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.
I've recently been introduced to the "monetary reform act" (link and it sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory to me. Though I'm an undergrad in economics, apparently I can't find a small, simple reason why this is clear nonsense. Anyone able to do that? I'm not looking for a debate, so perhaps the following question is simpler: does the link above mean that all commercial lending is outlawed? 75.83.167.54 (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a world government conspiracy theory, which is probably a good indicator of how much credibility it warrants. The basic assumptions don't stand up to scrutiny and the policy recommendations are nonsense:
Increasing bank reserves to 100% of deposits, which would eliminate any reason for banks taking in deposits in the first place.
Recalling all dollars and reissuing a currency sufficient to pay off the national debt and replace all dollars would be massively disruptive, and probably hugely deflationary.
To be pedantic, requiring bank reserves to be at 100% of deposits wouldn't eliminate any reason for banks to take in deposits. They could take in deposits because it's safer for the depositor than putting money into the mattress (whether because of armed guards or because of the FDIC), and then the depositors would pay for this privilege, as they did in the Middle Ages. Does not sound like a blast. Tempshill (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a quick question about hereditary peers in the UK House of Lords. When they die does their right to sit in the lords die too, or is their seat passed on to their successor? I would be stunned if the later was the case, but i can't find a source to say otherwise, so just wanted to check. Thanks. 80.47.221.55 (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See House of Lords Act 1999 and Reform of the House of Lords, and the slightly related Constitutional Reform Act 2005. For the past 20 years or so, Parliament has been disenfranchising the Hereditary Lords. In the 1999 act, a cap of 92 hereditary peers was set, and it was formally declared that no one could be a member of Lords merely for being a hereditary peer. The 92 are elected by the hereditary peers as a group. There has been a movement afoot to remove those 92 from office as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs05:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In nigeria (for example) Apportionment is a topic which has caused much controversy and created many ingenious ideas, but very little empirical research has been undertaken in the field to discover how the problem is realy tackled and whether it has been solved satisfactorily.
Some businesses would find it useful for control, others would not. I'm not sure what "problem" you're referring to. I'm also unsure why apportionment would necessarily have a role in valuing assets; it might for a more complex asset, I suppose. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improving French WP articles on the White House, I would like to have some informations about the few paintings below. I know that the paintings hung in the rooms of the White House change sometimes with presidential administrations or room renovations, coming from WH collection and also for the Oval Office from museums or private collections. Barack Obama seems to have change few of ones (already changed when he arrived for his first day and no trace on the wall of the former paintings !)
Oval Office : Name of this 3 paintings and the painters ? The central Washington portrait is still there for a long time. But the both side ones not seems to have been there during the Bush administration, aren't they ? I do not find 2008 Ovale Office north wall photos to confirm it but they were not there in 2007. I found the left painting during George H. W. Bush administration (File:Bush senior und Hans-Dietrich Genscher.jpg).
Oval Office : A new one, showing the torch of the Statue of Liberty, hung by Barack Obama. Is that a painting or a photograph ? What is name ?
Roosevelt Room: Names of this landscape painting and of the painter, on the south wall ? FDR portrait : I knew the former tradition between Republicans and Democratics to switch the two Roosevelt paintings (Teddy and FDR). But it seems that George W. Bush administration removed FRD portrait for a room renovation and never put it again. Now we can see FDR portrait again on the south wall on the 2009 photos. Hung up again by Obama administration ?
Cabinet Room : On the left, is it a Washington portrait ? How many portraits of Washington in the White House ? On the right, is it the official portrait of Enseinhower ? I believed that all the 20th century presidents official portraits were in the Cross Hall, the Entrance Hall and the Grand Staircase...
