Humanities desk
< December 24	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 26 >

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.

December 25

Merry Christmas

To all the Ref Desk readers and writers, of whatever spiritual or philosophical persuasion, may this day be filled with joy for you and all those you love. 01:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC) (Forgot to sign. Bielle (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Merry Christmas to you, Bielle, and to all the other Wikipedians. --Omidinist (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded Bielle, and thanks to all for your efforts on this site. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people celebrate Newton's Brithday rather than Christmas. Not sure but I think RMS may be one of them Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry merry Christmas to all!!! Rhinoracer (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noël, Noël!--Wetman (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Festivus. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deprivation of political rights in China

Criminals are often sentenced to "deprivation of political rights" (剝奪政治權利) in PRChina. Can someone please explain this to me? How can you deprive people of something they don't have in the first place? F (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know anything specifically about China, but in other contexts the phrase often means that the right to vote in elections or be a candidate for political office has been taken away. AnonMoos (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole point is that you can't vote or stand in elections in China. F (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying there are no civil liberties at all in China??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, "political rights" in this sense has very little to do with actual substantive real-world freedom as experienced on the ground. It refers instead to the formal legal right to participate in elections etc (however meaningful or meaningless elections may happen to be in a particular society). There certainly are Elections in China (even though most candidates running for anything above the lowest village level have to be approved by the Communist party to be allowed to run). AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must remember, that despite what it might seem like in international comparison and what it might sound like when China is discussed in e.g. the US, the people of the PRC do have political rights. They are not identical to, and in several fields far from as far-going as those of most Americans or Europeans, but they are political rights nonetheless. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you for pre-empting the sarcastic comment that I could have made. :) Typically in the USA, convicted felons are also deprived of certain civil liberties, such as voting. I don't think there's anything to legally stop them from running for office, as the elections depend on the good judgment of the voters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article zh:剥夺政治权利 says:

People who have been deprived of political rights [in the PRC] do not enjoy the following:

Right to vote and eligibility for office (BTW, the Chinese here is the same as the German: "active and passive election rights")
Freedom of expression, publication, congregation, joining of organizations, travel, and of holding protest demonstrations.
Right to hold national public offices.
Right to hold offices in state owned companies, enterprises, business units and people's collective leadership tasks.

If you're interested in this topic, it would be great if you could start an article about "deprivation of political rights"; I had thought of simply translating the Chinese article, but it would be odd to only limit ourselves to one country. — Sebastian 21:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, so the matter seems to be clarified) I have no idea, but it is possible that the passive voting right (the right to stand for position X in an election), is curtailed in some legislations by the above procedure. It would seem nonsensical to "cancel" the right to vote and yet to allow the tight to be voted for. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PRC isn't the only Marxist state in which this has been done; the USSR often used "deprivation of electoral rights" [or maybe a different translation, but that's what it amounted to] that as a punishment, especially under Stalin. While voting wasn't officially compulsory for eligible voters in the USSR, in practice it was much more compulsory than it is in countries such as Australia where it's legally compulsory; your vote didn't have any practical effect, but you definitely voted. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, in reality, being deprived of voting rights meant they didn't have to stand outside in the cold with everyone else to vote for some idiot they hated. Sounds as much like a "punishment" as US cops who shoot someone under suspicious circumstances, and get suspended, with pay (AKA, a free vacation). StuRat (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sets of conditions seen as indicative of stock price rise

What sets of conditions (e.g., P/E ratio above/below X while other statistic above/below Y and et cetera) are considered to be indicative of increased probablilty of a rise in a stock's price? 72.218.12.90 (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None and nothing predicts a stocks rise in price, due to the Efficient Markets Hypothesis. People who make money out of you buying shares (directly or indirectly) will try to convince you otherwise, or people who've been suckered in by them. 78.146.194.118 (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't ask what actually works. I was curious what is considered indicative (obviously by the believers). Personally, I agree that it's a crap shoot. 72.218.12.90 (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about technical analysis. It is a highly questionable trading technique. I think it works (to the small extent that it does) because of self-fulfilling prophecies. All the technical analysts see a certain indicator that they've learned means "buy" so they buy. That pushes the price up and they think "oh look, we got it right!". Of course, you'll only make money from that if you are one of the first to react. It also means that anyone proposing a new system is almost certainly wrong, since a system only works if lots of people are doing it. --Tango (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the table at the top of Investment Environment for a number of indicators of major cycles in the stock market. There are also time cycle based theories. The applicability of usual cycles are being questioned at present largely because of the relative size of debt burdens (consumer, government and external) compared to GDP in many developed economies. In the US housing oversupply, shadow inventory of houses not yet in foreclosure but where the owner has negative equity, a coming second wave of mortgage resets are also casting duobt on whether or not the usual reflation strategies can work. dinghy (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A stock is considered a good candidate for a quick run-up in price when one of the following conditions apply: it is undervalued; the market or industrial sector is undervalued; or the day of the week ends in "y". DOR (HK) (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

