Humanities desk
< March 14	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 16 >

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.

March 15

Siberia Independence

Why Siberia or part of Siberia didn't declare itself an independent country when the Soviet Union collapsed? Kazakhstan declared itself an independent country even though it had a large slavic population. 72.136.108.97 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan and the other countries that declared independence were already somewhat independent, in the sense that the USSR was considered to be exactly what its name suggests, a union of republics. See Republics of the Soviet Union. Siberia was not one of those republics, all of Siberia was part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, which is now Russia, the part that was left after the others broke away from the USSR. The RSFSR had, and now Russia has, numerous autonomous provinces within it, including many in Siberia, but it would be difficult for sparsely populated regions of Siberia to declare independence. The ones that have a majority non-Russian population don't have the resources to survive independently, and the ones that are majority-Russian wouldn't have any interest in being independent anyway. In any case, Russia is not interested in letting any of them go (Chechnya for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To emphasise a point Adam Bishop made in passing: Siberia is a geographical term. It never appears to have existed as an administrative entity at any level (still less a 'national' entity). --ColinFine (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although Siberia is now a geographical term, it was a self-ruling entity at some point (but they weren't ethnically Russians). Agree though. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't cover most of what is geographically known as Siberia today, that was simply too vast and empty. --Ornil (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the indigenous peoples of Siberia want independences from Russia today? 72.136.108.97 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an interesting article on Siberian regionalism, but it only covers pre-revolutionary events. I'm sure I remember hearing about somewhere in the Russian Far East discussing declaring independence in the last few years, but I believe it was manouevering by a governor, rather than a grassroots movement. Warofdreams talk 10:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "sharuck"?

I'm teaching myself a song, probably from sometime between 1910-1930, that has a line that goes: "I could tell you a tale of a great white whale or a sharuck who played at a fiddle . . . ." Obviously the whale refers to "Moby Dick," but does anyone have any idea what a "sharuck" is or what the singer might be referring to? Thanks. Crypticfirefly (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not "shark"? --Fullobeans (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely sure it isn't "shark"-- the song is in a printed book. But I'm keeping an open mind, can you think of a fiddle-playing shark story? Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Could it be a bird? Myna bird, to be exact. Although the ones I've met only played the bass viola. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get an answer here by the time this is archived in a few days, try reposting on the language desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is a shark, stretchéd out to fit the meter of the song. Could we see the rest of the lyrics? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire verse is: "I could tell you the tale of great white whale or a sharuck who played at a fiddle. But I'd rather relate how our bucko mate had a pirate's knife stuck in his middle." The rest of the song is about pirates, with no further sea creatures mentioned. But again, assuming it is "shark," why is it playing a violin? Any ideas? Crypticfirefly (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, sailors are known for their tall tales, and sea shanties often involve colorful bits of hyperbole or outright fantasy. Songs and stories about nautical life, consequently, often involve humorous anecdotes and asides, some of which are even more ridiculous than the actual sailors' stories that inspired them. --Fullobeans (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the <<whatever it is>> playing the violin may very well be a pure flight of fancy. What I'm trying to figure out is if anyone can think of anything it might be a reference to. It appears that no one can. Crypticfirefly (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Greece

