Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 5

Prayer Your Cross

Where was this prayer published? In which book/letters?

"The everlasting God has in His wisdom foreseen from eternity the cross that He now presents to you as a gift from His inmost heart. This cross He now sends you He has considered with His all-knowing eyes, understood with His divine mind, tested with His wise justice, warmed with loving arms and weighed with His own hands to see that it be not one inch too large and not one ounce too heavy for you. He has blessed it with His holy Name, anointed it with His consolation, taken one last glance at you and your courage, and then sent it to you from heaven, a special greeting from God to you, an alms of the all-merciful love of God." St. Francis de Sales — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anja245 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• That's a prayer?? —Tamfang (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

With the use of the word 'you', it would sound more like a blessing than a prayer. Still, I have never heard it before. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to find the source of this in the works of Francis de Sales, but that's because it is so widely published, most of the time attributed to him -- but I'm not finding it in actual collections of his letters and writings. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"Your Cross" (is this known as "Votre Croix" in the original French?) is a commonly cited prayer of St. Francis de Sales, found on several Catholic devotional sites, but alas, no mention of printed source found in quick search; also checked both old and New Catholic Encyclopedia.

The concordance to his complete works in the original French is online and easily searched by a single word. Concordance - Œuvres Complètes de Saint François de Sales Find a French version of the prayer, a statistically unusual combination of a couple of words within a single sentence, search the first term in the concordance, and do a find on the second term on its huge results page. (No luck with "votre" and then, within results, "croix" - that title apparently not in source text). Alternatively, try the index of all 27 volumes - www.donboscosanto.eu Oeuvres de Saint François de Sales - Tome I - XXVII Touts les index, each in public domain and available on archive.org or, more conveniently organized on one page here: www.donboscosanto.eu/francesco_di_sales/index-fr.php Volume 2 looks promising, Défense de l'estendart de la Sainte Croix. Good luck! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought the English phrase, "warmed with loving arms and weighed with His own hands" most promising for its unusual combination (more so in this context than "your cross", at least!) of "warmed" and "weighed" in a short passage, but found no results searching concordance (with Google Chrome offering helpful translations of results pages) for all matches on cognates of French words for "heated" or warmed": Réchauffe, Réchauffer, Réchauffez, Chauffent, Chauffer, Chaufferont. Maybe those with better French could try that phrase with alternate translations. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Did the Great Wall of China accomplish what it was originally intended for?

^Topic ScienceApe (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Not really. --Jayron32 11:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No. It wasn't very big, and was not a continuous wall, but rather a bunch of shorter walls, so there were gaps in it for the northerners to easily get through. Calling it 'The Great Wall' would be erroneous, as it was a serious of disconnected walls, none of which was particularly great in comparison with the other walls. These days, local people have been dismantling it to obtain building materials for houses, etc. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Nontheless, the wall was nearly continuous under the Ming dynasty, and it succeeded in delaying the Manchu invasion. The invasion succeeded not because the Manchu stormed the wall or found their way through gaps in the wall. Instead, the invasion succeeded because the renegade Ming general Wu Sangui opened the gates of the wall to the Manchu. Marco polo (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really. It wasn't like Wu allowed the Manchus in to a stable Chinese state; China was in a state of Anarchy, under widespread rebellion, and the last Ming emperor had just committed suicide. It wasn't so much that Wu "opened the gates" as much as "Abandoned his post because he had nothing left to defend". Wu switched sides to the Manchu because his former side pretty much disintegrated around him. It was the destruction of the Ming state from within that caused Wu's defection, not Wu's defection that caused the fall of the Ming. The Manchu takeover wasn't so much an invasion into a well-defended state so much as the Manchu moving into a power vacuum created by the extinction of the prior dynasty and the complete breakdown of the entire state structure from within. It's also quite likely the Manchu didn't need Wu to succeed anyways. --Jayron32 13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The Great Wall of China actually refers to a variety of walls over a period of almost two thousand years. I think it's fair to say that some of these were successful and some were not. If you mean the Ming Great Wall built by the Ming dynasty, which forms the most visible parts of the Great Wall today, our article says: "In academia, opinions about the Wall's role in the Ming dynasty's downfall are mixed. Historians such as Arthur Waldron and Julia Lovell are critical of the whole wall-building exercise in light of its ultimate failure in protecting China; the former compared the Great Wall with the failed Maginot Line of the French in World War II. However, independent scholar David Spindler notes that the Wall, being only part of a complex foreign policy, received "disproportionate blame" because it was the most obvious relic of that policy." So that would suggest a negative or mostly negative answer. John M Baker (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Scramble for Africa - shares of the colonial powers

Areas controlled by European colonial powers on the African continent in 1913, shown along with current national boundaries.

  Belgian

  British

  French

  German

  Italian

  Portuguese

  Spanish

  Independent

What was the share of colonized Africa for each colonial power in 1913? While most key figures are probably impossible to reconstruct, the share of area has probably been calculated somewhere? --KnightMove (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

How are you measuring "share"? By population or by land area? Both figures are trivial for you to calculate. You just need sources for the numbers. For example, you can use the map you just shared at the right, and approximate the land area of the territories using the maps of the modern countries overlayed with it. From there you can portion out what % of the total land area of Africa is claimed by each colonial power. --Jayron32 14:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Partial answer: "By the beginning of the 20th century, 90 percent of the land area on the African continent came under colonial control....France and Britain together colonized over 70 percent of the land." Colonialism, by Gerald R. Pitzl, in Encyclopedia of World Poverty, Volume 1, Sage Publications, 2006, p. 186. [1] (The sources listed at the end of the article might help you get more specifics.) 184.147.117.34 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are some numbers by population: "Between 1885 and 1914 Britain took nearly 30 percent of Africa's population under its control, compared to 15 percent for France, 9 percent for Germany, 7 percent for Belgium and only 1 percent for Italy."[2] 184.147.117.34 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've added the key, without which the colors are undefined. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The Union of South Africa was independent by 1913, having become a Dominion in 1910 with the same status as countries such as Canada and Australia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, although its Dominion status meant that it was still part of the British Empire even if not under the control of London. "The Union of South Africa was tied closely to the British Empire, and automatically joined with Great Britain and the allies against the German Empire" according to our History of South Africa (1910–48) article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Is any US government agency allowed to lie to the public?

Re [3], I know it is a crime to make intentional false statements to a federal investigator [4] so why do the Feds let local police departments get away with it? What recourse do citizens have when government agencies lie in a news broadcast that goes out to the general public, which certainly includes federal investigators? Does the mere fact that a reporter accurately parroted the lie absolve the government agent of lying to investigators? EllenCT (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There is not, has not ever been, nor is there likely to ever be any law that requires police in the U.S. to tell the truth all the time. You are not allowed to issue false statements to them because the state has an interest in finding the perpetrators of crimes and bringing them to justice. Police can lie to you as much as they want, so long as they don't cross the line into entrapment, that is getting you to comit a crime you would not have otherwise committed. Lying is central to undercover work, it would be pretty impossible for an undercover officer to do their investigation if they were required to tell you they were a cop. The FBI can lie to you as well, as a police force they do what other police do. I am not aware that any police agency anywhere in the world is proscribed from ever lying. This and this explain it well. The second, from findlaw.com, a pretty reliable source, says clearly "The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect." Of course, you are not required to give any self-incriminating evidence to the police. Even if they lie to try to get you to confess, your Miranda rights ensure that you are under no obligation to answer them. Also, though police are required to give the Miranda warning before charging someone with a crime, even if you haven't been warned, you still have those rights. The rights do not exist because of the warning, the rights exist regardless of the warning. The warning is merely a required courtesy. --Jayron32 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And with regard to your second questions: No, lying to the press is not the equivalent of lying to federal investigators, merely because a federal investigator may read a news paper or watch the 11:00 news. You are not required to tell the truth to a person 100% of the time merely because they are a federal investigator (for example, it is not against the law to throw a surprise birthday for someone who is employed in that job!). Also, it is not forbidden that lies are never heard by a federal investigator in any context. What is forbidden is lying to a police officer or investigator who is asking questions in the course of an investigation. The proper legal term in the U.S. is called Obstruction of justice, and only covers giving false statements to investigators during the course of an investigation. Not merely saying falsehoods that happen to be overheard by an investigator. Public officials can be penalized for lying only in certain specific circumstances: lying to investigators (Obstruction of justice), lying under oath (Perjury), lying to Congress (Contempt of Congress) are a few; lying in general may not be a specific crime, but can be used as evidence for removal from office under general concepts such as censure or impeachment. There is, however, no specific crime for lying to the press. What can happen is that such officials can be called to testify before Congress, at which point there would be specific penalties for lying. --Jayron32 16:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that government officials lying to the public ought to be illegal, except perhaps in a few special cases like national security. For example, if the police claim they didn't arrest somebody who they did arrest, and who subsequently disappeared, that very much seems like it should be a crime. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• The question is malformed. Agencies of the federal government don't talk to the public. Their officers may be called to testify before congress, which is comprised of the people's representatives. Lying under oath before congress is a crime. Agents of the government may not lie under oath, and perjury in a criminal case is a huge deal. Statements not made under oath are not governed by any standard, just look at the fact that fewer Americans have jobs now than since the beginning of the Reagan Administration, but that unemployment numbers are quite rosy. Such reports are political, not scientific or evidentiary--they have no epistemic value. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In 1981, there were roughly 91,000,000 Americans with jobs. Today there are roughly 140,000,000. Demonstratedly a false statement. Use this tool and change the date ranges. If you have a different source of data, or wish to qualify your statement, that'd be fine, but you shouldn't make a statement of numerical fact like "fewer than" without an actual reference. I'd be glad to see a different reference you may have to provide that says differently than those numbers. --Jayron32 02:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Amen, Jayron, Amen. Hit 'em with solid data and watch the rapid retreat!DOR (HK) (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You're not even understanding what I said. I said the jobs numbers haven't been this low since the beginning of the Reagan administration. I didn't claim they were better at the beginning of the Reagan administration. I might also mention that you have to give percentage of population numbers in full-time work, not absolute numbers including part time jobs as "jobs", but I fear your heads might explode. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Medeis may be essentially right about that, where essentially = starting from 1984, and ignoring post 2009-years that were obviously even worse. See graph here (didn't bother to restrict to full time employees). For interest sake, I also plotted the employment population ration for prime-aged workers (25-54 yo) to compensate for increased years of schooling and increase in senior population; by that standard US is doing almost as well as the best Reagan years, but not as good as the Clinton era. Abecedare (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In February 2015 the official US unemployment rate was 5.5%, yet labor participation is at a 37 year low (so actually the Carter administration, not Reagan) but unemployment numbers reached 12% under Reagan, and meantime there's a record number of people on foodstamps, and a record number of people on disability. The problem with the 5.5% statistic is that it is gamed, it excludes people with part time jobs, and people who have given up looking for jobs (not reported a job search in the last month). My point is not about specific years, but the fact that every other indicator belies a 5.5% unemployment rate, and that these numbers are basically propaganda. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

