Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 July 1

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.

July 1

Thesis formatting question

Hi - I'm Australian, and helping edit a thesis for a friend; I see that when numbering figures and tables, if it's the first figure in chapter 1, say, it's Figure 1.1 - but what if it's the first figure in the Introduction? What's the convention?

Another question - the subheadings in each chapter: do they have sentence formatting or title formatting?

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The convention depends entirely on which style guide you subscribe to. If it is a lengthy thesis, the university probably has specified somewhere what they want. If not, you just have to pick one and be consistent about implementing it. There are different style guides for different fields. Common ones for academic papers include The Chicago Manual of Style (and its simpler subset Turabian style), The MLA Style Manual, etc. Once you have the guide, you can look up each of these concerns quite straightforwardly (they have sections on figure numbering, subheadings, etc.) The most important thing, though, in the end, is consistency—most graders are not style sticklers, but it looks extremely unprofessional if these things are inconsistent. Note that of all style conventions, proper citation of sources is the most important (and will land you in the hottest water if done incorrectly)... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you use LaTeX, pick any of the styles that have been used before (plain "report" is the most common), and just let it do its thing. You can tweak it, but it's rarely worth it. If you don't use LaTeX, do ;-). But even Word should be able to generate numbers for figures and tables automatically and consistently. Another hint: The university library will usually hold at least one copy of every PhD thesis (and sometimes others) submitted. Check out a few recent ones from your friend's field to use as examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

At least at my university, the really crucial formatting standards were those for the title page, the signature page, the margins on each page, type size, line spacing, page numbering, and paper quality. University bureaucrats carefully checked all of these, and if anything was off, the thesis would be rejected automatically, even if everyone on the committee had approved the content. Committees are typically more concerned with the argument and, as Mr. 98 says, proper citation and acknowledgment of sources, than with the finer points of editorial style. (A hint to the wise: Be sure to cite members of your committee!) Marco polo (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks all. Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I work as ATC if I'm 18

I have an Air Traffic Controller degree in Argentina, and would like to know if I'm allowed to work at high-importance airports at my age. i.e. in the Ministro Pistarini International Airport. Thank you. --190.178.128.218 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you are the one with the degree and the location, you would probably be better off asking someone who is in the know- I'm not sure how many people here would know about it. Good luck, anyway. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 01:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sonia. You have the degree; you are the expect on the subject, not us. --Tango (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Air Traffic Safety Authority for the jurisdiction (country, etc.) where you're interested in finding employment may state particular qualifications required for applicants (other than minimum age and degree-holding), such as: hours of experience, residency, board certification, even military service. (I have no personal knowledge of the above, just stating what seems plausible.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Book illustration pricing

Question moved from Talk:Book illustration. Astronaut (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

IF YOU ARE DOING ILLUSTIONS FOR A CHILDRENS BOOK ,HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH THE PRICE OF YOUR WORK? THIS IS MY FIRST TIME ILLUSTING A BOOK, HOW DO I CHARGE THE PUBLISHER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.178.185 (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2010

Firstly, please don't type in all caps on the Internet. It's considered to be shouting. As for the answer to your question, of course it depends on a lot of things you haven't told us yet. Did they ask you to illustrate a book, or are you writing a proposal to them to illustrate? Have you had a conversation with their art director yet? What country do you live in? What country is the publisher in? How long is the book? Do you have an agent? (The answer to that one is obviously no.) Have you considered getting an agent so you can be more sure you're being compensated fairly? There's a book called Children's Writer's & Illustrator's Market that it sounds like you might want to get — it is mostly aimed at writers, unfortunately, but it also in turn points to other resources like local children's book author/illustrator gatherings. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You might find some guidance at Jacketflap, a networking site which "connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults". BrainyBabe (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why should we fear a NWO?

Dear refdeskers. I realize this question might be a borderline discussion and/or troll fest initiator, but it's something that's been bugging me for some time. If the answers slide too deep into the territory of either of the above, I don't mind a collapse of the question.

Ok, here goes. Out of some bizarre sociological fascination with conspiracy theorists I have for some time made it a habit to occasionally pop over to some random CT page and read through it. In these browsings, I have very often found a strong aversion to a one world government, the so-called new world order development in our future. Problem is, for all the fear of the NWO, I have yet to find an actual reason to fear it. Every CT page seems to stop at the point where we should fear the NWO, and seem to take it for granted we already know why exactly it is we're fearing it. Well, I don't. Why should we fear a NWO? What exactly are the freely assumed bad sides of a world government that would outweigh the possible good sides? I can certainly see many things that could work much better under a world government than they do now. However, please note, I'm not endorsing one or other world view, I'm just curious and looking for information I hadn't been able to find so far. Our article on the NWO doesn't really answer my question, either. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you read George Orwell's books such as Animal Farm and 1984.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I read those several times along with (I believe) every other non-fiction book Orwell ever wrote, and even for a time considered writing my degree on Orwell. However, Orwell's novels are on totalitarianism. I fail to see the reason why a one world government should automatically equal totalitarianism. In fact, it's ecaxtly this sort of automatic correlation that people seem to draw between the two that I find baffling. How is a world government different from, say, a continental government like Australia? Or an island government like the UK or Japan? Or from any other government? Why is it automatically assumed it would be a totalitarian government? TomorrowTime (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ask yourself how benevolent an unregulated monopoly would be in the business world. Or for that matter, how well dictatorships work in the governmental world. That could give you a clue to the answer about New World Order. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. Why would a world government be any more unregulated or dictatorial than, say, the US government? Checks and balances are overwhelmingly internal, which explains why we currently have both fairly free and fairly dictatorial regimes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. Why is it assumed that a world government would automatically be totalitarian? TomorrowTime (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say that I don't think either of these answers addresses the OP's question. The assumption that some sort of NWO would automatically be unregulated and totalitarian is what the OP seems to be questioning and so far the responses have been "it'd be totalitarian because it'd be totalitarian.. ok?". For sure, it might run into some issues because it'd be the only game in town, but that doesn't necesserily mean that it couldn't run fairly well with a good system of checks and balances. I think the argument that the only reason countries "work well" is because there is competition from other countries screams and that some countries seem to rather succcessfully remain unfree/totalitarion/incredibly messed up despite there being competition from other countries.

