Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 15

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.

November 15

Richest prostitute

Who is the richest prostitute in the world? --EditorAndrew1990 (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that information is publicly available. --Tango (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And even if it were, are you defining "prostitute" as 1. someone who is currently making their money as a prostitute, 2. someone who once made their primary income as a prostitute, 3. someone who was once for some amount of time a prostitute, or what? --Mr.98 (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

At a guess, I'd say Heidi Fleiss. Though, I don't know if she was ever a prostitute but she was a madam. Dismas|^(talk) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't count her, even if she was prostitute at some point. Presumably the OP is interested in people that have made lots of money being a prostitute, she made her money managing prostitutes. --Tango (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the "marrying well" crowd who have outlasted their prey (insert your own candidate) or are just biding their time? hydnjo (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Criterion might be if they ever performed sex acts for money. Edison (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How about ANS? hydnjo (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A criterion that broad includes porn stars, "kept" women (mistresses that receive financial support in exchange for sex) and, arguably, spouses that don't pay their way financially (although those caring for young children could be excluded from that). --Tango (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty impossible for any outsider to determine whether someone has married for money or merely fallen in love with someone wealthy. - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Do politicians count? 69.228.171.150 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of lawyers, as per the old joke:

• Q. What's the difference between a lawyer and a prostitute?
• A. Nothing - they're both c**ts for hire. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the richest, but Brooke Magnanti must have made quite a lot of money from writing about her time as a call girl. Warofdreams talk 11:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The most educated may be Belle de Jour (writer), who has a PhD. And with the blatant self-promotion of her blog, the earnings from her book, and the sale of film rights and subsequent revenue, in addition to her day job, then she could be the wealthiest prostitute. I have to add that I'm truely shocked and astounded that she has not been sacked by her (formerly) respectable employers. 78.149.122.6 (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt she's the only former prostitute with a PhD Nil Einne (talk)

19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be Jenna Jamison (technically she could be considered a prostitute as she sold herself for money - on camera, on the Net, etc.).

Infante Pedro

Was Pedro II of Brazil a Portuguese infante? Even though he was born in the Empire of Brazil.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the terms used in Brazil were Princes of Brazil for sons of the Emperor and Prince Imperial of Brazil for the heir apparent. In Portugal, it looks like Infante was reserved for sons and grandsons of the reigning King of Portugal, so Pedro II would techincally qualify, since his father, Pedro I of Brazil was King of Portugal until 1826, while Pedro II was born in 1825; so for a few months he would have techincally been an Infante. However, once Pedro II's sister Maria II of Portugal became queen, it removed Pedro II from direct line of succession. So it would appear that he was, for a very brief time, an actual Infante. --Jayron32 06:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Civil war in 60's America

If the whites had not let up on the blacks after the 60s riots, would there have been a civil war between black and white, and who would have won? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.82.206 (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your question is well-intended, but the Reference Desk is for information, not speculation or debate, and it would be impossible to respond without engaging in both. [For example, I'd begin with the observation that the chronology assumed in the question is just wrong: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 occurred before most of the major riots.] And WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But I wouldn't object if someone else deleted this thread before anyone else is tempted to answer. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there isn't much we can do on this one. I will also correct an error in the question, though - it wasn't really the whites letting up on the blacks, it was certain whites letting up on the blacks. Racism wasn't universal in the US in the 60's and it wasn't completely eliminated after that. The civil rights debate wasn't "whites" vs "blacks". --Tango (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

