Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 May 10

Humanities desk
< May 9	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 11 >

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.

May 10

Is it easier to sell a commercial property in China with or without a restaurant lessee?

Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• We can neither offer an opinion nor financial or legal advice. μηδείς (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Debt

Is there a list showing how much debt each country is in? 84.13.22.227 (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

See List of countries by external debt. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That list includes private debt, a table which shows the amount that governments are in debt would be found at List of countries by public debt under the heading "Net government debt as % of GDP". 173.32.72.65 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and the name "Jehovah"

I have two questions regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses, both involving their use of the name "Jehovah".

1. Exactly why did they decide on the name Jehovah's Witnesses? I am aware that the "Witnesses" part comes from Isaiah 43:10, but that verse says "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD" ("the LORD" originally being the Tetragrammaton, usually rendered in Bibles as such, though some Bibles, notably the Witnesses' New World Translation, render it as "Jehovah" instead), and not all Bibles render the Tetragrammaton as "Jehovah", so why did they choose the name "Jehovah" in particular, rather than use, say "Yahweh's Witnesses", "Christ's Witnesses", or "God's Witnesses"?

2. Biblical scholarship , before, during, and after the time of Joseph F. Rutherford (the Watchtower President who introduced the name "Jehovah's Witnesses") had debunked the name "Jehovah", saying that the word would have been impossible in ancient Hebrew, and most scholars today that the Tetragrammaton was originally pronounced "Yahweh". Why do the Witnesses continue to use the name "Jehovah" when it has already been debunked by scholars?

And before anyone asks, I've read the relevant articles on the Witnesses and Jehovah, but neither of these articles answer my question, other than, to quote our article on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, they "believe only their religion is making God's name known."

@Wavelength: @Jeffro77:

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It is briefly mentioned in the article of Jehovah, saying that they use the Authorized King James Version (1611) version of the Bible as an example, it uses the word Jehovah. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 15:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@KageTora: The article does not mention why they decided to use "Jehovah" rather than, say "Yahweh". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your first question is answered by their article at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102012143, and your second question is answered by their article at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wavelength: Neither of your links answered my questions. The first link does not mention exactly why they decided to use the name "Jehovah" rather than "Yahweh" or other transliterations of the Tetragrammaton. The second link, on the other hand, does not mention exactly why they continue to use the name "Jehovah" even though they acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was most likely pronounced "Yahweh". Given that they believe that the use of God's personal name is important, I would have assumed that they would have made steps to ensure that the name they actually used was historically correct (meaning they would have dropped "Jehovah" as soon as scholarly consensus that it was inaccurate took hold and used "Yahweh" instead). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391?q=%22What+is+the+proper+pronunciation+of+God’s+name%22&p=par?

—Wavelength (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The JHV part, at least, was the Latinized version of YHW(H).[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Prior to the Watch Tower Society's production of their own translation, the JWs generally preferred the American Standard Version, which uses Jehovah throughout. JWs' emphasis on the name Jehovah was primarily a result of Joseph Rutherford's efforts to distinguish his group from other Bible Student movement groups (who preferred the King James Version), with special emphasis of the name beginning in 1926. Prior to Rutherford, Charles Russell only occasionally used the name Jehovah, and did not use that name exclusively. See also Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine#1920–1929 and American Standard Version#Usage by Jehovah's Witnesses. The reason JWs continue to prefer the term not preferred by scholars is much the same as Rutherford's—to appear distinctive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-fiction Classification Pre-Dewey Decimal

