Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 July 2

Humanities desk
< July 1	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 3 >

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 2

Garibaldi's hat

What kind of hat is Garibaldi wearing here? There's a mention of a "Garibaldi cap" in one list of hats, but there's no more information than that. Does anyone know the name of this kind of hat? (Yeah, it's a dumb question, but it's driving me nuts.) Thanks. CSWarren (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea but we've had "what type of hat..." questions before. Dismas|^(talk) 02:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks a bit like a Fez. From there I went to the "See also" section. From that, it looks to me like it is a Taqiyah. Dismas|^(talk) 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is most definately neither of those, nor is it the Indonesian Peci, since Garibaldi was not North African, Arabic, or Indonesian, despite the similar brimless caps. Consider that the yarmulke and the zucchetto are considered different hats despite almost identical construction, cultural context is very important here! This is probably an Italian peasant cap of some sort; Garibaldi liked to style himself a "man of the people" and dress himself not as a military commander or politician, but as a commoner. The List of hats and headgear only calls it a "Garibaldi cap" as well, though I doubt it was exclusive to him. He may have picked it up as an affectation in some of his many travels; Garibaldi was essentially the Che Guevara of his generation, fomenting rebellion across several continents. It should also be noted that he is pictured wearing a few different hats in some other pics. He's wearing what appears to be a French musketeers cap in these two paintings:[1] and [2] and he has different floppy had in this sculpture in Brazil: [3]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Some millinery sites call it "Garibaldi pillbox" [4], [5], [6]. For comparison, see pillbox hat. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be a kepi (either with no visor, or the visor isn't visible at the angle shown in the picture); in George Macaulay Trevelyan's Garibaldi's defence of the Roman Republic he says "Garibaldi sometimes wore a cap (possibly sometimes a kepi), but his most common headgear at this time was his peaked hat," (ref). 87.113.26.43 (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a closer view of Garibaldi's decorative cap, and I'm pretty sure it has no visor. The Garibaldini sometimes wore a type of kepi, similar to the "chasseur cap" or "McClellan cap", see for example the images under Cacciatori delle Alpi or Nino Bixio. But I'm pretty sure the cap CSWarren is asking about lacks a visor and is not a kepi. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a Kepi seems to be universally a rigid cap with short visor. Garibaldi may have worn one at some time (especially seing the reference provided) but this one is clearly a soft, cylindrical, embroidered visorless cap, rather than the stiff kepi. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a smoking cap to me. http://zomgablog.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/main_smoking-cap2.jpg hotclaws 14:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin's Political Affiliations

Franklin didn't live long enough to see the first political parties, so I'm left with the question: Should Benjamin Franklin have lived long enough, what political party would have Franklin fought for, if any? 65.34.141.207 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The article Benjamin Franklin states:

"At this time, many members of the Pennsylvania Assembly were feuding with William Penn's heirs, who controlled the colony as proprietors. Franklin led the "anti-proprietary party" in the struggle against the Penn family, and was elected Speaker of the Pennsylvania House in May 1764. His call for a change from proprietary to royal government was a rare political miscalculation, however: Pennsylvanians worried that such a move would endanger their political and religious freedoms. Because of these fears, and because of political attacks on his character, Franklin lost his seat in the October 1764 Assembly elections. The anti-proprietary party dispatched Franklin to England to continue the struggle against the Penn family proprietorship, but during this visit, events would drastically change the nature of his mission.[42]" 208.70.31.206 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the original questioner was wondering whether Franklin would have more naturally aligned with the Jeffersonians (the "Democratic-Republicans") or with the Hamiltonians (the "Federalists" in the 1792 sense of the word). Of course, Franklin was a "Federalist" in the 1788 sense of the word, since he was involved in the constitutional convention... AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Franklin would have been more comfortable with the Jeffersonians. It's hard to imagine Franklin in the camp of the anti-French Federalist party, and even harder to imagine Franklin the printer and political satirist making common cause with the party of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Of course, Franklin's protégé and grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, was a Jeffersonian and the scourge of the Federalist party, if that means anything. One way to think about the question is this: was Franklin more in tune with Jefferson or John Adams? Personal relationships perhaps provide the clue: Adams hated Franklin, while Jefferson idolized him. (P.S. I wrote that quoted paragraph above about Franklin & the anti-proprietary party. It's a pleasure to see it quoted, and to know that the paragraph hasn't yet been mangled into tripe!) —Kevin Myers 12:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, cool. I looked in the BF article expecting to find that BF was a member of the Whig Party (United States). I was very surprised to find that party wasn't formed until 1834. I knew that colonial separatists like Franklin called themselves "Whigs" but didn't realize that the Whig Party was different and came later. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Keep in mind too that the Whigs of colonial America were not really "separatists" until late in the game—1774 at the earliest, and usually not until '75 or '76. The American Whig movement, like that in Britain, was about resisting arbitrary government. Whigs like Franklin were very happy to be British right up until the American Revolution. —Kevin Myers 14:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