This actually happens to be a question I've mulled over a few times, thinking to myself "hey, if we had one government think how streamlined it could be...". Warning:OR My sister made the argument that with one world government you, the individual, would have less say in the decisions that were made because instead of being you and 30ish million people voting (I'm in Canada) it's you and 6ish billion other people. I called bullshit on this because as far as 'global' decisions go the average person has a less than 1 in 6 billion vote because certain organizations (hello G20) don't even contain the whole world so representation is already skewed and it would seem some sort of world order would just level the playing field. As a Canadian I like my vote counting with the 'big boys' but at the same time, it's a bit ridiculous for me to think that a NWO would be a crisis because people in LDCs would get a bigger vote...

/OR flagitious (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a reason to fear a world government. Assume it's dictatorial. Then it's bad. Alternatively, assume it's democratic. Then it will likely look after all its citizens equally. In other words, it will take steps to change an economic system where 300 million Americans and 450 million Western Europeans consume most of the worlds economic output, and 1 billion Chinese, Indians, and Africans each are left with the scraps, or nothing at all (all number roughly rounded ;-). Since nearly all of us are profiteers of the current economic system, we are likely to lose out. To misuse Jefferson, "Indeed I tremble for the West when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. So, we should fear the NWO because we realize that our current system is inherently unfair and we just happen to not be on the receiving side of the stick. Ok, I can live with that reply. It's odd, though - I never took your average NWO fearing conspiracy theorist to be as learned as to have read Immanuel Wallerstein and contemplated his World systems theory and the deep moral and social implications thereof. Somehow someone who rants about FEMA concentration camps just doesn't strike me as quite that far in their studies :) TomorrowTime (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the fear of world government by (mostly) American cranks boils down to a perceived threat to American exceptionalism and U.S. global hegemony, in the minds of conspiracy theorists aided and abetted by perceived internal traitors who serve for them as scapegoats. This can often also be connected to a general xenophobia, and sometimes to a more specific anti-Semitism, depending on the claims made. (Incidentally, while U.S. hegemony may be increasingly shaky, I think the likely outcome is not world government but an ever more fractured world. Elites in Russia, India, Europe, and China distrust one another far too much for the unification of Eurasia to be conceivable in the next century, much less the whole world.) Marco polo (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Marco polo (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ludicrously idealistic and over-optimistic I may be, but there is surely a possibility that the combination of economic globalisation, shared recognition of global environmental interdependence, increased recognition of the value of science over superstition, and shared information through the internet and sites like this one, will actually start to relegate xenophobia and religious fundamentalism to the margins, and promote the achievement of benign forms of shared responsibility, if not actual global government. Always look on the bright side of life.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I sort of suspect as much with the conspiracies centered around the UN and its sinister role, but UN conspiracy theories and NWO conspiracy theories are not necessarily mutually inclusive of one another... TomorrowTime (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's highly possibly that we already have a One World Government, but most people just aren't aware of it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

People always complain that government is unresponsive to their needs, even at the local level, but especially at the federal level. How does anyone here think that a globalized government would be an improvement? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The European Union and the old Hapsburg Empire both offer ample proof that large super-states are too cumbersome, far-flung, and cannot integrate its multi-nations, each with its own etnicities, religions, special interests, local econony, culture, language, etc. How could a world government possibly function effectively serving the needs of each citizen?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

By coming to a recognition that people across the world have much more in common with each other than the trivial, superficial and minor factors like language, culture and "ethnicity" that serve, in some circumstances, to divide them. Maybe climate change or some other form of global environmental catastrophe would do it. Or an alien invasion.  ;-) Come on now, people, let's get together... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. quite adamantly does not subscribe, its own internal issues notwithstanding. Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with NWO, IMO, boils down to basic human psychology. people (at a certain level of development, at any rate) are prone to ingroup/outgroup (us opposed to them) reasoning. 'us' is usually not well-defined, 'them' is never well-defined, but regardless it's a powerful psychological motivator based in the assertions that (a) people can be meaningfully cast into types systematically, and (b) these types will necessarily carry a moral component. one of the brilliant insights in Wallerstein's work, for instance, is that people will naturally associate race with economic deprivation, because not associating race and economic deprivation would imply that economic deprivation is caused by exploitation, and that worldview violates most people's preconceptions that their ingroup is morally good. The idea of world governance violates the heart and soul of 'us vs. them' reasoning, and is automatically interpreted (by people at that developmental level) as a trick by evil 'thems' to dominate 'us' by Machiavellian legal tactics.