May be that's the point? Statements not made under oath like the above are often not governed by any standard except a person's personal standards. Most of us try to speak what we believe to be the truth, to the best of our abilities on the RD or wikipedia in general, except when making clearly indicated jokes etc. A few people may not. Unfortunately there's still a slight flaw in this logic. Statements on wikipedia are also governed by the communities standards, and making crap up isn't something that's allowed under those standards. Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

μηδείς, Show any shred of evidence that “job numbers haven’t been this low since the beginning of the Reagan administration.” In the first quarter of 1981, the US had 100.2 million civilian employees; in the first quarter of 2015 it was 148.3 million, an increase of nearly half. Unemployment then was 7.4%, now it is 5.6% (Q-1 average). In the first three months of 1981, 43.8% of the population had a job; now it is 46.3%. In 1981, 67.1% of the 15-64 year-old age group were employed; in 2014 it was 68.1%.

Those who cannot imagine an economic recovery are using all sorts of statistical nonsense to make it look worse than it is. The fact is that the US economy has grown, year-on-year in real terms, for 21 straight quarters, at an average rate of +2.2% p.a. Weekly unemployment claims have fallen, year-on-year, in 272 of the past 286 weeks. U-6 unemployment, if that’s your favorite, has fallen faster and further than at any time in its history.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There are several million fewer Americans employed today than in 2007, and only a small fraction of those have bounced back, but what does that have to do with my question? @Jayron32: do any of those sources say that police are specifically allowed to lie to the press or the public when federal investigators are likely going to be investigating those statements -- even if only because they are lies? I want to see a case or a statute, or even a procedural guideline in police regulations which suggests doing so is ever allowed. Yes, when two likely complicit suspects are in separate holding cells, by all means tell each that the other is singing for a deal and they'll be sent down the river if they don't as well, but allowing lies to the press obviously infringes on the First Amendment in a very profound way. Jurisprudence is jurisprudence. EllenCT (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative. There is no statute or law requiring that anyone tells the truth to the press. You can demand all you want for a law that says that police are allowed to lie to the press; there exists no reason for such a law or rule or statute to exist in the first place. If you demand people to prove that unicorns don't exist by producing a non-unicorn, you get strange looks. The same here: no one can produce a source which proves the non-existence of something which never existed. --Jayron32 00:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: lies to suspects have been regulated by the courts since the US Supreme Court ruled that police lies during interrogations can be so excessive as to render confessions involuntary and thus inadmissible. Are you saying that you think the prohibition against lying to investigators, which indisputably applies to speech or writing, has some exception when the lie transits through a diligent press accurately reporting? If so, how would that not be a law infringing on the freedom of the press? EllenCT (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you have a fantastic misunderstanding of what freedom of the press means. It means the press are allowed to ask questions of people. It places no obligation on the people asked to answer them. --Jayron32 23:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: do you think deliberately lying to reporters whose livelihood depends on their reputation for accuracy doesn't infringe on their freedom? Do you think that such a theory could possibly agree with the Founders' intent or literal construction? EllenCT (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What I and you think is of no bearing on the issue. It just isn't. Your outrage has no bearing on the law. --Jayron32 02:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Absent from those few categories where the law allows content-based regulation of speech is any general exception to the First Amendment for false statements. This comports with the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private con-versation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee. The First Amendment guarantees a person's right to lie. It's clear and the Supreme Court has upheld that right as recently as 2012. --Jayron32 02:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My "outrage"? Really? I am asking about violations of 18 USC 1001 which may occur when false statements are made to and repeated by the press, not the right to lie in general. EllenCT (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for Western dominance?

Many Westerners believe that Western dominance is because they have freedom and human rights. To what extent is Western dominance (including problems in Africa, Middle East and Asia) actually caused by Western colonialism, racism and exploitation? There should be existing research on this topic. --Jangan Perkauman (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, and then see if you have any questions. --Jayron32 19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Or you could start with British Empire. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

See this recent thread on Why is Europe much wealthier than Africa? Abecedare (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• This ridiculous trolling bigotry (when did the West stop beating its wife?) was brought to you by a single purpose account with no edits except at this page. I suggest he be starved, not fed. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

islamic countries vs western countries

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why are the islamic countries so backward compared to the western countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatterboxer100 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Backward how ? Technologically ? Politically ? Economically ? Socially (such as women's rights) ? Part of it may be the curse of oil. StuRat (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Troll. Delete. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Do you have any evidence of this ? StuRat (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Eh..."backward"? Not a neutral term. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC) socially backward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatterboxer100 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Female political leaders in Islam and in Muslim-majority countries is an area where they're doing better than the US. Iran's treatment of homosexuals is absolutely horrible, but their treatment of transsexuals is way better. More information here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC) The main reason is extremism. The West is partly to blame for the rise of extremism. During the Cold War, the Americans supported the mujahideen. Iranian Revolution is because the Americans forced a brutal secular leader on Iran and destroyed the zakat system. Now Western racism, Islamophobia and blasphemy, plus Western presence in the Middle East, is used by terrorist groups to gain support from angry young Muslims. --Jangan Perkauman (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC) There are also murderous "Islamic" organizations like Boko Haram that don't seem to have much to do with the West. Even ISIL seemed content to just massacre people in their part of the world, initially. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Yes, that is why I said partly. But Boko Haram aims to reduce Western influence in Nigeria. --Jangan Perkauman (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC) "Reduce Western influence" is quite the understatement. They murder or enslave anyone different from themselves. Also note that "western influence" is far more benign these days than in the bad old days of colonialism, yet Islamic fundamentalism is worse now. That would tend to disprove your theory. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC) So perhaps Boko Haram will help to stop the huge influx of emails from so-called Nigerian princes asking for money. KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！) 19:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Because the British promoted Wahabism in order to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Because they write from right to left. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Majority Islamic nations are as varied as majority Christian nations. 173.32.72.65 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

May 6

Does an adopted child change the line of succession to the British throne?

The birth of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge changes the line of succession to the British throne. This made me think of the following question. If a royal adopts a child, does that child then "sneak into" the line of succession? Let's say that, hypothetically, Prince William adopts a child. Would that child follow in succession? Or is he completely left out of the picture? Would that adopted child "bump" Prince Harry down one further step? Or no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, adopted children cannot normally inherit titles under British custom. See, for example, Baron Haden-Guest; the current holder, actor and comedian Christopher Guest has only adopted children. They cannot inherit his barony, the heir presumptive in this case is his younger brother Nicholas Guest. --Jayron32 02:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The only way around it that I can think of (other than a change in the British laws) is if it could be proven that the adopted child is descended from Sophia of Hanover. That wouldn't necessarily put the child very high up the succession list, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Such a person would qualify for that place in the list, in their own right, by virtue of their descent from Sophia, regardless of any other events such as being adopted by a parent who was also in the list. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

