crisis was particularly severe. If they bounce back from it they'll likely experience a couple years of very rapid growth and it will look very much like the Estonia-Russia difference.

One last word about the Human Development Index - that takes even longer to compile. In addition to per capita income it includes the level of education and life expectancy. In terms of education levels there's probably very little difference between the Baltics and Russia (since they pretty much inherited the same educational system and this kind of thing is very "sticky"). Likewise, Eastern Europe as a whole tends to have a low life expectancy given it's income - all that drinking and smoking. I'd guess that Russia's probably lower than Estonia's and Latvia's, so the difference in the HDI would be slightly greater than the differences in per capita incomes. But that's just a conjecture. I might look it up tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

@StuRart: I'm afraid you are wrong on most accounts. Shock therapy in the Baltic states was actually more aggressively pursued than in Russia and given the higher GDP in the soviet Baltic republics one can doubt as to who had been subsidizing whom.

@VM: Yes, I was aware of the differences in GDP, but seemingly believed the income in Russia to be still considerably lower than in Lithuania/Latvia (perhaps also because of my memory clinging to comparisons made here in Estonia concerning Estonia vs. Russia, leaving the two other Baltic states out and also considering that although GDPwise Estonia ranks a bit higher than Poland, yet the salaries seem to be a bit lower - and most definitely were some years ago (I remember a document on that from around the time of our EU accession).

The input to the NUMBEO 'local purchasing power' indicator includes 'Median Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax)' which they claim to be higher in Russia (than in LT/LV). I will try to find verifiable materials on salaries (just googled this link: [3] “Personal disposable income went up 3.2 percent to 18,183 rubles ($648) in May” i.e. 458 euros). They indeed have it higher in Russia. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, essentially GDP per capita = income (there's some subtleties - whether you're talking about "income of an average person living in Russia" (GDP) or "income of an average person with Russian citizenship" (GNP), how tax payments are handled, and how capital depreciation is treated - but all these are essentially minor). The purchasing power adjusted income in Latvia is (slightly) lower in Russia essentially because Latvia was hit particularly hard by the recent financial crisis. Usually what happens in situations like these is that you see a large drop in incomes then a pretty quick recovery (trend-reversion) after the crisis is over. So it's very likely that in the next five years or so Latvia's average income will come back to where it as.

The "salaries vs GDP" thing has to do with labor's share in GDP. Basically GDP is income from all sources (labor, capital, land) whereas salaries (roughly) only constitute income from labor. So here it depends on how widely the distribution of ownership of firms and land is. I don't think there's any substantial difference in this regard between Russia and the Baltics - again, since they all inherited a lot from the Soviet Union, and these kinds of variables can be very persistent, it means there's very little difference.

I'm not seeing any comparison between Russia and the Baltics in the link you provide. Be careful with comparing numbers from different sources as the adjustment for cost of living and differences in cost of living across countries can be quite different from source to source. This is also why you can't pull income numbers from the Russian gov website and pull some numbers from the Latvian gov website and compare them - it's not that the data is sketchy or wrong, it's just that a different measuring stick is being used, it's like comparing inches and centimeters (neither is wrong, just a different measuring standard). It is essential to use data from a single source for these kinds of comparisons.

And like I said, when I was looking up the data I forgot to include Lithuania in the comparison but that can be easily done (get your numbers from here for example).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Philosopher

