Humanities desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 24 >

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.

August 23

Gold and silver are money...

Earkier today I saw a quote by J.P. Morgan, the financier and banker, along the lines of "Gold and silver are money. Everything else is credit." Unfortunately, I did not copy this for reference purposes and have been unable to find it since. Can you help out? Thanks in advance for your help!

Kent <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.138.118 (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search for that exact phrase found many hits: "Gold and silver are money. Everything else is credit". Using quotes makes most search-engines look for the phrase itself rather than just pages that contain all of the individual words. None of them look authoritative as the original published/quoted material, but all attribute it to him--maybe dig down a few pages in the search hits or add search-terms for things like "quotes" or "sayings" to help get more specific citing. One of the early hits even says it's apocryphal, so there may not be an actual original at all. I've removed your email address to help protect you from spam. DMacks (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that using Google to search for quotations tends to produce very unreliable sources. People often put inaccurate versions on their web sites and other people copy them. --Anonymous, 19:48 UTC, August 23, 2010.

For what it's worth, my edition of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations doesn't have this quote, but, then, it has no quotes at all from J. P. Morgan. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic form of negotiable instrument

Today, I have attended my "negotiable instrument law" class in which I asked my professor that "can a negotiable instrument be in an electronic form containing all particulars required by law, electronic signatures which can identify the persons affixing them, and printable, etc.?"

The professor said that a negotiable instrument must only be in a physical form, that is to say, in a form of paper, even though there is a law governing electronic transactions.

I did not ask him further by reason of class end and hurriedness, but I wonder why it can be so even though there is everything to secure it?

203.131.212.121 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The many problems that still exist with digital authenticaion and security aside, the simplest ansewer would be that the legal system has not yet decided this is an acceptable means of doing such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I guess the purpose of requiring a negotiable instrument to be in a form of paper is to maintain it "negotiable". Though, thinking over, I don't see if it be in an electronic form it would be unable to be negotiated or indorsed, etc.

203.131.212.121 (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe electronic "money" hasn't been around long enough to have a legal status?..hotclaws 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of meaningful electronic documents under the Uniform Commercial Code in the U.S. I don't know anything about Thai law (where your IP is from), but in the U.S. negotiable paper only requires a writing (which has a very broad definition under the U.C.C., encompassing many electronic forms) and a signature, in addition to all the other requirements. There may be some issue as to what constitutes a signature, but as a general rule, it's quite possible in many jurisdictions for an electronic document to be negotiable paper.

If you really want to get into it check out MERSCORP. Shadowjams (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is intrinsic to the idea of a negotiable instrument that it is a unique instrument that can be negotiated (i.e., transferred to another, who then has the right to demand payment on it). Under existing technology, electronic records that can be transferred to a third party can also be copied, in which case they are not unique any more. John M Baker (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a general concept that's true, but negotiable paper, like most technical areas of law, rely on specific distinctions. The UCC is the mother of specific uniform codes, and it has specific designations that rely on terms like "writing" and "signature" that are defined in the code as well. While your general idea is right, it's not enough to refer to some generic "this makes sense" kind of rule in particular matters like this. Trying to perfect an Article 9 interest that wasn't properly filed by claiming a "practical" argument. The UCC and the Second Restatement of Contracts are the respected works they are because they were developed by people who regularly found themselves on both sides of the equation. A simple example of game theory in practice. Shadowjams (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knights/dames who have sex changes

This is probably unexplored territory, but one never knows these days.

If a British/Commonwealth male citizen (John Smith) is knighted, and subsequently has a sex change and legally becomes a woman (now known as Mary Smith), which of the following would occur:

the knighthood is automatically converted to a damehood (Sir John Smith --> Dame Mary Smith)
the knighthood lapses (Sir John Smith --> Mary Smith)
the knighthood continues regardless (Sir Mary Smith) because the person has done nothing wrong to warrant the cancellation/rescission of the honour originally bestowed
something else?

