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

June 20

Prostitution (or not) in Ilfracombe

On British TV last week, Bill Shatner joked about Ilfracombe's prostitution scene, to which the former mayor of that sleepy little town has rather po-facedly retorted "there is no prostitution in Ilfracombe" (perhaps he thinks Have I Got News for You is a documentary). That's a tall claim for a town of more than 10,000 people; I have difficulty believing that it's really true. 2005/6 crime statistics do show Ilfracombe has a pretty low crime rate, half or better the national average in most categories. But that doesn't call out prostitution-related crimes as a separate item (I don't know if it falls under any of the categories listed there). Does the ex-mayor's claim stand up to reliable source? (no, I'm not about to phone up the Ilfracombe police and ask "where the hookers at?") 87.115.12.193 (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never been to Ilfracombe, but I would have thought it incredibly unlikely that there were any prostitutes working there. The phenomenon is restricted to large towns and cities. Prostitutes have to advertise to get work, and you can see such advertisements in the local press of all the major cities in the UK. I'd be prepared to bet there are no such adverts in the Ilfracombe local press. --Viennese Waltz 13:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The police don't generally arrest people for engaging in prostitution in the UK (the act itself isn't actually illegal, anyway), so crime statistics won't be much help. Viennese Waltz is correct that looking for adverts is the best way to determine if there is prostitution happening. Unfortunately, a Google search doesn't help much due to a large number of sites that just have a page on every town in order to appear in search results. I expect you could find them if you looked hard enough, though. Where there are people, there is a market for prostitutes and where there is a market for something, you'll find people supplying it. There may not be many (if any) street prostitutes there (that generally is restricted to large towns and cities), which is what people usually think of when they talk about somewhere having "a problem" with prostitution (people tend not to care about what happens behind closed doors), but I'm sure there will be call girls servicing the area. --Tango (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm there are a couple of prostitutes in Inlfracombe. See here for example - note that she has the inbred South-West England look so is probably a native. Egg Centric 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been to Ilfracombe, and can confirm it's a pleasant, fairly sleepy and rather remote seaside resort, with a high proportion of elderly people and quite a longstanding unemployment problem. Obviously there could be prostitutes working anywhere, but Ilfracombe is remote from any major population centres, and there is highly unlikely to be any overt street prostitution, or publicly advertised prostitution, there. Obviously, also, there is no such thing as an "inbred South-West England look", and comments like that are simply ignorant, as well as insulting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

True. It's quite a common look in Norfolk as well. Egg Centric 18:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're being unfunny again. This is a reference desk. Please remove your obnoxious comments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No. It's a ridiculous thing to get offended about, if you actually are offended. I strongly suspect you are not in fact offended, in which case I suggest that you let provincials look after themselves.

Your comments about it being unfunny, however, are noted. Next time I shall try harder Egg Centric 22:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed to be offended, because I wasn't. You weren't being funny, and if you want to try harder in future, I suggest you try elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To the broader question of whether any city of 10,000 people could be free of prostitution, I suppose that it could be, if it was very harsh on prostitutes, and there was a nearby town which was lenient. Thus, the prostitutes would all service their customers from that other town. StuRat (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ilfracombe has a historical reputation for moral rectitude. Its two beaches, only accessable by tunnels dug in the 1820s, used to be segregated for males and females. I recall reading that an elderly man used to be employed to perch on the rocks between the two, and would blow a bugle should anyone attempt to catch a glimpse of the opposite sex. Alansplodge (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

However, such a degree of repression typically means that the forbidden activities still take place, just in secret. StuRat (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