1860's or 1960's? Ratio of "black people" to "white people?" Firepower controlled by each? Edison (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Assumption that both groups would act as homogenous blocks? Just as they did in the 1860s...? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, is there any evidence to show that, in the 1960s, if the civil rights movement had been stampedon, that things would have got much nastier resulting in what could only be described as civil war?--79.67.82.206 (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "if the whites had not let up on the blacks after the 60s riots." The worst race riots of the 60s happened after the biggest changes to the laws affecting civil rights. For example, the Watts riots happened less than a week after the signing of the Voting Rights Act. If anything, the riots of the mid-late 1960s led to a hardening of Middle American attitudes toward further legislation aimed toward improving the lot of African-Americans and helped bring in Nixon and 40 years of conservative dominance in American politics. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Some black civil rights leaders, like Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X, talked about creating separate black states, but it really was all just talk. Anyone with a basic understanding of African-American history knew that the blacks had nowhere else to go -- they were at least as American as anyone else, and arguably the most American subgroup in the USA. Plus, well, there's a reason why Martin Luther King's style of civil disobedience worked: the vast majority of whites in 1960s America, even those whose views would be considered racist today, deeply disapproved of using violence to enforce racism. --M@rēino 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

How pauper burials are organised

Iam interested in how local governments organise pauper burials. Specifically in Adelaide South Australia and how this compares to other regions of the world. This is not home work just a general enquiry. Thank you, Simon203.122.251.174 (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a page about how it works in Brighton, UK. --Tango (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As an NHS manager in the UK I once had to arrange the burial of a person who died in hospital with no relatives or assets. I arranged the burial through a local undertaker and the NHS, the local hospital, footed the bill. I don't think there are normally huge complications in the scenario you mention. The usual problem is who is going to pay. I suspect that most local governments have a specific or discretionary budget they can call on. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See also potter's field and Hart Island, New York. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

question about the law

This is not a question requesting legal advice but rather about the ramification of non-compliance with a particular law. The law in question is that a person has a right to be tried by a jury of their peers. What if a person is tried by a jury that is not the person's peers such as an artist being tried by a non-peer group consisting of commodity traders with no concept or appreciation of art (...seen one painting, seen them all) or a lawyer being tried by a non-peer group of medical personnel such as nurses. Once allowed to serve in the capacity of the defendant's peers does the defendant have the right thereafter to claim that as their ¶ "peers" he has the right to join their clubs and otherwise to be treated equally with them? 71.100.7.164 (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

An anthropologist or pimp a homeopath or an astronaut or a Zoroastrian do not have the right to a jury of anthropologists, pimps, homeopaths, astronauts or Zoroastrians, respectively. "Peer" does not mean "exactly like the accused in every way." "Peer" means "a broad spectrum of the population." Edison (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Legally, in the U.S., peers are anyone with the same legal standing as the person on trial. Since all U.S. citizens are guaranteed the same equal protection before the law, all citizens are each other's peers. This applies in U.S. civilian courts. I believe that in US military jury trials, "peers" generally means that officers are tried before jury of officers, and enlisted men are tried before courts of enlisted men. I could be wrong on that last one though. --Jayron32 05:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

According to what I remember of a news broadcast about the Fort Hood shootings the other day, a military jury is selected by the base commander. I don't know about the officers for officers, enlisted for enlisted part though. Dismas|^(talk) 06:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no military lawyer, but a defendant enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces can apparently request that a third of a court-martial's members also be enlisted. See Courts-martial in the United States. The criminal-procedure elements of the United States Bill of Rights aren't considered specifically applicable as courts-martial are established by Congress under Article One of the United States Constitution as part of the President's executive function (Article Two), rather than one of the courts established by Article Three. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure most military court martials, for both enlisted and officers, involve juries of officers (in the US). I can't imagine that the wikipedia articles on point don't answer this question. Shadowjams (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, commissioned officers constitute a majority on every U.S. Court-martial. However, enlisted defendants, according to the Wikipedia article, can request that a third of the members also be enlisted, which means that officers would still constitute two thirds. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that typically the defense gets some say in choosing the jury. They can rule out jurors who they feel might be biased against the defendant. See jury selection. Rckrone (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the case in some countries (such as the US), but it isn't the case everywhere (eg. in the UK a juror can only be rejected for particularly good reason, such as knowing someone in the case). I'm not sure it is common enough to be considered "typical". --Tango (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the term is just out of date. In England, people used to be tried by people of the same broad social rank. Peers (as in Lords) were tried by peers (in the House of Lords), commoners were tried by commoners (in regular courts with juries) and the sovereign wasn't tried at all. These days everyone (except the sovereign) is tried before a randomly selected jury. --Tango (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

¶ Looking at the U.S. Bill of Rights, I see that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't require a jury of one's peers, but one selected from the same jurisdiction as the alleged crime being prosecuted:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,...