Obviously a parallel issue arises when a dame becomes a man; and with peers of either sex who change their sex. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain this falls under the guise of "untested waters" and there's absolutely no way anyone could faithfully determine which of your perfectly reasonable scenarios is more likely to play out. Until it happens, and someone decides how to handle it, there is literally no way at all to forsee how it will play out. --Jayron32 05:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where would one go to even ask the question? Is there any kind of administrative hierarchy where knighthood is concerned? Like a group that would issue a periodic newsletter ("The Knightly Knews", perhaps) or would be a keeper of the rules (assuming there are any) connected with knighthood? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask the College Of Arms...hotclaws 09:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They would know, but the full answer to Bugs's question is the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood. The individual orders of knighthood also organise matters for themselves, and there's the Imperial Society of Knights Bachelor for those whose knighthood does not stem from an order of chivalry. Incidentally, knights bachelor who transition will prove a particularly thorny issue, since there's no female equivalent. Marnanel (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I can come to finding any case history in Wikipedia is Michael Dillon, who was the younger brother of a baronet, and was a female-to-male transsexual. Since females can't inherit baronetcies, it's especially noteworthy that the editor of Debrett's Peerage gave his opinion at the time that this made Dillon next in line to the title. This would give some weak evidence in favour of the OP's first option. Marnanel (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak maybe, but fascinating nonetheless, Marnanel, and I thank you for that juicy news. That's about whether someone is eligible to inherit a title; it seems to be saying the only thing that matters is that they were male at the moment of inheritance, and having previously been some other sex would be irrelevant. But that raises the question: what if the sex-change occurred after he inherited the baronetcy? Would that then disqualify him (now her) from continuing to hold the baronetcy, or is it still solely down to his sex at the moment of inheritance? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no case where this has happened, so as Jayron32 said, it's moot. I suppose the question is whether "a dame" means "a knight who is female" or whether it's an entirely separate status. I don't pretend to know the answer. FWIW, there's no rule against women holding baronetcies, only (in general) inheriting them, which makes baronetesses rather rare (the late Maureen Dunbar was a recent example). But in Dunbar's case, she inherited a title which had been held by seven male baronets before her, so I'd guess that "baronetess" means "a baronet who is female" rather than being a separate status; perhaps this gives a clue that non-hereditary knighthoods are also the same concept for males and females under separate names. Marnanel (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 regulates the change of legal gender in the UK. Section 16 specifies that

The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act—

(a) does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour, and

(b) does not affect the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) by a will or other instrument to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any peerage or dignity or title of honour unless an intention that it should do so is expressed in the will or other instrument.

The explanatory notes for the act clarifies that "[t]he descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour will take place as if a person recognised in the acquired gender were still of the birth gender." Gabbe (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...which is interesting in itself; thank you for the citation. Like the Dillon case, however, it concerns the descent of titles, and doesn't give us any hint as to what happens to titled people who transition (especially when, as in the OP's original question, that title is not inheritable). Marnanel (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other possibility is that the knighthood would remain unchanged, but that Mary would be given approval to use "Dame" rather than "Sir". So, if John were a KBE, Mary would be Dame Mary Smith KBE (not Dame Mary Smith DBE). Thanks for the interesting links and things; I guess we just have to play a waiting game to find out what actually happens. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mogadishu & Mercer Island - how would the residents feel about each other's cities?

When I saw the alliteration of both cities in a forum, I decided to ask this:

If a resident of Mogadishu ended up on Mercer Island, how would they feel about it and if they could write a summary about their time there (in a paragraph or two), what would they say?

(Same as question 1, the other way around.)

If a Mogadishu resident was given a choice to leave Mercer Island and return to their home city, how would they respond to that?

(Same as question 3, the other way around.)

And how do Mogadishu and Mercer Island compare to each other?

Thanks, --70.179.165.170 (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why should the residents of either city have to feel anything special? It's not like those are the only two cities in the world that alliterate. You could possibly have a weak case with cities with identical names, like Paris and Paris - in this case you could expect some reaction, but simple alliteration is not enough, IMO. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I detect the slight whiff of homework? You need to ask this at WP:Reference desk/Hypothetical questions. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read our articles on both cities, then type the name of each city into the search box of Google News to see what's happened in each city recently, and you will have a basis for answering these questions. Marco polo (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like homework to me. 92.24.178.101 (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is the OP. This was not homework; I just read a forum thread that referred to turning the bottom of Coruscant from Mogadishu to Mercer Island singlehandedly by fighting crime there in an upcoming MMORPG called Star Wars: The Old Republic. That random topic sparked this bit of curiosity, that's all. Sorry. --129.130.33.187 (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population

