The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Humanities desk
< October 29	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 31 >

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.

October 30

Stock buyout: why include a dividend?

Regarding the Dell deal to go private: According to [1], the deal is that the shares will be purchased for $13.75 plus there will be a divdend of $0.13, for a total of $13.88. My question is why do they include a dividend, instead of just paying $13.88 per share to buy it back? Why is the buyback done with both a purchase price plus a dividend? RudolfRed (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a transaction like this they usually try to keep the status quo (as much as possible) since those that bought or retained the stock did so anticipating a dividend of about that every quarter (and those that sold Dell sold it with the anticipation that they didn't want a dividend like that). I think the board was sensitive to the fact that dividends are taxed as ordinary income, and can change a shareholder's income bracket. The purchase price will be taxed as a capital gain (or capital loss) and not effect one's income tax bracket. Why this is a concern of the board of directors or Michael Dell, their own bank accounts (and taxes) will be extremely effected by this since they usually are the largest single shareholders not to mention that they are to look out for many of the largest shareholders (all shareholders really) and that the usual dividend was 8 cents so to close it out they may have added a dividend and a half roughly. That said there are a few other considerations but the tax liability usually looms the largest.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. RudolfRed (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motive(s) and volunteer work

Is there a narrative (published online) by either Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and/or his counsel as to Mr. Berger's motives for the "unauthorized removal and retention of classified material"? Also, assuming that Mr. Berger has completed the 100 hours of volunteer work, are the location or locations published online? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.240.77.215 (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on terminology: He was sentenced to community service. That is often called "voluntary" work, to distinguish it from paid work. But it is not "volunteer" work, as there is no way he and others in his position volunteer to do this. He was required by a court to do it as a punishment. Now, there are some people who do volunteer to do voluntary work, for altruistic reasons usually. But Berger was not in this category. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban killings of Hazara people

So far, I know that the Aga Khan was against the killings against Hazara people. What about Iran? Were they against the killings or they don't see Hazara people as non-Shi'a Muslims because of their belief? and if they do, I would find that funny because the current Aga Khan is of Persian origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.213 (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Aga Khan is also the leader of a different sect of Shia Muslims than, say, the Ayatollah is. Also, it's important to realize he was raised in western countries, schooled in Europe, and thus generally has his world view colored by his upbringing and social experience. --Jayron32 15:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Iranian gov't certainly expresses concern over the situation of Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Here are some press reports from PressTV, an international news channel linked to the Iranian gov't: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/18/267385/hazara-shias-fleeing-taliban-terror/ , http://previous.presstv.ir/new/detail/132225.html , http://edition.presstv.ir/iphone/detail.aspx?id=290127 --Soman (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to tell how dark the skin color has to be in order to be considered "colored"?

Is there a way to tell how dark the skin color has to be in order to be considered "colored" or "people of color"? 140.254.226.247 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy is being grumpy, but he's right. It depends entirely on who is doing the considering. See the article Race (human classification) for more, especially the section Social Constructions. --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty of this question perplexed the law makers of Apartheid era South Africa. In the end, they decided to abandon any attempt at Nazi-style pseudo-scientific classification and went with what they called "common sense" but was actually ridiculous nonsense. To quote the Population Registration Act, 1950: "A white person is one who in appearance is, or who is generally accepted as, a white person, but does not include a person who, although in appearance is obviously a white person, is generally accepted as a Coloured person". Make of that what you will. Alansplodge (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. A more concise rendering would have been "A white person is one who is generally accepted as a white person". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colored people won't pass the pencil test while white people would pass it with flying colors. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. In terms of fairness, that seems on a par with the dictation test that was used to exclude undesirable (= non-white) would-be immigrants to Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if you were a poor and illiterate man coming from Romania, you could be white but still fail the dictation test, unless the dictation test says something like "only white people are exempted from taking the exam". 140.254.136.167 (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says, "Although the test could theoretically be given to any person arriving in Australia, in practice it was given selectively on the basis of race". It was almost never given to white people, cases like Egon Kisch excepted. If a Chinese person managed to surprise the officials and pass, say, the Bulgarian test, they'd just give him a test in Basque or something, until he failed. Have you ever heard of anything so contrary to natural justice, or such a contrived and artificial and dishonest way of saying "You're not white so we don't want you". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Immigration_Restriction_Act_1901 article, only 52 of 1359 passed the dictation test - it seems to have done its job. Hack (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where to find papers from the United States Naval Institute Proceedings