thomas cook and son logo 1898

I have been trying to locate the 1898 logo of thomas cook and son, including writing directly to thomas cook archives, but have been unsuccessful. all internet references give the history or the recent logos. library books with images show only very pixelated images of the sign above the office. help would be very appreceated. M1972 (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If possible (and if you haven't already tried it), see if your accessible libraries have copies (probably bound into volumes) of newspapers, magazines or journals from that period that would feature advertisements, and search for Thos. Cook ads, which would likely feature any logos. Something like Punch would seem a likely bet. 87.194.161.147 (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the date 1898 significant? (I ask because that is when Thomas Cook funded Kaiser Wilhelm's visit to the Holy Land, and I remember reading that their logo was ostentatiously displayed everywhere, but I can't find any pictures of the Kaiser's trip). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Role Of Marketing in Network Economy

This is new topic and very difficult to find the information. Could you pl. help me.

I am Tilak Denipitiya E mail - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.21.30 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Email redacted for privacy. We will not contact you off-wiki. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

For those like me who didn't know what it is, we have an article on Network economy. I thought it was creating a computer network using the minimum outlay on materials. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hyde Park, London

What's the origin of the name? --87.253.6.155 (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you'd think that article would say, but it doesn't seem to. Old and New London: Volume 4 by Edward Walford says of the area "About the time of Domesday Book, the manor of Eia was divided into three smaller manors, called, respectively, Neyte, Eabury, and Hyde. The latter still lives and flourishes as a royal park, under its ancient name, no doubt of Saxon origin". The Oxford Book of British Place Names says the various "Hyde" placenames, including Hyde Park, comes from the anglo-saxon unit of land taxation, the hyde. 87.113.26.43 (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I worked your response and reference into a footnote at Hyde Park, London.--Wetman (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a map :)

Hi, im trying to find a map to the level of detail of showing the Non-metropolitan districts of England (inc. Wales/Scotland etc if possible). Im struggleing and on Wikipedia can only find that level of detail one county at a time rather than on a whole map of England/the UK.

thanks, --Abc26324 (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen Google maps? Here's a link to a random spot in Wales; you can zoom in and out and pan around. Coverage is good throughout western Europe. Astronaut (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at one of the UK government websites? The one that comes instantly to my mind is [www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk]. If not there, it has links to other government websites that may be able to help. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a UK map here through which you can click to see local authorities in the various regions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Supply and demand

The chart that puzzles me

Economics makes my hair fall out. I'm fairly well-educated, but I've never been able to make head or tail of it. Simple language help please...

I'm bemused by this chart of supply and demand, which I've seen many times down the years in similar versions. The red lines make sense to me - as an item becomes more scarce, where Q is reduced, the price increases. But what the heck is the blue line about and what's the difference between "Supply" (S) and "quantity of good" (Q)?