More info on the Tunnels here. Mixed bathing was banned until 1905. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't you take the tunnel reserved for your sex, then swim around to the other beach? Doesn't look very far. --Trovatore (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If a man tried that, presumably the women would be warned that a shark (Etymology 2) had been spotted in the water. StuRat (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Any politician who proclaims "there is no prostitution in ..." is in the same ostrich-like camp as the uniquely unique Bob Katter, who's on record as insisting there are almost no homosexuals in north Queensland and promised to walk backwards from Bourke (about 1,000 km) if they represented more than 0.001 percent of the population; or that Iranian dude who made the same ridiculous claim for his entire country. Such claims have laugh-value only and do not not require any serious analysis or rebuttal. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me guess... His catchphrase: "They ain't no queens in Queensland!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Never heard him say that. His own half-brother has revealed himself to be gay, and he's publicly told Bob to pull his head in. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but prostitution is an activity, while homosexuality is an orientation. You can possibly prevent an activity, with sufficiently harsh penalties, but can't change an orientation, except perhaps by unethical medical means (hormone treatments or abortions on a potentially "gay" fetus). StuRat (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about, StuRat? Culturocenting again? You want to tell a prison cellmate that homosexuality is not an activity? As for Ilfracombe, well, don't you Brits have Craig's List? μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many with a homosexual orientation who never engage in homosexual activity, because they think it is immoral or are afraid of the reaction (execution, imprisonment, getting AIDS, being shunned by friends and family, being fired, etc.). StuRat (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't you heterocent to me young man. You're taking coals to Newcastle. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's right. I've often made that distinction here, when OPs ask how many countries still outlaw homosexuality. I reply that no country ever has or ever will, because you can't outlaw feelings. What some have done, though, is to outlaw homosexual activity. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder, is that true? I would agree that you shouldn't outlaw sentiments, no matter how disgraceful to our common natur'. But can't, really? I bet some countries have done so. (Enforcement, of course, is a separate question.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Note: the "disgraceful" bit was just generalizing — not to be applied to the immediate topic of discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you can show me where any country has ever made it an offence simply to feel an attraction to a member of the same sex, regardless of whether one does anything about it - then we might have something to talk about. Heck, it's not even an offence to be tempted to sexually interfere with a 2-year old, or to feel like assassinating the president; acting on the temptation/feeling, that's a whole other ball game, obviously. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In liberal countries, that's true. Is it true in, say, theocracies? If we can bring in fictional examples, it certainly wasn't true in Oceania. Thoughtcrime does not entail death; thoughtcrime is death. --Trovatore (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the equivilant here would be outlawing wanting to pay for, or receive money for, sex. Unfortunately the only people who have never, ever, fitted in to at least one of those categories are pre pubescent or severely mentally challenged. Oh, and me of course. Pure as the driven snow. Egg Centric 22:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Or pure as the driven upon snow, perhaps ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone who specializes in Fortran, of all god forsaken things, can never question my purity from a higher ground. Egg Centric 22:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Come back when you've programmed Fortran 2 on a PDP-8, via punched paper tape. Edison (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Egg_Centric, I really don't think your premise is true. Some people can be strongly repelled by the tawdry or sordid without being especially "pure" or asexual. An instinctive fastidiousness can be just as strong as any moral sense (and people are much less often conflicted about fastidiousness than conflicted about morality)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, this has gotten very much off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Actually since you're obviously referring to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, there is disagreement over what was actually meant. See Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Columbia University where it's mentioned it was later claimed he meant there weren't as many as in the US (which may not be true but is difficult to ascertain). For an alternative view from someone who grew up in Iran (but had been away for 35? years) see Talk:Iran/Archive 11#Demographics & Homosexuality where it's suggested what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually meant was that gays in Iran were generally predators of children (based on his cultural misconceptions), which isn't accurate but isn't the same thing. I don't know what he actually meant, but I do know it's easy to misunderstand what people are saying when language and cultural barriers come in to play. In fact, in such cases it can sometimes take considerable effort to really understand what people are saying. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been one of the favourite punching bags of many particularly in the US for a long time. It's clear no one was particularly interested in a genuine dialog or trying to understand where he's coming from or what he meant (not that I think he was really that interested either). Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, he's the one. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 19:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Ahmadinajad was a "punching bag" in the U.S. during his 2007 NYC visit because he made absolutely no conciliatory rhetorical gesture which the U.S. public could understand. He didn't have to announce any major substantive change in Iranian regime policies, but a noteworthy conciliatory verbal gesture (phrased to appeal to the American people, and not in code words understood by few other than Shi`ite clerics) would have assisted greatly in preserving some of the usual courtesies, while the absence of such a gesture guaranteed him a rather negative/hostile reception. AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Is there any topic less relevant to prostitution in Ilfracombe than Mahmoud Ahmedinejad? Only on RDH. By the way if the OP needs an answer s/he should Google for massage parlours, saunas and escort agencies in north Devon. I'm not going to do it on their behalf. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC) That's how it may appear if taken out of context, but look back to see how he first got into the discussion and you'll discover a meandering pathway of fluctuating relevance. Remember, no matter how absurdly off track these refdesk discussions may go (and I'm not saying this one is like that), it's the journey that matters, not the destination. If you come from the right place (and Ilfracombe seems to be "a place of love"), this awareness will empower you to fully experientiate your self-actuation, and you will finally become all of who you are, and probably parts of other people as well.  :)  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 23:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Someone above already found what appears to be an answer, before I replied to JoO. Nil Einne (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I don't really get the relevence of your comment to mine. I didn't discuss much in my original comment whether or not the punching bag etc was justified since it was a moot point and IMO too OT. My main point was given the context at the time, it's difficult to be sure of what was actually meant. But we definitely can't assume the later claims by a spokesperson are simply attempts to rewrite history or that the bulk of media reports of the time are an actual reflection of what was meant. And as for the punching bag bit, I said he had been a punching bag for a long time, not just in 2007. I also don't see why it was necessary for him to make any 'conciliatory rhetorical gesture' for people to actually be interested in what he was saying, rather then just pretending to understand what he was saying when they didn't (which they had already been doing for a long time). It's not like he promised to make such a gesture, and it's questionable why you would want invite someone for discussion if you're not actually going to bother to try to understand what they're saying, unless perhaps you're Fox News. (Note that this doesn't mean you have to agree with what they say, just that it's better to try to understand them and debate or criticise what they actually said rather then simply mock them for things they may not have said.) He wasn't even in the US because of the US government. It's not like many US presidents (etc) always make such gestures when visiting other countries on their invitation, if anything, they far more often berate them. And it's not like such gestures when visiting the US have generally been successful anyway despite your claims to the contrary. Note that as I said in my first comment, I'm not convinced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was particularly interested in genuine dialog anyway (although then again who could blame him?) but this doesn't mean it's best to just make him a punching bag and not try to understand what he was saying. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I saw his interview with Charlie Rose (who always tries his best to treat his guests fairly and try to understand their POV), but Ahmadinejad still came off as a nut-job. His comment that a study is needed to determine if the Holocaust actually occurred was one such example. At some point you do have to write certain people off and wait for a (hopefully saner) replacement. I believe he announced he plans to retire soon, so let's keep our fingers crossed. StuRat (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC) The guy holds offensive views but he's not mentally ill. Trying to make sense of his Holocaust denial without taking the Middle Eastern context into account is like trying to make sense of the Republican Party's climate change and evolution denialism without taking the modern American political context into account. Dismissing those who you disagree with as "insane" is not only a cop-out, it's bad analysis. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC) It doesn't matter much. Khamenei or whoever succeeds him is the real authority anyway. It concede that it did seem a little better under Khatami. --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Nil Einne -- A conciliatory rhetorical gesture would have been highly useful because of the previous tremendous ill-will and negative feelings toward him in the United States, which his previous actions and sayings had generated (starting with the international "I love Adolf Hitler" conference which he convened, and going down the whole long list). A conciliatory verbal gesture would have been a cheap way of presenting himself as a person of some degree of good will, and could have done something to smooth things over slightly and preserve a semi-façade of politeness. The lack of any such gesture convinced a significant segment of the American people that Ahmadinajad was proud of being an insufferable asshole, and was determined to continue as such... AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Is there any chance of someone who knows how folding the acres of political posturing above into one of those handy fold-up hidey things? For the benefit of those who still want to use this page as a reference desk. 180.148.3.62 (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I agree. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Henry Adams

Did Henry Adams write two books: Memoirs of Arii Taimai and Memoirs of Marau Taaroa, Last Queen of Tahiti or was it one book? Is it just the same book that has the encompassing title Memoirs of Arii Taimai e Marama of Eimee, Teriirere of Tooarai, Terrinui of Tahiti, Tauraatua i Amo; Memoirs of Marau Taaroa, Last Queen of Tahiti as abbreviated on the wiki page, or is it two different books. FYI Arii Taimai is the mother of Marau Taaroa, who was coauthor of the book(s) as her mother's translator. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's all one book. It was not one of his better known works. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

More exactly, there were two books but not in the way you mean. As I understand it, the first version was short and only distributed to a few of his friends, the second version was enlarged and published for a broader audience. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

June 21

Why are the concepts of Elasticity Supply are so Important to Government ?