in other words, no one is capable of understanding the value of world governance until they have developed past the need to identify themselves in terms of an outgroup, because as long as ingroups are defined in terms of disliked outgroups, any NWO will seem inherently threatening. It's basically the same reasoning as went into the American civil war and Jim Crow era - Southern whites could not accept federal governance, because southern whites defined themselves in terms of their superiority to blacks, and the federal government (by insisting on inter-racial equity) threatened their very identity as whites. --Ludwigs2 09:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no way a single government would work because of the vast diversity in human beings. There would have to be a single capital, a single language, and a single political party. If all people were programmed as robots to think alike, then it would be feasible, otherwise rebellion and civil wars would break out everywhere.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's taking a very pessimistic view of people. People have far more things in common than what divides us. Humans have only differentiated from each other over the last 150,000 years or so, which is the blink of an eye in terms of the earth's development. There's no reason why there has to be a single "capital" - power can be diffused between different places, or even held within the www. There's certainly no reason why there would have to be a single language, and every reason why there should be multiple political groups serving different areas and "ethnicities" in different languages - but all within an all-encompassing consensual global framework. It just requires the gradual expansion of existing international treaties and organisations, while retaining much local control. And, of course, there would be local rebellions - just as there are fights on street corners now. Why on earth does it require people to think alike? This all goes back to the presumption that governments exist to control people, I suppose - which is certainly true of some, bad, governments, but not good ones. So, elect a good one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are a lot of questionable responses in this thread, but this [Jeanne Boleyn's response] takes the cake. A single world government would not require a "single political party" or people to be "programmed as robots to think alike". Governments can and do function with multiple parties and diverse opinions. —Kevin Myers 13:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Myers, you can say what you like about my opinion, but I challenge you to go out into the main street of your city/town/village/suburb and stop a random selection of people and ask them their views regarding the possibilty of a single, world government, and then gauge their reactions. Somehow I don't think the average person's response would be exactly orgasmic! And if you think a single government can function with multiple parties and diverse opinions, study the history of the Ottoman and Hapsburg Empires as well as the causes which led to World War I.As regards taking the cake, I prefer a chocolate layered cake with gollops of icing served with a trencherman's portion of French vanilla ice-cream.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And I prefer pie, so obviously we could not be citizens under the same government! —Kevin Myers 16:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The concept of a single world order would have to answer the question that every individual should ask: "What's in it for me?" A lot of Americans have asked that about the U.N. and I expect a lot of Europeans continue to ask that about the E.U. Meanwhile, please note the motto Novus ordo seclorum on the back of your U.S. dollar bill. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What's in it for me is a better life for my children and grandchildren, and for their peers, wherever they might be. Surely that's the only valid worthwhile goal for all of us? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a gloom-and-doom Cassandra, but I need to point out that the flower-power hippie All You Need is Love pipedream ended at Woodstock on 15 August 1969, the day troops were sent to Northern Ireland because of political/religious conflict. The let's get together generation then totally self-destructed at Altamont four months later.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a teeny bit US- and culture-specific, don't you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

How is Britain sending troops to Northern Ireland in 1969 US-centric? Anyway, that hippie, love-and-peace, drug-fueled, and sexually-enhanced, counterculture was basically founded and inspired by both the British rock scene and the anti-Vietnam War American protesters, with the Beat generation having been the midwife.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

At the global scale, Ireland was/is a minor dispute, compared to, say, the Rwandan Genocide. And I wasn't talking about "that hippie, love-and-peace, drug-fueled, and sexually-enhanced, counterculture" - see Stoicism#Social philosophy, and Mazdak, for two examples of much earlier beliefs in cosmopolitanism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, with harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding, etc. What such pie-in-the-sky idealism fails to take into account is individual ambitions, both good and evil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be idealistic, but it also makes good sense for everyone for humanity to act in each others' collective interests. Isn't that what we're trying to do, in our own little way, on WP - that is, sharing knowledge, and expanding potential? So we can make a bigger pie, and have one slice each here on earth. That's my "ambition".  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The libertarian view is what is called "enlightened self-interest". People will be more willing to do something if they see what's in it for them. If you think every wikipedia editor is trying to share knowledge and expand potential, drop by WP:ANI or WP:AIV sometime and see how that's working out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to point out the obvious, but as it stands world government is a de facto truth. it's no longer a question of whether we want to have a world political system, but rather a question of what kind of world political system we want to institute. currently we have a kind of international corporate oligarchy, where financial institutions can find an extensive degree of free reign by surfing between different national jurisdictions - e.g. companies gamble on dangerous processes that threaten the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands in multiple countries (Bhopal, the gulf spill); Fast food industries encourage beef production in central america and south east asia, which leads to deforestation that contributes to global warming, and causes periodic toxic smogs that affect numerous countries as neophyte farmers burn off trees; US companies render entire third world nations dependent on their good will, or exercise significant impact on US legislation through lobbyists and campaign donations. These days if you fart in Bangladesh people complain about the stink in French Guiana; there's no getting around the fact that some kind of international structure will fall into place to deal with it. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because in popular fiction, the evil bad guys are always out to rule the world, and we've been conditioned to believe that any one entity who wants to control the world is automatically bad? Or maybe it's because the claimed efforts to bring a NWO are being carried out in secrecy, rather than out in the open? I don't know. This is really a question for psychologists. There was an article not too long about about the psychology of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I'll see if I can dig it up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if these directly answer your question, but these articles from Psychology Today[1] and Science News[2] might shed some light on the psychology of conspiracy theorists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And the reason they're carried out in secret is to avoid popular input. And there you have the core problem with the notion of a new world order, "philosopher kings", and all that sort of thing. Basically, it doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why people believe in oddball conspiracies is really a different question than has been asked here, which is why many people instinctively fear the idea of a world government. The answer to the original question is actually quite simple, I think. Most people fear losing control of their destinies, and a world government, the ultimate Leviathan, would be so large that some people fear that they, as individuals or in small groups, would have no ability to influence it. No one likes to be governed without their own consent, so it's natural to fear the creation of a massive world state if you believe that your input would count for little in that government. Not everyone feels this way, of course, as the members of the World Federalist Movement would attest. —Kevin Myers 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would your "destiny" be, to any great degree, in the hands of any government, whether at local level, regional, national or global? The aim of good government - at whatever level - is to enable everyone to take steps towards achieving their destiny, isn't it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a good example of why a World Government could never work. If editors cannot reach a compromise at Talk:British Isles, how could people expect to work together towards a common goal within an enormous superstate where everybody is claiming a piece of the pie? By the way what kind of goal would entice the global citizens to work collectively towards achieving it? Happiness? Peace ? Power? Wealth? Or just the right to exist with a number, a state-provided job, an allocated apartment?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You've hit it on the head when you bring up goals. You'll never get the world's population to agree on what the global goals should be. It's hard enough to get agreement on goals even in a small town, never mind world-wide. Globally, unless you can do away with the fundamental us-vs.-them mentality, it can't possibly work. How would this postulated global government fix the Islamic-states-vs.-Israel problem, for example, without one side or the other being the "loser"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that a lot of the people subscribing to conspiracy theories are favourable towards libertarianism, and thus already are adverse towards government on national and federal levels? I am sure a world government would probably be their worst nightmare regardless of it being totalitarian or not. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So it would be fine as long as you don't place a high value on individual freedom. And the distinction between that situation and totalitarianism is...? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So anyone not favourable to libertarianism does not place a high value on individual freedom? Sounds like a strawman to me. Anyway this is not the place to discuss the merits of libertarianism. I merely mentioned libertarianism because adherents to that ideology holds a particular adversity against government. I could have used adherents of anarchy (in any form) as an example that would be equally relevant. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Who would the world government be accountable to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The US government, for example, is accountable to the people. I imagine proponents of a world government would say the same about it. —Kevin Myers 03:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The US government is NOT accountable to the people of other countries which is one of the main objections worldwide to US foreign policy and general hegemony. The US has historically acted in some pretty undemocratic ways towards other nations to which it is not accountable. This is fairly well documented. That is not to say that the U.S. is particularly evil, its just that when it acts in its own "national interests" these have sometimes tended to run counter to the interests of the people in non-US nations... --Jayron32 04:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