Like I say, this may be a FAQ, but I found our Supply and demand article really hard work --Dweller (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Supply" and "demand" in this context actually refer to the "supply curve" and "demand curve". They are functions of price. The higher the price the more it makes sense to produce (eg. you can afford to use more fertiliser so can grow your crop of less fertile land while still remaining profitable, so there is more total land available for growing the crop) and also the fewer people will want to buy it (they will decide it is a luxury they can't afford or that something else better value). In an efficient market the price of the good will become the price where the supply curve and demand curve meet. The "quantity of good" is simply the amount of the good produced and sold at that price. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not get it correctly. You have to read it that way : at each price level (P), what is the quantity (Q) that buyers are ready to buy (D, red line) and sellers ready to sell (S, blue line) ? The more expensive the product, the smaller the demand, hence the red line is downward sloped. The more expensive the product, the bigger the supply, hence the blue line is upward sloped.

The whole idea of the chart is that, by a process of confrontation, error and trial (that never was really studied), supply and demand will reach an equilibrium, that is the price for which demand is exactly the same than supply. That's where the two lines cross each other. Gede (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help chaps, I'm squirming my way through this swamp. "The more expensive the product, the bigger the supply"? How does that work? There must be fewer Rolls Royces than Renaults for sale? Surely cheap products proliferate and expensive ones do not? --Dweller (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We're talking here of one and only one product : Renault and Roll Royce are two different products and have two (very) different markets. So : the more expensive the Renault, the bigger the supply of Renault. To know if and how much the demand of Renault goes up when the price of Roll Royce increases if another question that's going to make the swamp muddier, but you can see "Cross elasticity of demand". --Gede (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Imagine an economy where everyone's on welfare, wondering whether they should grow cabbages or not (that's the only thing that can be produced). Let's say, theoretically, the government were to set the price of cabbages to be $20. Let's say 100 people would be tempted by this price and go and grow cabbages. But say tomorrow, the government declares that the price of cabbages is now $50. More people - let's say 200 - would be tempted by the profit they can make - and decide to grow cabbages as well.

That is to say, if the price increased from $20 to $50, the number of people willing to grow cabbages increases from 100 to 200, so the supply of cabbages will increase. The line that traces this change is the supply curve.

Now, in the kind of economy assumed in those diagrams, the price isn't set by the government, it's set by how many people out there are willing to buy cabbages, and how much they are willing to pay them -- that's the demand curve. For example, at $50, only a handful of people will be willing to buy cabbages, whereas at $20, more people are wiling to buy them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The article on demand curve actually makes a fair hack at explaining the graph (but I assume you've read that already Dweller in which case this comment is of little help). Rolls Royces may be a Veblen good where demand increases as price increases, so probably isn't the best example to superimpose on the model. Cabbages are better, though I always prefer potatoes. Fouracross (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Potatoes might be Giffen good. That would not help... Gede (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes that occurred to me when I finished typing... but please don't confuse the OP anymore. Might be better to just substitute "Widgets" for "potatoes"/"cabbages"/"rolls royces".... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Splendid, thanks all. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals laws in the United Kingdom

NOTE: This is not a request for legal advice as I do not participate in cruelty to animals, merely an information-gathering exercise out of curiousity.

Cruelty to animals is a criminal offence in the UK, yes, but which animals are covered? Flies? Worms? Slugs? Mice? Rats? Rabbits? Where is the line drawn?--The lion sleeps tonight (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, but this article is relevant and a good read. Recury (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Different animals in different situations are covered by different laws and regulations. These are some good starting points: DEFRA Animal welfare pages, DEFRA Wildlife pages, Hunting Act 2004, Home Office page on legislation regarding animals in scientific research (Flies, worms and slugs are not covered by any welfare regulations that I know of). Fouracross (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that any vertabrate would qualify, invertabrates not so likely. Exxolon (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: any animal that actually poses a danger to you is probably covered. Animals that are completely harmless, you can kill with impunity. --81.170.28.14 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Black widows? --Sean 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

US election results

What is the highest margin of victory (% wise) for a Democrat or a Republican in the US at the Senate or House of Reps level? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to ignore those who ran uncontested? -- kainaw™ 20:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In 1996, Jose Serrano in NY-16 won 96.3% of the vote to 2.9% for the Republican candidate. That may be a record for a race between candidates of the two major parties. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Economics: Is it optimal to have different or equal tax rates?