I am bit confused of this term as the concepts of Elasticity of Demand helps the government in other way (i.e. imposing tax on a commodity). But what about the above mentioned topic? Can anyone explain a bit. I shall highly appreciate that. Thanks in advance--180.234.123.78 (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Elasticity can be seen as a very simple (though not simple to calculate) way for a Government to measure the effectiveness and impact of a given tax. Please see our article tax incidence. --Abracus (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• That article seems saturated with vast information on tax. I don't understand which are the materials I should add to this concept regarding on government issues. I googled it but no exact information available on above mentioned topic. Can you please explain a bit more so that i can get proper idea on it. Thank you--180.234.195.117 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Elasticity of supply is the extent to which a reduction in profits causes a reduction in the amount of goods that are produced. A good example of low elasticity is small farms: farmers (to oversimplify a bit) usually try to produce as much as they can regardless of how much they get paid for it. When demand is high they make money, when demand is low they lose money, but they produce roughly the same amount of crops regardless. When elasticity is low, government policies don't have much impact on how much is produced; when elasticity is high, a tax can cause a substantial decrease in production. Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Living conditions and number of cars in Iraq

An image circulating through Facebook suggests that living conditions and the number of cars in Iraq have decreased a lot since the American intervention. I'd like to research that, which seems not to be easy, especially for the cars - does anybody have info on that? --KnightMove (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there are actually more cars in Baghdad now (according to this USA Today story from 2007. And of course obvious propaganda is obvious...it seems that there is a sandstorm in the second picture, and presumably it's not a good idea to drive during a sandstorm. Also, that is Firdos Square, so where in Baghdad is that exactly? Maybe cars aren't allowed there anymore, for fear of car bombings (although it seems not to be in the former Green Zone, at least). This is just random speculation, there could be dozens of other reasons the second picture looks like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That USA Today story is nearly five and a half years old. It may have been overtaken by events. --93.96.36.99 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

True although my impression is that things in Baghdad have 'improved' since 2007 although the reasons for that have been disputed [1] Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Also true but we don't know when that picture was taken either. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No 65-MPG Passat here? But why do the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf slip through the cracks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBnlXGvA1Wk&feature=player_embedded

So we can't have 65-MPG Volkswagen Passats here in the US because the US DOT wouldn't like that to reduce fuel tax for road maintenance.

And they're common in Europe, OTOH.

So how do we still have the Toyota Prii, Chevy Volts and Nissan Leaves? How do they slip through the cracks while the 65-MPG Volkswagen Passat doesn't?

So if the reasons for the 65-MPG Passat not being driven in the US has nothing to do with fuel taxes, then why, pray tell, do we not have them already? Thanks. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, the information in the video is incorrect. Due to the way fuel consumption (gas mileage) is calculated in the States, as well as the difference between US and UK gallons, the stated fuel consumption for the same vehicle is not the same in the US as in the EU. This story explains the situation: http://pesn.com/2012/05/01/9602085_VW_not_allowed_by_US_government_to_sell_high_mileage_cars_to_US_consumers/ - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have't watched the video and have no idea if it is truly because of the government, but the idea that efficient models of the same car are unavailable in the US is by no means debunked. It's true, sadly. --John (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be rather thoroughly debunked by the source listed right above your post. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There are cases where an efficient model of a car is unavailable in the United States: it happens when the efficiency is created by omitting emissions-control or safety hardware that's mandatory in the United States. --Carnildo (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And the most fuel-efficient cars are unsafe microcars, probably not allowed in the US for that reason. They are basically just motorcycles with extra wheels. Although motorcycles are legal, probably because they are at least cool. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You may want to read the source carefully. The claim isn't debunked. In fact it's supported by the source which says the more efficient model was once sold but no longer is because it's unpopular as Americans don't like small cars and don't care so much about efficiency. It's true it has nothing to do with the government (at least not directly) and the efficiency difference isn't as great as the numbers may suggest but John didn't seem to suggest otherwise even if he? wasn't aware the source provided an explaination. (There are some claims the most efficient/lowest power model was never sold in the US in the comments, I can't vouch for them.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are amendments to the US Constitution given so much importance?

I've always wondered – why does the US seem to take pride in amendments to their constitution? Of course many of these amendments, perhaps most famously the First Amendment were great contributions to government that were later copied by other countries, but why were they given names (like First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment etc.) and given such importance? I'm unaware of any other country which seems to take pride in amendments to their constitution to the point of even naming them. For example, if the Philippines' constitution was amended so that the President would be elected in a run-off system rather than the plurality system currently used, the amendments in question would be referred to simply as "Amendments to the Constitution..." rather than "The nth Amendment to the Philippine Constitution...". Why is this the case in the United States? What is the historical reason, and why doesn't seem to be the practice in other countries? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it is hard to do, is not done trivially, and for the most part represents an advancement of the system, to bring greater equality or rights. It probably has to do with American pride in the system and subjective belief that it is a world model, so any improvement in the system, given the high degree of consensus needed to pass an amendment, is taken pride in.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well-stated. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Australians are highly adverse to electoral amendments to the Australian constitution (as opposed to High Court or defacto ones). Yet Australian amendments are not referred to worshipfully. There is a worshipfulness to the process of United States law, that I would suggest inheres in the state's origins in a partial bourgeois revolution, a partially completed transition from moral to political economy, which is reflected in a latent form in the customs and practice of your law. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a much more trivial reason is that the US Constitution, as one of the first written modern constitutions, itself specifies explicit amendments as the change mechanism. Most more modern constitutions have a change mechanism that changes the text of the constitution itself, i.e. a replacement, not just an amendment. As an example, the original Article 23 of the German Grundgesetz (extending its coverage to new regions that joined the FRG) was removed in 1990 with the German reunification, and later, in 1992, replaced by a new Article 23 covering the integration of Germany in the EU. In computer speak, the US constitution is represented as the original document with a set of patches, while the German constitution is represented as the result of applying the patches to the original. The first is better for maintaining the history, the second is better for direct application. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say all the amendments are revered like that. Maybe just the first ten since that was the original Bill of Rights, but even then I doubt many Americans could name more than two or three. The Constitution also seems to be treated as a religious text, unchanged and unchanging, despite the amendments that can be added (and that can change previous amendments), whereas in other countries if the constitution doesn't work it can be scrapped for a new one. I suppose American civil religion might be helpful here. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the reverence (for the content or the procedures) is overstated. There are a few amendments that are invoked fairly often in individual or national discourse. They are revered — not because they are modifications, per se, but because of what they mean (or what people think they mean). If freedom of the press, or the right to avoid self-incrimination, or avoiding unreasonable search and seizure were all articles in the Constitution (as opposed to amendments), we'd speak of them just as reverently. If the District of Columbia's right to an electoral college vote were in the body of the Constitution itself, it'd still be trivia to most people. If the commerce clause were an amendment, it'd still be invoked all the time, either way. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Is referring to an amendment by a number really worshipping, or even lending significance? That seems to be the most boring and obvious way possible of referring to an amendment. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I also don't think the amendments are revered or worshipped. The first ten are an exception, being the Bill of Rights and almost part of the original constitution really. I doubt most Americans could name the rest, at least by number. The one abolishing slavery is probably thought of as important. Some are definitely not "revered" or "worshipped", such as the income tax one or the two regarding prohibition. Pfly (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And also, I suspect the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, are revered more than most of the specific rules of the constitution itself, being about the rights of ordinary people rather than the rules about how the government operates. For example, a lot of people care deeply about the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms). Recently I saw a cafe/coffeehouse called "The Second Amendment Cafe". You'd never see "Senators Must Be At Least 35 Years Old Cafe". Pfly (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There's an article in a recent New Yorker about the Constitution (and its amendments), The Commandments: The Constitution and its worshippers. It points out that despite being one of the shortest in the world few Americans have read it. People refer to it a lot, and cherish it, and 86% say it has "an impact on their daily lives" according to a recent poll. The article also points out how even if people did read it they would find much of the Constitution difficult to understand. An example given is Article III, Section 3: "“The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." Anyway, it's an interesting article about popular opinion, understanding and misunderstanding of the US Constitution. Pfly (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that amendments to the US Constitution are numbered is just one more problem the foreign left has with us uppity Americans? What's the next question? "Why do Americans think they are so great because their country is all spread out over the map?" "Do Americans drive on the right because they are conservative?" "Why do Americans foist their Happy Birthday celebration on world culture?" Questions like this and "Why are the Prussians called the greenies of Hyperborea?" seem a heck of a lot closer to the troll than the reference end of the spectrum. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Your ref doesn't refer to the US at all. It refers to the West. Which of course means, speaking of trolling... Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that "Happy Birthday to You" was written in the US. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is irrelevent. Did you actually read the ref? It's clear the concern is much more widespread then the song, and it wouldn't matter much to the person complaining whether the song was written by Americans, Dutch or Germans (or for that matter if the song didn't exist). It's not even clear the person complaining is aware of the history of the song (it wouldn't surprise me if the song had actually came from the Ottoman Empire the person would still be making the same complaint). And BTW in case you're wondering, I was aware of the history having read about the copyright issues a long while before as evidence by my talk page contribs. And no, making an issue about Americans (or whatever) when it isn't, isn't something that's a universal problem for Americans, simply something some people seem to suffer from. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Having read your impassioned defense of trying to understand what Mahmoud Ahmedinejad "really" meant above, I think your insistence that I provide an accurate "reference" for a rhetorical question is just about the unintentionally funniest thing I've heard since Jerry Sandusky said he helped a lot of boys he didn't take advantage of. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't defend Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, I simply pointed out it wasn't clear he was actually saying what people claimed he said, with references including to RS (indirectly). Whether or not you're aware of this, it's actually possible to be interested in understanding people even if you disagree with them in many areas, or at the very least being interested in making fun of the truth rather then making fun of something which never actually happebned. The fact you're more interested in putting your own spin in to what people say, rather then actually try to understand them shouldn't be surprising from your response here, or for that matter many of your previous responses but doesn't bode well for someone wanting to contrib to the reference. (Since contributing references often means you should have some idea of what they actually say, particularly when you're going to make claims on the desk. As is stands, I think you've definitely demonstrated the validity of the last sentence of my original comment to this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Part of the reason the amendments are so important is that the first set of them, known as the Bill of Rights, set forth a number of fundamental liberties. The Constitution was only approved because of an agreement that those amendments would immediately be added to it. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Others have mentioned this, but most of the "reverence" comes specifically toward those amendments that guarantee things the government can never touch you for doing (but may want to). Whatever else happens, a person might say to himself, nobody can take away these rights. This is mostly true of the Bill of Rights, but where courts specifically incorporate amendment clauses to decide cases (the 14th Amendment is one of the most-often cited, or the result of a case may rest on a particular interpretation of the Establishment Clause), these also become shorthand for celebratory mention of individual rights. The naming of a bar or pub The 21st Amendment is probably on a numerical level with something like the White Horse - as of course there's probably no better, shorter, easier signifier of "Hey history buffs - come on down here and drink drink drink!" in American English. But of course nobody thinks they're in any danger of having troops quartered in their homes these days, and so very little case law cites the 9th and 10th Amendments.

