Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
Is there any significance to this name, which is found on advertisements and promotional materials for many major credit cards and bank cards? It seems strange to me that several companies (Discover, AmEx, and several bank cards) use the same name, (though I suppose it's not too unlike the 555 area code). Was J L Webb anyone important, or is this perhaps some play on words that eludes me at the moment? Tuckerekcut (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if anyone would know where to go to locate a US Congressional issued report. The name is "U.S.S. Iowa tragedy : an investigative failure : report of the Investigations Subcommittee and Defense Policy Panel of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, second session, March 5, 1990", if that helps. 129.108.97.112 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the punishment in Arizona for disturbing the peace? I went to court & could have just paid a fine but the judge said the he would make it easier for me and send me to screenings for anger management & alcohol abuse (I don't drink). Now, I have to go to classes for 12 weeks for one (2 hours each) and for the other one I have 2 days of classes (8 hours each). The screenings cost me $150.00 and the classes will end up costing me $340.00 by the time I'm through. My fine and court cost were only $240.00...together!
I would like to hear feedback on this because I do not understand how Americans think... I live in the US, and especially in my state, we have a lot of swing voters. In other words, they are republican one election, then republican the next. Are Americans so dumb that they vote based on things other then their beliefs? For example, I just read Obama is trying to get women who supported Hillary to support him. That kinda means that women ONLY wanted Hillary Clinton because she was a female. I know women who told me the only reason they would vote for her was because she was a female. I'm sorry and I don't know if I am allowed to say this, but why are people so stupid?
People want to impeach Bush now, wow what a great idea. Waste more money, it should have happened a long time ago. And you guys really believe he didn't know the planes were gonna hit the WTC? He just let it happen so he can get dumb people to support him for the dumb war we are having. If any of you have taken an American history class, you would have learned that we knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed, the president let it happen so we could join the war. Same thing here, Bush knew we were going to get hit and he let it happen. You can be naive, you can be a fool, or whatever you wish, but he knew it. He just let it happen so he could make himself and his friends richer and steal more money.
One argument I've heard for switching sides at every election (in the UK) is that it "keeps them on their toes". Some people think that when a group of politicians have been in power for too long they start abusing the system and so the best way to conter that tendency is to constantly switch sides. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official story is that the original manuscript has been eaten by ants and no longer exists, however, according to this source, there is speculation that it never existed. Marco polo (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we'll ever know. Some reports online claim that "he was said" to have been six feet and six or seven inches tall. Our article on Wallace Sword states: "It has been estimated that to be able to wield the sword Sir William Wallace must have been more than six feet six inches tall." One of the references, swordforum, doesn't actually support this claim, and the blade might have been replaced, and Wallace might not even have owned the sword. ---Sluzzelintalk09:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Sluzzelin says above, we'll never know (unless someone locates the parts of his quartered body and measures his reassembled skeleton). Deducing a height from the purported sword is a waste of time. Firstly, it's unlikely to be his sword, since it is of a later style. Moreover, the sword has been altered during "restorations" with a replacement hilt, and some suspect it has been shortened. More significantly, there is no direct correlation between a man's height and his sword. While an untrained individual would find the sword hard (or impossible) to wield, a man of average height could fight with a sword of such length if taught how to wield it properly (in the medieval style), as any knight would have been (from memory, I believe that Sword Forum article describes the case well).