I made a page at the Wikipedia:RX asking for

Bennett, Commander Henry Stanley. "The impact of invasion and occupation on the civilians of Okinawa." United States Naval Institute Proceedings. Vol. 72, No.2, Whole No. 516, pp. 2 of Okinawa. United States Naval Institute Proceedings. Vol. 72, No.2, Whole No. 516, pp. 263- Okinawa. United States Naval Institute Proceedings. Vol. 72, No.2, Whole No. 516, pp. 263-275, Feb. 1 United States Naval Institute Proceedings. Vol. 72, No.2, Whole No. 516, pp. 263-275, Feb. 1946.

But I would also like to know in general where to find papers from the United States Naval Institute Proceedings and if so, are they in a digital format.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this appears to be a magazine and you can probably just order back issues. Try starting out here at the Naval Institutes website and page for the publication.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Older people in the wee hours of the morning in church...

How common is it to find older, gray-haired people in the earliest morning-hour church services? Is there a tendency that older Christian Americans like to worship in the wee hours of the morning while younger Christian Americans like to worship in the afternoon or evening? 140.254.226.247 (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a general tendency for older people to get up early. I'm not quite sure why. I suppose not being as likely to have been out at night clubs until the wee hours of the morning is one reason, and the elderly also frequently seem to have insomnia, so if they wake up in "the middle of the night", they may not be able to get back to sleep, so might decide to do something they consider to be productive with that time. Another factor is that the elderly don't need to bathe every day, so they can get started more quickly. (Teenagers may wake up each day dripping with oil, requiring a bath or shower, while the elderly don't.) StuRat (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the church. At my church the "contemporary" service (Praise and Worship music) is the early (9:30 AM) service while the "traditional" service is the late service (11:00 AM). --Jayron32 18:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Less sleep for older people, confirms that older people do indeed need less sleep. On the other hand, Teenagers: Sleeping patterns says that "the hormonal upheaval of puberty could be causing adolescents to love a lie-in, but loathe an early night".

So perhaps Jayron's church has it the wrong way round. In the Church of England, it's common to schedule the optional traditional 1662 Book of Common Prayer service for 8 am [2] while the more modern liturgy is held at a more civilized hour. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will there one day be optional traditional ASB80 services? Discuss. (Or, rather, don't). Tevildo (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many U.S. churches only have one service on Sunday - so no option. Others have two different services on Sunday (morning and evening) with expected attendance at both. Some churches used to even have three different services on Sunday but I think that is a thing of the past now. Rmhermen (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that more of a local thing? I swear I attended several worship services from many mainline denominations (Methodist, Episcopal, Catholic, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Southern Baptist), and all of them had two or three worship services. Only the really small "family-oriented" one and a fundamentalist one had one worship service. 140.254.45.33 (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logically it makes sense to offer multiple services when the demand outstrips the number of seats. Therefore, particularly popular churches, which probably means those in more religious areas, are more likely to do so. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. For example, the church that I went to as a youth is in the suburbs of Chicago. I just checked and they still have one 'Sunday' mass on Saturday evening and four masses on Sunday morning/afternoon. I haven't been in years but back then they couldn't possibly have fit all the people from all the masses for one weekend into just a single mass. Especially when you consider how many would attend on Easter and Christmas only. Dismas|^(talk) 11:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USS Haven (AH-12)