I'll note also it's not just constitutional amendments: Title IX is similarly celebrated for its vast expansion of women's athletics across the country (and of course excoriated for its alleged responsibility for cuts in men's programs), for example. I'm guessing that the answer to the original question is more of a naming of laws issue, where American laws (or amendments, etc.) seen as good are celebrated by name, and laws seen as bad (e.g. that epitome of Orwellian naming conventions, the USA PATRIOT Act) are castigated, also by name. Each law is a particular event or campaign, a banner raised as part of a living history, rather than mere text being seamlessly incorporated into an amorphous blob of impersonal rules. And so (as Bugs someone mentioned) good laws are episodes in which we the people have made a decision that we still take pride in, and bad laws are episodes in which some group of assholes (also we the people, if we're keeping score honestly) has foisted evil constraints upon us. I know plenty of other countries' legislatures name their laws too, but I'm not aware of the same public vehemence directed at them as opposed to the actual MPs. Also, I don't know to what extent the notion of a nation of laws, not of men is responsible for this phenomenon per se vs. being a popular concept that is merely concurrent with it. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The OP also asked why they were named. I suspect it is simply because people like giving names to things. It makes life easier if you have a name to refer to rather than saying the section in the US Constitution that doesn't allow unreasonable searches and seizures. As 140.180.5.169 pointed out numbering them is an obvious way to go. Of course if they hadn't got names then over time they would have acquired them. So instead of saying the 4th Amendment you would say the Amendment to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. The US isn't the only country to give amendments names, see Amendments to the Constitution of Canada#Post-1982 amendments to the Constitution. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the two previous comments are right: The amendments have to be called something, and given that the first 10 amendments were added en masse and dealt with something that the original Constitution didn't already include, it seems logical that they were just placed at the end as the ten amendments. It's impossible to guess how the founders imagined amendments to the Constitution being incorporated, but if the first amendment had merely been a change to one of the already existing articles, it might be the case that the American Constitution would have its actual text changed (as is the case with other Constitutions) rather than all new amendments added at the end (which does result in oddities such as one amendment specifically cancelling out another one).

The naming of the amendments (and, I have to agree - numbering the amendments doesn't seem very original) is a separate issue from how Americans regard their Constitution. As others have said, I think this is due to the fact that the US is a country born of a revolution against an oppressor, with the Constitution being a symbol of that revolution. This could also be the case for France, but the US is still governed by the same Constitution, while the French have had five different Constitutions since its revolution.

The US sees itself as a country apart, with a different politcal heritage from the countries of Europe at the time. As I said, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are the symbols of the US being different from the rest. As other countries tend not to see themselves in this way, they don't focus on such written documents in this way. (That doesn't mean they aren't patriotic, it's just that the symbols of this patriotism are something else, such as culture or language. It might even be something political, but perhaps politics manifested in through practice rather than what is in the Constitution.) V85 (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

June 22

People of Loulan

What kind of people inhabited the Loulan Kingdom? The article does really talk much about the people. Are they the same as the Tarim mummy people?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if the article had a map. Probably some of the inhabitants were Tocharians... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

London, 1886?