What would have been the world's (especially Western Europe) reactions have been if the newly Greek state had decided in 1832 they wanted to be the Empire of Greece instead of the Kingdom of Greece? The main reason for the establishment of a Greek monarchy, beside Greek independence, was to restore the Byzantine Empire; even the candidates has to be descendants of the past emperors. Western Europe seem reluctant to recognize emperors, ie. the Russian Emperors weren't recognized by all of Europe as an empire at first. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Greece of 1832 barely extended beyond the Peloponese (see the dark blue area on this map), calling itself an "empire" would certainly have been seen as rather pretentious by many -- and it could have offended the Russians. AnonMoos (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Besides this, profiling itself as a direct successor to the multi-ethnic medieval empire rather than as a Greek nation-state would also have carried with it certain territorial implications. It would theoretically have left the door open for expansion into the territories of other nations. Iblardi (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece of 1832 was as big as any of the former medieval empires, ie. Empire of Trebizond, Empire of Nicaea and a little smaller than the Latin Empire. I not talking about the Empire in Justinian's days. Technically by the 1400s the empire only consisted of Greece and some part of the Turkish coast. The door of expansion only leads into Ottoman Turkey which almost all of Europe was taking advantage of and probably some Slavic Balkan countries. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All those medieval states either were in control of Constantinople, had been in control of Constantinople, or had intentions to (re)gain control of Constantinople in the not-too-distant future. Greece in 1832 had only achieved independence as a result of support from European countries, and couldn't afford to offend those countries. At that point Greece most needed to quietly consolidate its nationhood for a while, in preparation for future challenges, instead of issuing provocatively public irredentist threats against the Ottomans. Also, declaring Greece to be an empire would have meant that the junior cadet scion of the house of Wittelsbach (Bavaria) was declaring himself to outrank the senior head of his dynasty, which would have been an overturn of the prevailing royal protocols of the time. The idea doesn't make too much sense from most points of view... AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may already have been bad enough in an age of emerging nationalism. Besides, if the Greeks had profiled themselves as successors to the (unpopular) Byzantine empire, they would probably have raised little Western support. Admiration for classical Greece, on the other hand, was almost universal and could raise sympathy for the cause of the modern Greeks. Iblardi (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about a restored Byzantine Empire. I am talking about the nation of Greece becoming an empire rather than kingdom. The Empire of Greece or the Empire of the Hellenes. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet I think that the reference to the Byzantine Empire, which was normally called the Greek Empire in the West even in the 19th century, would still have been too obvious. A mere kingdom lacks such a connotation. Iblardi (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The king—emperor distinction is a West European notion. In other cultures there is usually a single monarchical title which is traditionally rendered into West European languages as an equivalent of either "king" or "emperor" based on a subjective judgement of a particular country's size and importance. Thus Chinese and Japanese monarchs are styled "emperors" in European languages while monarchs of smaller countries are mere "kings". In the case of Greece, the title used in 1832 was "basileus" – the same that was used by Byzantine rulers. It was the West Europeans who decided to translate the same title as "king" or "emeperor", depending on which entity – ancient or modern – they had in mind. There is a similar case with the Bulgarian and Russian "tsar". It comes from the name of Julius Ceasar, so should be considered an equivalent of "emperor"; but it is only in the case of Russia, not Bulgaria. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At that time "empire" had recently gained negative connotations among the Great Powers who were recogniziong the new state.--Wetman (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion. I wonder why we don't refer to "Empress Victoria" and "Emperors" Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI. They were all Emperors of India, and head of the "British Empire", which included India, the UK, and lots of other places. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Napoleon's fault? The word "emperor" implies a powerful monarch with an expansionist, often aggressive foreign policy, and it seems that, during the Napoleonic era, much of Europe (temporarily) developed a distaste for overly ambitious rulers. Britain, of course, had also long since ceased to be an absolute monarchy by that point, which could account for British monarchs' reluctance to use the word. "King" and "queen" are already loaded words; the name "Empress Victoria" would surely have raised some hackles in Parliament. --Fullobeans (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, Japan was always traditionally a very closed society, with virtually no foreign policy at all (other than "Foreigners are not welcome here"), until the late 19th century. It's also quite a small place, geographically. Yet it was never "King of Japan" but "Emperor of Japan". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speculating like a fiend here, but one could argue that, in a closed society with no foreign policy, the head of state is for all intents and purposes the ruler of the world. This could also account for the more liberal use of the word "empire" during the middle ages, when cowing your immediate neighbors made you a pretty big deal. I wonder also what the Japanese word for "emperor" is, and whether it's a direct translation or not. --Fullobeans (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word is tennō, and it is not a simple, straightforward translation. It is merely the best that could be done. Earlier it was mentioned that the Russian and Bulgarian emperors titles (Czar) came came from the name Julius Cæsar (=Kaiser), but the Roman title was Imperator, meaning something like autocrat. One is reversing things by believing that the head of an empire is an emperor; an empire is the entity that an emperor rules. As the tenno was (theoretically) the divine ultimate authority in Japan, "emperor" seemed the most appropriate translation, thus making Japan an "empire."