Is it possible to be recognized as a philosopher without a formal academic degree in philosophy? --Owlzz (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Read about Eric Hoffer, a self-educated "longshoreman philosopher," who was widely honored for his original contributions in numerous books about philosophy and the psychology of mass movements. Edison (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You can be recognized as just about anything without "formal training", there are many alternate paths to careers and vocations, and some people without formal training in a field go on to be very notable in that field. Srinivasa Ramanujan was a very skilled mathematician who had almost no formal schooling at all. My wife had a college professor who, before he earned his PhD, hadn't had any schooling beyond the eighth grade. He literally went, on paper from not having a high school diploma to having a PhD. While the path to getting a job is harder for people without any training at all, it isn't impossible. What you need to be "recognized" is the ability to do the job; while a training certificate or diploma is a convenient means to "prove" said ability, you can also prove it by, well, doing it. --Jayron32 15:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ramanujan had considerable formal schooling, starting school at age 5, and attending primary school, secondary school and college until he was 18 or 19. Unfortunately, from his early teens onwards, his obsession with mathematics lead to a lack of interest and poor performance in all other subjects. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. But he still had no "academic degree" in mathematics, and his mathematical skills were not taught to him as part of any formal school program. He didn't get his PhD and then start working in the field, his knowledge of mathematics is almost completely self-taught and we are still "allowed" to call him a mathematician despite all of that. The point is merely that being something isn't contingent upon having a piece of paper that says you are it. --Jayron32 16:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't work with everything, though. You can have the best driving skills in the world but if you've never held a licence, or the one you had has expired or been cancelled, then there's no way you can be a "licenced driver". You really do need that little card to be that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course. But we're talking about academic qualifications and professions, not driving cars. I suppose your exception would work for jobs like Truck Driver and some highly regulated professions like "Surgeon" and "Lawyer", but there are still lots of professions in the world where "being able to do the job" is enough. I'm not positive either, but I do believe that even with someone like a Lawyer, being able to pass the bar exam should qualify you as a lawyer even if you didn't have a degree. It may still be technically possible to be a self-trained lawyer. --Jayron32 21:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Ramanujan was something of an unknown until a guy with a PhD picked him up, took him to a university setting, and told everyone how brilliant he was. It's not like he was living in a hut away from academia or anything. It really depends who you want to be recognized by. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Aristotle, Plato and Socrates didn't have PhDs. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So all you need are togas? (Seriously, the ancients aren't exactly useful for discussing anything modern relating to being recognized as something.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Plato founded the Academy of Athens, which was virtually the beginning of modern academia (hence the name), and Aristotle studied and taught there for several years. So by the standards of the day they were as scholarly certified as they could be. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing Plato did had much to do with the material or social circumstances of the present. I suspect that what Plato and Aristotle did at said institutions had virtually no relationship with what is currently done in the academy. The modern research university is a very new institution by comparison. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure any card-carrying philosophers consider her to be much of a philosopher. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends who you want to be recognized by. Academic philosophy is an inward-looking institution that, like most of academia, doesn't really acknowledge the possibility that anyone outside of academia has a brain. You're going to have a hard time getting them to care about your work unless you speak their language verbatim, and even then, if you don't have a position to back you up, then you're just an "independent scholar" which is a term that means "totally crazy person" to an established academic.

If you don't care about academia, then it's just a matter of impressing a lot of other people. Ayn Rand is an example — she wrote books that purportedly contained a lot of philosophy. Very few academic philosophers would consider her "philosophical" work to be of much interest. But the general interest is there, to the point that she's still a best-selling author. Her best-sellingness has of course encouraged academics to pay more attention to her than they would otherwise.

Having a PhD does not mean "I am very smart." It means, "I did my time in the trenches, I got up to speed on the formal canon you expect me to know, and if it's from a good institution, I'm either good at standardized testing or are well-connected or are clearly fairly clever." For other academics it's the mandatory pass to say "ok, you can talk to us," but it doesn't mean a whole lot objectively beyond that. That's not to knock 'em — they do mean something — but it's important to recognize that they are more like a passport to a rather insular and isolated country than they are like a certification of intelligence. (I say this as someone who has one such passport.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, although I titles this post "Philosopher", I am talking about recognition in any field as an expert without formal academic degree in that field. I found the name of architect like Daniel Burnham who did not have degree in architecture. --Owlzz (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognition by whom? μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It really depends on the field in any case. Some fields of study are more amenable to outsiders than others. It does not surprise me that a practice-based field like architecture would have a few people in it who displayed their expertise through their works than their fields. In some fields this is very unlikely. But you're also picking an example from the 19th century, before many fields professionalized too much anyway. It doesn't make any sense to pick very old historical examples as models of the present. A huge amount has changed in professionalization of many fields since then. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Jacques Lacan trained as a psychoanalyst but his writings have had a huge influence on recent philosophy. Sigmund Freud wrote philosophical works which influenced many people. Friedrich Hayek studied law and economics. Friedrich Nietzsche's education was in philology. Ernst Mach studied physics and mathematics. Herbert Marcuse's doctorate was in literature; I believe so was György Lukács's but I can't find any confirmation online.--Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Buying a house, an apartment, and condominiums in population declining cities