True, perhaps, but completely unrelated. Am I missing a joke here? Is every other reply supposed to be a non sequitur? —Kevin Myers 04:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, this sparked a big debate and there were some points that address my original question somewhat (the multiple systems theory, phobia of the pop-cultural evil overlord stereotype, aversion to government in general) but I can't say I'm fully satisfied with any of those. The debate also showed, in action, the knee-jerk assertion: world-government = totalitarianism expressed without much explanation, which is what I find baffling in the first place. Well, I suppose this is not really an answerable question. Ultimately, it seems to be a matter of faith - you either believe in conspiracy theories and with the territory comes a seemingly irrational fear of NWO, or you don't. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How, in your opinion, would a one-world government work? Would it be a loose confederation something along the lines of the U.N.? Or would it have the strength of a typical central government? How would it enforce its laws? What would those laws typically consist of? How would it handle complaints? Until you have answers to those kinds of questions, it's really hard to pin down whether it would be something to fear or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Users of Wikipedia are the global elite, which means we have a lot to lose if things change in a big way. If you believe in redistribution of wealth, power and resources; global environmental and labor laws; and on and on – call it socialism with a “fair trade” slant – then the only means of achieving it is for governments to be forced to comply. That means something above governments (more powerful, more authoritative), which isn’t the United Nations. Hence, achieving all those nice policy positions requires a global government with those policy goals. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is late in a discussion that is all but closed, but your comment actually opened my eyes - it makes a lot of sense. Yes, it is a fact that in envisioning a global government from the point of view of a person right now, it would probably have to be called something like socialism - if we ever get to it (which I doubt, at least in the near to medium future), we might call it something else, but right now the word socialism - with or without a qualifier - fits best. Given the negative connotation the word has in the US and a lot of the rest of the world, it makes sense therefore that many people would instinctively fear a global government. If nowhere else, one can observe on an almost weekly basis from questions being asked and answered right here on this board that a lot of people freely assume that socialism = totalitarianism. So this is, as I suspected, in a great deal also a question of cultural and educational background. It also has grounds in the observed reality, as while socialism in theory does not equal totalitarianism, it has proven in reality to be really vulnerable to it. Right now, there is no reason to assume that a global government would be any less susceptible to totalitarianism than were lesser governments that dabbled in applied socialism, even if some of those were less susceptible than others. Thanks for giving me this insight and some understanding of a matter that had bothered me for some time now. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think socialist nations are "more susceptible" to totalitarianism; more that totalitarianism comes about through people or political parties that use socialism as a carrot to make their power-changing demands look acceptable (ie. Hugo Chavez). Once they have a big enough stick, the "socialism" remains in name-only as a smokescreen. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A Question on the Federal Reserve

From what I have read, the Federal Reserve controls the interest rates on financial products offered by banking institutions in order to promote a stable economy. During periods of inflation, the Fed raises interest rates. During periods of deflation, the Fed lowers them. All of this is done years in advance after extensive economic forecasting to ensure positive results. Assuming what I have written is correct, are financial institutions barred from offering their own interest rates? If so, why are we taught to comparison shop for different financial products if they're really all the same? If I'm completely wrong, please enlighten me. Any help is gladly appreciated. 66.176.245.57 (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, the federal Reserve controls what interest rate the United States uses for its transactions. Since banks do business with the United States, they will adjust their rates so they make money but remain competitive. But I'm far from an expert in this.—msh210℠ 06:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. The Fed sets the rate for short-term loans from the Federal Reserve to banking institutions -- the "federal funds rate". From there, the free market determines interest rates. Banks set rates to other customers higher (so that they can make money) while not raising them too high (so as to remain competitive with other banks). So while the Fed may influence whether your interest rates hover around 4% or 8%, it's still up to you to determine the best rate that hovers around that average. Note also that interest rates are rarely the only item of significance when comparing financial products: fees, for example, are set entirely independent of the Fed. — Lomn 13:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The Federal Reserve has direct control over two interest rates: 1) the Federal funds rate (or Fed funds rate), or the rate at which banks can borrow from other banks' reserve accounts in the Federal Reserve System; and 2) the discount rate, or the rate at which banks can borrow from the Federal Reserve System itself. These rates in effect set the cost of money for commercial banks. In a sense they set a floor for the rates that banks charge their customers. The rate that commercial banks charge to customers will virtually always be higher than the Fed funds or discount rate, because the yield spread between the interest rate banks have to pay and the interest rate that they can charge their customers is most banks' main source of income and profit. Banks may compete against one another by offering slightly lower interest rates to attract borrowers, so it can make sense for borrowers to shop around, but those rates will virtually always be above the rate that the banks pay to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. Marco polo (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"years in advance... to ensure positive results." Ha! If only. While there's plenty of "extensive economic forecasting", the Fed isn't infallible and isn't always working that far ahead -- if, in fact, it's working ahead at all. Plenty of actions by the Fed appear reactionary. Of course, the actual decision process of the Fed is fairly obscure, so it can be hard to pin down exactly why they're doing what they're doing. Even if the chairman reports on why the Fed is taking a particular action, is it the whole reason? Is it the reason at all? The Fed is deliberately removed from most of the checks and balances of the federal system. — Lomn 13:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So, for example, in a stable economy, Community Bank B takes out a loan from its local Federal Reserve bank at a two percent interest rate. Community Bank B then loans out that money to various consumers at five percent interest in order to create a profit. However, in an economy ridden with inflation, the Fed ups its interest rates to six percent interest on its loans. Community Bank B, to make up the difference, ups its interest rates on its loans to nine percent; contracting the money supply. Am I correct in this? 66.176.245.57 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

