Humanities desk
< April 21	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 23 >

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.

April 22

Defendants showing up in court

Is there anyplace I can find the percentage of defendants for criminal cases that were let out on bail bonds that show up to court on different charges? For example, lets say 90% of people who are arrested for domestic violence show up, 85% of people who are arrested for criminal threats, etc... Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. data is collected and published by the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics here's data for 1990-2004, what you asked for is on page 9, table 7. Note that the data is for 75 large urban counties (which, I reckon, are worse-than-average in public safety). NVO (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being specific to bail bondsmen, I would guess there's an industry association that keeps these statistics, but they may be difficult to find using just google. The Professional Bail Agents of the United States is a good place to start. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the big issues in the UK election?

From a US perspective, there don't appear to be a whole lot of difference among the three major UK political parties. They all seem more or less centrist. It's not like in the US where there's more of an obvious difference of opinion between the major parties on taxes, healthcare, abortion, gay rights and so on. Or in the old days when Labour wanted to socialize steel mills.

So what are the big issues that people will be basing their vote on, and how do the main national parties stand on those issues?

I suggested including this info in the article on the election on its talk page but no knowledgeable person seems to have taken up the task. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This poll suggests that the main issues include economic recovery, immigration, crime, health care, education, defence and terrorism. There are different views, particularly on when public investment should take place to stimulate the economy, and how savings in public sector budgets are to be achieved, as well as on things like civil liberties issues. Different polls of course give different results. It's quite surprising that defence issues aren't higher in that list given the fighting in Afghanistan, and also that the trustworthiness of politicians isn't mentioned. In Scotland and Wales, there are also fundamental issues over the extent of devolution. But, if the media are to be believed, the election's actually all about which party leader is better at looking into the camera, and smiling nicely. And many people don't so much vote for a given party or candidate, as vote to stop other parties or candidates winning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph has an interesting quiz which asks your opinions on various issues and proposals, and then tells you the party positions. Since the quiz proposes to help you decide how to vote, it covers issues on which the parties differ. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) A lot of attention has been paid to the details of economic recovery packages - especially whether National Insurance (a form of income tax) should be put up in order to pay for other government recovery plans. Labour say yes, the Conservatives say no, and I think the Lib Dems say yes too. The Digital Economy Act is a hot-button topic in some quarters. The future of public transport is another. UKIP would like EU membership to be treated as important; the Greens feel the same way about the environment.

As for comparison with the US - all three main parties are no further right than the Democrats, but there's still reasonable difference between them. The Conservatives are fiscally and socially 'right-wing', the Lib Dems are fiscally right-wing and socially left-wing, and Labour are slightly (but not very) left-wing in both areas. Oh, and 'socialise' is what you do when you go down the pub; government-owned industries are nationalised. The use of 'socialize' by Americans to describe this is regarded with some curiosity here - trying to damn thnings by association with 'socialist' doesn't really work so well over this side of the pond. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with above, the main issue is economic reform, although I would say that once you get past the superficial stuff, like NI, it centres on whether that should be state supported, Keynsian, and where the investment should go. Labour say yes, Tories say sort of and Lib Dems say not really but keep the momentum.

General priorities are similar; health education, welfare, immigration and the parties differ on how to deal with each of those. Tories and Lib Dems tend to want to encourage private sector engagement and competition, Labour want to maintain state control. Labour and Tories are very authoritarian, Lib Dems tend not to be although the lunatic wing would roll back the policing/ judicial/penal triad quite far.

Two emerging themes are around civil liberties and electoral reform. Labour has presided over state sponsored intrusion on privacy and oppressive security to an excessive level, cheered on by the lunatic wing of the Tories. Centrist Tories and Lib Dems talk about rolling some of that back, the balance between security and liberty is skewed quite badly. With respect to Electoral Reform has only really come up in the last week since the leaders debates, highlighting the structural issues with our electoral system that put parties in power that reflect neither popular support or appropriate share of the vote. That's one of the factors that's driving down democratic participation in the UK.

The big differences between the main parties are around authoritarianism and state involvement in service delivery.