As for Napoleon giving the title a questionable odor, it didn't stop the dreikaiserbund.
B00P (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese monarchical title was translated as "Emperor" in consistency with the title of the Chinese Emperor. The title of the Chinese Emperor from the Qin Dynasty onwards was Huang-Di (see Emperor of China), a title combining two ancient titles for especially illustrious rulers, Huang and Di. The Japanese title combines the first of these two titles (huang; pronounced no in Japanese) with the character for heaven.

The Chinese title(s) has been translated as "Emperor", because hiostrically the Huang-Di title was intended to be higher than the title of "Wang", which bears a closer correlation with "King" in English in terms of historical status. Since a Huang-Di was above a Wang, and a Wang is like a King, thus the Huang-Di was translated as "Emperor". By association, the Japanese Tenno also became "Emperor".

Until fairly modern times, the Chinese emperors did not recognise the Emperor of Japan as an "Emperor", instead addressing him as "King of the Japanese". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the title emperor by the middle ages in Western Europe came to be only associated with the Holy Roman Empire? And any imperial establishment would meet the opposition of Austria, the HRE's successor, and Russia. The German Empire had no Roman roots beside being influence by the HRE. And what did Iblardi mean by the unpopular Byzantine Empire? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the west "the Empire" was the HRE (but in the east it was Byzantium). The Holy Roman Emperor could claim responsibility for crowning kings even in far-off places like Cyprus. As for Iblardi's statement, the Byzantine Empire was considered a useless, decadent, corrupt state by Enlightenment and Romantic intellectuals. It was the bastard child of ancient Greece and Rome (which they usually considered ideal states). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit harsh. But true, the Byzantine Empire was like it predecessor, the Roman Empire, corrupted in many ways with few righteous and good emperors. But what were the Greek's opinion on this? The last emperor Constantine XI was a considered a saint and national heroe to the Greeks after 1453. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Spy, I humbly suggest that you learn something about the history of the Roman Empire and of the Byzantine Empire and of political history in general before claiming that "the Byzantine Empire was like it predecessor, the Roman Empire, corrupted in many ways with few righteous and good emperors". Flamarande (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he just meant that it was true that westerners thought that way at the time. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1815, Gibbon was the main intellectual influence on views of the Byzantine Empire among English-speaking readers, and I think his overall view was pretty negative... AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German entity of 1871 had to be an "empire" because it included four kingdoms. —Tamfang (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario health insurance and mental health coverage

To what extent does the OHIP plan cover mental health services? Especially with respect to people 18 or 19 years old. 99.245.16.164 (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can start at the HealthForceOntario web page to find out. --Halcatalyst (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian equivalent of "Datuk"

My uncle who has lived over 70 years as a missionary in Malaysia, was recently awarded an award (either the Panglima Jasa Negara or the Panglima Setia Diraja) for his services in Malaysian education. He is therefore entitled to utilize Datuk before his name. I was not able to ascertain what exactly a Datuk equivalent would be in Canada when I referred to the Wiki article and if anyone does know I would appreciate it.142.68.216.139 (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this from my limited knowledge of British Honours. The convention is that foreign citizens who receive a knighthood (which Datuk appears to be equivalent to) are not entitled to use the prefix "Sir", but instead append the initials of the award to their name. E.g. John Smith from the UK, knighted becomes Sir John Smith. John Smith from the USA knighted becomes John Smith, KBE (Knight of the British Empire) or whatever the intials of the particular order of knighthood are. I would derive from this that your uncle would be able to use John Smith, PJN or John Smith, PSD - whether anyone outside Malaysia would actually recognise these abbreviations is of course another question. Exxolon (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt "Datuk" is a restricted title in the UK (or anywhere else outside Malaysia), so he should just use that title. He certainly couldn't use the local equivalent, which would almost always be restricted it its own country (so while he is the equivalent of a British knight, he couldn't use "Sir"). --Tango (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title 'Datuk' may in some sense be equivalent to 'Sir', but the two do not coalesce: see for example E. E. C. Thuraisingham. --ColinFine (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian equivalent would probably be one of the grades of the Order of Canada. (Note however that there are no Canadian honours that entitle the bearer to use a title before her name.) - Eron^Talk 04:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is a member of the Order of Canada, then they may have "C.M." after their name. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASEAN Member's Muslim community