How would it differ, if any, if they had known before the adoption or if not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't make any difference. If some plague wiped out everyone above the adoptee in the succession, they'd find out then that they were an heir even if they hadn't known before. Unless and until that happens, it's a moot point. The adoption doesn't change the order of succession, whoever the adoptee is. (NB: The law could be changed to change this. I believe the Wittelsbach family, former rulers of Bavaria, changed their own house law a while back to permit a title to pass to a distant relative who had been adopted, and thus unite two titles.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Here we are: Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria is the heir of his childless elder brother, the Duke of Bavaria, but also inherited the title Duke in Bavaria from their great-uncle, who adopted him. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In medieval Japan however, it was not unknown for an emperor to be persuaded to adopt a prince from another branch of the royal line and then be persuaded to abdicate in favour of the adopted son. In this way, the powerful Samurai families competing for high status could manipulate the imperial court in their own favour. Probably why it's not allowed here. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Compare that with the Adoptive Emperorship, which worked quite well for Rome until the adopted Marcus Aurelius maid the terrible mistake of naming his son Commodus his heir. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This reminded me there seems to be an error regarding this in the Durant's ""The Lessons of History": in chapter X "Government and History" they state: "Marcus Aurelius had a son, Commodus, who succeeded him because the philosopher failed to name another heir; soon chaos was king." But in fact I believe Commodus was already co-emperor when Marcus Aurelius was still alive, which would seem to be equivalent to naming Commodus his heir. Not the only error in that book but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Contact Basemetal here 17:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Until 2002 Monaco, which faced demotion from a sovereign principality to an official protectorate of France if its dynasty became extinct, allowed its Princes to adopt unrelated persons into the dynasty, who thereupon became potential heirs to the throne at the expense of born dynasts more distantly related to the adopting Prince -- provided that the adoption was approved in advance by France. In 2002 that clause was abolished when the Line of succession to the throne of Monaco was expanded to include collaterals of the reigning Prince, as well as direct descendants. In the Bavarian case, no house law needed to be changed: the cadet branch of the royal House of Wittelsbach, known as Dukes in Bavaria, was facing male-line extinction, so just as in the case of the Habsburgs of Austria-Este, it was agreed within the family that the "spare heir" of the Head of the dynasty would inherit the title historically borne by an old collateral junior line -- that inheritance consisting only of the title, name and coat of arms, neither a claim to sovereignty nor significant estates. By contrast, the 1999 adoption of his sororal niece by the childless Head of the ex-Royal House of Saxony purported to transfer dynastic headship to a Westernized line of Lebanese sheiks, and although consented to at the time by all the other childless dynasts, a new feud has emerged between the adoptee's supporters and those of a de-morganatized male-line descendant: Adoptions outside the dynasty were not allowed under the Kingdom of Saxony's laws, but neither were morganauts allowed to succeed to the throne. In the former twin Grand Duchies of Mecklenburg, the post-monarchy adoption of a morganaut has resulted in the survival of its ex-ruling family in the form of that morganaut's descendant, the pretender Borwin, Duke of Mecklenburg. In the UK, all legitimate descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover are British dynasts eligible to inherit the Crown or pass to their non-Catholic descendants that eligibility (thus in 1999 Princess Caroline of Monaco obtained Queen Elizabeth II's permission to marry Electress Sophia's heir male so that her daughter, Princess Alexandra of Hanover, was born and remains a British dynast). The names, dates and lines of descent of Electress Sophia's descendants, though largely known, are no longer included in Wikipedia's Line of succession to the British throne, having been deleted as trivia. FactStraight (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone with a bachelor’s degree in political science and an MBA teach undergraduate courses in Political Science?

I've read that it's quite common among students to take a graduate program which is different from the bachelor's degree. I was wondering if it is possible for someone with a bachelor's degree in Political Science and Master of Business Administration to teach Political Science subjects.49.144.249.71 (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this will be up to the establishment who gives the course. Some colleges might publish their required qualifications for teaching, but in general you'll need to contact the institution in question. --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Undergraduate courses are frequently taught by people who are not particularly expert in the course subject. A common attitude is "I don't know enough about X, I'd better teach a course in it" - in my experience the only way to really learn something is to try to explain it to others. If someone has managed to get a decent MA or MSc they should be able to explain the contents of their undergraduate degree well enough, irrespective of the content of their master's degree. As always, though, whether they get to do this will depend on the particular institution employing them.

The MBA, however, seems to me to be a special case. My own view is that it's not really an academic degree (have you read the Harvard Business Review?), but simply a rather clever piece of marketing by its originators and an attempt to create a guild-type qualification, maintained by signalling behaviour by its holders. The same, more recently, seems to me to be obviously true of the CFA qualification, the history of which is a comedy of rent-seeking behaviour. I've no doubt that the holders of such qualifications are highly competent in their fields, but I've yet to meet anyone whose MBA has contributed to their academic fitness. RomanSpa (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• I suspect the answer would be yes, if the MBA were now pursuing a PhD in Poli-sci. Otherwise you're going to have to ask the department head, and I doubt he'll want to be bothered giving a committed answer to a hypothetical question. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

May 7

Reference to Halle Berry

I read the following statement in a news article (about Deflategate). The article states: "This is a circumstantial case, to be sure, but it is the Halle Berry of circumstantial cases". The full article is found here: Tom Brady's Legacy Forever Scarred by Damning Wells Report. What does the reference to Halle Berry mean? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a rather non-PC reference to Ms Berry's ethnicity - the implied analogy is "circumstantial evidence:direct evidence::black actresses:white actresses". Ms Berry is a very good black actress, and this case has very good circumstantial evidence, but Ms Berry is not white and this case has no direct evidence. (Please feel free to substitute "female actor" for my own non-PC language in the preceding). Tevildo (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Is this a "well known" reference? I have never heard this, or anything remotely close, before. I know that Halle Berry is biracial (as are millions of other people). Any reason that her case is so "special" and "note worthy", such that it would create a well-known or well-recognized reference such as this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is not a well-known reference at all. What's going on is that lots of sports columnists develop peculiar references that they use to build their "brand." You know it's a Rick Reilly article, for example, if there's a gratuitous reference to how flossing is boring. Mike Freeman just really, really loves Halle Berry.[5][6][7][8] --M@rēino 15:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't buy Tevildo's racial analogy; it just doesn't ring true to my ears. It sounds to me as if Freeman is simply using her name as a idiosyncratic superlative, and that "the Halle Berry of circumstantial cases" just means "the strongest of circumstantial cases". Our article on the writer is at Mike Freeman (columnist). He no longer works for CBS Sports, so our external link to his biography there is broken, but here is a link to his Bleacher Report profile. -- ToE 16:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a tight, super-sexy, kick-ass, circumstantial case rather than a flabby, unattractive, weak one. I doubt this has anything to do with Ms Berry being a black actress rather than a white one. Paul B (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Holly Berries?

I am very confused by the entire thread, but see Ilex opaca. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I get it now. "Halle Berry" is a synonym for "top notch". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Now it makes sense to me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Schumann's stranded repeat sign

I have a technical music notation question that has stumped both my music teacher and myself. It concerns how to interpret an opening repeat sign with no corresponding closing sign. It appears in the 4th piece, "Grillen", from Robert Schumann's Fantasiestücke, Op. 12.

If you go to page 9 of this score, the final measure in the top row starts with a repeat sign. But there is no closing sign anywhere, just some double bar lines. There's another opening repeat in the second row on page 10, and its closing repeat is on row 5. The answer to the question of where the closing repeat of the original repeat sign is, is never answered. It surely cannot mean that the entire piece from the repeat sign to the very end, is repeated, can it?

This stranded repeat is in every edition of this music that I have been able to track down, yet nowhere is there any commentary on what it means. These editions include those edited by Schumann's widow Clara, who was a virtuoso pianist who knew more than anyone what his intentions were, and was renowned for her attention to detail, so that sort of argues against this being just a misprint. The recordings I either have or have tracked down on youtube all seem to just ignore this repeat sign. How do they know this is the appropriate course of action? Any clues, anyone? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This is pure speculation, but as the 8 bars after the opening repeat sign are repeated further down the page, maybe an earlier version (or the MS) had an end-repeat sign where there is now a double bar in the fourth system on the page, and omitted the 8 bars that now come after that double bar, with a first- and second-time set-up around the double barlines on the second system. Then in a later version the repeat was written out in full, but the opening repeat sign wasn't removed. I agree that a reasonably careful editor would notice the discrepancy at once, but in the days of hand-engraving (as memorably depicted here) it wasn't easy to correct errors. It's conceivable that there should be an end-repeat mark at the double bar on the fourth system, and that seems to be the only possible way to make the start-repeat possible. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If my counting is correct, that would be where the key signature changes from 5 flats to 6 flats? I might try repeating that whole section and see if it makes musical sense. (I'm playing this in an eisteddfod soon, and I'm limited to 5 minutes, so I'd better get out the old stop watch.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: Yes, that works, both aesthetically and chronometrically. My esteemed teacher supports this approach, and that was a nice birthday surprise for her. Thanks for the inspiration, Andrew. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

See Music Theory Q & A.—Wavelength (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I might ask there if Andrew's suggestion doesn't work. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Crossing international or interstate borders by car

I have watched a documentary that reports that the Mexican-American border is heavily guarded. However, I am not sure if the Mexican government is as vigorous as the American government in keeping illegal immigrants out. How heavily guarded is the Canadian-American border? I have heard that some Canadians take advantage of the American "Black Friday" and cross the border to buy things. For safety and legality in traveling by car, do people generally collect a valid passport and tourist visa before hitting the road? 140.254.226.191 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been a few years since I've done so, but basically crossing the U.S. - Canadian border is much easier than the U.S. Mexican border. When I did it, you stopped for a second, showed the requisite documents, and were waved on. Going from the U.S. into Canada was easier than the reverse, but neither was particularly hard. I used to regularly drive from Chicago to New Hampshire and back again, and the best route is actually across Southern Ontario (it is almost exactly 1000 miles using either the Canadian or American routes, but the tolls in the U.S. are quite pricey!). I never had to speak to a border agent longer than about 60 seconds at either border. One time, going into the U.S., they made me open the trunk of my car, but didn't look more than a few seconds, and then told me to go about my business. That's about it. This article and this article and many others I can find note the difference. The reason for the difference in security levels would likely be a lively discussion, but is outside the realm of this board. --Jayron32 16:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I used to do the same trip (Detroit to and from Connecticut). Back then no passport was required. Now it is, or you need to have an "enhanced drivers license", which is essentially linked to an online passport. I haven't bothered going to Canada since they added that requirement. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I drive into Canada from the United States (and back into the United States) roughly once per year. The border is under surveillance, and crossings are restricted to guarded checkpoints, but it is not as intensively patrolled or fortified as the Mexican border. No visa is required by either country for the other's citizens, but the United States does require passports (or the alternative document that StuRat mentions, which is not much easier to obtain than a passport). I have never had any trouble crossing the border in either direction. I've had my car trunk searched maybe 4 times out of 10 crossing into the United States, never crossing into Canada. (I suspect that this is mainly to prevent drugs coming from Canada to the United States.) Typically, the guard asks a few questions about your destination in the country, the purpose of your visit, your occupation, and how you know any traveling companion. I've taken my dog with me. In that case, they want to see proof of a valid rabies vaccination. It is certainly true that Canadians make shopping trips to U.S. border cities, because prices are often lower south of the border. Canadians who live near the border even cross just to buy (cheaper) gas for their cars. Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Crossing the Detroit River by private boat requires a once a year inspection or calling the U.S. on a official video phone on the Canadian side.[9] On the Great Lakes you are required to call the Canadian border patrol when you cross into Canadian waters (must be tricky in parts of Lake Huron and Superior).[10] It used to be common to cross the Detroit River for the nightlife but since 9/11 that has lessened. The enhanced ID available in some states is cheaper than a passport or Pass card but neither the ID nor Passcard is good for international air travel. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I live, in Vermont, about a couple hours from Montreal. I've made the crossing probably half a dozen times and it is much like what Marco says above. Though, I've never had to open my trunk. I thought I might point out a thing or two though. Canadians don't just come down during Black Friday but come down quite regularly when the exchange rate benefits them. Some stores here know some Canadians and will hold things behind the counter for a couple days if Canadians call to say they're coming down and don't want to find that the item is sold out when they get here. Also, people in Derby Line, Vermont used to be able to cross the border quite freely to visit friends down the street, which also happened to mean crossing the border. See that article for more on the particulars including a library where the border actually crosses through the building. Dismas|^(talk) 19:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that if you were a US or Canadian citizen it used to be true that you could cross the border with nothing more than proof of identify (usually a driver's license) and proof of citizenship (usually a birth certificate)—documents that most people would have, so no advance planning was required to cross the border. And in practice, if you seemed like an American or Canadian to the border guards, they often wouldn't even ask for that. (One time in 1997 a US border guard at the Rainbow Bridge started by asking me "Bringing anything in?" in such rapid speech that it came out as about three syllables. I said "Huh?" or "What?" and he said "Okay." Elapsed time, less than 5 seconds.) The US started requiring passports (or other documents that most people who don't travel regularly won't have) for all travelers only in 2009, and I think they've generally gotten stricter about checking things than they used to be. Returning to Canada, I haven't noticed any such changes, but I don't know if visitors have a different experience. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I find it pretty easy going back and forth now. I guess now that we have to use a passport, they are actually less strict. I did get pulled aside once and they went through my car, but that was in early 2002, when they actually did have armed soldiers patrolling the border. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Are banks able to loan out more money than they receive in deposits?