I got a friend who says that he wants to move to either Chicago where he grew up or Detroit where he was born. I read that both Chicago's and Detroit's population has decreased significantly. In 1950, Chicago had a population of over 3.6 million people, and Detroit had a population of over 1.84 million, but today Chicago has about 2.7 million and Detroit has over 700,000 people. Does that mean that with less people in those cities today, there are a lot of empty houses, apartments, and condos now, and my friend buying a house, a condo, or an apartment in either those cities would be much easier now than in the 1950s? Would that make them cheaper too? Willminator (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In theory, yes. At least to some extent. I'm not too familiar with Chicago/Detroit real estate prices, but some Swedish regions have an experience of depopulation over last decades. You may find a house in some distant parts of Smaland and Norrbotten for 50,000 SEK (the same house in Stockholm might cost well over 4 million SEK). I saw a newsreport once of a family-sized house (seemingly with multiple bedrooms) outside Boden being sold for 10,000 SEK cash about 5-6 years ago (in Stockholm people can pay up to 10,000 SEK for 1 month rent for a tiny apartment in the city). Basically, you have people who own a house they moved out from long ago and are willing to sell as fast as possible.

That however applies mainly to individual houses for sale. With apartments it might be quite different. Probably many of the apartment blocks that housed workers in Detroit have been torn down by now, so the supply of apartments is not necessarily much larger. To maintain a large multi-apartment building is quite costly, and if the owner has several unrented apartments for a longer time it is likely the building will be torn down or converted into something else.

Also, do bear in mind that consumers in 1950 might have had different preferences than today. Perhaps people lived in larger families in rather crowded spaces? Then the number of apartments might be static, just that each individual occupies a much larger space. --Soman (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And would that mean that that the opposite is true for cities with a growing population; that it is harder to find and more expensive to buy a house or condo in cities with growing populations like New York (yep, I said New York) and Los Angeles? Willminator (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The decline in Detroit is well-documented by the media including a year-long series by Time magazine. One of the mayor's major promises was to tear down 3,000 houses a year (so far, on schedule, too). He also put together a panel to investigate abandoning sections of the city (or converting them to farms). Affording a home in the city is only one issue. Rmhermen (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• For the two cities that you name: Chicago is more expensive than in the 1950s, with very little empty housing, while Detroit is much cheaper, with lots of empty housing. While Chicago's urban population has declined, its overall population has swelled by 70% since the 1950s. Nationwide, the size of the average American house is 2.5 times larger than in the 1950s. Inner-city Chicago is no exception: lots of places that squeezed in a family of 6 or so in the 1950s are now typically for families of 2 or 3. What makes Detroit different is that its population decline has been sharper, and while in 1950 Detroit was wealthy by American standards, now it's poor by American standards. --M@rēino 17:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Half price Detroit homes Rmhermen (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(after many ECs)Chicago is VERY different than Detroit. Chicago has become heavily gentrified, in that many older, poorer neighborhoods have been torn down and replaced by very rich neighborhoods. When I was living in Chicago (1998-2000), I lived in Little Italy, Chicago, a part of the Near West Side, Chicago. I lived in a third-floor appartment of one of those ubiquitous Chicago graystones, but when I walked to campus at UIC where I was attending grad school at the time, I walked right past some of the most blighted, run-down housing project blocks in the city. They were literally tearing those down and replacing them with $500,000 two bedroom townhomes. The population decline in Chicago is mostly a result of gentrification; that is old high-density housing blocks being replaced by relatively lower density, and very expensive, upper-middle-class housing. Chicago is suffering from the same depression in housing prices as anywhere, but you are still not going to find any "steals" there, land and housing is very expensive. Detroit is another matter entirely. For various reasons outside of the scope of this question, Chicago has not really suffered the sort of "rust belt" economic collapse that Detroit has, and as a result, where as Chicago has become gentrified, Detroit has become abandoned. You can literally buy a single family home in Detroit for under $1000 (not that you'd necessarily want to live in it), consider that the Silverdome stadium Sold for the same price as a 1200-square foot condo in Chicago. Detroit is in a vastly different situation. The city is currently in the process of evacuating and disincorporating large swaths of territory. If price is your only concern (say, you can work from home and don't need a job and could literally live anywhere), and you do your research and find a decent neighborhood, Detroit definitely offers some real "steal", from a real-estate point of view. If you can afford a home in Chicago, you may be able to afford a whole neighborhood in Detroit. Or maybe a Stadium. --Jayron32 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As a Detroiter, I have to address some misconceptions:

1) The Pontiac Silverdome is not in Detroit. It's in Pontiac, another Michigan city with similar problems. (It's might be considered a Detroit suburb, but note that there are nice suburbs between the two, which are thriving.)

2) The decline in Detroit city population is caused by white flight and, more recently, the collapse of the American-made automobile industry (due largely to globalization).

3) While the population of Detroit proper has been declining for decades, much of that is movement to the suburbs, so the Detroit metropolitan area population has been more or less steady.

4) While Detroit Mayor Dave Bing did propose closing off parts of the city, that proposal didn't got over well, and seems dead-in-the-water to me.

5) Even within Detroit, the decline is highly patchy. That is, some areas are abandoned with nothing left but squatters and crack houses, while other communities are doing well. Of course, the house prices are higher in the good areas, but still well below the national average.

6) Beware that Detroit proper has a city income tax, so perhaps a suburb might be better, if you want to avoid that. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of going to go go off topic a bit, but I got to point something out that you all seem to be saying. Correct me if I misunderstood you all. It seems like you guys are saying that the reason Chicago’s population is declining is because its doing better since the city is becoming gentrified, but from what I’ve read Chicago is becoming poorer and doing worse like, Detroit. Retail taxes in Chicago are the highest in the country, the public school system is pretty bad and is bad and empty, and crime is becoming worse. “The horrible public schools, high taxes, and crime have driven families out of Chicago." Willminator (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that I lived there a little over 10 years ago, but I didn't see a "city in decline". Yeah, Chicago had its shithole neighborhoods, but in general it wasn't a bad city to live in. My wife goes back every year (sometimes more often) for training at McCrone Research Institute, and she hasn't reported any sort of Escape from New York-type urban apocalypse that the article you have cited seems to make out the city to be under. The article cites some copious statistics to make its case, including population declines, all of which could be true, but I'm not sure it effectively makes the case that the lower population necessarily indicates a city in true economic decline. Maybe all those half-million-dollar condos I witnessed going up have reverted to slums in the past decade, but if you want a real picture of home prices in Chicago and Detroit, look at these two maps: Chicago and Detroit. I'm not sure they need a lot of explanation. For comparison, the median home price for the entire midwest region was $136,400 as of July 6, 2011. By that metric, considering that prices in Chicago are almost half again as big as that number, while Detroit's are about 1/3 of that number says a lot about the economic health of the two cities. The demise of Chicago is likely being highly exagerated by the article you cited... --Jayron32 05:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks bro. Not to go off topic, but I have to admit I laughed a bit when I saw you said "s**thole." Willminator (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

One other advantage to a city with a declining population is fewer traffic jams (although construction crews do their best to create traffic jams, by closing all but one lane for months before and after any actual work). StuRat (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Random capitalization