I know that Rohingya people are the only Muslim community in Myanmar. What about Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Philippines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.197 (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Islam in Thailand, Islam in Cambodia, Islam in Laos, Islam in Vietnam, and Islam in the Philippines. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelia Africana Major, first daughter of Scipio

Looking to expand Cornelia Africana Major, who was the first daughter of Scipio Africanus and Aemilia Tertia. There is little information on her that I have been able to find, while their second daughter, Cornelia Africana Minor has much information available. Where would I find details on Cornelia Africana Major? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~This site [1] has some information under the section children (of Aemilia Tertia and Scipio Africanus)~~. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a copy of Wikipedia's Aemilia Tertia article. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had not checked that before. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does any particular Universities (worldwide) come to mind that specializes in the study of the life of Scipio Africanus? Maybe that would also be a source to work from on any details of Cornelia Africana Major.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some doubt whether "Cornelia Africana" is a valid form. Where is it attested? I do find many occurrences of "Cornelia Scipionis Africani filia" (Cornelia the daughter of Scipio Africanus), which seems a more logical form since the 'nickname' was given to the father as a result of his campaigns in Africa. You wouldn't expect it to be also applied to the daughter ("African Cornelia"). Iblardi (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strong possibility of an incorrect name. These three words of "Cornelia Africana Major" do not show up in JSTOR. I started the article Aemilia Tertia a couple of years ago. Others have added her children of

Publius Cornelius P.f. P.n. Scipio Africanus (fl 174 BC)

Lucius Cornelius P.f. P.n. Scipio (fl 174 BC)

Cornelia Africana Major (fl 174 BC) - apparently Scipio Nasica Corculum was her husband and second cousin.

Cornelia Africana Minor (c.192-121 BC)

I don't know for sure who the children are of Aemilia Tertia and Scipio Africanus other than what is shown in Scipio-Paullus-Gracchus family tree. Perhaps there is a better name for the first daughter of this famous ancient couple? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where's our portugal drug-decriminalization article??

Reading "The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal" (Wired), I was surprised I couldn't find Wikipedia's article on the same! Any hints?

“

In 2001, Portugal became the only EU-member state to decriminalize drugs, a distinction which continues through to the present. Last year, working with the Cato Institute, I went to that country in order to research the effects of the decriminalization law (which applies to all substances, including cocaine and heroin) and to interview both Portuguese and EU drug policy officials and analysts (the central EU drug policy monitoring agency is, by coincidence, based in Lisbon). Evaluating the policy strictly from an empirical perspective, decriminalization has been an unquestionable success, leading to improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug consumption as a criminal offense.

”

where is our article on portugal's drug-decriminalition?? 94.27.159.188 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Decree-Law 15/93? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whatever that page is, it's clearly not "ours" but "theirs". Do "we" have one? 94.27.159.188 (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC

I don't know what you mean by "ours" and "theirs". It is a Wikipedia article, likely translated from more than one Portuguese text by someone who is not a professional translator, or not fluent in English. You are welcome to improve it or to find more references. Do be careful, however, to avoid opinion pieces and to stick to reliable, third-party sources of verifiable facts. // BL \\ (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Currency Denominations

Why are the denominations of the coins in 1,5,10,25,50, and 100 (penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half-dollar, dollar), yet the denominations of the notes are 1,5,10,20,50,100?

To be more specific, is there a reason they're all the same, except the quarter and the $20 bill? Why not a $25 note, or a 20 cent coin?

Thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.98.172 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Come to think of it, in the UK our notes denomations are the same as coin denomations for 5 upwards. Computerjoe 's talk 23:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But while we had 2p and £20 from the start of decimalisation, 20p came along later, and £2 is very recent.

As for the original question, I conjecture that the quarter is a remnant of a pre-decimal 'pieces of eight'. --ColinFine (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter (United States coin) says that "The quarter has been produced since 1796." while United States twenty-dollar bill says that the first $20 bill was printed in 1861. Although not commenting on the difference in value, our articles mention that the coin was derived from the dollar, being one-quarter of its value, while the bill replaced the Double eagle, which was "double" the value of the ten dollar Eagle (coin). --Thomprod (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the reason is tradition. Note that euros have a very regular repetition of 1,2,5. --pma (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a general article on how currencies are and were divided into circulated sub-units. It would be interesting for this layperson to hear a mathematical or economical discussion on possible (dis)advantages of a more consistent system, such as the 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, ... system found in many modern currencies (Australian dollar, Euro, Forint) when compared to systems with anomalies such as the US quarter.