If you commit a Federal crime in Vermont, you normally couldn't be tried in Utah, although some federal prosecutors have tried to stretch this by (for example) prosecuting a publisher of alleged pornography in every state where his publication was received. The idea of a "jury of one's peers" goes back to Magna Carta (1215) which provided that a free man had to be tried before his peers, when "free" excluded huge classes of Englishmen, such as serfs and villeins:

XXIX.

Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,]† but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
† Annotations: Variant reading of the text noted in The Statutes of the Realm as follows: deal with him,
—current English law
39. Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terre. [Articles, c. 29; 1225, c. 29.]

40. Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum aut justiciam. [Articles, c. 30; 1225 c. 29.] — Latin original

—— Shakescene (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

¶ To clarify let me say then a trial of a male for rape by an all female jury who have been raped or had a family member that was raped. Regardless of the outcome what I am asking is that if such a jury was allowed would the male then have an arguement to support joining an all female club , etc. 71.100.7.164 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a jury wouldn't happen, but even it if did it wouldn't make any difference to membership of a group. Just because you are a member of one group that someone else is in doesn't automatically make you a member of every other group that person is in. That would be absurd. --Tango (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In most U.S. jurisdictions, both the defense and the prosecution are entitled to a certain number of peremptory challenges to jurors who aren't disqualified by the judge for cause (such as hardship, inability to follow the proceedings, prior relationship with a party, or bias). Prosecutors sometimes try to exclude as many black jurors as possible (especially when trying a black defendant) on the thesis that black jurors are more likely to acquit than white ones. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this kind of arbitrary exclusion, which would otherwise fall well within the prosecution's right to exclude without the need to justify, may invalidate a conviction, even if the defendant is white. A similar systematic exclusion of men or women from juries can invalidate the conviction of a male or female defendant. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here's the case (from my old paralegal course on the Administration of Justice; remember, especially if you're not the original enquirer, that Wikipedia does not offer legal advice. We can offer general information about the law, such as Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka, Dred Scott vs Sandford, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, Bush v. Gore or the United States v. Nixon, but we can't tell what might affect the possible outcome of any particular plea, motion, legal strategy, trial, suit or proceeding. Most of us aren't lawyers, and those who are would be ethically prohibited from advising a client without a full understanding of the individual case.) See J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. [511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89] (1994) which threw out a child-support judgment against a male defendant rendered by a jury from which all male candidates had been excluded by peremptory challenge. Also see the other cases cited in the Wikipedia article and in the court opinions, such as Batson v. Kentucky (476 U.S. 79, 1986), discounting similarly-constructed all-white juries, and Hoyt v. Florida (368 U.S. 57, 1961), discounting an all-male jury. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the 6th amendment citation speaks to a language question that came up some weeks ago about what the OP considered the odd way in which "enjoy" is used in English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Swiss automobile laws

During an episode of Top Gear, they decide to go find the "perfect" driving road. Hammond wants to go to Switzerland but Clarkson goes on a small tirade about how restrictive the driving/auto laws are in that country. One that he mentions is not being able to wash your car. Although I wasn't specifically looking for this when I was there last, I don't recall the cars being particularly dirty. Are Swiss laws really that much more restrictive than the laws of other countries? And is the car washing bit due to water conservation laws or what? Can you only get your car washed at a carwash and not your private residence? Dismas|^(talk) 05:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a reference to certain local laws rather than a national law. The municipality of Saanen, for example, as a law in which Article 18 says:

Motorfahrzeuge und Maschinen dürfen nur auf dafür vorgesehenen, bewilligten Plätzen gewaschen werden.