To conceive of this properly, you should understand a crucial point: One of the most important classes of loans banks receive are overnight loans. Banks are required to have a minimum reserve every day. Chaotic everyday business being what it is, banks often have too little on hand "overnight," and are obliged to borrow for literally one day ("overnight"). The interest charged on such overnight loans is a crucial element of the cost of doing business. So part of your mental model should be "overnight loans," as opposed to simply "a bank borrows money and then lends it" -- banks MUST secure overnight loans frequently, and so have no discretion, say, to abstain from them for a while if they don't like the rates. 63.17.72.210 (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, 'years in advance' isn't far from the mark. In normal times, it takes 6-9 months for interest rate changes to take effect, so having a good forecast is vitally important. I would also point out that the actual decision process of the Fed is fairly well understood by those who follow it closely. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Special relationships between countries

Friends (human) do not feel the need to constantly tell each other that they have a special relationship. If it is indeed "special", it’s just something they both accept. They might sometimes tell each other how much they love them, or appreciate them, or miss/need/want them or whatever, but not "We have a special relationship" every time they see each other.

So, what is it about international relations between certain countries that does require this constant affirmation that their relationship is "special"? I’ve been hearing all my life about the "special relationship" and "special bond of friendship and cooperation", and similar gushing phraseology, between the United States and Australia. It came up again the other day when our new Prime Minister Julia Gillard phoned President Obama to say "G’day, mate; Kev's gone, I’m in charge now". That in itself was fine, but both leaders took the time and trouble to assert, for the 10,000th time, how special and close and warm and mutually supportive the bonds of unity and cooperation and friendship and amity are between "our two great countries". Why do they do this? Do they think we mere citizens all have short memories and need to be constantly reminded of it? Or do they perhaps not quite believe it, and feel the need to fake it till they make it? Or is it just one of these traditions whose origins are lost in the byzantine mists of arcane protocol? (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Friends (human) do not feel the need to constantly tell each other that they have a special relationship." They certainly do if they are children, or young teenagers. ("You're one of my best friends, but she's my best best friend ever." "You hate me, don't you?") That is, immature people. Is there a lesson here? To me, there seem to be quite a lot of similarities between the relationship patterns of humans who have not yet fully matured, and high-level international politics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I had to laugh when I read this, since we Brits are always being told that there is a "special relationship" between ourselves and the USA. (And of course, we have an article on it - Special Relationship.) America must be something of a tart if she has so many special relationships going on, no? It seems to me that the ones who assure us that there is a special relationship between the US and UK are invariably British politicians who don't want to face up to the fact that Britain is no more important to the US as an ally than any other country. Tony Blair pretty much did all that was required of him during the Iraq war in a doomed attempt to demonstrate the closeness of the relationship. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 07:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called politics. Or political "schmoozing". A couple of Wills stated well this notion of nations being friends or having special relationships:

"Nations do not have friends. They have interests." -- George Will

"The best friends the U.S. ever had were the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans." -- Will Rogers

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, the degree of influence that we have with the US is a widely seen as a measure of successful foreign policy. Margaret Thatcher telling Bush the Elder not to "go wobbly" (and him obliging) was a success[3]; Gordon Brown chasing Barack Obama round a conference venue in the hope of a few words was a failure[4]. The news that David Cameron was going to tell Obama to tone-down the anti-British rhetoric over the BP leak did him no harm at all; what was actually said can only be guessed at. Few seem to care if we upset the rest of the European Union; some relish it. Good relations with the "old" Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, NZ) appear to be rather taken for granted I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Coming from the perspective of an American who does not support U.S. global hegemony, I can say that we in the United States tend to hear about "special relationships" with the United Kingdom, Israel, Canada, Mexico, and Australia, in roughly that order. In my perception, "special relationship" seems to mean something like "Although you are a client state, we respect you." In the case of Israel, it is a little different, in my opinion. There, it means, "We will back you even if your actions harm our interests, because internal politics require us to do so." In the case of countries other than the United States, I think that the "special relationship" claim is politically important to each country's government, since, for the government to seem credible in the eyes of many of its citizens, it is important for the United States to reaffirm its "special relationship" with that government. Within the United States, there are constituencies with ties of affection to each of the "special relationship" countries, and parties and political figures within the United States angle for the support of those constituencies by affirming the "special relationship". Marco polo (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is sort of national neurosis in Canada; I remember reading a couple of weeks ago about how proud the Canadian Forces were that the US "let" them command the NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. I'm sure the US didn't put much thought into it, they are busy elsewhere and Canadian troops already happened to be there, but it always comes across as if Canada has a teenage crush on the US and is always trying to be noticed. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Belated thanks. I now feel a special relationship with all who gave of their time in answering my question. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Imperial Tombs

How many tombs of Chinese emperors are still intact? It seems in the cases of Egyptian Pharaohs they tombs were robbed and looted within centuries of their death. There is a lot of talk about Egyptian tombs and the quest to find another intact one like the one of King Tut when in China their might be hundreds of tombs as richly stocked and intact tombs. I heard that Qin Shi Huangdi's tomb might be intact but are their older Chinese imperial tombs?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

questions

what is ecnomics ? what is an economy? what are the basic problems of an economy? more definitions of economics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseshakthi (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read our articles on economics and economies? Our outline of economics may also be useful. — Lomn 13:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

1. what is economics? a. "economics is the science dealing with what goods and services are produced, how they are produced, and for whom" or b. "economics is the study of the human attempt to fulfill infinite desire with finite resources" c. "economics is the study of the exchange of goods and services in society"

2. what is an economy? an economy is a system of pipes and funnels leading from one person's wallet to the other's refrigerator, thence their dining table, into their mouths, and, if you will believe it or not, all the way through the toilet system, past the waste processing plant, out into the ocean, where it is now outside the system of pipes and funnels. (outside the economy).