xmas msg

wherelese, if anywhere, is teh Queens xmas message to the commonwealth boardcast to in the commonwealth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.40.13 (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://news.bbc.com and The official website of The British Monarchy for the Royal Christmas Message. It used to be a simple, direct affair but now Her Majesty seems to be used more and more as the narrator of a multi-media extravaganza (produced by her cinematically-involved son). I'm much more of a traditionalist myself, with images of King George V or George VI sitting before a microphone at Bush House or Broadcasting House to talk to his people around the world. Our British family in Providence, Rhode Island used to gather around a short-wave radio to hear the Queen's Message over the BBC General Overseas Service when the BBC still broadcast direct to the U.S. and Canada. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Christmas Message implies that it is not produced by her son. Lucky the CIA didn't catch you listening to the Queen. 78.151.96.82 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's on CBC in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia, 7:20 pm ABC Television. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the (republican, non-Commonwealth) United States, it's broadcast by C-SPAN.[1] —D. Monack ^talk 05:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who writes the Royal Christmas Message?

Who writes and scripts the Royal Christmas Message to the ~~Empire~~ Commonwealth? 78.146.194.118 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen. I'm sure she has aides that help, but it is a personal message. It's not like the Queen's Speech where she just reads what the government has written. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Queen ever sing?

OK, here's a more-ignorant-than-usual question, from one who has never heard the Queen's Xmas message: Does the Queen ever sing in public? I mean aside from singing hymns along with the group in a church congregation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing Her Majesty with Queen (band) ...--TammyMoet (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, although I'm sure watching the royals sing "We Are the Champions" would be a hoot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe she sang the US national anthem at a 9/11 memorial service. The British monarch singing a foreign national anthem was completely unprecedented. That's the only example of the Queen singing that I remember seeing on the news. I'm sure she sings in church and she may have sung "Happy Birthday" on occasion, but neither event would have been newsworthy enough for me to know about it. --Tango (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that was in a group, again. Does she actually sing "God Save the Queen" when a group sings it, or would that be seen as a little immodest? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of immodesty as such. It would just be completely inappropriate. A bit like proposing a toast to oneself. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was in a group. I've certainly never heard of the Queen performing a solo in public - do you have any reason to think she might have done? I can't find any reliable source saying the Queen either does or doesn't sing the national anthem - she might do because it is the anthem of the nation, not the monarchy, and she may want to pay tribute to the nation. That is happens to mention her may be considered unimportant. --Tango (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God save thy gracious Me,

Long live thy noble Me,

God save Me:

Send me victorious,

Happy and glorious,

Long to reign over thee:

God save Me.

I think there was something like that in To Be or Not To Be. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DaVinci's "Last Supper"

Today I heard that when Leonardo daVinci finished painting the "Last Supper", that he felt the bottom of the picture was a bit too plain, so he painted a small ship at the bottom of the painting. However, as the story goes, at the first viewing of the painting, the viewers were more interested in the small ship than in the subjects of Jesus and the apostles, so as soon as everyone had gone, Leonardo quickly painted over the little ship to remove it from view.

What can you tell me about this little ship or the "story" about it? I have already read several websites who proclaim that they are telling all the "secrets" about the painting, but no one mentions any little ship. I am trying to verify the story. (Besides, it seems to me that if they have done all this restoration, and done it with the latest technology, that they would have uncovered the ship underneath the paint that Leonardo had masked it with.)

Please help me get to the truth about this item, either from your knowledge or your awareness of where I can find it. Thank you, and a Blessed Christmas to you. Jerry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.180.136 (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at The Last Supper (Leonardo)... I presume the point of the story is that it's unverifiable because of the doorway cut into the center bottom of the painting. AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that artists often painted over earlier paintings, if they didn't like them, as canvas was apparently quite expensive then. We can see the under-paintings now with X-rays and other technology. I don't know if this applies to this particular painting, though. To me, the funny thing about that painting was always that everyone's on one side of the table. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]