ALR (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, of course, the US parties differ more by rhetoric than by action. You typically hear the more radical voices, but you elect more centrist people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a detailed and balanced comparison of the policies of the three main parties (and, if you want to see them, all the minority parties too) at the BBC's election web site here. Note that none of the three main parties is proposing to abolish gun control or civil partnerships, make abortion illegal, dismantle the National Health Service, remove evolution from the national curriculum or restore the death penalty. So on the US political spectrum they are all somewhat left of centre. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1990s, all three main UK parties realised that to win a General Election, you had to appeal to the cemtre ground. A new type of voter had emerged who was neither working class nor middle class, had no ties to any particular party and would vote for whovever they thought was best representing their interests. Referred to as collectivly as Mondeo Man, the parties realised these were votes they needed in order to get a majority. Since then, all the main parties have been competing to sound moderate and sensible. Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what do you call this literary device?

lets say we have a poem about economic inequality in a country. the poem may show a rich person with branded clothes, then the poor person who is so badly dressed cannot afford to buy proper clothes. then the poem shows a rich person eating in a high class restaurant, then a poor person eating leftovers. next the poem shows a rich person going to his bungalow home while a poor person has to sleep in the street. maybe its a form of juxtaposition but im looking for a more specific term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.113 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Economic disparity juxtaposition" sounds like the right term, to me. StuRat (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol, i mean, the poet wants to draw parellels or comparisons between the state of the rich and the poor. theres no more specific term than juxtaposition?

Is "class juxtaposition" better ? (It's a bit more general, though, as some socially upper-class people are broke, and vice-versa.) There's no term for specifically comparing the rich and poor. StuRat (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i mean, its not so important what is being compared, but the way the parellels and contrasts are drawn. i know its a generalisation but i guess that is also the way the device works —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.113 (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "social/class juxtaposition"?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though not a literary term, "cross-cutting" comes to mind. (The article even mentions a rich/poor juxtaposition that's very similar to yours.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be considered an elaborate form of antithesis. Deor (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the point of the depictions in your example, is to highlight economic inequality then juxtaposition or contrast seem to be the most appropriate terms. If, on the other hand, the aim is to set the condition of the poor man (or, rich man) in relief, then foil would be a more appropriate term. Abecedare (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alison FitzEustace's mother

Does anyone happen to know which of Rowland FitzEustace, 1st Baron Portlester's three wives was the mother of Alison FitzEustace, the first wife of Gerald FitzGerald, 8th Earl of Kildare. FitzEustace married firstly, Elizabeth Brune on an unknown (at least to me) date; he married his second wife, Joan Bellew in about 1463; his last wife Margaret Dartas, he married after 1467. Most genealogists have narrowed the possibilities down to the first two, as dates make it almost impossible for the third wife to have been Alison's mother. I appreciate any help I can get as I need the information for an article I recently created. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Fitzgerald, the great earl of Kildare (1456-1513) by Donough Bryan, doesn't mention anything about Alison Fitzeustace's mother (it calls her Alice). The Earls of Kildare and their ancestors by Marquis of Kildare (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, 1858.) says:

His [the 8th Earl's] first wife, Alison Eustace, who died 22nd November 1495, was buried in the New Abbey, at Kilcullen. She was daughter and co-heiress of Rowland, Baron of Portlester, by Maud, daughter of Jenico d'Artois. She brought into the family the manor of Portlester, in the County of Meath. By her he left one son, Gerald, his successor, and six daughters. (p.71)

Since this contradicts both modern thoughts as to Alison Fitzeustace's mother, and also the number of children she had (Gerald FitzGerald, 8th Earl of Kildare says 1 son, 4 daughters), I'm not sure now helpful it will be. According to the author's note in the endpapers, the information was collected from "historical works in the Libraries at Carton and Kilkea" and the book was originally printed for private circulation. --Kateshortforbob _talk 11:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of Maud D'Artois having been one of his wives. Burke's Peerage names Joan/Genet Bellew as the mother of Alison. According to Eleanor Hull in her A History of Ireland, Alison FitzEustace had one son and four daughters. Perhaps there were originally six daughters, but only four reached adulthood.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wondered if other research had turned up more information than the Marquess of Kildare had access to. I think Maud d'Artois = Margaret Dartas. At least the ODNB article on Roland Fitzeustace - seriously can no-one settle on a spelling for any of these people :-) - says:

Roland married, first, Elizabeth, daughter of John Brune; second, in 1458, Joan Bellew, widow of Christopher Plunket, Lord Killeen; and third, Margaret Dartas (or Marguerite d'Artois), widow of John Dowdall and of Thomas Barnewall. In 1455 he built St Mary's Chapel in St Audoen's parish church, Dublin, and later erected there ‘a goodly monument’ with recumbent effigies of himself and his wife Margaret, remains of which survive.