3. what are the basic problems of an economy? how to allocate resources, how to produce goods and services, and through what mechanism (these days usually fiat currency and a price they will be exchanged at.)

4. more definitions of economics. see b c, etc. you can also say "Economics is the study of wealth", in its broadest possible sense.

92.230.234.237 (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We won't answer homework questions here, btw. Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Heroism

Can you tell me where I may find the subject of " Heroism " well treated of, besides the papers of Messrs. Carlyle and Emerson ? -- Orwell Asks (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What context are you looking for regarding heroism. There;s lots of ways that one could go with this... --Jayron32 14:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, our article Hero — actually the "See also" links toward the bottom of the page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Practice of intentionaly burning suburbs when anticipating attack ?

I am doing a research on a certain city in Europe. By 19th century its fortifications had become cumbersome to the locals and where eventualy torn down. Among the problems described is a rule that prevented use of masonry in suburbs outside the city walls. It doesn't explain the reasoning behind the rule, however troughout the course of history the suburbs had been torn down or burnt down (the last such instances were, respectively to make an esplanade and due to a scare anticipiating an attack) and a rule which enforces buildings to be made of less durable and less fireproof material (if no masonry is allowed it seems to leave only wood) would appear to be related to that. So was it common strategy to destroy suburbs ? If so what would happen to the population (in this case it is said that the walled part of the city had population of 15000, while the suburbs had a population of 65000, sheltering them in the town during an acctual attack seems a bit unrealistic) ~~Xil (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Thiers wall of Paris was surrounded by a so-called zone non aedificandi where no construction was permitted, which eventually became a slum after military interest in the city walls waned. The demolition of peacetime barracks and support facilities around permanent fortifications was a common measure in wartime to clear a field of fire for defenders. I don't have specific knowledge of practices concerning the populace in such areas; it might vary according to the ruthlessness of the individual state. Acroterion _(talk) 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure that they weren't using the masonry from the city walls to build the suburbs. Reusing already cut stones was a common procedure. Rmhermen (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wooden buildings outside the walls of fortresses would be pulled down when there was a threat of a siege in order to clear fields of fire. The last example of this I can think of is during the attack on Fort Eben-Emael on 10th May 1940, when many of the garrison where engaged in dismantling wooden office buildings outside the gates, when they should have been shooting the Germans who had landed on the roof. In the mid-19th Century, because of the increasing range of artillery, there was a move away from the old continuous bastioned-trace to the "Prussian System" of a ring of widely spaced Polygonal forts. This combined with the exponential growth of cities due to industrialisation and improved transport, meant that old laws about building in front of old fortifications quickly became obsolete. As you say, efforts to enforce these old laws caused all kinds of contradictions. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which city you are referring to, but typically, through the early modern period, as suburbs around the city expanded, the old city walls would be abandoned or torn down, and a new set of walls would be built around the outer suburbs, bringing them within the city's defensive circuit. This happened several times in cities such as Paris and Berlin. There were interim periods when suburbs accreted outside the existing set of walls, but typically, the suburban population would have been able to take refuge within the walls in case of attack. The situation you describe, where the suburban population (and presumably area) was several times that of the city within the walls, suggests a point in time after the walls no longer had military value, as Alansplodge has explained. If walls had remained crucial for defense, then a new set of walls would have been constructed around at least the inner ring of those suburbs before they outgrew the walled city. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has been already established that star forts were not huge hit in 19th century, however it was said that the suburbs were 10-times the size of the city by the end of 18th century and it seems they started to form much earlier and they were protected by wooden palisade untill 1808, so perhaps there were other reasons not to include them. I allready found out that they apparently didn't give a damn about what happaned to suburban population when they lost their homes. In any case I was hoping there is an article on this burning practice, I wonder if there may be other reasons for that ? ~~Xil (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Printing money

Calls for "austerity" seem to be mounting in many rich countries. The argument for austerity is that governments (and entire economies) will face a funding crisis if debt levels reach a point at which investors are no longer willing to lend those governments money. Now, this is probably true in the euro zone, since euro zone countries have in effect lost control of their currency, as I understand it, to the Eurosystem. However, what would prevent other countries from simply spending more than they receive in revenue? If this is possible, it would eliminate the need to borrow. If governments are concerned about preventing deflation and creating jobs, surely printing money and spending it would be a more effective means than borrowing and spending it, since government borrowing tends to crowd out private borrowing. Now, I understand that if a government were to begin printing unborrowed money, government bonds would plummet in value and interest on those bonds would spike. This could lead to a hyperinflationary scenario as government printing accelerated to keep pace with rising interest rates. However, what if, in one day, the government printed enough money to simply pay off the national debt? Of course, this would amount to a default, and the government would no longer be able to borrow money. But why should the government borrow money when it can print instead? Why shouldn't governments end commercial banks' monopoly on money creation, as it currently exists with fractional-reserve banking? Please understand that I am looking for thoughtful responses to my questions (if possible with references to published sources) and not looking to start a debate. Thank you. Marco polo (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Printing money does not create value, it just redistributes it. The value the government would get would come from decreased value of the currency everyone in their country is holding (due to inflation). There is really no difference between printing enough money to pay off the debt and taxing your people enough to pay off the debt - the value comes from the people in the end either way. That kind of inflation or tax would destroy the economy. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Governments cannot print their way out of debt because, under the rules of Fiat currency a currency is basically tied to the GDP of the country that issues it (its not that simple, but roughly so). Money is basically a fraction of your countries GDP. If you print more money, you don't actually create more value, you just devalue the existing currency. Modern methods of "printing money" (which involve central banks playing around with interest rates rather than actual printed cash) operate much the same way; it doesn't actually generate additional value for the government, it only devalues currency already in the hands of people. Also remember that actual specie and paper money (which the government can literally print) is such a tiny fraction of money in circulation that actually firing up the presses to print more money has no practical effect on anything. Instead, what governments do is instruct their central banks to lower the interest rates on which they charge to loan money to comercial banks. When the central bank loans money to the commercial bank, it literally creates the money out of thin air. So, when it lowers the interest rates, the commercial banks borrow more money, this increasing the money supply. However, this money is not in the form of printed bills. Its all just entries on ledger sheets. Basically, it all exists in computer spreadsheets. --Jayron32 16:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called Quantitative easing; same thing - better name. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