We can make some deductions, however. Early sources describe Wallace as a tall man, with the body of a giant. Even making allowances for dramatic hyperbole, we can at least take that to mean he was above average height. A height of over six feet is not impossible; the idea that medieval men were short is a myth which has gained credence from misinterpretation of architecture and antique furniture. Low doorways were an architectural custom, arising from defensive structures (where an attacker is put at a disadvantage by their need to duck in order to enter); in the late Middle Ages it became the custom to sleep sitting up, and beds were generally made shorter. Archeological finds indicate that heights were not so different from our modern heights. A study of a London urban skeletons puts the average at 5'8" for a man, and 5'2" for a woman (ref: John Clark, The Medieval Horse and its Equipment The Boydell Press, 2004, quoting a 1988 study by WJ White; to be fair, the source gives no specific date within the medieval period). A well-nourished, athletic knight such as Wallace would probably exceed the average. In an age when men were admired for their warrior-like attributes and physical prowess, Wallace was seen and presented as a hero, who was harder and tougher than anyone. He probably had the stature to go with it (think of a modern sports hero, if you want a comparison), but to reach some empirical feet-and-inches height is impossible. He might have been 5'10", or 6'10". But he would have been large, muscular, strong and athletic. Gwinva (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a short article on the so-called "Wallace Sword" in the interesting The Wallace Book, edited by Ted Cowan (ISBN 0-85976-652-4 for the paperback). David H. Caldwell wrote the piece, he's Keeper at the National Museums of Scotland. He notes that "no series scholar has in recent times been inclined to give the Wallace Sword any credence as the hero's own". Having said this, he doesn't reject the idea of an association between Wallace and the sword out of hand. The current sword is a 1505 repair job by one Robert Selkirk, and in no way resembles a sword that Wallace - an archer rather than a swordsman if his seal is anything to go by - might have used. However, the blade is welded together from broken shards which may, perhaps, just possibly, have been a C13th single-handed sword. "Does this offer just a very faint ray of hope for those who would believe this to be William Wallace's actual weapon?". Caldwell doesn't answer his own question. As to Wallace's height, nobody can truly know. Angus McLellan(Talk)18:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where might I find a diagram of an economic food (income) chain or web such as would show lenders "feeding" on government through loans required under a deficit policy that would include the government "feeding" on taxpayers and taxpayers "feeding" on customers, etc.? --Taxa (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Word comes with some good templates for little graphics like that. You just type in the words. Remember that, in most cases lenders (anyone with wealth saved (even if it's in savings accounts and mutual funds, the overall return on investment is heavily influenced by the availability of a liquid market for government debt)) are also consumers and tax-payers. Most people fit into every category to some degree. 24.68.228.182 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for an article or a site that already has such diagrams rather than to create one (right now) for myself. Yes, while viewing a drawing or a big fish eating a little fish while that fish was going for a smaller one 'til finally you were looking at chain of organisms from the mouth of the big fish going to something chasing a bacterium up his you know what. --Taxa (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in a LLC with someone. They want to run their own business now. This is fine. I want to remain an LLC without them. I also want to retain the name of the company as I did give the company it's name.
For the past 5 days I have tried to contact the company who did our paperwork and they have not aswered back. I have also written a letter with this request and the partners wishes, had it notarised, sent it registered with return receipt to that company and the other partner.
Where can I find info on how to dismantle this affair?
Thank you,
Dana —Preceding unsigned comment added by CICity (talk • contribs) 12:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. What do you think the world would be like if 9-11 never happened?
2. Why did the 9-11 hijackers put themselves at risk?
3. Who made up the fact that it was the Jews who did 9-11?
1. We'd all be a day younger; beyond that, your speculation is as good as ours. 2. See suicide attack. 3. The same sorts of people who blame the Jews for many of the world's other problems. --Sean13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1)Conspiracy theorists would doubtless say that if the 9/11 attacks had not happened (they changed their minds and went home, they all got arrested, whatever), that some other event would have happened shortly thereafter which would have justified the same military moves and increases in military spending, changes in the balance of political power, and changes to individual rights such as the Patriot Act. 2)Suicide bombers and the like inevitably put themselves at risk. Demanding that people crash a plane and then getting off the plane rarely has the desired effect. Edison (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question about Frederick I, Elector of Brandenburg
"Frederick entered early into the service of Austria and fought on the side of King Sigismund of Hungary. After he returned he divided the inheritance from his father with his brother John, who received Bayreuth while Frederick kept Ansbach. At first he tried to mediate in the imperial confusion between King Wenceslaus and the party of Rupert of the Palatinate, nevertheless he fought on the side of Rupert in September 1399.