I barely have any economic or financial knowledge at all, but am trying to learn more and have been reading through this article [11] about banks on the How Stuff Works website. The third page of the article says "that while people are putting money into the bank every day, the bank is lending that same money and more to other people every day."

I've been struggling to figure out what the word "more" is referring to in this context. The previous page of the article explains a process that I believe is called fractional reserve banking, in which banks are able to loan out more money than actually exists in physical form. However, it seems that within this process, all of the money that banks are able to loan out still has to be deposited first, whereas the quote seems to imply that banks are loaning out more money than actually gets deposited.

I'm aware that banks don't loan out the entirety of what they receive in deposits, because of the reserve requirement. But is there some other way that a bank can loan out money, other than just relying on the deposits of clients? --Jpcase (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the best article on Wikipedia to start you off is capital adequacy ratio; banks and other financial institutions typically have liabilities (which includes the repayments of deposits) and assets (which includes stuff the institution owns, like mortgages). Banking regulators impose capital requirements, with the idea that the bank will be able to meet any practical call on its liabilities. The financial crisis of 2007–08 was, in part, caused because those requirements were inadequate, and because assets the banks owned (in the form of mortgage-backed securities) turned out not to be worth nearly as much as the banks thought they were. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 17:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

All very good, but I think Fractional-reserve_banking is the better place to start. In short, OP is is correct that for most banks, the total amount loaned out at any given time is more than the sum of all deposits. Leverage_(finance) is also good background reading. When there have been insufficient regulations, and banks become over leveraged, they risk defaulting through a bank run, which has happened several times in history, and is a related but somewhat simpler situation than the 2007-8 financial crisis. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a bank might lend out more money than it has received in deposits. To understand why, think of the bank's balance sheet: it has assets and liabilities. In a very simple bank, its assets might consist entirely of loans, while its liabilities might consist not just of deposits, but of the bank's capital. For example, consider a bank that has taken $50 of deposits and has $50 of paid-in capital. Its total liabilities are $100, which means that it must also have $100 of assets. In this simple example these might all be in the form of loans to customers, so in this case the bank has lent out more money than it has taken in deposits, but not more than its total liabilities.

In real life, bank regulators require that a certain fraction of the bank's assets be held in cash (or certain other special assets). This is so that the bank can usually repay the deposits of anyone who has a current account with the bank, without running out of money. Suppose, in our example, that the regulators require that the bank keep 25% of its assets in cash in case a few borrowers come in and take money out of their current accounts (the bank doesn't need to keep all its assets in cash, because it knows that not everyone will try to take money out of their current account at the same time): then in this example the bank has to keep $25 of its assets in cash. This means that it can still lend out $75 as bank loans. Again, the volume of loans made is greater than the deposit base, but, again, it has not lent more than its total liabilities. The general point should now be clear: banks have more than one kind of liability, and thus may be able to lend more than they have taken in deposit. RomanSpa (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(after ec) I think we need to be careful with the terminology here.

• Fractional-reserve_banking does not mean that an individual bank can lend more than the deposits+equity. As far as I know regular banks cannot do that, but I stand ready to be corrected.
• Leverage_(finance) is again not applicable, since leverage involves using borrowed money (aka deposits, in case of banks) to make investments, and the leveraging advantage arises from the ratio of this borrowed money to equity.
• Not directly relevant to the original question but we also need to distinguish between regular banks, and the shadow banking system, since the latter is the one which is much more loosely regulated and played a large role in the financial crisis.

As I said above, I believe the answer to the OP's quation is that a bank cannot lend more than their its combined equity and deposit (and because of CAR requirements the amount it can lend is strictly less), but there may be nuances I am missing. Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: Though Roman and I have worded our answers in the form "can" and "cannot" respectively, we both are in agreement! Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should be careful with terminology, and I can see how "fractional reserve" is not quite what the OP is asking about (though I do still think it's good background). But now I'm confused about leverage. You claim that "leverage is again not applicable, since leverage involves using borrowed money (aka deposits, in case of banks) to make investments." So, are you saying that banks do not use deposits to make investments (e.g. loans)? Because if they are not investing that money in some manner, then they'd have full reserves equal or greater to deposits, and that doesn't seem to be the case. Indeed Leverage_(finance)#Bank_regulation seems to indicate that leverage does apply to banks, and that reserve requirements do not, by themselves limit the extent of leverage. So instead, capital requirements are mandated in many places so that "these institutions do not take on excess leverage and become insolvent." SemanticMantis (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Both Fractional-reserve banking and Leverage (finance) are indeed goodbackground material, but I was just pointing out they do not answer the OP's question of whether banks can lend more money than their deposits.

• With respect to fractional-reserve banking in particular, it is commonly understood by laypersons to mean that "banks can create money out of thin air", or "lend more money than they have". While the former is arguably true, the latter isn't (afaik) since fractional-reserve banking essentially means that banks can loan out at least some of their deposits (ie not all loans financed by owner's capital). And as soon as you allow banks to loan out say even 1% of their deposits , you'll have a fractional reserve banking system, and by itself it has nothing to do loans exceeding deposit. In their question, the OP already indicated that they understood this point.
• And as for financial leverage: a bank can in theory have infinite leverage ratio while still lending out less money than its deposits. And it can have a leverage ratio infinitesimally above 1 and still lend out more money than its deposits. So again this factor alone doesn't say anything about the loan/deposit ratio.

That's the reason I was calling for care. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That clears a few things up for me at least. But now I'm left wondering if the claim "loans can exceed deposits" is directly supported by any of the links above? I've tried to find something to that effect, but have so far come up short. I suspect that the claim is derivable as a logical implication of some of the details in the CAR and capital requirement articles, but to see that, a reader would have to be fairly familiar with the material already. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• The OP has to clarify himself based on the above questions. Fractional reserve banking would be the apparently relevant issue, but Jpcase would need to clarify himself in regard to the above answers. When Alan Greenspan asked Ayn Rand if FRB was moral, she advised him it was, as a considered risk. 100 Voices. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Finlay McWalter: @Semantic Mantis: @RomanSpa: @Abecedare: @Medeis and Μηδείς:

O_O

Woah. Hehe...I knew that whatever answer I received was likely going to take some work on my part to understand, but this is a surprise. I have to say, I was a little bit stunned when I saw the sheer number of replies that I've received on this question... both stunned in gratitude and just stunned by the sheer complexity of it all.

I feel like I should reiterate the point that I led my original post with - I really don't know much about economics or finances at all. Hence why I was reading "How Stuff Works". ;) I'm only 21. I've taken a single basic economics course in college, and I can't say that even fully understood that. It seems like the question that I'm asking is somewhat advanced, probably above my head a bit. I really do want to try to understand this, but to borrow a quote from Denzel Washington's character in Philadelphia, you might have to "explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old", haha.

SemanticMantis - when you talk about leveraging, are you saying that banks will receive loans themselves and then take that money and loan it out to others? If so, where are the banks receiving these loans from? The Federal Reserve?

RomanSpa - I think I follow what you're saying. By "paid-in-capital" are you referring to the money that has been invested into the bank by stockholders?

@Jpcase:: Yes, that's exactly what I meant. By the way, to get a basic understanding of this, I strongly suggest you ignore all the stuff that people have mentioned about Fractional-reserve banking, Leverage (finance) and capital adequacy ratios; these are all important issues, but are not relevant to getting a basic understanding of how a bank's balance sheet works. Finally, I've been asked by one of the other contributors here to provide a reference in support of my earlier remarks. If you're just starting out in economics, a really good place to start is "The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets" by Frederic Mishkin; an interested undergraduate should be able to read it with no trouble. More generally, you mentioned that so far you've taken just one basic economics course in college: if you enjoyed it and want to learn more, do consider studying more - economics is one of the most intellectually rewarding of subjects, and financial economics (which is the area of economics that deals with banks and financial markets) is tremendously exciting at present! RomanSpa (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare - perhaps the biggest enigma for me out of everything I read above would honestly have to be the meaning of "after ec", haha. Is this an economic term or is it just internet shorthand?