--Kateshortforbob _talk 12:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, D'Artois=Dartas! Thank you. I had thought Dartas a rather odd name, instead it was just the poor anglicised version of d'Artois. It's no wonder the French cringe when they see how we manage to butcher their beautiful language. Alison married FitzGerald in about 1478, her daughter Margaret, whom I created the article on, married in 1485 when she was obviously a child, but had to have been born by then. OK, if Rowland married Maud d'Artois/Margaret Dartas after 1467, that pretty much precludes her having been Alison's mother as the dates are too close for comfort. A 1464 birth would be plausible, however, which fits Burke's claim of Joan/Genet Bellew having been her mother. OK, this is now verging on OR, but I might add a personal insight: Elizabeth Brune datewise could have mothered Alison, but I notice out of all Margaret's daughters, there isn't an Elizabeth among them, although there's a Joan and Margaret (this could be after herself). I'd put my money on Joan/Genet Bellow; what do the other editors think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Cokayne's Complete Peerage, vol. VII, p. 229-232, sub Kildare, says: "Gerald FitzMaurice (FitzGerald), Earl of Kildare...called Geroit More, or Gerald the Great....m., 1stly, about 1470, Alison, apparently da. and coh. of Rowland (FitzEustace), 1st Baron of Portlester [I.], by Joan, widow of Christopher (Plunket), 1st Lord Killeen." but adds, in a footnote, that "According to some accounts, Alison is said to have been da. of Lord Portlester by Margaret, da. and coh. of Jenico D'Artois, of Ardglass and Strangford, co. Down". - Nunh-huh 00:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Elizabeth Brune seems to be pretty much excluded, with the choice now narrowed down to Joan Bellew and Margaret Dartas. The dates, however, favour Joan as having been Alison's mother. Thanks everybody. Hopefully a document will be uncovered which can prove who her mother actually was. I'd put money on Joan Bellew, but that's just my opinion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political elite in totalitarian countries

Totalitarian countries such as North Korea are, in practice, ruled by a political elite, often with a large contrast to the general public. But this political elite also consists of people. How does one become part of it? Does one have to be born into the elite caste, or does the elite seek out new recruits, or does a normal member of the general public have the opportunity to rise into political ranks on their own efforts? JIP | Talk 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the US, but our Power elite article says sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote that "the governing elite in the US primarly draws its members from three areas: (i) the highest political leaders (including the president) and a handful of key cabinet members and close advisers; (ii) major corporate owners and directors; and (iii) high ranking military officers." (I'm quoting the article's paraphrasing of Mills, not quoting Mills directly.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Communist Party of the Soviet Union#membership. Evidently, people would start out as children in the Young Pioneers, join the Komsomol, and perhaps eventually join the party itself (with the proper connections). The article says that in 1986 about 10% of the population were party members, so obviously not everyone was part of the highest tier political elite. Buddy431 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea's elite, from what I understand, is highly family-based. If your great-grandfather was on the wrong side in the 1940s, you can forget about getting into the top schools or becoming a member of the Workers Party. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, then North Korea in practice seems to be the exact opposite of what it purports to be. The "Workers' Party" is really only reserved for the equivalent of rich, powerful noble families. If you really are a worker then the Workers' Party will have nothing to do with you. If this is true then it's kind of ironic but also a little tragic. JIP | Talk 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were supposedly many slightly different variants of Kim-Il Sung badges (worn obligatorily by all adults during at least ca. 1970-2004) which indicated different categories of people ("reliable", "unreliable", and many gradations in between). Not sure the code was ever fully cracked, and we don't seem to have much about it on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the conventional English translations for the main North Korean government classifications of the North Korean population are "core", "wavering", and "hostile". Nothing about this on Wikipedia that I can find... AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recruitment policy would depend on needs and targets of the govt. That is, an expanding militaristic system entertaining wars, world revolution, massive industrialization etc. will need massive inflow of new people and effective policies for recruitment and promotion. A system that sets very challenging targets (as Stalin's Union did) will also need a mechanism for quick assessment of recently appointed men and, when necessary, their replacement.

On the contrary, a stationary system that contained itself behind an iron curtain can do for decades without any inflow of fresh blood. Here, the objective is not selecting new leaders, but suppressing capable men of low standing who have no place in existing hierarchy. I think that NK system is firmly in this class, and far more conservative than Brezhnev stagnation was. NVO (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK political journalist, pundit, editor or author?

Who am I thinking about? He is highly intelligent, articulate, aged about 70, not so tall, ~~jewish (I think), gay~~, has appalling forward-thrusting teeth and looks rather like Nigel Farage. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Howard? - [1]. Married and C of E, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the fellow. Well done. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]