Why Tax Rates Vary

Taxes on expenditure create deadweight losses whose size depends on the elasticity of demand and supply. If there is a choice between taxing two goods whose elasticities of supply are equal, then taxing the one with the more inelastic demand will minimize the deadweight loss from taxation.

Taxes and the Allocation of Resources

In an economy with no market failure, there will be an efficient allocation of resources. But if taxes are levied on some goods and not others, there will be an inefficient allocation of resources. Taxing all goods and services at the same rate could restore allocative efficiency.

(Parkin & King: Economics, 2nd ed., p. 541)

Are these two statements not contradictory? E.g. the petrol/gas tax is higher than most other taxes, and demand for petrol is inelastic. Would it be welfare-improving to smooth out tax rates or not, under perfect market assumptions? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It would, just not as much as if you smoothed out tax rates on something with more elastic demand. Recury (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"You can now see why taxing lemonade [highly elastic demand] is not on the agenda of any of the major parties. Vote-seeking politicians seek out taxes that benefit the median voter. So, other things being equal, they try to minimize the deadweight loss of raising a given amount of revenue. Equivalently, they tend to impose heavy taxes on items such as petrol, alcohol and tobacco where demand is inelastic." (ibid, p. 534)

So different tax rates is a government failure? Do politicians suffer from myopia when setting tax rates and do not see the whole picture – that they are distorting the overall economy? (Again, assuming away externalities etc.) Jacob Lundberg (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Real-world decisions have to take into account a lot more than the economic impacts of an outcome. Different tax rates are not a government failure, they are an attempt to balance the need to raise taxes with the desire of the general population to avoid paying more tax than they need to. Sometimes tax is set based on an agenda (e.g. high taxes to disuade use and turn people off that product/service) and sometimes they are trying to maximise revenue. The decisions of political parties are part economic, part social, part beliefs, part party preference, part marketing and countless other factors beyond. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I'm not talking about the real world. ;) Am I correct in saying that in economic theory, assuming no externalities, perfect markets and all that, the best way to raise taxes is through a general tax, regardless of how elasticities differ? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the best way would be to tax the most inelastic things as much as possible (to raise a given amount of revenue). Then you would have the least deadweight loss per dollar (or whatever) of tax revenue. When the book says "if taxes are levied on some goods and not others, there will be an inefficient allocation of resources", I believe they mean goods of the same elasticity. Recury (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

An economist would say that the most efficient tax would be a lump-sum tax. Say, a tax of $100 per person, regardless of income. This tax doesn't influence behavior in any way, and - in the partial equilibrium framework - creates no dead weight loss. It's just a transfer. People will still choose to work just as much, and the relative "bundle of goods" that they consume will remain constant (albeit there will be less per person; the mix will stay the same).

As soon as you use the word 'best' though, it's assumed that you'll be taking into account both efficiency and equity (equality). Nearly every policy trades these two things off against eachother. Economic theory can't tell us at what rate efficiency ought to be traded off for equity.

A fixed percentage tax on everything (a general tax), influences behaviour: for example, the labour-leisure tradeoff. This is, of course, unless the tax is also on "time spent not working" I suppose. This would be more like a lump-sum.