The article on decimalisation doesn't discuss it either (though it did link me to the interesting Plan for Establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States where 1 foot = 10 inches = 100 lines = 1000 points). Perhaps the quarter anomaly is also not very problematic, because it comfortably fts in a decimal system, unlike multiple quartering in the rupee-anna-paisa-pie system. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the mathematical front, the most obvious thing to be said is that the US system, like the UK and Euro systems (and I believe most others), has the useful property that the change-making problem can be solved greedily. Algebraist 14:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article on denomination does brush the subject "Decimal vs. non-decimal", but that comparison (including because "computers were not invented yet") doesn't quite apply here either. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a primary school maths problem that asked "what is the minimum number of coins (or was it notes?) you have to carry to be able to pay every sum up to [insert amount]?" It might be interesting to compute this for different combinations... But that's a question for the Mathematical ref desk. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article United States dollar states that "The U.S. dollar was created and defined by the Coinage Act of 1792...It called for 90% silver alloy coins in denominations of 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/10, and 1/20...". This is the basis of why we have a 25-cent coin rather than a 20-cent coin. I have not found any reference to why we have a $20 bill rather than a $25 bill, though. --Thomprod (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Twenty-cent piece (United States coin) explains that we once did have a 20-cent coin. --Thomprod (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why 20. But it comes from English notes, I think. Short history: Bank of England starts up in 1694 (to raise funds for the Nine Years War.) Bank issues notes in return for deposits. These were payable on demand. A recoinage in 1696 made small denominations of notes unnecessary, so the Bank decided to make £50 notes the smallest. By the middle of the 18th century, denominations became fixed, with a £20 note the smallest. The Seven Years War caused a gold shortage, so £10 notes were printed in 1759; the French Revolutionary Wars led to £5 notes in 1793; and then in 1797, the Bank stopped issuing gold on demand, and printed £2 and £1 notes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget Thomas Jefferson on the $2 bill. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the general issue is that we want to have multiples of 10, and also like doubling. But, there's no way to get from 10 to 100 by doubling alone. At some point, you have to multiply by 2.5 to make it all work out. So, this gives the following possibilities:

10,25,50,100 (multiply by 2.5 between the first two values)

10,20,50,100 (multiply by 2.5 between the middle two values)

10,20,40,100 (multiply by 2.5 between the last two values)

The middle sequence seems most common, and the top sequence is used in US and Canadian coins. I wonder if the bottom sequence is used anywhere. StuRat (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 40 p coin during the reign of Charles I of England (17th century) - see [2]. Bizzarely, we don't appear to have an article on it.-gadfium 08:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article. See noble (British coin). The coin I'm thinking of was the half-noble. The half-angel (Angel (coin)) also had a face value of 40 p at one point.-gadfium 08:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One possible reason is the pieces of eight argument. That is, there once were dollar coins (or whatever the unit of currency was at the time) which were designed to be split in half, then those halves could be divided again, then those could be divided again, to produce 8 parts, called "bits". Thus, "two bits" was a quarter dollar. Dividing a coin into 5 equal pieces is much more difficult. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a United States two-dollar bill, but it is rarely seen. As for the 1, 2, 5 sequence, it was explained to me a long time ago that helped reduce the number of coins needed to represent any amount, while reducing the number of different types of coins tat need to be made. Astronaut (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "top sequence" is not exactly used in coins in Canada. Here, we have coins in 1, 5, 10, 25, $1, and $2. The 50-cent piece was ousted quite a while ago, and we used to have a 20-cent coin as well. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sylhetis' contribution to Bangladesh's History during British rule of India

I know why alot of Indians in London, U.K. are Gujarartis and Punjabis because they contributed to India's history during the independence of India from England. SO, I want to know what were the contributions given by Sylhetis during the bRitish Rule. Who were the famous Sylhetis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.194 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a List of people from Sylhet. It looks like the people on that list who were active during British rule are: Hason Raja, Syed Mujtaba Ali, M. A. G. Osmani, Radha Romon. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]