I was reading up on the USA Constitution and was wondering why random words are capitalized in the text, such as: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Any ideas? -- Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.199.241 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In the 18th century it was common to capitalise all nouns, as is the case in German now. It went out of style in the 19th century and I would be interested to read when and why. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was fun to read the capitalized words as indicators of verbal emphasis. I wonder if that holds any water: sure, "the common defence" is important enough to bear mention in a nation's Constitution, but what we're really doing with this newfangled document is to establish Justice-with-a-capital-J! A handy cheat sheet passed with love from Jefferson down to future high school students (i.e. his Posterity). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

{[ec}}I'm pretty sure that particular usage died out very soon after the Constitution was written; by the early-to-mid 1800's many American authors were devoloping a more modern approach to capitalization, for example the works of people like Emily Dickinson and the Transcendentalist authors (Thoreau, Emerson, Hawthorne, etc.) don't show the capitalization convention shown in the constitution. Here is Ralph Waldo Emerson's Essays: First Series, published in 1841: [4]. Compare to Susanna Rowson's novel Charlotte Temple published 50 years before, in 1791 [5]. It doesn't capitalize every noun, but you can see some strange capitalizations like in the Constitution (the phrase "Tale of Truth", for example, or the word "Fancy"). It seems the modern capitalization convention developed in sometime between those two works. Checking Washington Irving's work The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, published smack between the other two works, in 1820, we find a completely modern capitalization as well: [6]. So that narrows it down even more; it most definately changed sometime around the turn of the 19th century. As to why it happened, my suspicion is that it occured due to the influence of the great dictionary writers like Noah Webster, which is really when the modern American form of English took shape as distinct from the British forms. No definitive proof of that, however. --Jayron32 18:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I suspect the behaviour of editors, publishers and printers is more significant than the behaviour of authors. I wonder whether the USA was first in adopting the present convention or whether Britain was, or whether the change happened at the same time in both countries.

It seems the French came first. At least from a quick browse of 17th and 18th century French books on Google Books, it is obvious that they did not capitalise nouns in French. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the above posters wondered which country first adopted non-capitalization in English, not in some other language... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we know that those Project Guttenberg pages reflect the capitalization of the first edition of the works? If the works were reprinted later in the 19th or 20th century, things like capitalization would probably have been editorially emended, and if the PG version is taken from one of those, then of course it will show a more modern editorial style. Pais (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Though Google Ngrams can be problematic for periods earlier than the 19th century, I thought this graph and this one were in particular interesting. See also this one. These would suggest that it was something that was quite common in the early 17th century but by 1776 was definitely a waning practice. Perhaps they were intending to invoke a Lofty and Older period. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the early 18th century? Actually, extending your graphs back to 1600 suggests that capitalization of nouns was popular only for the first half of the 18th century, while in the 17th century they rather used the present-day non-capitalization... Your explanation for the founders' old-fashioned language use makes sense, in any case.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Which U.S. officials could propose a two bracket income tax only treaty?

Which authorities in the U.S. executive branch (and Senate? e.g. Carl Levin[7]) have the authority to propose a multilateral treaty converting tax systems from sales and property taxes to two bracket income taxes only? Would such a proposal work better as an amendment to an existing tax treaty than as a new treaty? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Anybody can propose a treaty. Only the executive branch can negotiate a treaty. In principle such a negotiation can be carried out by anybody empowered by the president to do so. The resulting treaty would be subject to Advice and Consent by the Senate -- I suspect though that because of the fiscal implications the House of Representatives would also have to agree in some way. Looie496 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping that there were specific official(s) in the State, Commerce, or other executive departments whose job responsibility includes tax treaty negotiations. I understand that the president might need to approve such proposals, but I wonder, for example, if a cabinet secretary or one of their designees could begin such negotiations without prior explicit presidential approval. Have citizen diplomats ever initiated treaty negotiations? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Any official negotiation needs to be authorized by the president. It is always possible to have preliminary unofficial negotiations, which can be conducted by anybody, but they would only be discussions and wouldn't imply any formal commitment. Diplomats in general are very wary about negotiating with people who don't have the authority to reach a binding agreement. Looie496 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing the appropriate point of contact would be Robert Hormats. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)