--Jpcase (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• "ec" is wikipedia slang for edit conflict. On the Reference Desks it generally seems to mean something like this: "While I was taking the time to write this great answer, someone else posted their answer. But instead of going to the trouble of looking at what they wrote and editing my posting so that it does not duplicate theirs or so that it acknowledges or responds to what they said (as appropriate), I'm just going to post it the way I wrote it." But perhaps some people intend it differently. I haven't read all the content above. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but my only barely relevant knowledge here is the relation of FRB to ethics. The problem in the US is that the FDIC and the implicit political promise of bailouts for too big to fail companies creates a huge moral hazard. We'll see how this works out over the next couple of years, depending if there's a crash or a Federal Reserve audit. μηδείς (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the answers in here are more complex than necessary. The only thing OP needs to understand is that deposits is only one part of the funding that the bank has. Other major funding sources include:

• equity capital - i.e., the money put in by shareholders.
• bonds - i.e., the investors on the market purchase the debt securities issued by the bank. The buyers typically include mutual funds, insurance companies and private individuals.
• subordinated securities - a riskier type of bond that is closer to shareholder equity
• Lending from other banks - not very common except for short term deposits, although sometimes significant lending occurs from non-commercial banks, such as European Investment Bank.
• Insurance premiums - where banks also act as insurance companies, they borrow from insurance policy holders against a promise to pay out later, when the insurance event occurs.

There may be other ways of funding as well.

To give an example, a bank I'm familiar with [12] had 38% of its balance sheet funded from deposits, 26% from debt securities and subordinated debt, 13% from insurance policies and 5% from shareholder equity. On the other hand, only 49% of its balance sheet was also lent to various creditors, with significant amounts of cash and financial instruments held at hand. One should keep in mind that this is a merchant bank - a more retail-oriented bank will have a larger share of deposits.No longer a penguin (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

We still should be careful with the terminology. In a sense, when you deposit money with a bank, you are loaning it to them (you can earn interest on savings accounts, and they get to do other things with the money), but that's not what we normally call it. So it's better to say that they make investments with our deposits. I still don't have a good, clear reference for the claim "banks can loan out more money than they have in deposits", but everybody here seems to think it is true. Everybody also seems to agree that loans cannot exceed total liabilities, which we can think of as mostly deposits+equity. If you look through the formulas in the CAR article, I think that loans exceeding deposits is a consequence of some of the equations, together with the actual regulatory limits. SemanticMantis (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually no. In no sense, when you deposit money with a bank, are you lending it to them, as you can clearly see from our article on deposit accounts. A banking deposit is legally and economically entirely different from a loan to the bank. The whys and wherefores of this are, however, outside the scope of the original question, which I have attempted to answer above. RomanSpa (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Type of social dance shown in Pride and Prejudice

What is that dance called? I'm talking about the dance that has barely any touching. It just doesn't look like waltz to me. What is that dance? 164.107.182.34 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Might it have been a Morris dance or a Country dance? --Jayron32 18:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to a description in the novel, or to a specific film or TV dramatisation of it? Paul B (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Film dramatization. 164.107.182.34 (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This film, or some other version? Paul B (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

See this page for some possibilities. A more specific answer will depend upon the exact adaptation, although it's likely to be a variant of country dance that Jayron linked to. Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, you are referring to this scene. It's supposed to be a country dance, possibly based, I'd guess, on Hogarth's country dance from the Analysis of Beauty. It's probably created specially for the film, to give a suitable air of elegant distance. The music (Bach!) is completely anachronistic. That would never be played at a dance in the 1810s. Paul B (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

That music is a minuet (and is not by Bach - it's the tune from Abdelazer by Purcell that Britten used in his "Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra". Even less likely to be used at that date than Bach, I fancy). But I suspect the question is about the following scene, which very likely is a country dance. --ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I note that our articles claim that the waltz only reached Britain in the same year that Pride and Prejudice was published. Rmhermen (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And this "Historical Social Dance blog" entry on "What did Jane Austen Dance?" lists Waltz among "things Jane Austen didn't dance, regardless of how often someone thinks it's a good idea to put them in an Austen movie". Like the previously linked Jane Austen blog, it too lists Country dances, Cotillions, and Boulanger (redlink!) as the ones that Austen danced/mentioned in her work. Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Gangs and cars

Although I do know that gangsters in cities may be involved in violent crime and purchase cars to show off their status, I wonder whether they actually turn themselves in in order to receive a driver's license. Wouldn't the driver's testing centers be suspicious of the illegal activity or the high-profile criminals? Do gangsters have legal, valid driver's licenses? 164.107.182.34 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if the gangs don't get caught by the driver's testing centers, do they have to go to jury duty or get drafted into the military? Or do they somehow try to evade those responsibilities of being a citizen (in the United States)? 164.107.182.34 (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In the US you have to register for the draft, but there hasn't been any actual conscription for decades. The penalties for not registering are fairly small for a criminal, too, like becoming ineligible for student loans. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There's basically 3 approaches taken by criminals:

1) Maintain their own "legit" public presence. That is, have a registered mailing address, phone number, etc. This only works if they aren't wanted by police.

2) Go underground. For those who are wanted by police, they can have a fake driver's license, steal one from somebody who looks similar, or just run whenever the police try to stop them.

3) Set up a new "legit" identify. They can do an identity fraud to completely set up under a new name. This works better if the person whose ID they steal is dead (of natural causes, to avoid police scrutiny), or else that person will find out somebody else is using their ID when they apply for credit, file their taxes, etc. It's also best to move to another city, so any policeman who pulls them over won't recognize them. StuRat (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I am curious whether Stu's got any references, or if he's going on personal experience here. :)

I have never once been asked whether I was a gang member when applying for a driver's license, even though I lived in Fort Apache, The Bronx. I am not quite sure I understand the question. If the implication is that information that might implicate someone in a criminal matter would be shared with the authorities, I am not sure that that's the case. I'd suggest reading the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that anybody at a testing center would dare to make a citizen's arrest of a dangerous fugitive. (I can just imagine the driving test: "Turn right at the light and parallel park in front of the police station.") Also, they would not be accepted for a jury by the prosecuting attorney. Finally, there is no draft currently, but if there were, it would depend on how desperate the situation was, I'd imagine. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think what the OP has in mind are wanted criminals. That is, if the FBI or whoever is actively looking for you, could you still go and get a driver's license. You do occasionally hear similar situations, where a long forgotten suspect gets nabbed while picking up a parcel or lost item or something. My guess is that if you're a hardened criminal, getting caught driving without a license is the least of your priorities and probably skip it. Matt Deres (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Criminals would very much like to avoid being picked up for driving without a license, because, if they are, then their prints will be run and they could get charged with far more serious crimes. StuRat (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless the two lifestyles of upstanding citizenry versus criminal activity are carefully managed they would tend to be incompatible and this would probably extend to the automotive realm. Bus stop (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that, at least in some states, juries are picked from registered voters; if you're not maintaining your own "legit" public presence, you won't get selected. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

From the public's POV, this issue is similar to other reasons people might not be able to get a driver's license, like being an illegal immigrant or being delinquent on property tax. The argument against denying all such people licenses is that they will then drive unlicensed, run from police and create dangerous high speed chase situations, and do a hit-and-run at an accident rather than stop to render assistance, because they can't risk being caught. There has to be a balance between this risk and the seriousness of the crime. If the person is a serial killer, then catching them any way you can is obviously a higher priority, so watching for such people if they try to renew their licence makes sense. On the other hand, if they just have unpaid parking tickets, then pushing them into driving illegally seems foolish. StuRat (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Several decades of growth

In the 1970s Ireland was ranked 37th in terms of GDP per capita. Today, they are 11th per capita. Is the phenomenal growth a result of the end of the war? 78.146.102.221 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The "war" was just in Northern Ireland, wasn't it ? StuRat (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(It is 2015, so 1970 was 45 years ago, right? tempus fugit) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really. It's still ongoing. Unfortunately. Some people who grew up with guns, just can't put them down, just like drug addicts. There will always be war until these people are put away and not left to teach their children to fight with lethal weaponry. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 23:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops. My mathematics is pretty shit. But back to the point. Why did their per capita outlook grow so much? 78.146.102.221 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Mainly in northern Ireland, yes, but a bit of killing in Ireland republic too. 78.146.102.221 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The 2008 European Commission article "The economy of Ireland: whither the Celtic Tiger?" discusses how "over the last two decades, Ireland achieved a remarkable economic transformation". There's also this paper titled "The Irish Economic Boom: Facts, Causes, and Lessons". From briefly skimming them, neither seems to attribute it to a cease in fighting. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Did the improvement in the economy help dissuade people from making war? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is impossible to answer. We know there was an improvement in the economy (mainly in the Republic) and there was a peace process (in the North). But how could you show that one caused the other? It can be shown that people in the Republic gradually became less bothered about unification of the whole Ireland, and that its government was willing to work with the British government. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Willing? It was more out of necessity. £7bn of bailout would hardly be called 'willing', more like an Oliver Twist scenario. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 15:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant in the run-up to the Good Friday Agreement. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The growth was mainly due to Ireland entering the EU in 1973. The £30Bn in subsidies to that small poor country plus a huge common market opening to it was very wisely handled by the Irish. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The EU didn't exist in 1973. I think you mean the EEC. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, KageTora. Can't even remember me own name sometimes. I even had to enlist your help to spell my name. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that The Troubles had a significant economic impact on the Republic of Ireland. There were some bombings by the Ulster Volunteer Force, a Loyalist paramilitary group, the worst being the the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and there were regular skirmishes between the IRA and security forces along the border. But as User:StuRat says above, most of the carnage was in Northern Ireland and (to a lesser degree) mainland Britain. The Celtic Tiger epithet now has a rather hollow ring, as Ireland was later included amongst the PIGS - the spendthrift countries that caused the European debt crisis. Ireland received a substantial "bailout" from the IMF and the EU, although the direct contribution by the British Government alluded to by User:KageTora above seems to a loan rather than a gift. [13] Alansplodge (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why I called it an Oliver Twist scenario, because they were already getting money from the IMF, but then it was just, "Please, sir, can I have some more?" KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And on top of that, "Since its accession to the EU the country [Republic of Ireland] has received from the European Union EUR 41,624 million over what it has contributed." [14] At least some of that has come from us poor Brits. Are we downhearted? Well, just a bit to tell the truth. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

May 8

How long does a British general election campaign really last?