He resumed his rule of Ansbach in 1409 and after heavy feuding entered into the service of King Sigismund. As a representative of Brandenburghe took part on 20 September 1410 in the election of Sigismund as Holy Roman Emperor in Frankfurt. In gratitude, King Sigismund made him Oberster Hauptmann and Verwalter der Marken (1411). With an iron hand Frederick fought against the rebellious nobility of the March of Brandenburg (in particular, the Quitzow family) and, in the end, restored security. Frederick also became a member of the Parakeet Society and of the League of Constance.
At the Council of Constance (30 April 1415) Sigismund granted Frederick the titles of Margrave and Prince-elector of Brandenburg. On 21 October 1415 the Brandenburg states meeting in a Landtag asked him to rule in Berlin. The king awarded him the formal enfeoffment of the margravate on 18 April 1417. As Frederick did not agree with the forcible action of Sigismund against the Hussites, relations between them cooled."
Question: if it was in 1415 that Frederick was granted the titles of Margrave and Prince-elector of Brandenburg, how was he representing Brandenburg at the election in 1410?
Actually, Frederick's brother John was margrave of Bayreuth. It was only a generation or two after Frederick had been granted the margraviate of Brandenburg that the Hohenzollerns' territories around Bayreuth would come to be known as the Principality of Brandenburg-Kulmbach. Our articles on Frederick and on the Hohenzollerns are not entirely accurate in stating that Sigismund allowed Frederick to represent Brandenburg at the imperial election. The throne of Brandenburg was in fact occupied at the time of the election by Jobst of Moravia. However, Sigismund had previously held the throne of Brandenburg and had apparently pawned it to Jobst. Sigismund disputed Jobst's right to the electorate in the election of 1410. According to our article Imperial election, in the election of 1410, Sigismund designated Frederick as his representative for the Brandenburg electorate, although his right to do so was doubtful. (Frederick had by 1410 for some time offered military service to Sigismund.) When the electors voted in September of 1410, three electors (presumably including Frederick) voted for Sigismund. Apparently at least one elector other than Jobst was absent at this election, but Sigismund claimed the throne. However, Jobst took part in a subsequent election in October of 1410, which resulted in Jobst gaining the imperial throne with a majority of four out of the seven prince-electors. When Jobst died a few months later in early 1411, Sigismund regained the throne of Brandenburg and was able to secure his own election as emperor. Sigismund in turn granted the throne of Brandenburg to Frederick in 1411. I will correct the inconsistencies in the relevant articles. Marco polo (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read somewhere that during his visit to England Desiderius Erasmus remarked about how much the English kiss each other. If I remember correctly he also said something cheeky along the lines of "even men and women kiss to greet each other, something I could definitely get used to!". Does anyone know where I can find this again? Thanks in advance! --Cameron (T|C) 14:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erasmus, writing in summer 1499 to his poet friend Fausto Andrelini, in Italy, says: Here are girls with angels' faces, so kind and obliging that you would prefer them to all your muses. Besides, there is a custom here never to be sufficiently commended. Wherever you come you are received with a kiss by all; you take your leave, you are dismissed with kisses; you return, kisses are repeated. They come to visit you: kisses again; they leave you: you kiss them all round. Should they meet you anywhere, kisses in abundance; in fine, wherever you move there Is nothing but kisses." Erasmus, Epistle 103CWE I:193. --Wetman (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the Balanced Budget article the variables associate with the equations shown for Balanced Budget Multiplier are not indicated. What article names the variables for these equations? Also the article claims that the government does not add money to the economy under a balanced budget, which is false although the government is no longer a source of income for lenders. --Taxa (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are mostly standard economic variables that most normal people would never have heard of. Y is Income/Output (same thing), T is taxes, I is investment, G is government expenditure, delta represents "change in"... I guess that's all I can tell you for sure. I could only guess what the alpha or "c" are meant to represent.