Google translates that as:

Motor vehicles and equipment must be washed only in designated, approved courses.

Apparently it is to prevent pollution of the drains. --Tango (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Switzerland is notorious for being very clean, so I guess people do, in general, use the designated car washes rather than letting their cars get dirty. --Tango (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's quite antisocial to wash your car and let the dirty water go into the rainwater drains. Unless you are sure that the rainwater will be properly treated, what you are doing is letting all the road dirt and detergent go straight into a river or the sea, possibly into water where people will bathe. If you don't want tar on the beach, don't do the things that make it end up there! Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So, I should let the road dirt get washed by rain directly into the drains, rather than letting it first sit on my car? . DOR (HK) (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to preserve the famous beaches of Switzerland. FiggyBee (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

GDP + PPP

I always had the UK down as a rather more expensive place to live than other European countries, such as France, Spain, Germany and Italy. However, judging by the fact that France and Germany rank higher in terms of nominal GDP than the UK, yet lower once GDP is adjusted for PPP, I might be compelled to conclude that the UK is cheaper! Also, whilst Spain and Italy only fair very slightly lower in terms of nominal GDP, once adjusted for PPP, the discrepancies are larger. Where am I going wrong?--Leon (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. What in the world is PPP (obviously not a Personal Pension Plan)? Some kind of purchasing power? Nominal GDP is Gross Domestic Product, but that differs from the cost of living, real GDP or the GDP deflator. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

PPP = Purchase Power Parity. As I understand it, it's purpose is to account for the cost of living.--Leon (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

PPP is to do with cost of living, but what you're seeing is not a difference in cost of living, it is a difference in the difference between the nominal exchange rate (ie. what people actually exchange money for) and the PPP exchange rate (which is, roughly speaking, what the exchange rates would need to be for the cost of living to be the same everywhere). The nominal rate tends to change faster than the PPP rate, which is probably what is causing the small differences between those different rates for European countries (eg. if a country increases their base interest rate that will cause the currency to increase in value nominally immediately, but it won't immediately change prices, that will happen over time due to a reduction in inflation). Countries with pegged exchange rates (or that use currencies that aren't easily exchanged) can have massive differences between the nominal rate (which is the pegged rate) and the PPP rate - that is why China's GDP under PPP is double it's nominal GDP. --Tango (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so in that case, at this time, prices are lower in the UK, right? Or am I missing something? Also, assuming my thesis that the UK is usually more expensive than these other places, will the GDP(PPP) rank of the UK likely go down in the next few years?--Leon (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In exchange rate terms, yes. The pound has recently dropped in value, which makes things in the UK seem cheaper to those abroad (it actually makes things more expensive in the UK since imported goods and components of goods are more expensive). From the point of view of people actually living in the UK (so both their income and expenditure are in pounds) the exchange rates make no difference. So, if you are interested in prices for a visit to the country, you are absolutely right. If you are interested in comparing what things are like for people living in the country you need to look at average income and things (percentage of income spent on food is a good general metric - if you spend a greater percentage of your income on food you are less well off, it's not perfect, but it is pretty good). I don't think the PPP ranking will go down, rather than nominal ranking will go up - PPP changes slowly, nominal exchange rates fluctuate. If nominal exchange rates stay at their current levels then the PPP ranking will go down due to higher inflation, but I think it is more likely that nominal rates will return to their historical levels once the current financial crisis is over. --Tango (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What you want is a cost-of-living comparison, such as this one, which shows that costs are higher in London than in several major German cities, but lower than in Paris. Of course, London is much more expensive than almost any other part of the UK, so if you are someplace like Newcastle, your costs could be lower than in most parts of Germany. Marco polo (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and | this is also quite a good link, which seems to confirm my earlier thesis that the UK is usually expensive. Further question: surely the nominal GDP must reflect how much people want to invest or live in a place; if this is so, is it reasonable to suggest that the nominal GDP (per capita or otherwise) may be a better measure of wealth than the GDP (PPP) after all? Or am I missing something?--Leon (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the question is whether nominal PPP adjusted toward a GDP helps to determine the extent to which the international macroeconomic system is self-equilibrating. That is, the PPP in a macro economy is like a ‘Big Mac index’ (in nominal scale). In a micro economy, this proposition does not hold true while consumer index can fluctuate to offset the PPP. However, the conclusion, what instinctively believe in some variant of purchasing power parity as an anchor of real GDP in countries where (as in examples here) consumer index variations are mild, is still a micro economic analysis. What can go wrong in this approach is, in theory, it depends on nominal PPP exchange rates on one side and the GDP of the comparing country is the other. Couchworthy (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Leon, expensive places don’t necessarily have higher levels of economic development, nor are those who believe in the theory of purchasing power parity likely to assume that a higher figure is causally linked to the cost of living. More important, as Shakescene points out, GDP per capita is not the same as either income or living standard.