The following appeared on The Washington Post's website today:

The British campaign season began after the first American presidential candidate announced his campaign, and it will end before most U.S. candidates even launch their bids. The U.S. election season, from when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) announced his candidacy until Election Day 2016, will have lasted more than a year and a half, compared with the 38 days between the queen's dissolution of Parliament on March 30 and Thursday's voting. [15]

Is this really an accurate description of the way that the UK conducted its election? It seems that if the parties start selecting their parliamentary candidates months in advance of the general election, and polling starts years before the general election, then the "campaign" is going on well before the previous parliament is dissolved. Would British Wikipedians agree with the Washington Post's description above? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This will tell you a bit about timings and rules. Fgf10 (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

An interesting example is the 2007 "election that never was". Gordon Brown took over the premiership mid-term and opinion polls showed a high public approval rating by the summer of 2007. The Labour Party began gearing up for a "snap election" on 1 November, but when the polls became less encouraging Brown finally denied that there would be an autumn election on 7 October, claiming that it had never been planned. The party had already hired in banks of computers and arranged helicopter flights and a trades union had spent a fortune on pro-Labour pamphlets. [16] Brown's credibility suffered as a result, but the fact that a 1 November election was still thought likely but unconfirmed four weeks beforehand shows the time-scale in which these things can happen. Of course, everybody knows when an end-of-term election will be and most of us are thoroughly fed up with the whole thing by the time it arrives. How Americans endure their interminable election campaigns is beyond my understanding. Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

We have an article, Snap election and in the Snap election#United Kingdom section, it mentions the United Kingdom general election, 1979, held on 3 May 1979 after the governing Labour Party lost a vote of no confidence on 28 March, a period of only five weeks (the end of the government's term was another six months away). [17] Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, since the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 snap elections are somewhat unlikely. DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Although (according to our article) Section 2 of the Act still allows for an early election after a vote of no confidence, but this has to be confirmed by a second vote a fortnight later. So now seven weeks instead of five. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• As an American, I that find that the Washington Post, as cited by the OP, is comparing apples to oranges here (although I understand their rationale that it may be easier for them to explain it to the average American instead of comparing it to elections to the U.S. Congress, which do not generate as much interest). In United States presidential elections, as well as other U.S. elections, Americans vote for a specific candidate instead of directly selecting a particular political party -- this changes the nature of campaigns right from the start. Campaign laws then require presidential candidates to register with the Federal Election Commission before they can raise or spend the money needed for the campaign, which encourages Ted Cruz and others to announce their candidacies this early. Then you have the January to June presidential primaries, in which candidates from the same political party compete to become their party's presidential nominee; these elections are staggered between different states and regions in the U.S. instead of having them all in one day. And of course, the general presidential election in November is an indirect election, where Americans actually elect the Electoral College, which in turn directly elects the president. It is no wonder that those outside the U.S. have trouble understanding the American election system -- even many average Americans don't either. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, it should be noted that British voters also "vote for a specific candidate", but this takes place at the constituency level: our votes are for a specific local representative - our Member of Parliament. Almost all MPs are members of a national political party, but they don't have to be: they can be "independent", members of a "one-man band" political party, or members of a local or regional party (e.g., in the recent election, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Green Party, all of which are restricted geographically). MPs are not legally mandated to follow particular policies after the election, though in practice MPs who are members of a particular party are extremely likely to support that party's policies. RomanSpa (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the technical position, but elections in the major Westminster countries have become "presidentialised" to the extent that people talk about "voting for <name of the current Prime Minister>" or "voting for <name of the Opposition Leader>", when what almost all of them are actually doing - those who live outside the party leaders' own electorates, that is - is voting for the candidates endorsed by the relevant party for the voters' own electorates. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

nonrenewables

Are commercial passenger planes likely to run on electricity at the end of this century or something else? 84.13.54.10 (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a request for opinion, but the current problem is that electricity is not easily stored in the quantities required to power an aeroplane over a long distance. See Rechargeable battery, Flow battery and Supercapacitor for some possible technologies, but "something else" such as Hydrogen economy might be more efficient. It is impossible to accurately predict technology 85 years ahead. Dbfirs 07:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd also recommend reading about energy density - no current electrical storage comes anywhere close to fossil fuels. Recently E-diesel came up, and something like that could conceivably be produced by renewable electrical energy, and still be a liquid hydrocarbon fuel that would have the appropriate energy density for aviation. Aviation fuel discusses the various types that are in use today. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an experimental solar/battery powered plane, but it can't carry any passengers, is very fragile due to the light weight required, and is a very slow prop plane since jet engines are too heavy. This gives you some idea of the difficulties. StuRat (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying it is possible that commercial passenger planes could possibly become a thing of the past for future generations? 92.25.90.163 (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a meaningless question. Could it? Sure, maybe, if it becomes the norm that fuel becomes too expensive to make regular air flight economically feasible. Or, maybe we'll get better at storing energy or develop new sources of it or find some brilliant new materials or designs that make aircraft light enough to use foot pedal power. Predictions are very difficult, especially about the future. That's why we have that disclaimer at the top of the page saying we can't predict the future for you. Matt Deres (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with the question is that electricity is not a source of energy, it is a means of transmitting energy. It still has to be produced, primarily by nuclear or fossil fuel. It's unlikely many planes will have on-board hydroelectric dams or windmills or long extension cords. It's much more likely planes will be replaced by ballistic vehicles for long distance travel and vacuum trains for shorter distances. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

UK elections

What would happen in the UK election if the leader of the party with an overall majority wasn't elected to his seat? Would he still become prime minister? 194.66.246.126 (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no legal requirement for the PM to be an MP. The last time this happened was in 1963 (Douglas-Home), but he stood as an MP soon after. It is the de facto law these days though. Fgf10 (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Per Fgf10, constitutionally there are no requirements on who can be named Prime Minister; the Monarch is allowed to name anyone to the position. Much of the de facto operation of the UK government works very differently than the de jure constitution (yes, I know that the UK does not have a single document named Constitution, but it does have formal rules and laws for constituting their state. Read the article). Much of the way the UK works is due more to practical politics than to actual written rules. Thus, while technically the Monarch can name anyone they want as Prime Minister (and anyone means anyone. They don't even need to be a British subject AFAIK). In practical terms, there is no fucking way that they could name anyone except the leader of the party which controls the House of Commons. The Douglas-Home government created a bit of a constitutional crisis, and for decades, such embarrassments are avoided well ahead of time by assuring that the PM is running for a safe seat. --Jayron32 11:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Douglas-Home could have followed many of his predecessors and been a Prime Minister who sat in the House of Lords; Lord Salisbury being the last in 1902. However by the 1960s, this would have been seen by the electorate as hopelessly anachronistic, hence Douglas-Home's haste to cast off his peerage and to get elected to the Commons. He didn't lose his seat in the general election, he didn't stand because he was a peer. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have not researched this, but I'm not aware of any case in the Commonwealth where a party won the election but its leader lost his own seat. There have been various cases of leaders losing their own seats, but to my knowledge they've always occurred when the party lost government or failed to gain government. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Frank Forde from your neck of the woods appears to meet the criteria. He officially only served in the office for something like 8 days, but he lost his seat yet his party retained control of the House of Representatives. --Jayron32 14:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Read that again, Jayron. He was interim PM for 8 days in July 1945 following the sudden death of the incumbent John Curtin, after which the party elected Ben Chifley as leader and PM. Forde dropped down to Deputy Leader and Minister for Defence. Fourteen months later, Forde "lost his seat at the 1946 election, though the Labor Party itself comfortably retained office". Still, a Deputy Leader and de facto Deputy Prime Minister (we had no official Deputy Prime Ministers till 1968) losing his seat is quite a big deal, but it doesn't actually meet the criteria. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

In the 1985 Quebec elections, Robert Bourassa's Liberal Party won a majority of seats, but Bourassa himself was defeated. One of his party's elected members stood down to allow him to run in a by-election, which he won. This scenario could be repeated elsewhere, but it takes a strong and uncontested party leader. The party that won the election could also decide to elect a new leader, and ask that this person be designated as Prime Minister or Premier. --Xuxl (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Xuxl. I do remember that case now. We should have a list of Political party leaders who were defeated in their own constituencies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Though you'd have to decide how to restrict it; would you be interested only in Westminster-system types, or would US House Speaker Tom Foley be worthy of inclusion? He was the highest-ranking member of his party in the US House, but was he the leader, or a leader, or (because he didn't necessarily hold a high-up internal party position) was he not a party leader at all? Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Good questions, Nyttend. When you've worked out the answers and written the above article, I'll be happy to critique it.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There was also consideration whether this would happen in the Queensland state election, 2015 [18], but as I guess Jack knows Campbell Newman not only lost his seat, but the Liberal National Party lost their majority (although none single party ended up with a majority).