What percntage of the worlds adult population is dependant on others? For example, people on benefits, sick and mentally ill people, manchildren still living with their parents and don't work, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prize Winning Tomato (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nearly 100% of the world's population is dependent on others. Marnanel (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd need to really qualify what you mean by "dependent." You have a number of different things in your examples. 1. financially dependent (to varying degrees) on government programs; 2. physically dependent on caretakers, 3. financially dependent (to varying degrees) on other family members. I'm not sure these categories even adequately exist across all nations/cultures. It would be much easier to give state-specific answers to any of those three, though how to draw the line in the first and last ones is going to vary a lot by culture as well. (E.g. are those who use "socialized medicine" count as "on benefits"? what about families that all live in the same household for cultural reasons? if elderly mom and dad move in with the adult kids family, does that count as dependence?) It is comparatively easy to get statistics on narrow definitions, e.g. "how many people are in state-run institutions for the mentally ill in the United States?" (But even that can be difficult, if no one has compiled them all in one place.) It is much harder to get statistics on things like "how many sick (how sick?) or mentally ill (how ill?) people are in the world." --Mr.98 (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exact number and percentage will depend on your definition, but the majority of the world's population dependent for most or all of their subsistence on others are children under 18 years of age. The next largest component would be the elderly and infirm. "People on benefits" is a substantial share of the population only in the rich countries, especially in Europe. The total share of people who are really dependent, in the sense that they don't earn or produce enough to support themselves, is very roughly 50% of the world's population. Remember that most of these are children, most of them in the developing countries. Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the OP asks specifically about the adult population, which is the trickiest bit. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I did not read carefully enough. Pardon my negligence. As for the adult population, the percentage will vary greatly from country to country. In this case, the rich countries, especially Europe and Japan, will have higher percentages than developing countries, because elderly people make up a larger percentage of their populations and because they have more extensive social welfare systems. In some European countries—particularly countries where women's participation in the labor force is relatively low, such as Germany—I think that this number can be close to 40% of the adult population, whereas in developing countries, it could be as low as 20%. (There are of course countries, particularly in the Middle East, where few women work outside of the home, but most of those women certainly do work—cooking, cleaning, tending farm animals, raising children, etc.) Worldwide, my rough estimate would be on the order of 28% plus or minus a few. Marco polo (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on your definition for the first part of you question... a traditionally Communist society would have the entire population dependent on others (in the sense that theirs is a collectivist society). ny156uk (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Marnanel points out, except for the very rare case of someone living by themselves, feeding, clothing and housing themself using only things they have made from scratch themselves, none of which involving a tool built by someone else, never calling upon anyone for help or defence, we are all dependent on others to some degree. Given the variety of examples the OP used, I think this is quite valid. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plaque near William Wallace plaque in St. Bartholomew Hospital in London

Reading The Dark River written by John Twelve Hawks, I found the sentences that say "Finally, Gabriel walked up Giltspur Street past St. Bartholomew’s Hospital and found two memorials that were only a few feet apart. One was in memory of the Scottish rebel William Wallace, while the other plaque was placed a few feet away from where the Crown had burned Catholics at the stake."

What I want to know is what the event related to the latter plaque is.

Please help. --Analphil (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Analphil (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site the martyrs were in fact Protestant. Poetic licence, perhaps? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about Smithfield here, which was the place to burn people who had upset the Crown. If the Crown of the day disliked Protestants, Protestants would be burned here. If the Crown disliked Catholics, they would be Catholics. I don't know which particular Catholics might be given a blue plaque, but I might hazard a guess at John Forest (whose sentence was, rather awfully, read out by none other than Hugh Latimer, and you know what happened to him...) Marnanel (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even better poetic license would be if those plaques were inside the hospital, in the surgical unit and the burn unit respectively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all of you. Great help!--Analphil (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were Catholics ever burned? Certainly the Marian persecutions produced a lot of Protestant martyrs, but Catholics weren't persecuted like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marnanel has already given John Forest as answer to that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth made a point of not bringing heresy charges against Catholics, but rather treason charges -- based on Regnans in Excelsis, Cardinal Allen's schemings and connivings and bloodthirsty ranting tirades, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, most were hung, drawn and quartered, although a British person in general might not be expected to know that (as they have been rarely mentioned in school history books). Any blue plaques at all for Catholic victims of the state have been rare, only being put up recently. For example, the one on Holywell St, Oxford. So I'd side with poetic license (or lies). 86.161.255.213 (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Wallace was himself hung drawn and quartered. As for him being called a rebel, I guess it depends on your perpective. Others would describe him differently. [1]. Sorry, gone off subject a little bit there. ;) Jack1297 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]