You're right that much of the article is unclear and doesn't represent a full view. In many places it's plain wrong. The only way a government can add to, or subtract from, the money supply is literally printing it, or performing "open market transactions" (the buying and selling of bonds), which the Fed does in the US. I think what he means is that the government doesn't "contribute to aggregate demand" which is a macro concept from Keynesian economics. State and local governments cannot add to the money supply. Nor can businesses or individuals (banks KINDA can, by adjusting reserve ratios, but that isn't creating or destroying money, it's just adjusting the "velocity" of the money)
What the writer is trying to get at, I think, is fiscal policy and I think you'll find more relevant and correct information there.
That's part of why I wanted to check out equations it lists. While I have you on the phone... :-) another thing I am looking for are the equations that relate the variables shown in the chart entitled "Circulation in Macroeconomics" in the Macroeconomics article. --Taxa (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do my best. Alright, labour supply and labour demand are self-explanatory, and determine the 'wage rate'
Anything to do w/ T = taxes, to TH = consumer/household taxes while TC = corporate taxes
TR will be transfer payments which are usually made for equity's sake. So things like federal money that is redistributed to states or provinces (common in canada) which then goes to work in social services that benefit the households and corporations. I always think of transfer payments as being 'net' with taxes, if for no other reason than they are usually provided as income tax credits for ease of distribution. Except for services and goods of course (roads, schools etc.)
S = saving so SH is household savings and SG = gov SC = corporate and SF = foreign. It's the excess wealth that those entities have. They usually 'lend' the wealth out via a financial market, whether it be debt instruments (bonds), equities (stocks) or whatever. They are just ways that people who have excess income can provide that income to someone else who has productive uses for it.
I(nvestment) is the process by which that above savings is converted into "capital". capital is anything that makes labour or land more productive. Tools, machines, factories, even software etc. It usually takes an investment (from savings) to form capital, which in turn increases incomes (and hopefully leads to more investment and more capital and more income and on and on...)
the "commodity market" would be best split into three categories for "Capital", "Factor" and "Goods/Services" markets. Factors are the inputs used to make other things and goods/services are the things that people want. I already mentioned capital (notice there is a big difference between financial capital - money and economic capital - things that improve productivity)
Whoops, you wanted equations. Well some common and important ones are Y (income/output) = C (consumption) + I (Investment) + G (government spending, less taxes) + NX (net exports). This dictates overall income/output.
There are tons of ways the rest could be interpretted. Usually S = I (savings = investment) is important. uhhhh NX = X - IM. ummm these are definitional equations, but there are a lot of these lines that just represent how things flow. There are lots of academic papers and works that try to estimate how one has related to another in the past, but there are no rules. It's just important to know the linkages so if a policy maker makes a change in one area, she'll see how things flow outwards around it. NByz (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's what I am getting at... equations to create a basic online or Excel interactive simulation model for a Circulation in Macroeconomics chart: Circulation in Macroeconomics --Taxa (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could look at each box and see what flows into or out of them, and just add them up. It would have to be for a set time period, like "1 year" or something.
So for Government you have [government surplus or deficit] = Th + Tc - TRh - TRc - i(D) [interest on debt] - G [government expenditures on goods and services]
For Households you would have [Household Net Savings or Deficit] = Ls*W + i(S) [interest on net savings(or debt)] + TRh - C - Th (edit: Also, in a very real way, government expenditures, G, act as income to households and corporations. Income referring to the flow of services that they get from the goods/services that government provides. Economists like to think of things in terms of goods and services, not money, in contexts like this. Money and financial investments just represent claims on future goods and services)
Labour Markets would be tricky because W = F(Ld) = F(Ls) (wage equals labour demand function of quantity demanded equals labour supply function of quantity supplied) (wage is the point where demand equals supply). Maybe it would be easier to avoid "stock" variables like "wage rate" altogether and stick with time-dependent flow variables like "total wages paid in the period" (sorry if i'm complicating this too much (with all the brackets()and additions and stuff))
It would be hard to find data estimates for the same specific time period for all of these things, but you could do it.