Rockwell's Statue of Liberty also hung in Clinton's Oval Office. Apparently it was "a gift of filmmaker Steven Spielberg who wrote that Rockwell 'painted the American dream... better than anyone.'" [1] ---Sluzzelintalk15:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That portrait of Washington in the Cabinet Room is an earlier Peale painting, George Washington (at Dorchester Heights), as seen here. We don't seem to have a copy of it on Commons. —KevinMyers15:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this quick and precise answers, I'm improving the WP.fr articles with it (my english is too bad for WP.en ones). TCY (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The box near the phone on the desk in the Oval OfficeThe same box on the table of the Cabinet Room
What is the small wooden box with the ominous red button in front of the president in the Cabinet Room photo? Shouldn't they have a Molly-Guard over that thing? :) --Sean15:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
looks more like a red-light than a button to me. Perhaps an indicator to let the President know something is happening or X is waiting (or time has run out). All speculation though, sorry. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost certainly an intercom. There is a speaker/microphone with a button next to it to press when you want to talk. --Tango (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the President and VP go out for fast food: www.associatedcontent.com/article/1719982/obama_and_biden_go_to_rays_hell_burger.html (that website appears to be spam filtered). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it interesting that the pizza is on a silver plate, in the box. That's some strange hybrid between 'high class' and 'down to earth'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Humanities desk. I was wondering, when you complete a Master of Science degree or whatever, is your thesis a Master's thesis or a Masters Thesis? I thought the former, but the dissertation article seems to think the latter. TastyCakes (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the latter too. It's a thesis that is part of a "Masters" degree, not a thesis that belongs to a "Master" (one doesn't generally refer to the holder of a Masters as a "Master", although I think strictly speaking it would be correct to). --Tango (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm but they don't call him a "Masters" either. Are you sure it's a "Masters degree"? I always though it was master's for that too, since the degree is proclaiming them a Master of whatever subject and it was their degree. TastyCakes (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Master's degree seems to agree with you. Let's ask google: "master's thesis" gets 1,230,000 ghits, "masters thesis" gets 497,000 (both with quotes). Perhaps you are right and our dissertation article is wrong... I will make the Language desk aware of this question, they may know more than I do. --Tango (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well as the degree is Master of Arts (MA), Master of Science(MSc), Master of Philosophy (MPhil) etc. I would expect the thesis to reflect this and be a Master's thesis. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to try to split the discussion, but the Language Desk is known to be frequented by pedants who will likely give you 99 reasons why one version is better, and 100 reasons why it is not... --Jayron32.talk.contribs01:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies from the language desk:
Among those who regard apostrophes and their placement as important, I'm sure that "master's thesis" would be strongly favoured. Among those who don't think they are important one can expect to find "masters thesis". --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Searching Google in yale.edu and harvard.edu "master's thesis" seems more common than "masters thesis" (442 vs 283 hits in Yale but 2160 vs 585 in Harvard). The University of Oxford website in the UK has slightly more hits without the apostrophe, while for Cambridge the figures are almost the same. So it probably doesn't matter in general (even if "master's" makes more sense to me), although if you're at a university/college you could check which style is more common there. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can Michael Savage really sue the British government for defamation, ie: is this legally possible and how do you sue a country? Thanks for info., --AlexSuricata (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, see Sovereign immunity#United Kingdom. From that article it looks like he could sue the UK in a UK court for a tort (which I assume libel is, under UK law). And ironically a libel or slander suit is far easier to win in the UK than in the US. Tempshill (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Savage faces many problems in bringing such a case, not least of which is the fact that virtually no-one in this country had ever heard of him before yesterday. To be defamatory, the list would have to lower the opinion of him in the minds of right thinking members of society. That is hard to do when no-one has heard of you. It is especially difficult when most Britons have a very low opinion of so-called ‘shock jocks’ like Savage and Howard Stern anyway."Can the US shock jock REALLY sue Jacqui Smith for libel? (Daily Mail)Nanonic (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding (I am not a laywer) is that in British law, for a thing to be meaningfully defamatory, it must be both false and damaging, and also published (for libel) or said in public (for slander). 'Published' and 'said in public' have specific legal meanings here, of course. I am not sure that the British government has said anything false about Mr Savage; and as mentioned above, it's hard to see how it's meaningfully damaging when most of us haven't heard of him. I'm not sure what court he would have standing in in order to bring such a claim, either. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue of whether or not he has standing (if it is an issue at all) is the same as the issue of whether or not he has a reputation to have been damaged - if you have a reputation you have standing to defend that reputation. Regardless, I think everything that has been said about him is either true or "fair comment" (essentially, a reasonable opinion to hold, rather than a statement of fact). --Tango (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that it's all slightly irrelevant. Members of parliament have absolute privilege against all defamation cases brought against them for statements made in the House of Commons.--92.236.26.38 (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, 92, but a government exists not just in the legislature (in fact, in some respects, they hardly exist in the legislature at all). It's also the executive branch, which operates away from the parliament and in the public arena, and that's where most of the work of government is done. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that May is the Asian heritage Month. So, Is there a month where Arabs celebrate their heritage, Turks celebrate their heritage, African celebrate their heritage, Latin American heritage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.18.70 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, only African History Month has been officially adopted by the Federal government of the United States. However, there are many (MANY) heritage months, such as Asian Pacific Islander heritage month in April, Jewish Heritage Month in January, Gay/Lesbian heritage month in June, and Latino heritage month in May. Pick a group and I'm sure they've declared some month as their heritage month. -- kainaw™19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi kainaw, poster 67.208.18.70 is in Canada, I believe. 67.208.18.70, go here for the full list of all other heritage months/weeks/days officially sponsored by the government of Canada. It includes Black History month in February as well as events celebrating Aboriginal, Francophone and Acadian cultures. People with Arab, Turkish and Latin American heritage make up a very small proportion of Canadians (Latin American being the biggest of those groups, see [3]). For holidays that each group might celebrate on its own after coming to Canada, List of holidays by country might help. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is often said that libel law in England and Wales is much stricter than other countries, particularly the US. Could someone explain how that is so? The only difference I've been able to find is that in England and Wales it can be libel to mention a spent conviction, even if what you say is true, but that is a very specific issue and the claims seem to be that English libel law is stricter generally. --Tango (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read Private Eye regularly for a great deal of comment on this! The issues seem to be twofold: firstly in the US there is a constitutional freedom of the press which arguably veers libel law in favour of freedom of speech and against the individuals written about. Most crucially, there is the burden of proof. In England, a journalist must prove his story to be true in order to defend a libel action. In other jurisdictions the onus is on a plaintiff to make a prima facie case of falsehood. Note that this is not my field, and those are only the broad strokes. AndyJones (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's necessary for the prosecution in a libel case in the UK to show it's not true, because it's an inherent part of libel that it must be untrue. Evidence is really needed when the procecution could lie - like in allegations of homosexuality, in which case the people making the allegations couldn't be prosecuted if they had evidence for this view. Burden of proof may well be different though. - Jarry1250(t, c)06:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK it is generally assumed to be false unless the person saying it can prove it is true. This is a reversal of the usual burden of proof, since the burden is on the defendant (once the plaintiff has proven that it was published and, if it were false, it would be defamatory). --Tango (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actual malice and New York Times v. Sullivan have some more background on AndyJones's former point. The best short guide for the non-lawyer on libel remains the chapter on libel in the AP Style Guide (not online, AFAIK) that is written for an audience of journalists. It's a practical guide on how to write a newspaper article and not get yourself sued (in the US). Tempshill (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In civil cases of all kinds the party who must prove their case is at a disadvantage. In modern English (as well as Australian) law, once it is proven that a statement has a defamatory meaning and it was made by the defendant a case is proved. The defendant must then prove that one of the defences applies to them. Truth (in English Law) is a defense to defamation and it is up to the defendant to prove that the statement is true. In US law the plaintiff must prove that the statement was in fact un-true. Proving the truth (even on the balance of probabilities, as is the standard of proof in civil cases) is still a considerable burden. Add in the First-Amendment issues and you have a considerably greater protection of free speach (and therefore a considerably more difficult time for plaintiffs) in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.223.231 (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So US libel law expects people to prove a negative? Seeing as that is pretty much impossible in many cases, I guess libel is essentially legal in the US - that's quite a big difference in the strictness of the law! Thank you. --Tango (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite that bad. In civil cases (of which libel is) the standard of proof is merely "on the balance of probabilities.' So to prove something, one must merely prove that it is more likely than not. This is in stark contrast to the burden of proof in criminal cases which is "beyond (all) reasonable doubt".60.242.240.24 (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. I guess with a civil burden it doesn't really matter who the burden is on - there is no default position (no real presumption of innocence). --Tango (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Would it be legal for a company to offer insurance services, bank, and investment brokerage all rolled into one? What would it be, and if finance was its core, would it still be called a bank "that offers insurance services" as well? Thanks. --Under22Entreprenuer (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barclays bank offers Insurance products, banking services and invesment brokerage. Does it matter whether or not a segment of their product-suite is 'white label'? (I.e. they sell it under their brand but it is administered by another firm). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfectly normal thing for Canadian banks to do. (But really, they are all giant conglomerations these days, which happen to have bank, investment, and insurance brands.) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer depends on the jurisdiction whose law applies, and also by what you mean by "all rolled into one." In the United States, since the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, banks have been allowed to sell insurance, directly or through an affiliate. They are also allowed to be affiliated with brokerage firms, although they face some restrictions in providing brokerage services themselves. However, there are restrictions on banks' ability to combine insurance and banking services into a single packaged product, because of fears that banks would force their borrowers to buy insurance from them. John M Baker (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oval Office : Name of this 3 paintings and the painters ?
Oval Office : A new one, showing the torch of the Statue of Liberty, hung by Barack Obama. Is that a painting or a photograph ? What is name ?
Roosevelt Room: Names of this landscape painting and of the painter, on the south wall ?
Cabinet Room : On the left, is it a Washington portrait ?