These responses are very helpful. I am familiar with the pieces of this puzzle, but I am not familiar with the connection that Tango and Jayron32 made, between the value of GDP and and the value of the money supply. How exactly are the two connected? In the case of the United States dollar, trillions of dollars are held by foreign central banks because of the dollar's reserve currency status. How are these amounts connected to US GDP? It seems to me that the value of money is ultimately its ability to purchase desired goods and services. The supply of goods and services is somewhat limited globally. Foreign credit has certainly increased the share of global goods and services that holders of dollars (mostly Americans) could command above the value of goods and services produced by Americans. This discrepancy is roughly captured by the long-term US current account deficit. A cutoff or reversal of that credit (which seems virtually inevitable in the long-run) will reduce Americans' ability to purchase goods and services, leading to a decline in the material standard of living. The question is how that cutoff happens. Is the cutoff (which by itself will shrink US GDP and living standards) accompanied by a cut in government spending (further shrinkage of GDP and living standards) and rise in the real tax burden (further shrinkage) such that the fiscal deficit becomes a fiscal surplus, needed to pay off the debt, assuming that it is repayable from a smaller economic base? This seems to be the course indicated by the advocates of austerity. (However, many analysts have pointed out that austerity in Greece will cause economic contraction that actually increases its debt as a share of GDP and ultimately decreases its chances of repayment.) What I am asking is, what if the government simply prints money to pay off the debt? This will still lead to a cutoff of credit and a drop in government spending in real terms, but it would not necessarily lead to an increase in the real tax burden, because the debt would already be paid off. Any real increase in taxes could go toward, say, the construction of green infrastructure, rather than toward debt service. Such a move would inevitably lead to a bout of inflation, if only from the drop in the value of the dollar, along with declining material living standards (which are arguably inevitable anyway), but the main effect of inflation is to redistribute wealth from the holders of debt and securities to debtors and holders of physical assets. Assuming the government intervenes to prevent a hyperinflationary spiral or to implement fiscal and/or currency reforms after hyperinflation, how would this "destroy the economy"? Wouldn't tangible assets and people's skills still have value and provide the basis for a livelihood, albeit at a reduced material living standard? Thanks again. Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I said it was a simplification. What I should have said was that it was a gross oversimplification. The value of the U.S. dollar, vis-a-vis other currencies, is determined on the open market (specifically the FOREX or Foreign exchange market). Thus, like all aspects of free markets, there is some volatility, randomness, and unpredictability of it. Still, generally speaking the value of the dollar will be dependant on people's feelings towards it, which is mostly determined by the strength of the U.S. economy (actually, it is determined by people's feelings on the ability of the U.S. government to back the value of the dollar; which is largely determined by the strength of the economy). One measure of the strength of the economy is the GDP. So, roughly speaking, the dollar is backed by the U.S. economy itself; and making more dollars does not increase the size of the economy. It mearely increases the number of shares in that economy the dollar represents; more dollars means each dollar is worth less. There may be real good reasons to do this intentionally, but one of them is NOT to correct government debt problems. Invariably, debaseing ones currency has the result of making a government's financial situation worse rather than better. --Jayron32 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make such a connection. The total value of the money supply is fixed (over very short periods of time), but I don't think that total value is equal to anything simple - there are loads of factors, of which GDP of the home country is one. --Tango (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Many of the statements above about inflation are ideological, though we have been so propagandized on the subject that we now accept ideology as fact. Inflation may be good or bad -- there are arguments on both sides. It is absolutely NOT true that "There is really no difference between printing enough money to pay off the debt and taxing your people enough to pay off the debt" or that "Invariably, debaseing ones currency has the result of making a government's financial situation worse rather than better." In the former case, the nation's LENDERS (rich) would be hurt far more than DEBTORS (poor) by monetizing the debt through high inflation -- see the Populists for the pro-inflation argument; by contrast, higher taxes, due to the marginal value of each taxed dollar to different classes, would hurt those with little money far more than those with lots of money. In the latter case, the USA would benefit greatly right now by "debasing" its currency via having a weaker dollar (the international equivalent of inflation) insofar as the greatest long-term danger the USA faces is a runaway trade deficit; and as Galbraith has pointed out, "debasing" currency via inflation is a negligible problem if real wages remain constant. The high inflation of the Carter Administration resulted in only one six-month recession during his term; the lowest quintile of Americans suffered much more during Reagan's first term, with its extremely long recession designed to "break the back" of the inflation that so bothered Reagan's rich employers and masters. 63.17.72.210 (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Economists in Zimbabwe may disagree with you on the joys of inflation and the benefits of debasing one's own currency. As I states above, there may be very good reasons to debase ones currency, or to encourage inflation, getting out of debt isn't one of them. --Jayron32 06:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The debate today is whether the next several years will be inflationary or deflationary. Since there is ample experience in managing inflation – balance the government’s books and jack up interest rates and, after a nasty recession, inflation disappears – and only negative examples of how to deal with deflation, the tendency is to err on the side of the devil we know: inflation. Besides, elected politicians hate to cut spending. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada's independence

Already checked: dominion#Canada, Dominion of Canada#Government_and_politics, Canada Act 1982, Crown Dependencies

I do not understand what rights the UK had in Canada, or, conversely, to what extent Canada was independent of the UK, when. The articles I've listed above do not explain this well. Does anyone know, please?—msh210℠ 15:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