Also, many goods with inelastic demand are "sin" goods. Liquor, tobacco etc. Some would argue that these goods produce negative externalities and ought to be taxed at a higher rate to internalize that externality: to make the decision maker bear the social cost, not just the private cost. Oh. You mentioned, "no externalities." Sorry.NByz (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All taxes change behavior, even ones such as the flat-value tax you say don't. Consider the $100 per person tax; someone who is rich enough that they wipe their ass with $100 bills wouldn't think twice about changing anything in their lives to pay that tax; however someone living in a limited income may find such a tax a hinderance to spending in parts of their lives; they would most certainly have to alter their behavior to work $100.00 spending into their budget. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Lump-sum tax. That is all I meant.NByz (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean "best" as in "efficient". I am only interested in what the most efficient VAT policy would be on a perfectly functioning free market.

Recury, you seem to have changed your mind. Above, you wrote that smoothing out tax rates would be welfare-improving regardless of elasticities, while in your second post you say that the best way is to tax inelastic goods as much as possible. (You seem to contradict yourself in exactly the same way the book contradicts itself. How can different tax rates be most efficient (least deadweight loss, best welfare outcome) on a micro level while on a "macro" level it is best to tax goods at the same rate? Is it because the elasticities sum to one?) Jacob Lundberg (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is my interpretation:

Allocative efficiency means that productive resources will be allocated to productive processes in the same proportions as if there was no tax or government involvement. That's kind of a 'general equilibrium' idea. A dead-weight loss in a micro supply-demand model will always appear if there is a tax and the demand curves exhibit any elasticity. This is a 'partial equilibrium' idea (the tax is examined without considering it's implications for - and by re-achieving equilibrium in - other markets).

There is almost always an excess burden of taxation (a dead weight loss in the partial equilibrium demand/supply model) when a tax is imposed; goods are not quite allocated the way the free market would allocate them. Even if the dead weight losses in each of the taxed markets still exist under the partial equilibrium model, but the remaining private sector goods are still allocated in the same proportions as they would have been under free markets, you can still say you have allocative efficiency in the general equilibrium economy. There's not really a dead weight loss to society.

If tax rates were such that the economy only had one privately allocated dollar, and that dollar was allocated as it would have been if there was no tax, you could still say you had allocative efficiency, even though there must certainly be some dead weight loss when you examine each of the markets under the partial equilibrium supply and demand model.

So I guess I see the problem being one of using general vs. partial equilibrium models. Partial equilibrium models are best to use when examining the use of taxes to influence behaviour, and general equilibrium models (e.g. the macro formula) would be best when examining overall taxation.NByz (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just about every society on earth taxes both income and expenditure. Taxing consumption discourages spending (encourages savings and investment); taxing interest income discourages savings (encourages investment and consumption); and taxing dividends or capital gains discourages investment (encourages consumption and savings). The trick is to keep these in balance such that each of the three (consumption, investment and savings) are only modestly discouraged.

A good tax is neutral (taxpayers with the same ability to pay are taxed equally); fair (those with more pay extra); effective (revenue-production is worth the effort); efficient (minimal compliance and collection costs); certain (everyone knows what will be taxed); simple (as dissimilar to the US Tax Code as possible); flexible (capable to adapting to technological or commercial changes); pro-competitiveness (does not discourage cross-border investment or trade); and stable (only modestly sensitive to the economic cycle).

The tax that comes closest, in theory (but rarely in practice) is the value-added tax (VAT) or goods and services tax (GST). This is an excellent analysis of the pros and cons of various tax alternatives: http://www.fstb.gov.hk/tb/acnbt/english/finalrpt/finalrpt.pdf DOR (HK) (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

mansur al hallaj

was Mansur Al-Hallaj a shia suffi? or did he have sunni islam inclinations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.23.202 (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He was born a Sunni but he really did not belong to any orthodox school, rather he charted his own course. The manner of his death shows his disdain for orthodoxy. To identify him with the Sunni might be stretching his formal methods of prayer too far.--Shahab (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

abdul qadir gilani

what is the shia muslims' view of Abdul Qadir Jilani? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.23.202 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)