When did Haven earn its battle star for the Communist China Aggression campaign? Not "3 November 1959 to 9 January 1951," because the Korean War was over by 1959. Was it 1949 (something to protect Taiwan from Mao?) or 1950? 2001:18E8:2:1020:8928:A1B7:CCE5:795A (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article the ship wasn't recommissioned until 15 September 1950 so 1949 can't be correct. Rmhermen (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "23 November 1959" is a typing error for ""23 November 1950". 24 November 1950 was the launch of the US "Home by Christmas" offensive against the Chinese incursion into North Korea. [3] The same error occurs on this page from which it was probably copied and pasted. USS Haven (AH-12), 1945-1967 from the Navy Department Historical Center confirms that she was in Korean waters at that time. Alansplodge (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Macchiavelian, Machiavellian Kafkian, Orwellian

Is there a name to the process of getting a concept named after an author1s name? What other authors succeeded at it? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not directly responsive, but the usual choice for Kafka is Kafkaesque rather than Kafkian. (And you misspelled Macchiavellian.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you misspelled Machiavellian too, seems like a tough word. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, whadda ya know. I could have sworn that c was geminated. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty good question actually and one I wondered about a while back when watching the television series The Borgias as one character is Niccolo Machiavelli see this.

It appears the answer to the first part of your question: "Is there a name to the process of getting a concept named after an author1s name?" is ys, there is a name for that process. It's called Eponym: "An eponym is a person or thing, whether real or fictional, after which a particular place, tribe, era, discovery, or other item is named or thought to be named." Eponyms are simply part of etymology, the origin of words. Your next question: " What other authors succeeded at it?" Whoo. That seems to be a long list:

Lists of eponyms

By person's name

By category

--Mark Miller (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a List of eponymous adjectives in English, but I don't know the name of the process. Eponymization? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yeah...an eponym is the person or thing and the process itself would probably be along the lines as stated by Sluzzelin.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not really the authors themselves that coin or spread the word, but later-day critics. --Xuxl (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And occasional people actively don't want to be eponymized. Martin Luther, for example, wanted his followers to call themselves "Evangelical" and didn't like the etymology that's described at Lutheranism#Etymology. 2001:18E8:2:1020:C5CB:7688:9F7:E1A5 (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blood type

I don't know how to ask this, but the other day I was told by a person who I think was wrong, that one gets the blood type of his father. I might be wrong but I doubt that very much. Can anybody give me the answer for how is defined the blood type of a person? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blood groups are inherited from both parents. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a pity that section is largely incomprehensible (at least to me). If it is still like that in a couple of days I might try and add a simple table like, for example, at http://www.transfusion.com.au/?q=node/77 Thincat (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone and added a table. Thincat (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A person can be type A, type B, or type O. Everyone has two genes contributing to this, each gene having an A, a B, or neither (which we call O). The two parents each contribute one of their genes to their child. If the child gets the combination A and A, he is type A; if the child gets A and O, he is still type A. B and B, or B and O, makes the child type B. If the child gets A and B, he is type AB. And if the child gets O and O, he is type O. It is symmetric -- an A plus an O gives an A child, regardless of which parent is A and which is O. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful how you phrase that last — the child of one type-A parent and one type-O parent can be either type A or type O. I think I know what you meant. --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "an A plus an O gives an A child". From the context of the paragraph is should be clear that this means "an A gene plus an O gene gives an A child". Duoduoduo (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear to you because you wrote it, and you knew what you meant. It isn't really all that clear in the text itself. --Trovatore (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you thought you knew what I meant. Actually, you did know. So if you thought it was unclear to the uninitiated, maybe you should have clarified it for the OP, instead of trolling again. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, dial that back please. I was not in any way trolling. --Trovatore (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should have asked on the Science desk, but you spurred me to combine the blood type and genotype figures. I hope this is comprehensible to everyone! Feedback welcome. Wnt (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, thanks you Wnt, I forgot toi answer there, I just forget sometimes that tehre are more RefDesk. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 15:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]