Each episode of the current BBC series The Secret History of our Streets begins with a shot of some gothic megalopolis that looks like something out of a science fiction film. The narrator says it's London in 1886; it patently isn't. Can anyone identify what this shot is? 91.125.140.38 (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be based on London, because I recognise the tower of Westminster Cathedral in the foreground at the start, but other than that I've no idea. Mikenorton (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Judging by 1880s in film it looks improbable that it is actual footage from 1886. Personally, it made me think of Metropolis (film), but having watched the opening scenes of that film, that doesn't seem to be the source. V85 (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like artistic licence being taken to extremes. Drop the BBC a note and ask them as to what the designer was smoking where the designer go his 'historically based' inspiration from. --Aspro (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For anyone (like myself) who haven't seen the show, the view of London 1886 discussed in this thread can be seen here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And after having viewed it it is obviously not historically correct. It looks like there are several buildings qualifying as sky scrapers in that clip. I suspect it is just some very cheap CGI footage spiced up to lure in audiences at the beginning of the show. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. In the days before elevators and tall factory smoke stacks, there would have been church spires only, poking up above above the general melee of city life. The BBC (as a public service) needs to be questioned..., regarding this probably misleading re-invention of past vistas of that great city.--Aspro (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There were the Board Schools, rising above the smoke. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So, Boarding schools where over a kilometre high. Inversion_(meteorology)#How_and_why_inversions_occur. The Victorians were more advanced than I thought. Pity the poor little kids though- as they climbed all those stairs. --Aspro (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not "boarding schools" but "schools of the Board of Education School Board" - I went to one like this. Alansplodge (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You when to a school like that! My commiserations. Its even got different gates for boy and girls. How comes you were able to turn your life around and end up here? Suppose you sneaked off to night-school to learn Greek and Latin or Shakespeare or something ;-) --Aspro (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The London School Board was as advanced as they got. The schools still sail above London, see them on the train between Clapham Junction and Victoria. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The building in the photo doesn’t look more than five stories high! How low did you think that the smoke went. Think your getting confused with H.G.Wells's Black smoke which crept along close to the ground. That was fiction. Before the Clean Air Act 1956 (and for a few years after – I know, I remember those smogs ) the tallest buildings were covered in black sooty grime.--Aspro (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not above the smoke then but above the masses. Poetic licence. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So these comments of yours have nothing to do with the OP's question. So why post them?--Aspro (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, the only recognisable building is Westminster Cathedral - our article says that "construction started in 1895". Alansplodge (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is representing a visionary representation of London as seen through the eyes of the great contemporary writer Arthur Machen? --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that (if I've got it right) the shot captioned "London 1886" is a silhouette of a skyline at night, it doesn't look like an actual cinematographic shot to me. There is period film in the opening sequence, and from the dress I'd say it was shot in the very early 20th century (I have photos of my ancestors on my mantelpiece, all dated from 1880 to 1930, and the dress fits into the 1900 - 1910 period). Slums such as that existed until late in the 20th century at least. Of course we know what London in the 1880s looked like from contemporaneous artworks, so making a realistic mock-up shouldn't be too difficult. Don't be confused by the number of high buildings you see: it could be an optical illusion dependent on viewpoint. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... This Birds Eye view of London in 1896 shows a much less cluttered skyline. They appear to have omitted some City churches and I suspect that there were more tall industrial chimneys, but they have included the two tall shot towers on the South Bank. Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

June 23

Platinum U.S. coins

31 USC § 5112(k) gives the Administration the discretion to mint platinum coins. Suppose they wanted to do so without inflating the currency. Is there a derivative instrument capable of locking in the low interest on Treasury securities? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "Inflating the currency" means in this context. If any such coins were minted, presumably their nominal currency value would be set far below their bullion value (as is the case for the gold "American eagle" coins today), and consequently they would never be circulated at face value... AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. According to article American Platinum Eagle, such coins already exist... AnonMoos (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the current proof is designed "to insure domestic tranquility." But this year, we get to provide for the common defense. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. What does locking in low bond yields have to do with minting new coins? --Tango (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is very important to keep inflation low. That can be accomplished by investing part of the signorage proceeds in the broad stock market. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an offshoot of a theory I've seen in the WashPost that because the law doesn't specify the denomination of platinum coins, you could get around the debt limit by minting a $1 trillion platinum coin and selling it to the Federal Reserve. It doesn't work because as the Federal Reserve only places orders for coin to satisfy demand from its customers, no one is going to order a $1 trillion coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Are there any such restrictions on selling the Fed expiring options to purchase such coins? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed that was the context. I don't know if it would work or not (it would probably require the cooperation of the Federal Reserve), but either way I don't know what the connection is to low treasury bond yields. --Tango (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so please let's explore the region from $1 to $1 trillion. Suppose one coin were minted for every homeless child in the U.S., and the proceeds were used to pay for infrastructure, or universal health care, or paying down the national debt. Or all three. Is there a way to raise enough money over the value of the platinum that money velocity would increase without prices increasing above the rate of inflation? What if we wanted to do all that and lock in the low interest rates available to the Treasury today? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Fiat currencies are based on the fact that the material in the money is worth less than the raw material needed to make that money and the labour going into making that money. If you have a gold currency (or any other currency based on precious metals/materials), it doesn't matter whether you use actual coins - the value of the money is in the gold, so a gold nugget or a gold necklace would be worth exactly the same as the coin (given that the amount of actual gold in the coin and/or nugget and/or necklace (and/or other gold item) is the same). With fiat currency, that isn't the case. I would assume that printing a $100 bill costs roughly the same as $1 bill. The economic yield of producing the $100 is greater than producing a $1 bill, since the money you end up with is worth a lot more. The same would be the case of the $1 trillon coin. According to XE Currency Converter, one ounce of platinum costs a bit less than $1,450. So, if you make a pure 1 oz. platinum coin with a nominal value of $1 trillion, the amount of money created is far higher than the value of the raw material needed. However, it doesn't seem to me to be a very sustainable idea for increasing the money flow, as it supposes that there is some institution out there willing to swap a $1 trillion coin(!) for $1 trillion cash in small, used, unmarked bank notes. The Fed might do it, but it might see this as overstepping the boundaries between itself and the government, as the Fed is the Central bank and should be independent of government-fiddling. V85 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So let's say Obama and Geithner call Bernanke and say, "Look, Congress has been deadlocked with filibusters and they've been telling me to spend but not authorizing the funds, and now they want to limit the debt ceiling again. Why don't you announce that we're going to be minting one platinum coin for each homeless child in the U.S., and I want you to auction some of them off the next time you go to sell securities to find out whether the market will pay for them. Auction off ten of them, and we'll use the proceeds to pay for infrastructure, universal health care, education, and the broad stock market to recoup our investment. To get things started, I want you to buy an option to purchase more of those coins. If you will do that, we will declare a state of emergency in health care for each of the 1.6 million homeless children." Why wouldn't that work? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There is little doubt that the platinum coin - only one need be minted - would be a valid workaround of the debt limit BS. And that is what was intended by those who wrote this law in the mid-90s. Has little to do with bond yields, other than removing this arbitrary and arguably unconstitutional restriction. (See Balkin's article cited above) The idea is that the coin be minted by the Treasury, given some arbitrary, huge face value, and then traded to the Fed, which is legally bound to accept it (to answer V85 & Wehwalt) and deposit the proceeds in the Treasury General Account. Could be sold to the private sector, which certainly would buy it at (approximate) face value, because it could be used to settle debts to the US government at face value. Again, contrary to the OP, and to answer Tango, it has little to do with bond yields, except that the increased government spending without 1-1 matching with bond issuance would tend to lower bond yields, interest rates. And little to do with inflation, and less with investment in the stock market. At these times of high unemployment, low inflation and low interest rates, financial fragility & the prospect of debt-deflation & depression are the dangers. To the extent it allowed increased government spending, it would effectively lower unemployment and print real wealth into existence by standard Keynesian means in our modern demand-constrained economy. It's just a workaround for the artificial debt limit, that can present the President with two contradictory commands coming from Congress. Everything else would go on as usual. There is no essential difference from playing this game with a $10 trillion platinum coin and raising the debt limit by $10 trillion.John Z (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It would cause an increase in inflation, since it increases the money supply. As you say, there is no difference between that and issuing another $10tn of debt - both increase the money supply by $10tn. --Tango (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Increasing the money supply is not the same as increasing inflation, as we have seen recently. Treasury bond rates are at an all time low, with real (inflation adjusted) interest lower than -1% at present because of slow government growth[2][3] during a period of repeated bailouts and stimulus amounting to multiple trillions. The way to prevent new fiat money from causing inflation is to make sure the proceeds are used in part for broad stock market investments which outperform interest over time. It could very well be a breach of fiduciary duty to fail to lock in negative real interest rates. To do so, over a period of ten years would be very easy, because most Treasury debt is shorter term and remarkably fungible. This would benefit the US and other countries trying to get lower rates for their government bonds. Global production would grow to keep goods in abundant supply, preventing inflation. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If cash is expanded while velocity is increased it shouldn't cause inflation. Well except for international markets viewing it as debasement and tanking the USD. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Would that occur if the coins were auctioned? 71.212.226.91 (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