First, thanks for fully explaining the details by fully defining the variables. This makes it far easier and faster to model in Excel which I can eventually restructure to resemble or mimic the Circulation of macroeconomics diagram.
For the Workforce (labor) Market I've so far simply made new variables for the F(Ld) and the F(Ls) functions and conditionally set W to zero until they are equal. That way I can even use a random number generator to see how changes in their values effect the other values.
I assume then that I just follow this add and subtract pattern for Corporation, Financial Market, etc.
If you would rather add these yourself here then please do so since if there are additional complications I need to know them in order to produce a valid model. --Taxa (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also after having now created the model I can see how to setup a debit/credit column for each of the entities and enter each side of a link as in a convention balance sheet. Very interesting. --Taxa (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, since Ls and Ld are not monetary quantities but rather hours, whereas wages are in dollars, it seems that there should be a monetary wage payment link between household and corporation and household and government and household and household or am I missing something? --Taxa (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would probably be better to use something like "total wage receipts" or something like that. That kind of information (or estimates) might be available from agency that controls income or payroll taxes in the country you're looking at. NByz (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the spreadsheet below all values were set to one and the formulas were replaced by equation results(top row). Some to the cell values have their signs reversed or may be in the wrong column.
The Labor or Workforce Market values and formulas are unfinished since I did not know if showing labor as both hours and dollars was correct for macroeconomics. Obviously a lot more things can be added like debt and interest on debt for government, corporations, household and foreign entities. --Taxa (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thorough! I don't have time to get to fully understand all of this before going to bed, but I noticed a couple of things.
Like you mentioned above, it may be easier to use W="total wage receipts" for this kind of thing. It's called a "flow" variable, and it requires a period of time (there has to be a time-range, not just a single time, which would be a "stock" variable).
Also, I'm not sure if it's the case right now, but everything that is "debited" to one agent's "asset account" has to be credited from another. Like I said, I don't fully understand your model yet, but it's just a good rule. In the case of something like "interest on savings", you have it accruing fully to government. Make sure the model can accept a Savings "% to consumers", "% to government" "% to corporations"
The first thing the spreadsheet exposed was the fact that the links between entities are in fact merely debits and credits or surpluses and deficits or incoming and outgoing values shown as a link on a diagram. Once I realized that this is the way the links should be treated it was down hill from there. The spreadsheet also exposed that savings, debt and their respective interests are unique links between each agent and the financial market so that problem is also solved. --Taxa (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure not to treat the "markets" (financial, commodity and labour [and maybe factor goods and services later if you want]) the same as the "agents (government, household, corporate and foreign) If there is 10 dollars of savings in the economy, it can only be owned by, say, $7 from households, $1 from government and $2 from corporations (no double-counting), but once you get into financial and goods markets, each dollar of value may have circulated through them a dozen times (both because of transactions going back and forth, and value being created through production).
I've regrouped the columns according to markets and agents. I would expect percentage of savings for each agent to be a value calculated from the ratio of each contributor to the total amount. --Taxa (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings me to my last point for tonight. I mentioned the thing about not doublecounting savings above. Well it's not exactly true. There is a little thing called the [Money Multiplier] (I don't understand why that doesn't have it's own article... it's pretty important.)
The money multiplier a result of the way banks work. What normally happens is that a person makes a deposit at a bank, then the bank tries to make money by lending those funds to someone else at a higher rate. Which means that a person's money isn't literally sitting in a bank somewhere, it's been lent out. Banks only keep enough of a reserve (the "reserve ratio") to handle the immediate needs of depositors wanting to get at their money. So even though the original depositor still has a claim to that wealth, the actual funds are being used by someone else. The actual amount of money (number of 'bank notes' or M0) never increases, but the 'money supply' (measured by M1, M2, M3, or the claims to money (see [| Money supplies around the world]) has increased. Effectively, there is more money in the system. The best part is, once person who took out the loan gets the money, she will usually deposit it in the bank too, so the effect is quite large.