Nominal GDP per capita is a reasonable substitute for consumption of goods and services per person, assuming you’re not looking at Saudi Arabia or other distorted economies. The advantage of using nominal, market-based exchange rates is that it tells you what people can purchase in the real world, not in some PPP-fantasy economy.

PPP is not about the cost of living, just (as Tango mentioned) the exchange rate between two places. Moreover, it is a snapshot, and so it is unaffected by changing nominal exchange rates.

The Theory: If a basket of consumer goods (no industrial products allowed, and no services in the original theory, which makes it wildly out of date) costs 100 in Place A, and 10 in Place B, the PPP exchange rate is 10:1. That’s it, nothing more. No ramping it up to redefine the size of the national economy (e.g., quadrupling India’s actual GDP to raise it to No. 4 in global PPP terms) and no implications for the cost of living. Ignore mere technology (if Place A has VOIP and Place B uses semaphore flags, we’ll just conclude that they are ‘similar’) and certainly don’t make any value judgments about the quality of anything, including the difference between HSBC and your local Nigerian loan shark. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand a little more. What articles and/or texts would you recommend to develop a better understanding?--Leon (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's one: http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/purchasingpower.htmDOR (HK) (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Late blooming millionaires and billionaires

I see that John Sperling started the private university that resulted in his $3billion fortune when he was 55 years old. What other examples are there of people who only became wealthy when of a mature age? 84.13.173.43 (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Sanders is a classic case. He didn't start clogging arteries on a large scale until he was 65. StuRat (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I once heard from a very welthy man that one who didn't learn how to make money by age of 30, would never learn how to do it. I feely agree.--Gilisa (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. 78.149.122.6 (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What does "I feely agree" mean, Gilisa? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It means that my ADHD just took over again. It should been "I pretty agree". Cheers--Gilisa (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, Gilisa, I meant "fully agree". Signed, your secret schizophrenic other identity. 85.181.146.25 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Schizofrens don't have other identity, perhaps you meant Dissociative identity disorder!? Thanks, me, personality 1. P.S. Never knew that I also live in Germany at the same time.--Gilisa (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"I feely agree" = "I feel that this is correct, so I fully agree". This is a shortened form, similar to how "No trespassing: All violators will be fully prosecuted" is shortened to "All trespassers will be fully violated". :-) StuRat (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Where to download historical daily values of UK stock market indicies?