why would the market purchase fiat currency below its specie value when it can buy freely trade able USD? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they? It sounds like a perfect deal! I'd gladly give you $10 if you give me $50 back, makes me $40. :-P If you could buy a trillion dollars for only three billions - why wouldn't you? The question, rather, is why would the government mint a trillion dollar coin, if all it got in return was 3 billion? Given that the coin was legal tender, issuing it, regardless of how little money it got in return, would still increase the money supply by however much the face value of the coin was. V85 (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the structure $10 => $50 is a bond or a discount. What we're talking about is you giving me $1,000,000,000,000 and me giving you $1. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And why wouldn't you take that deal? Seems easier than stealing candy from a baby? V85 (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, V85, that's right on the increase in the money supply & in answer to Fifelfoo- once it is put somehow into the real economy, once the Treasury spends the money in its account, however it gets there. Inflation depends on the interaction of the real economy of goods and services & finance. Whether new government spending is price-inflationary (the standard modern meaning) depends on how the money is spent, and how the economy reacts to the spending. If it is spent on blowing up your own stores of commodities, it will be highly inflationary. If it is spent rationally, it need not be inflationary. If it is spent more rationally than usual government spending, particularly in a depression, it could be disinflationary. As I said, there is no essential difference between this & raising the debt limit. (Depending on how it's done, there could be marginal, not very meaningful changes in today's low interest rates.) So we have real world tests. US deficits, the base money supply, however construed, have skyrocketed following the GFC because of automatic stabilizers like Food Stamps and the various stimulus programs, inadequate and mistargetted as they are. No real inflation because of this, no international collapse of the value of the US dollar due to international markets viewing it as debasement. The ever-continuing crises caused by the Euro's wacky, ignorant design, may very well tank the Euro (it already has against the Swiss Franc, necessitating Swiss CB intervention) against the infinitely safer, "debased" (NOT) US dollar.John Z (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

John Z, you acknowledge that market reaction to any increase or decrease in money supply is politicised, rather than a sum of rational agent reactions, therefore any money supply movement can result in inflationary pressure. If so, then we ought to take market rationality at its hard monetarist ideological value, rather than at the actuality of its use simply for class warfare purposes. And monetarist ideology links money supply to inflation. Proposing that there's a binding alternate rationality to an irrational (ie: politicised) market is ridiculous. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Most everyone links money supply to inflation, but other factors include production and demand. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I am not sure what Fifelfoo is trying to say. Too narrow definitions of money supply will lead to nonsense, e.g. monetarism, though, and his second sentence appears to be a non sequitur. I was just saying that there is a government sector and private "market" sector in an economy. Inflation depends on both. The economic actions of the government are certainly binding, rational or not, and the idea that one cannot have an idea of rationality applicable to them is amazing. In particular, states worldwide from the mid-40s to the mid-70s "rationally" aimed at and more or less achieved full employment, during the "Keynesian" era, due to increased academic, popular and governmental understanding of economics after the Great Depression, and produced the greatest period of worldwide prosperity ever. The abandonment of this rational goal, partly caused by declining academic, & more important, popular understanding of economics since then, has led to much inferior results, by any measure except the relative wealth & power of the wealthy & powerful. At times like now, there is no reason to think that increased government spending, spent around as sensibly as the US stimulus programs, will be significantly inflationary. The stock market doesn't really have all that much directly to do with it, but production and demand, as you say above, certainly does.

Returning to the original question, the Big Coin is and was intended as just a workaround of the debt limit, because it doesn't count toward it. The Treasury bonds that the Treasury auctions off every week are really just the same as the Big Coin, except that they count toward the debt limit. And it also doesn't really matter all that much whether the Fed or the private sector buys the bonds or the Big Coin. What matters is that (the face value, roughly) of the bonds or the coin land up in the Treasury General Account, and most important, that the TGA is depleted as the dollars are spent into the US dollar economy.John Z (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

They will just end up hoarded unless this is fixed. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Its rather obvious that IP71.212 and John Z are making a Keynsian analysis of money supply without dealing with the development of the key externality that lead the capitalist class back to vindictive monetarism: the growth of working class power under Keynsianism. Monetariasm represents a return of the bourgeoisie to class consciousness in a way unseen since the Manchester School or the Gilded age. Common analyses of Keynsianism's implementation in politics point to the immediate threats of competing capitals and the Soviet Union as motivators for the adoption of reduced returns and the acceptance of limited industrial militance. There's no external motivator to require that; and I don't see why "bigger cages, longer chains" is a viable motto to recruit the working class to a Keynsian solution. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Discharging debt is just one chain which the shrewd voter can cast off if they correctly solve the set of economic equations describing reality. 71.212.226.91 (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Where to find my Hardy.

Dear Sirs and Madams,

As you know the story of Mr. Hardy and Mr. Ramanujan, and I would like to find a similar partnership after having your very fine answers to my question here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#why_don.27t_swampies_use_non-exchanging_heat_exchange_with_air.3F I have over 3000 ideas, a sample of any fifty of which should be sufficient to convince anyone who fits the ability of the person who answered this question. However, I do not think someone is able to be my partner only because they are rich, e.g. a VC. They cannot evaluate this in any way. So, the suggestions so far have not been suitable. Can you suggest to me a more appropriate method to find an appropriate person? I am not interested in starting a business, but instead in the merits of the individual ideas which I would like to patent individually. THank you for any help and general advice Sirs and Medams.