What were the various ways that libraries classified non-fiction books before the widespread adoption of the Dewey Decimal System? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.146.98 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What an interesting question to research. I've stumbled across The "Amherst Method": The Origins of the Dewey Decimal Classification Scheme"; not sure if this has the answer to your question, but it's an interesting read about the history of the Dewey system. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Some classified books by alphabetically by title, or by author's name. Believe it or not, some even organized them by physical size. Bear in mind that this wasn't as big of a problem in many cases as it would be today, since many libraries of the period had closed stacks, i.e. you had to request the book you wanted, and you couldn't just go and get it yourself. In such a situation, classification only serves to make it simpler for the librarian to find books when asked: if you're really familiar with a small collection, you can use whatever idiosyncratic system you feel like, since you're the only one using it. However, some libraries did classify by subject; the basis of the current Library of Congress collection is Thomas Jefferson's personal library (they bought it after the British burned the original collection), and if I remember rightly, the Library of Congress Classification system was developed from the subject classification that Jefferson had himself used. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Au contraire; it was designed specifically to replace Jefferson's "fixed location system", at least according to Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what that means; it would help if the article had a citation there. See the Library's page about Jefferson's books. "In Thomas Jefferson's day, most libraries were arranged alphabetically. But Jefferson preferred to arrange his by subject. He chose Lord Bacon's table of science, the hierarchy of Memory (History), Reason (Philosophy) and Imagination (Fine Arts) to order his arrangement of books by subject with some modifications. The resulting arrangement as illustrated in the Nicholas Trist (1800–1870) copy of Jefferson's library catalog for 1815 is a combination of subject and chronology. In practice, however, Jefferson shelved his books by size." Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge University Library uses a fixed location system: the index is primarily by subject, but the final reference to a book is not just to the subject area within the library, but to the specific shelf and the number of the volume on that shelf. --ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about how WW2 ended the Great Depression in America

I'm trying to understand how is this not a broken windows fallacy? Let's say you have two parallel universe one where WW2 happened and one where it didn't. Let's say in this parallel universe, they spend tons of money on military technology just like we do, except the only difference is that it's not actually being used in warfare. So it's just building up more and more weaponry. Where does any additional wealth come from? Sure specific entities can get richer, the ones who make the weapons, but the country overall doesn't acquire any new wealth in fact it just loses money from dumping it all into weaponry. So it stands to reason that the great depression wasn't ended simply due to massive military spending, wealth had to be acquired externally correct? Malamockq (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a common myth that you're talking about. Fighting doesn't help the economy, what helped end the great depression was the government's massive spending which created a massive number of local jobs. 173.32.72.65 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

But of course the wealth didn't come from nowhere; the government got vast amounts of additional money from war bonds and higher taxes, so people would have had less to spend by themselves. However, the citizenry became more productive (tons and tons of people working extra hours; tons of women entering the workforce, etc.), and anyway average people were more willing to see higher taxes and to buy government bonds because average people were strongly in favor of the war. The same situation wouldn't have worked to a comparable extent had the citizenry been divided in 1943 as strongly as they were a quarter-century later. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Excess profits tax stalled the Trickle-up effect. Thus, workers had more money and freed up more working capital. Thus, the US economy came out of the war richer than when it entered. Think of it in terms that when a CEO spends oodles of dollars on a luxury yacht, he is actually diverting away money that could go into something that produces more wealth for the US in general. The Excess Profits Tax kept those oodles of dollars in the economy. --Aspro (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• The above Keynesianism is utter rubbish. Given the privations during the war, American workers who'd been digging and refilling ditches in the 30's came home and built homes and cars and fridges in the late 40's. Just as we ended the makework of the New Deal once the war was over, Britain immediately adopted outright socialism and continued to starve for another 5 years. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed on that one. Precisely which British post-war policy adversely affected the food supply and how? Alansplodge (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If Medeis googled Quaker Capitalism she would realize that I was not talking Keynesianism. So just forget her comment as not applicable.--Aspro (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As usual Medy is applying politics to reality, thereby turning it into utter bollocks. The recovery of the US from the Great Depression in the classic example of how Keynesianism works. Just because the idiotic Austrian economics are fashionable at the moment, doesn't make that any less true. Moreover, Britain did not 'starve' at any point during or after the war, in fact nutrition was better at the end of the war than at the start. Less varied? Sure. Starving? Complete bollocks. Don't make up nonsense to try and defend a flawed anachronistic political point, Medy! Fgf10 (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget that before the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941, the huge quantity of US made munitions and other supplies being sold to the UK (and initially France) was being paid for in gold bullion. Lend-Lease came about when the UK was nearing the bottom of the barrel. See Cash and carry (World War II) and British Purchasing Commission which says; "By December 1940 British cash orders for aircraft had exceeded $1,200,000,000." Alansplodge (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Back to the original question — see Parable of the broken window, to which "Broken window fallacy" redirects. I initially misunderstood and was confused how it could at all be related to Broken windows theory. Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was answering the original question which states '"...the country overall doesn't acquire any new wealth". Well, the US acquired an awful lot of new wealth from its overseas clients. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I know you were — I wasn't attempting to address your response. Just supplying a link that I should have supplied at the start. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, many apologies. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Give you another example. Some thing that the US did right in the 1930's was to concentrate on infrastructure. For instance, they build the Hoover Dam that could produce far more electrical power than there was demand for at the time. The industrialists built far more aluminium smelting capacity than there was demand for at the time. Yet, come the time the US entered the second world war, loads of aluminium could be produced because the 'US" had the capacity and electrical power. The 'excess profits tax' enabled other business to turn that aluminium into war machines. To do that, they needed machine tools. That stimulated another manufacturing sector. All those machine tools needed operators. That created a skilled work force, which come peace-time, could produce oodles of consumer items at an affordable price. It is an economic growth principle, that some resent politicians in the last few decades, prefer to ignore. The UK (which did not have the mineral resources of the US) created the National Health Service. That diverted money into bring sick people back to health so that they could once more contribute to the economy. So in answer to the OP. It wasn't the war per-se but the change in fiscal policy and taxation. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it . It is the thee-generation-cycle thing that is before our eyes. The US is now back in the past agin, where a few have loads and the rest have very little and is thus no longer the major power on the world stage. The nation is once again staved of working capital to keep it a head of everyone else.--Aspro (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Easy, Alansplodge, see Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Post-World_War_II:

  On 8 May 1945 the Second World War ended in Europe, but rationing continued. Some aspects of rationing became stricter for some years after the war. At the time this was presented as needed to feed people in European areas under British control, whose economies had been devastated by the fighting.[2] This was partly true, but with many British men still mobilised in the armed forces, an austere economic climate, and a centrally-planned economy under the post-war Labour government, [italics mine] resources were not available to expand food production and food imports. Frequent strikes by some workers (most critically dock workers) made things worse.[2] A common ration book fraud was the ration books of the dead being kept and used by the living.

  As opposed to this, the US demobilised, ended rationing, and cut government spending drastically. In the US people went back to work for themselves and in the UK they kept working . . . for Clement Atlee. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Err... Just don't understand that last comment. The US spent less of its GNP on the war than the UK did. It could afford to bounce back instantly. Also, the fiscal changes left it more prosperous than before the US entered the war. They did not have to suffer a balance of trade deficit created by importing oil and minerals (lead , copper, aluminium, tungsten, vanadium, chrome etc.) – the US had those raw materials in its own back yard .--Aspro (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Or the early end of lend-lease. Why is the troll Medeis tolerated here? DuncanHill (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Because life would be boring without her...--Aspro (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Boredom is an insult to oneself. No second parties are required to rescue us from our own self-abasement. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but I am lazy. Medeis rescues my from boredom without me having to put in any effort to do it myself.--Aspro (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The premise of the question is flawed. The Great Depression in the United States consisted of two recessionary events, a recession of unparalleled severity from 1929 to 1933, followed by the severe Recession of 1937–38. It was ended by a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus (i.e., the federal government spent more money, and the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates while the administration engineered inflation). Although World War II caused a further drop in unemployment, that was in the context of an economy that was already in recovery. John M Baker (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hate to say it but JMB is right. Think of it into days terms of Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae. Pension companies et al (the places were our wealth is invested) have taken a big hit. It was the same in the 1930's. The wealth of the country ended up in the hands of the few after the big Wall Street crash. By the 1940's that debt due to 1920's speculation had been absorb by the average Joe (by reducing his standard of living for many a year). Faced with War, that wealth -held by the few- had to be released quickly back into the economy. The federal government did this. After the war McCarthy tried to establish the old order but was finally over-ruled and the US went on to experience the American Dream of 1957. I.E., Full employment, upward mobility and everything else that the US prided it-self upon. Now we are back to the simple dualism of the 1930's, some 'have' because they are worthy- most other don't because they are just lazy. Just as it was mooted in the 1930's: If you want us (the rich) to work harder -then pay us more.. Don't we deserve more money because we know how to make the poor work harder -by paying them less. – Aren't we smarter and therefore worthy of more and more cash! That diverts billions of dollars of working capital into company jets, luxury yachts, big 60 room homes with three swimming pools and dozens of domestic servants etc. But what should they care, they only live for today. </rant> So in answer to the OP's question – it was the big change in fiscal policy.--Aspro (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but you haven't given a reference for this, Aspro. Most of the New Deal programs were cut/ended with the advent of WWII and FDR's taxes were cut when it ended. [2]. In 1946 Americans went back to work in private sector jobs and had babies. As noted above, Britons (when I quoted verbatim from WP and got hysterically attacked) elected Atlee and continued central planning and the nationalization of industry and austerity as a chosen policy. From that point til Thatcher, if Britons in labour jobs and large swathes of other sectors wanted a raise they had to go on strike against the government. Regardless of the usual Leftist screaming, sexist name calling, and desire for those who disagree with the party line to be jailed, it's quite clear that American private industry not only ended the depression (caused by Hawley Smoot and the Fed Reserve stock market bubble) the European welfare state was made possible by US military subsidies to NATO. Now if you like Soviet communism and austerity for Atlees sake, you can just say so, you don't need to make up nicknames for me. You don't have to argue with me. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Barack Obama would like to hear from you. Since you are the font of all knowledge that will lead his administration and the US back into the golden age – or maybe not. --Aspro (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Groundhog Day in Punxsutawney