Then there's the Canadian federal election, 1925 where Mackenzie King lost his seat but stayed as PM, eventually winning a safe seat in a by-election. However the his party the Liberal Party of Canada didn't have a majority or even a plurality and needed the support of the Progressive Party of Canada, which still didn't give them a majority. (Although it sounds like they were closely aligned so their alliance wasn't actually that unusual.) For various reasons, the whole thing didn't last very long anyway, the Canadian federal election, 1926 was held less than a year later (where the Liberals and Progressives has an informal pact not to contest some seats).

Note that when it comes to ministers (and I think this generally applies to Prime Ministers too), a number of countries and subnational entities have a grace period for someone to become a member of parliament (or the upper house if there is one although as has been mentioned, in a number of countries it either isn't legally allowed or isn't acceptable for the PM to be from the upper house). The earlier links and [19] give some examples.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Stadiums' declining capacity

What's the primary reason behind declining seating capacity of some football stadiums? The corresponding articles show that in the previous century the capacities fluctuated around 100,000 or higher but are now lower. For instance, Maracanã Stadium which during 1950 World Cup accommodated almost 200,000 people, is now replaced with a 78,000 version; the previous Estádio da Luz seated 120,000 people and was replaced by the 65,000 version. Camp Nou reportedly had a peak capacity of 121,000, but presently seats roughly 99,000 people. Rather economic reasons or declining demand? Brandmeister^talk 14:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Report --Viennese Waltz 14:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Stadiums used to have terraces for standing spectators, and you could pack more people in that way. But after events like the Heysel stadium disaster in 1985 and the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, top-level football has gone increasingly all-seated, which is safer but means stadiums can't hold so many people. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As I already wrote, the main driver of change – in the UK at least – was the Taylor Report which followed the Hillsborough disaster. The Heysel disaster did not have any repercussions on stadium capacity, it was about hooliganism and the need for additional measures to segregate rival groups of fans. --Viennese Waltz 15:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Safety is a big factor. You say "declining capacity" in the header, but "declining seating capacity" in the question; that's much of the difference. Those massive capacities weren't seated - they were dense packed terraces. Many of the incidents in category:stadium disasters were either caused by, or made much worse by, large uncontrolled volumes of people sloshing around. You'll often find the new stadiums are bigger, but they're all seating (or have but a few special standing terraces), and much better designed (often meaning larger and more numerous) crowd passageways. So they're much safer, but inevitably pack the crowd in much less densely. For example, the Hillsborough disaster and the resulting Taylor Report caused the professional game in the UK to move to entirely seated stadia. This has, in fairness, gone hand-in-hard with moves to somewhat "middleclass-ify" football (at least in the UK), where clubs have sought to recover the lost revenue from their mass crowds with ticket price increases averaging > double what they were. Season ticket prices for English Premier League clubs (2014-15 prices) cost about as much as a fortnight's holiday in Spain - it's no longer a poor-man's game. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

How about TV ? For some time now it has been possible to get a better view of the game on TV, and for less money, no drive, no waiting in lines, unlimited cheap food and drinks, etc. This has recently gotten better with cheap big screen TVs. And if you don't have one at home, there's probably a sports bar nearby that does, which can also provide the "atmosphere" of fellow fans shouting insults at the screen. So, with more people watching on TV, there's less demand for large stadiums. StuRat (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you possibly provide a reference for that latest piece of unsourced speculation? --Viennese Waltz 15:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's TV viewership of Superbowls (American football): [20]. There's a clear trend on increasing TV viewership, beyond natural population growth. Do you require a source to prove that those people watching the Superbowl on TV are not simultaneously watching in person ? StuRat (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I require a source for your assertion that there is a causal link between TV viewership and the capacity of stadiums. --Viennese Waltz 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That would mean you think that all those additional people now watching the games at home are simultaneously watching at the stadium. I now require a source that proves that you are an actual person, as opposed to computer program simulating a person, but incapable of following basic logic. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyhow, in England, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of people wanting to watch Premier League football in person. Liverpool FC say that "the Season Ticket Waiting List is currently closed to new applications" the cheapest being £710. [21] "Waiting lists for season tickets can last several years – Arsenal fans may wait up to four years before they can purchase a season pass" despite the cheapest being £1,014. [22]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

TV viewers plus stadium spectators is not a fixed number over time. It's perfectly possible for both to go up if interest increases, population increases, leasure time increases, income increases, etc. See also National Football League on television#Blackout policies, and Luxury box#Use in the NFL which says: "there has been a rush in recent years to sacrifice seating capacity in favor of the luxury boxes". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In Major League Baseball, the average seating capacity of most ballparks has gone down since the ballpark construction boom began in the 1990s, but average attendance has gone up. What you have are fewer seats, but better ones: more comfortable, closer to the field, and with better services. Teams have figured out that these seats can be sold at a higher price, and can be filled more regularly (those huge stadiums from the 1950s to the 1960s were hardly ever full, except for some very special occasions). The result is more revenue. Some of the remaining larger ballparks decided to close down whole sections of poor seats (for example, at the Oakland Coliseum. --Xuxl (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd attribute that trend to competition with TV, too. While premium seats may be a step up from watching on TV, crappy seats are a step down, so most people aren't willing to pay more (versus TV) for a worse experience. StuRat (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Explanation for Scottish election results sought

Have you seen anywhere (online or in print) coherent answers to the following questions regarding the results in Scotland?

1. How is it that about 6 months after the "No" to Scottish independence you get this SNP landslide?

2. After the result of the Scottish independence referendum I thought Scottish independance was basically a dead fish and maybe would go the way of "Quebec independence". Should these elections results change my mind?

3. How many referendums can the Scottish independence movement demand/organize until they get the right result (by them)? Is it the case that they only have to win once while those who want to keep Scotland in the UK will have to win every time? Is there a limit on the number of referendums you can organize in any given number of years?

4. Is there any correlation in Scotland between age and position regarding Scottish independence? If yes, what is it? If, for example, it is that younger Scots were more likely to favor independence it seems that in the long run independence for Scotland is virtually assured at some point and it would seem to just be a matter of when. But is that correct? Could there be in the future another mechanism at work whereby people in Scotland as they age would tend to revert to a "safer" option and move from favoring independence to favoring keeping Scotland part of the UK? Have you seen this sort of stuff discussed anywhere? (Assuming of course the correlation I'm talking about does exist).

Thank you for your answers.

Contact Basemetal here 19:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

1. The SNP isn't a single-issue party. Here is their manifesto - it talks about lots of other things. Presumably voters in Scotland felt that they wanted the SNP to represent them about those things, rather than other parties. Part of the business of the next parliament will passing a bill to implement some variant on the findings of the Smith Commission for additional devolution (that was part of the Conservatives' pledges before the referendum, and was reaffirmed in their manifesto for the general election (manifesto, p70). The SNP's manifesto pledged "we will use the influence of SNP votes at Westminster to ensure that promises made during the referendum are delivered. Will will demand, firstly, that the proposals of the Smith Commission are delivered quickly and in full" (p10).

2. Before the referendum, and after it, the consensus seemed to be "not for a generation" (example). This guy says five years. Nobody knows.

3. The Scottish independence movement didn't organise the referendum. The referendum was organised by the Electoral Commission, as authorised by the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013, an act of parliament. If parliament passes another such act, there can be another referendum. There is no further legal or constitutional framework governing how parliament can choose to do so; parliament is sovereign. The politics of whether and when they may do so are unknown.

4. Polls suggest younger voters were considerably more likely to vote "yes" (for independence) than older votes. ref

-- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 20:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian poll (your last reference) shows almost perfect correlation between age and likelihood to vote "no" (the older the more likely to vote "no") except for the 18 to 24 age bracket which was more likely to vote "no" than both the 16 to 17 age bracket and the 25 to 34 age bracket. Odd isn't it? Contact Basemetal here 21:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the general trend is valid, but I'm sceptical about polling organisations ability to accurately survey younger voters (whose modalities of use of telecommunications is so very different from older groups). No UK pollster has any real experience of polling 16 and 17 year old voters (beyond basic market research) so I think that category in particular is poorly calibrated and surely the least reliable. Incidentally, that poll wasn't paid for by the (vaguely lefty) Guardian, but by conservative backer Michael Ashcroft. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for Scotland, but for a comparison with Quebec, the provincial Parti Quebecois and the federal Bloc Quebecois were popular with voters even after the voters had rejected sovereignty referendums. The BQ has basically disappeared in recent years but at one point they were the Official Opposition in federal parliament. The PQ is still active in Quebec. As Finlay says, presumably voters wanted the PQ or BQ to represent them provincially and/or federally, to represent their concerns about sovereignty and other issues, even if they dd not want full sovereignty specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the results of the referendum and the general election were very similar. The Yes vote got 44.7% in the referendum, and the SNP got 50% in the election. DuncanHill (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The map shows Labour being replaced by SNP, as the major change in Scotland. But how close were the previous local elections, and how close was this one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult to compare local elections in Scotland (e.g. Scottish local elections, 2012) to elections in Scotland for the Westminster parliament, because the constituencies are different, and particularly because the local elections use single transferable vote (a kind of PR) and the Westminster elections use first past the post. The most apt comparison is the 2010 general election. From 2010 to 2015, Labour's share declined from 42% to 24%. The SNP's victory was also at the expense of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who lost 10 MPs - the LibDem decline in Scotland largely mirrors their decline in England. As with all first-past-the-post elections, parties with large votes tend to get disproportionately more MPs and those with smaller votes disproportionately fewer - e.g. the Scottish Conservatives got 14.9% of votes (a new nadir in their post WW2 spiral) but only got one MP (1/59 is 1.7% of the overall Scottish delegation to Westminster). -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you've given the right answer to the wrong question. I had wondered whether the districts that voted SNP this time and Labour last time might have had only a relatively small number of votes swing the other way. That's what I actually meant when I said "local" elections. Poor choice of words. And although it could have been close in some districts, according to your data it was a pretty decisive difference overall. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