Ranbir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.160.86 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to find yourself a patent agent, who will assist in the process of getting your ideas patented. There is a list of links at the bottom of that article which will assist you in searching for the people you need. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Venture capitalists aren't just rich, they a good at judging whether business ideas have merit (otherwise they don't stay rich for long!). Banks are another good source of start-up capital. There is no point just patenting an idea if you aren't going to do anything with it. You either need to start a business using it or sell it (or, a business model that has become popular recently, sue people for violating it). Keep in mind, though, the answer to your last question was that other people had already thought of your idea and determined that it wasn't suitable for widespread use. I expect the same will be true of many of the other 2,999. Being a successful inventor involves a lot more than just having lots of ideas. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

To find a Hardy, you have to be a Ramanujan. So far I'm not seeing it. Looie496 (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, you didn't understand the question I posted to the other desk, which actually turns out to work fine at the cost of some building space. 78.92.81.230 (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if Ranbir will pick up the comment I left on my talk page, but basically if he needs someone to help with initial stages of development, he needs to contact his local Chamber of Commerce or its equivalent in his country. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have replied there. 78.92.81.230 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Lia Fáil

How has the stone even withstood such a turbulent history? Most of the symbols of Wales and Scotland were destroyed or taken away by the English in an attempt to destroy the spirit of those nations, ie. the Holy Rood, the Stone of Scone and Llywelyn's coronet. Why wasn't the Lia Fáil or the Hill of Tara damaged/vandalized in the numerous wars and conflicts between the Irish and English? Or has the stone loss importance since Celtic times.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, how significant was the vandalizism of Lia Fáil in terms of news coverage, reaction, concern, etc.? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The (putative) stone was split in two in the past, and repaired, and was again split in the same place when it was stolen/repatriated from Westminster Abbey in 1950. I'm guessing you mean before 1950; I don't think it's clear when the original damage occurred. - Nunh-huh 20:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that was a different Stone of Destiny, the Stone of Scone. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the correction. Two stones of destiny then.... and I see the Lia Fáil is also said to have been recently damaged in our article, so now it's clear why the question was raised! - Nunh-huh 21:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it is the Irish one. Still, nothing.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

word for this personality type

What's a word to describe a person with an inability to appreciate 'simple pleasures' such as nice weather or family life. ike9898 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's a permanent condition, perhaps clinically depressed (but, of course, a doctor would be needed to determine if they really have this condition). StuRat (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess what I failed to include in my definition is that the person could enjoy other things such as Pop Culture or Science; just not the simple pleasures. I'm not really looking for something scientific here, necessarily. For example, sometimes there's a word based on a famous literary character that serves as the archetypal example of the things; 'Polyanna' may be one of this type word (I don't actually know). Or it could be a term from psychology. Doesn't matter, I'm looking for anything.ike9898 (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't quite fit, but a person with a "thrill seeking personality" is bored by normal life, and needs an adrenalin rush to feel anything. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You'd do well to pick a word that seems close to what you are looking for, then do a google search for "your word, synonym". You might start with hedonist, sensualist, voluptuarist, thrill seeker. Try sybarite. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of pop culture, in one episode of HIMYM, Marshall Eriksen describes Ted Mosby as "unhedonistic" (the opposite of "hedonistic"), defining it as being "unable to appreciate pleasure". Of course, that doesn't quite match the definition given on Wiktionary. From the terms on hedonism, we also find "ascetic", though that has more to do with denying oneself pleasure, rather than being able to enjoy pleasure. V85 (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Anhedonia is the term I've heard. It means inability to take pleasure in things that most folks would take pleasure in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That might very well have been the term he used, with my ears mishearing it. V85 (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A rather less clinical term is Eeyore. In the UK, the phrase "miserable old git" has wide currency - the subject need not be old. Alansplodge (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

How about gloomy gus, sourpuss, killjoy or wet blanket?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

None of those necessarily applies, since the OP has implied the subject requires a sophisticated level of pleasure, like a sybarite, possibly; not that he is incapable of pleasure, or that he tries to share his misery with company. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

OP. This isn't quite the same, but what about a personality type lives to much in his head, discounting direct experience of the world? ike9898 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Introvert ? StuRat (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

June 24

Paris Syndrome

Paris Syndrome — fake? As far as I can tell, all the news of this supposed mental syndrome comes from a single academic in Japan, and it sounds to me like he's putting us all on. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds plausible to me, although all those different syndromes are really part of the same thing, if you ask me. When people are exposed to radically different things from their normal life, whether art, holy places, or tourist sites, the excitement and/or disappointment can trigger underlying psychological problems. I suppose we will come up with many more "syndromes" at this rate (how about one for technology, like 3D movies and virtual reality ?). StuRat (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

WW1 Play about character with reduced mental capacity charged with desertion

I read a play about this some years ago now and can't remember the name of the character or the play (which is the same). Anyone got any ideas?? 90.17.194.234 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks! By a british playwright, and I think the main character is northern. I've looked on the list of WW1 plays on wikipedia and it's not there, and google comes up with nothing.

Possibly The Execution of Private Slovik.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that film has no British associations and it's set in WW II. King & Country was a WWI British film about a soldier who was shot for cowardice, but not desertion as such. I was also reminded of Paths of Glory , which is in WWI, but all the characters are French. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not Private Peaceful is it? I know it doesn't tick all your boxes, but there is a character with learning difficulties (brother of the eponymous hero who is shot for "cowardice") and it has been adapted into a stage play as well as the forthcoming film. Karenjc 21:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, but in fact it's Hamp by John Wilson, which was the basis of 'King and Country'. Thanks anyway :) 90.17.194.234 (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I did mention the film version thereof. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The legal act of acknowledging a "bastard"

Was it possible for a married man to acknowledge his illegitimate child in any legal form? I know royal men could to this, but their example is not of any use, since they could do as they liked: I wonder more about non-royal men.

If a married nobleman wished to acknowledge an illegitimate child, did this have any legal significance? Did it give any rights to the child? Considering the legal class system of the time, did it have any importance of the child's mother was also a noble? My question is mainly about France before the revolution (1789).

Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Creating a last will and testament, acknowledging such issue born out of wedlock and granting s/he a an interest in his estate after death would be a good practical course to take. Will's tend to have precedence over set laws of inheritance. Even Romans left things to their favored slaves--Aspro (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling of "precedence" for you. I hope you don't mind.Anonymous.translator (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Bianca Maria Visconti succeeded her father as Duchess of Milan despite having been born illegitimate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It might depend on the specific time period and specific people involved. If you mean "before the Revolution" in a narrow sense (Valois/Bourbon dynasties), I can't help much there; but going back further into the Middle Ages, then yes, it would certainly be possible for a lesser noble (or even a non-noble, although surely not for a serf) to recognize an illegitimate child. But that could involve two separate questions. One is a religious problem, is there a way for the child to be recognized as legitimate according to the church? In that case, sure, if the church is willing to decree that the kid is legitimate. If the parents get married after the child is born, it wouldn't be too big of a problem. Donating land or goods to the church in return also wouldn't hurt. (I can think of one example from way back in the twelfth century, not in France but in Frankish Jerusalem, where the heir to the kingdom had to divorce his wife before he could become king - but the church nevertheless recognized their children as legitimate heirs. Not quite what you're asking, and they were royals, but still, there were mechanisms in place for this sort of thing). The other question is secular, i.e. can an illegitimate child inherit his or her parents' goods/property (assuming here, I suppose, that the child has not been declared legitimate by the church). I'm not sure what the laws were like in the Ancien Regime, but earlier than that there were plenty of local customs and legal codes. Sometimes local customs ultimately derived from Roman law, directly or indirectly, especially for things like inheritance laws. In some circumstances, like if the parents had no other legitimate children (or the legitimate children were dead), illegitimate children could certainly inherit. As Aspro mentioned, if the illegitimate child is recognized in a will, that could also override any other custom or law. Now that I read my answer again I see it's rather vague...it really depends on the circumstances. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

June 25

European reaction to end of Ming Dynasty

How did Europe and the Western world react to the fall of the Ming Dynasty in 1644? I know exploration hadn't jump started yet by that time but the Russian, Portuguese, Dutch and Spanish had already reached areas around China and some Europeans were directly trading with China in some of their ports, along with the presence of missionaries. Europeans must have found it surprising simply by the change of dress and hairstyle impose by the Manchus in the intervening decades.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not too sure what you mean by saying "exploration hadn't jumpstarted yet by that time"; if you look at a ca. 1644 map, most significant land areas are filled in, other than northwestern north America, northeastern Siberia, and Australia (and of course Antarctica)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Jesuits were also well-established in China in 1644 and were affected by the change in dynasty. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That was my attempt at keeping the question on topic (I see it hasn't worked). So someone doesn't simply say, they probably didn't know about it. Yeah I know about the explorers, traders, and missionaries; I stated them in my question.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

One would have thought that it would have affected the manufacture of silk cloth which was an important industry in France and increasingly in London with the arrival of the Huguenot weavers. Nearly all silk must have come overland from China via the Silk Road. But I've failed to find a reference that supports my theory. Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Silk production started in the Christian world when some itinerant monks brought some silkworms to the Emperor Justinian (or that's the story). And the whole point of sailing around the bottom of Africa (and later South America) was to cut out the middlemen. See Spitalfield Riots for what Wikipedia seems to have on the silk industry in England. I would tend to doubt whether much silk intended for use in Europe was being carried over central Asian land routes in 1644... AnonMoos (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Tobacco auctions

Tobacco auction is unfortunately a redlink, as I recently came across this interesting youtube clip with archive footage from 1953 of an auction in progress and I'd be interested to know more about this phenomenon. Why did the auctioneers use this lightning fast, singsong tone? And when, and why, did the auctions die out? --Viennese Waltz 14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not just that type of auction, that "showboating" was common at other auctions, too. I imagine it's to relieve the incredible boredom of having to sell the same product over and over again. As for why they died out, it's most likely due to large conglomerates owning their own tobacco farms, or having long term contracts with those who do (however, I believe some tobacco auctions do still take place, but online bidding may replace live auctions). StuRat (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The auctioneer's chant is a way to fill time and sustain excitement during the auction. At one time there were schools to teach auctioneering. I assume they've all died out now.

I was unaware that tobacco is mostly not auctioned anymore, although there are a few tobacco warehouses, in Kentucky and perhaps elsewhere, that still hold auctions (live auctions, I would assume, since buyers would want to be present anyway to examine the tobacco). According to this article, most farmers now have contracts with tobacco companies, and independent auction houses dwindled since the 2004 federal tobacco buyout and the loss of price supports, but there are still auctions in Danville, Lexington, Mount Sterling, and Maysville. John M Baker (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much the standard way of auctioning in the US. My wife and I were surprised the first time we saw a British auction and saw how sedate the auctioneer was. It's quite different. Dismas|^(talk) 15:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In the antiques saleroom maybe, but at British agricultural markets, the auctioneers use a similar, (though maybe not as stylised) chant. See Breeding Sheep Sale, Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, South Wales. It seems unlikely to me that this stems from American influence and more likely to be the other way about. We have an article; Auction chant which only describes US usage. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And that article links to auction school, so apparently those schools are still around. I gather that there used to be a Lucky Strike commercial, ending with the words "Sold, American," that gave a sample tobacco auction chant to people not involved in the tobacco business. There must be a version of it online somewhere, although I don't know where. However, if you listen to the 1950s song, The Auctioneer, which has an auction chant in a non-tobacco context, you'll notice that they aren't really that different. John M Baker (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Which European parties call for the (re)introduction of capital punishment?

The only one I've been aware of so far is Germany's NPD, but I wasn't concerned with the topic yet. Are there non-extremist or probably more influential ones as well? My immediate guess would've been that you'd rather find those in the former Eastern Bloc countries, where the abolition doesn't date back that long. --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The British National Party favors reintroduction of the death penalty (from their website). There's also some small conservative Christian parties, such as the Scottish Christian Party (source) and the (Dutch) Reformed Political Party. The death penalty is still legal in Belarus, and in 2006, Polish president Lech Kaczynski called on the EU members to bring it back. - Lindert (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Front National (France) has also campaigned for the reintroduction of capital punishment, but I'm not sure if that's an official platform or just Le Pen's opinion.Although FN isn't exactly non-extremist... eldamorie (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sex Offender Laws

Within the United States, what states require a sex offender to have his status listed on his/her identification card/driver's license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whodat6209 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it true lawyers can fish for defamation in the UK like ambulance-chasers in the US?

I'm not in the UK and this is purely a philosophical question (doesn't affect me in the slightest). But is true that in the UK lawyers (or barristers sorry I don't know the distinction) can try to personally sue someone for defamation over comments on e.g. a small site, much the way in the US a lawyer can be said to be an "ambulance-chaser" and try to work on contingency in wrongful-accident cases?

Thanks if anyone knows anything about this! --80.99.254.208 (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to review libel tourism.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither libel lawyers in the UK, or medical malpractice lawyers in the US, can personally sue someone. The party that has been harmed by it has to sue them, with the lawyer representing them. You have to have legal standing in order to sue, which means you have to actually be connected to the case. The most common "no win, no fee" lawsuits in the UK are personal accident claims (it sometimes feels like every third advert on TV is asking you if you've had an accident at work in the last five years). --Tango (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)