Where does the "official" celebration stuff happen: is it somewhere on the Punxsutawney town square and/or somewhere nearby, or is it out at Gobbler's Knob? The knob itself is in Bell Township, not in Punxsutawney proper; I'd like to use File:Groundhogday2005.jpg to illustrate the township article, but of course I won't if the scene's within the borough boundaries. I've heard of the knob plenty of times, and the Punxsutawney Phil article says that he emerges from his home on the knob, but I'm not clear whether he "emerges" by being taken into town, and anyway the film (yes, I know it's fictional :-) definitely sets it on the town square. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the official website of both the town of Punxsutawney and all of the events surrounding the Groundhog Day celebrations. There's maps and lists of events and dates and locations and whatnot. I'm sure if anywhere has the information you seek, it would be there. Furthermore, there's contact information on that website. If you can't find it yourself, the people best to contact would be someone there. --Jayron32 20:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I had looked over that page already, but I completely missed the maps. Turns out I was wrong — it's not in Punxsutawney or Bell Township, because they don't have it at the site marked as Gobblers Knob on the USGS topo maps. Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Myth of Polish cavalry charging German tanks with lance and sabre during WWII...

I'm well aware this this never actually happened (although I was actually taught it as fact in history lessons at school!). However, is it true that for many years, a lot of people in Poland thought that is was true too and that they even turned it into a matter of national pride and an example of the bravery and resolve of the Polish people - something like their own Charge of the Light Brigade? I was told this recently by someone who had worked in Poland.

FWIW, when I was told about it in school, it was presented as an example of Polish heroism in the face of overwhelming odds. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I remember reading about the Polish sabre charge in the Guinness Book of Records. I'm not sure whether they were referring to the Battle of Krasnobród or the Battle of Schoenfeld. What is the charge you say "never actually happened"? See cavalry charge. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, there was a Polish sabre charge against a German *troop column*, I believe - which was very successful. But then they were forced to retreat when the panzers arrived. This was later spun by the Nazis into a 'the Poles launched a direct cavalry charge against our tanks', 'this is how stupid they are'/'how willing their generals are to send their men to their deaths' narrative for propaganda purposes. Which was largely believed for decades afterwards. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

We have Charge at Krojanty and Polish cavalry#Cavalry charges and propaganda. -- ToE 23:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to look for some sources, but for now I can give you my personal opinion that this story, whatever its actual veracity, does play nicely into a Polish self-stereotype of a quixotic romantic ready to attack the sun with a hoe (as a Polish saying goes). The Warsaw Uprising is a pretty good real-life example of this attitude, but it's just one in a long string of Polish "moral victories" (which were exact opposites of actual victories) over the last 250 years. And as the Smolensk air crash shows, if you can't have a good tragic defeat at the hands of a treacherous, overwhelmingly stronger enemy, you've got to make one up. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)