I'm somewhat familar with the money multiplier effect but I am not sure it this is where the velocity of money applies, in other words if a borrower puts the money right back in the bank and it is lent out again and redeposited and so on and there are numerous claims on it over the week end then if on a Monday when everyone's projects begin if the removal of the money from the bank by the borrowers at high speed to go shopping is what the measure of velocity is. --Taxa (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm the velocity of money is the way that the total amount of money in the economy relates to the total value of transactions in the economy. Let's say that there is a two person economy with $100 in "money supply" and a whole bunch of goods that each person has. If no transactions are made, the velocity of money is zero. If person one buys $50 worth of goods from person two, the velocity is .5 ($50 of transactions / $100 of money supply). If person one sells that $50 of goods back to person one ($100 worth of transactions / $100 money supply), the velocity of money is 1. If they buy and sell another batch of goods ($50 ea way) the velocity is 2 ($200 in transactions / $100 of money supply) If the two of them buy and sell things back and forth over and over, they could get the velocity of money way up there. It's not really the same as the reserve ratio or "multiple deposit expansion" (which is a better term than "money multiplier"), although a higher reserve ratio makes it harder to get a high velocity. NByz (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. So in the month of December when Walmart is making too much money to count it is because the velocity of money is higher than in August. 71.100.161.103 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some countries, like China, that maintain a currency peg that they have to honour (to the USD), increasing or decreasing the required reserve ratio is the only way that they can influence the economy via monetary policy.
This is another reason why economists like to avoid thinking about money too much when they are looking at flows like this. But you've got the right idea. I'm I've said too much NByz (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the original question it looks like there might be an advantage to the Government having a net surplus rather than a deficit and that there might be a high probability that the argument made in the Balanced budget article would no longer apply under the circumstances of a net surplus. --Taxa (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry too much about that article... But yeah, a surplus is good. You should read fiscal policy for info on how the government uses deficits and surpluses to stimulate and even-out "aggregate demand" through the business cycle. Also there are a lot of benefits of having a big, liquid pool of federal debt instruments available to both act as a "risk-free" instrument (or as low risk as there can be) for portfolios, and a HUGE benefit for the Fed to be able to buy and sell those instruments to influence interest rates and the money supply. NByz (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People complain about high taxes and high oil prices so one reason for trying to expose the detailed relationships in a spread sheet model is so that people can have a better understanding of things like how transfer payments may be reduced if taxes are lowered, resulting in more pot holes or how low yield (high taxes on windfall profits) may result in lower supply and higher prices.
The whole purpose of an interactive model is to allow everyone from politicians to the ordinary guy in the street to see clearly the overall consequences of taking any action such as lowering taxes or reducing the supply of a commodity like oil. Also a standard model might likewise keep us all on the same page and better able to compare the benefits and risks of what each candidate has to propose. --Taxa (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against that. However, since I am a person of limited capacity, interested in many subjects to the point that I require minimized and optimized dynamic online polychotomous keys for every subject over and above a degree to assure both depth of knowledge and speed of recall, I now prefer having a key to having a degree in the interest of time. --Taxa (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holland Marsh Road Act - I cannot find anywhere, does anyone have this?
I live and work in the Holland Marsh and am curious where I can find more information on the referenced Holland Marsh Road Act as referred to in Wikipedia's description of the Holland Marsh. I have "googled" for the said legislation but have come up empty handed. I think it is an important link for Wikipedia to provide, granted that the information is available. If it is not, then this information should be removed from the description so as not to create frustration and confusion. However, I hope you have more on the subject.
It's worth noting that the final paragraph of Holland Marsh is an out & out rant. I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. Meanwhile I've had a good hunt around various Canadian websites and found nothing. Very odd. --Tagishsimon(talk)22:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