To a large extent, the answer to your first question is this: if political parties in the UK were subject to "truth in advertising" regulations, then the regulating authority would force the SNP to change their name to "Scottish Labour Party", and the Scottish Labour Party to change their name to "Former Scottish Labour Party".--Shirt58 (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The best explanation I've seen is that the SNP espoused policies previously held by Old Labour and stood on an anti-austerity, progressive platform that only the Green Party were standing on in England (along with other smaller left parties such as TUSC). That appealed to many Labour voters who believed that the Labour Party had moved too far to the right for them by agreeing with and promising to implement austerity. The other factor was, of course, the fact that no action had been taken on implementing any changes to Scotland's status since the referendum. I have no reference for this as it was a comment on my Facebook timeline. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Beyond the comments above (particularly Finlay McWalter's comments on the effects of a swing on FPTP and how people voting for the SNP may not support independence particularly given that the party themselves explicitly said this election wasn't about independence and have so far largely stuck to that line after victory, although the Scottish Parliamentary elections may ne another thing), it's unclear what effect the way Labour handled the SNP had on their results. After the Conservative Party used concerns particularly in England over a Labour-SNP deal to try and push people away from voting Labour and towards supporting the Conservative Party, Labour basically began to treat the SNP almost as much as a pariah as UKIP. While they may have been stuck between a rock and a hard place, and even in Scotland, may have hoped their rheoteric would push people away from SNP to Labour (as they were already doing very badly there by the time), it could have easily solidified support for the SNP instead among those leaning both ways. (While any party and its candidates and supporters is usually going to oppose parties competing for the same seats, coming down too strongly on your opponents can easily have a negative effects.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

UK PM as party leader

We all (or most of us, at least) know that the UK Prime Minister is the party leader, and the main minority party's leader will be the PM at the next election if the voters favour it. How much internal party leadership is involved? In other words, is Mr Cameron responsible for a lot of internal party decisionmaking, fundraising, etc, or is his party leadership largely restricted to setting the party's direction on legislative matters and other policy questions, like the US President? In the USA, this kind of administrative workload seems to be more the responsibility of the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic National Committees, and presumably Barack Obama doesn't do a ton of this kind of stuff for the Democrats. I'm not sure whether David Cameron and Ed Miliband's successor have to do most of this kind of stuff, or if it's largely delegated to internal party positions that resemble the DNC/RNC committee chairmen more closely than the PM/Leader of the Opposition do. Note that I'm well aware of the differences between the countries' parliamentary and presidential systems. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

PS, I suppose this is additionally important for non-Labour and non-Conservative party leaders, since it's not like Nick Clegg's and Nigel Farange's successors will have to concern themselves that much with governing; until the next election, will their leaders be comparable to the RNC/DNC chairmen, or will that kind of thing be someone else's responsibility? Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the party. In the Conservative Party organisation, administration, fundraising etc is the responsibility of the party chairman, who is appointed by the party leader, whereas in the Labour Party it's the responsibility of the National Executive Committee, whose members are elected from local party associations and trade unions as well as the parliamentary party. I don't know how the other parties are organised, but I'm sure there'll be some information on the wikipedia articles on each party. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

May 9

Is there any correlation between the areas of Roundhead and Labour support in UK elections?

The Vendee of France, Southern states of USA, Peloponnese of Greece remain the most conservative areas of their nation as part of longterm sociopolitical trends. Perhaps based on very long duree rural/urban divides. In France there is still a direct correlation between Legitimist-Jacobin areas and Socialist-Gaullist areas today.

I was wondering if there was anything like this in the UK? Any correlations between the areas of Roundhead and Cavalier support during the English Civil War and current Labour and Tory constituencies. Likewise in Scotland between areas of Covenantor and Jacobite support and current SNP/ Labour trends. --Gary123 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really, except that the larger towns often declared for Parliament, whereas the countryside often stayed loyal to the Crown, which perhaps echoes today's urban support for Labour and rural / suburban Conservatism. The real hotbed of Parliamentarianism was rural East Anglia, which is nowadays mainly Conservative with a hint of LibDem. The main issue in the English Civil War and its Scottish adjunct was chiefly religious, an issue on which (Northern Ireland aside) we seem to be able to rub along pretty well today, perhaps because many people don't really care about it. Alansplodge (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are the maps, judge for yourself. Bosstopher (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any universities today that have a post-positivist or anti-positivist curriculum for political science?

Positivism is no doubt the most dominant approach in political science. The number of quantitative courses in political science is catching up with that of their qualitative counterparts. Given this trend, are there any schools today that focus almost exclusively on the historical and other qualitative approaches to political science?Rja2015 (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sussex European Institute is pretty critical of positivism.Itsmejudith (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Positivism needs a link here. StuRat (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

1850 Double "O" Double Eagle

What makes an 1850 "O" a Double "O". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.110.45 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

See Liberty Head double eagle for our article on the coin - the "O" on a particular coin indicates it was produced at the New Orleans Mint. Looking through some listings (here, for instance), "Double O" appears to indicate a double-strike, so that the mint mark appears twice on the coin. Tevildo (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In numismatics, descriptions such as "double O" usually mean a mis-struck coin on which the "O" appears blurry or as if there were two "O"s on top of each other. See these double struck coins for terribly mis-struck coins. Coins described as "double O" or "double 9" usually just show defects in that one letter/digit. It's been a long time since I was active in numismatics, but I do remember 1850 is one of the rarest years for collectible Double Eagles and I don't recall there being a "double O" variety. This PCGS resource doesn't mention any either. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't a few individual coins that may show errors on the "O" still around. It is called a "Double Eagle" because the Eagle (United States coin) was worth $10, so the "Double Eagle" was originally worth $20.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 23:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The few listings for "Double-O" Double Eagles that I found were for coins recovered from the wreck of the SS Republic. I'm not sure if this enables a more precise answer to the OP's question. Tevildo (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Is England and/or Britain really planning to leave the EU unless they can get more Big Brother laws?

According to [23], "Cameron has projected ambivalence on the issue, saying he wants the country to remain inside Europe, but only if he can win critical changes to the E.U. charter — changes his European allies have repeatedly said they are unwilling to grant." The article doesn't explain that; searching recent news I found [24] which says "Following the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005, the British shaped an EU data retention directive, adopted the following year, allowing the capture and storage of electronic communications. But last April the European Court of Justice struck down the directive as in breach of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights." (It also talks about Cameron seeking to ban encryption, even Snapchat!)

Is the British leadership, newly ratified by its people, really so dead-set on expanding spying beyond even the current extraordinary state that they would leave the EU to be hindered rid of troublesome constitutional limits? Wnt (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

By "hindered of" do you mean "rid of" ? And it might just be a negotiating tactic, but the whole point would then be to convince everyone it's not just a bluff, making it difficult for us to know. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Per the header on every reference desk We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. You should know this. --Jayron32 02:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The first news article made a statement: "Cameron has projected ambivalence on the issue, saying he wants the country to remain inside Europe, but only if he can win critical changes to the E.U. charter — changes his European allies have repeatedly said they are unwilling to grant." My question is what those changes are. The article refers to past-tense discussions about them, so they should be known, no crystal ball required. Wnt (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The side standing up for freedom to compute and against overweening state presence is — the EU? God help us. --Trovatore (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

See this article from the Daily Telegraph (with a linked video of David Cameron's speech) for his opinions on the subject as expressed last year. The main issues are border controls and immigration, and Parlimentary soveriegnty - although he doesn't mention them explicitly, the two main factors in this area which have raised political hackles recently are prisoner voting rights (see Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)) and whole-life tariffs, not anti-terrorism legislation specifically. This article from the Guardian says "[T]he expectation in EU capitals is that the prime minister will unfold his shopping list at a Brussels summit on 21 June." Tevildo (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I should recap that the first article cites the following:

1  New controls to stop “vast migrations” across the continent when new countries join the EU;

2  Tighter immigration rules to ensure that migrants come to Britain to work, not as tourists planning to cash in on “free benefits”;

3  A new power for groups of national parliaments to work together to block unwanted European legislation;

4  Businesses to be freed from red tape and “excessive interference” from Brussels, and given access to new markets through “turbo charging” free trade deals with America and Asia;

5  British police and courts liberated from “unnecessary interference” from the European Court of Human Rights;

6  More power “flowing away” from Brussels to Britain and other member states, rather than increasingly centralising laws in the EU;

7  Abolishing the principle of “ever closer union” among EU member states, which Mr Cameron says is “not right for Britain”.

So it appears #5 really is to scrap any EU bill of rights, which so far as I know would leave Britain entirely without one. Scrapping the Schengen Area seems to be the gist of 1 and 2. I don't understand the others as well, but it amazes me that the two best things I know of about the EU are the things he campaigned on getting rid of, and the public supports him on that. Wnt (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK the Conservative Party under David Cameron wants to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with a new UK Bill of Rights [25] [26]. Ideally I think the Conservative Party doesn't want the European Convention on Human Rights to be considered at all by the European Court of Human Rights or to be able to ignore it if they do [27]. And Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom may mean the Bill of Rights would have a more limited effect on laws, whatever the talk of entrenchment. So there are concerns over what the new Bill of Rights will actually mean if the Conservative Party get their way (although wikipedia isn't the place to discuss such concerns). But I don't think it's Conservative Party policy to have no bill of rights. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, though it amazes me that people would support a "To Be Announced" bill of rights. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Forty years ago it was the Labour government seeking renegotiations and holding an "in/out" referendum. However, the government went on to campaign to remain in what was at that time the EEC, supported by the Conservative opposition, led by Margaret Thatcher. Thincat (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sounds ironic if one doesn't look at the difference, but fourty years ago the idea was a free-trade customs union, not a metastasizing Brusselocracy. Britain has never surrendered monetary sovereignty. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)