The FT30 began in 1935, other UK indicies began more recently. Is there anywhere I could download a data set of daily values please, for as long a period of time as possible? Thanks 84.13.173.43 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

From the looks of this discussion (http://old.nabble.com/FT30-historical-data-td21086821.html) the info is more easily available for a 'fee', but the last suggestion in the thread links to https://www.globalfinancialdata.com and suggests it may be accessible through there. I have no idea if you have to pay to access the info, but the site does require a username/password to get to it - so probably worth investigating that. Alternatively there is here (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ec/cup/FT30.htm) that has the close price for each day but doesn't have the date so you'd have to manually add them which is trickier than it sounds as there'll be non-trading days that are 'one off' rather than expected (e.g. maybe something during the war or the QUeen's coronation etc.) ny156uk (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to find mining court case

I am trying to identify a particular court case that took place in the 1940s (or perhaps late 1930s). As best I can figure out, it was brought on behalf of the United Mine Workers (of America) concerning portal-to-portal wages. It seems to have eventually led to the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, but this preliminary suit was apparently dismissed as de minimis. I would like to find out more details regarding this dismissed case. My searches keep hitting on the Act (for which we shockingly do not have an article, but which is summarized here), but not initial case. Matt Deres (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, 325 US 161 (1945)? Shadowjams (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that that case was related - it may even have been an appeal of the dismissed case I'm looking for, but it's not quite what I want; I'd like to find information about the de minimus initial case, if possible. This article has suggested some new search terms for me, though, so it was still helpful. Thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Third Reich as successor state

Is there any document which attests Nazi Germany as a legal successor of previous German states (like succession over Soviet Union in the case of Russia)? 94.20.23.106 (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Would there need to be? The Third Reich was not accomplished by revolution or regicide (unlike the USSR), but a transition between appointing Hitler and his enactment of emergency powers and new civil service statutes. It was as far as I know not considered to be an entirely new state, though. Hitler took power through "legal" means—that is, within the legal framework of the German system (although, of course, we all know that in practice that it was pretty problematic). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(God, do I hate the WP:Edit Conflicts that are inevitable on a page like this!) x 3!!! I've read that in purely juridical terms, the 1918 Weimar Republic continued after 1933, so such a document likely doesn't exist. I don't know if this continued all the way to, or past, May 1945, nor when the state formally ended. Allied occupation of Germany lasted until 1949 (with the establishment of the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany), and of Berlin even longer. And a final peace treaty with Germany, if any, might not have been signed until Gorbachev. I'm not sure what the Federal Republic (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) considers to be its succession from Weimar. Many people consider the Reichstag's passage of an Enabling Act in 1933 as the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the Third Reich, so you could consider that to be the kind of document you seek. ¶ At the other end, I don't know if the Weimar Republic which styled itself Deutsches Reich as did the German Empire (Second Reich) [and as did the Third Reich until it started calling itself—at least rhetorically and philatelically—Grossdeutsches Reich after union with Austria in 1938] can be considered a successor state, or a continuation of the Second Reich under new management. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict advice: after the first one, don't just start editing on the "a conflict occurred" page. Open another tab and edit just the section so you won't be competing with people editing other sections on the page, which is clearly what happened to you since there was only one reply before you. --Sean 21:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Further edit conflict advice: if you are editing the whole page, no matter how frustrated you are, removing someone else's comment in an unrelated section is not a good idea. 86.142.231.220 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As our article Deutsches Reich makes clear, Germany maintained an unbroken identity as a legal entity from 1871 to 1945, despite the constitutional and governmental changes that occurred between those dates. The Nazi government arose under the Weimar constitution and essentially took over the state apparatus of the Weimar republic. There was no need of a document because the Nazi government arose under the framework of the Weimar Constitution. Or, from a different perspective, the Weimar Constitution, together with the Enabling Act of 1933 are the documents you seek. Marco polo (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

For those who can understand German (as user:Marco polo does), there is an interesting discussion on the German WP on aspects of this matter. It is too long to translate it (and primarily deals with the 1945 - 1990 period). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cockatoo! Marco polo (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

An example of how "Deutsches Reich" was used during the Weimar period can be seen in the postage stamps: all stamps of the period are inscribed with this title. Here's an example, a 20-billion-mark stamp from the inflation issues of 1923. Nyttend (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that the Nazi regime initially picked up the tab for Germany's war reparations and foreign debt, it was widely recognized as the legitimate successor regime. At least, as long as it played by the rules. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)