See Dominion_status#Canada_and_Confederation.--Pondle (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thanks, but only partially answers the question. It says — if I understand it correctly — that the UK (or whatever it was called then; the article calls it the British Empire; I don't want to get into that) had complete power to write laws for Canada and nullify any that Canada (or any of her subdivisions) wrote for herself, and explicitly did not allow Canada to write laws that were contrary to the UK's interests. That's helpful, as I said, but when did all that end? That article says "Much of Canada's independence arose from the development of new political arrangements, many of which have been absorbed into judicial decisions interpreting the constitution - with or without explicit recognition", but are there any details on when, e.g., the UK lost the right to veto Canada's laws? And on another note, was that (legislative dependence) the only dependence of Canada on the UK? (Not that it's not a big one.)—msh210℠ 15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada was functionally independent from the UK from Dominion Day (July 1, 1867). Officially, the Canadian state was still subservient to the UK parliament, but in practice, Westminster did not involve itself in Canadian issues. The UK parliament had the power to do whatever it wanted with regard to Canada, but in practice, as with the entirety of British politics, pragmatics plays a greater role than stautory power. Just as Parliament has the power today to do whatever it wants (it could abolish the Monarchy, it could restore full power to the Monarchy, it could declare or nullify any act it wants), it is contrained by the social laws of practical politics and the constraints of good governance, it could have done anything it wanted in Canada even after 1867. However, excepting in the most rare circumstances, it did not. After the Statute of Westminster 1931, Canada (and the other dominions) were granted greater official autonomy, specifically in that the Canadian parliament was, after 1931, considered co-equal to the British parliament on most issues (excepting, IIRC, succession issues). --Jayron32 16:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

To continue on from Jayron, legal appeals to the Privy Council were ended in 1949 (although the last case didn't wrap up until 1960). The Canada Act 1982 ended the last of Canada's dependence on the UK. Rmhermen (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all. That was very helpful. (And, yes, I meant de jure.) So, although today Canadians celebrate the anniversary of their independence in 1867, their "real" independence (well, independence de jure, or on paper), only came on April 17, 1982. Did the typical Canadian at that time care? Did he notice? Or did he consider himself to have been living in a fully independent country until then also? (Goes to check Google News Archive to see if it made ten-inch headlines in the Toronto Sun....)—msh210℠ 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a big deal at the time, even the Queen was present, but the day is nothing special - we don't get a day off work on April 17, and no one thinks Canada became independent in 1982, if they are even aware that anything happened then (which is unlikely, but then most people probably don't know exactly what happened in 1867 either). (And if you're really wondering what the Toronto Sun wrote, remember that even now, they think that everything and anything that is wrong with Canada is Trudeau's fault.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada was not "functionally independent" as of 1867; it only had functional independence regarding internal matters. Most notably, when the UK went to war with Germany in 1914, Canada was automatically included. Similarly, when border disputes with the US had to be worked out, it was Britain that represented Canada's interests (which meant that its representatives might actually put British interests first). Canada basically asserted its independence shortly after the war, notably by refusing to send troops to defend British interests in the 1922 Chanak crisis, and after one or two Imperial conferences had backed the idea, the result was the 1931 Statute of Westminster. To my mind Canada's real date of independence is in 1931, even though almost no one in Canada thinks of it that way. Even after that there still was no distinction between Canadian citizens and British subjects -- that came after WW2 -- but I think that was just because everyone was happy with it that way. --Anonymous (Canadian), 04:40 UTC, July 2, 2010.

Has the Governor General of Canada ever vetoed an act of the Canadian Parliament? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. But once the GG wouldn't let the PM dissolve Parliament. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean: once the GG rejected the PM's advice that he (the GG) dissolve Parliament. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but what I said is what actually happens :) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. The PM never "dissolves Parliament" unilaterally; he needs the agreement of the GG, and the GG is the one who issues the comnmand, not the PM. If what you're saying is that the PM decides when Parliament will be dissolved, then for most practical purposes I'd agree with you. But ultimately it's the GG's decision, and this case shows that the PM does not always get his way. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The legal independance of all commonwealth contries is arguable if you take a strictly theoretical view of their nature. The creation of the colonies and their subsequent independance is owed entirely to statutes of the British parliament. The doctorine of Parliamentary sovereignty holds that parliament may not bind its succesor, that is, there is nothing that parliament can do that it cannot undo. For example, the statute of westminster says that the British parliament cannot make laws for the realms in the dominion. But there is no reason (at least theoretically) that they could not make a law as an exception to that rule, or indeed repeal the statute (or the constitutions of any of the countries for that matter). Independance is a less than absolute concept for commonwealth countries (even today, there are a few matters on which the parliaments don't have full control) so it is a bit artificial to try and pinpoint an exact moment of independance, at least in the same way they do in a place like the US.Jabberwalkee (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why Dominion Day is as good as any other day, since that was the day when Canada became de facto independent. Practically, I don't think that Parliament could rescind the later acts, especially the BNA of 1949 and the Canada Act of 1982 without it being perceived as an act of war or something very similar, by Canada and its allies. In other words, it could rescind them, but it would be functionally like rescinding the Treaty of Paris (1783); reclaiming sovereignty over Canada would be no less impossible than reclaiming sovereignty over the United States. Parliament has the theoretical power to pass any act it wishes, no matter how completely loony. That it does not simply reclaim Canada is no less surprising than any other random bad idea it could in theory pass, but does not. --Jayron32 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Guns make the demarcation point much clearer. Shadowjams (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Canadians do not celebrate "Independence" on July 1; they celebrate Confederation, i.e. the joining of three colonies (the united Upper and Lower Canada, the future Ontario and Quebec; New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) into a single political entity, which became the Canada that exists today. Independence was a gradual process, and some argue that it hasn't fully been realized yet since the Queen still reigns as Head of State. The confusion is because of the nearness of July 1 and July 4 (the US Independence Day) which creates an assumption that the two neighbours celebrate the same events and share a common historical development, which is not the case at all. --Xuxl (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you all for the info. The historical info provided by "Anonymous (Canadian)" (04:40 UTC, July 2, 2010) was especially enlightening.—msh210℠ 16:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting, in response to the question about Canadians caring in 1982, that the document has never been ratified mostly because of the province of Quebec's opposition to its implications that the nine other provinces would be able to overrule it on issues of language and culture. Although this issue has become largely dormant since the 1995 referendum, it remains a point of contention that a large block of the country does not recognize the Consitution as it is defined by the Canadian Supreme Courts.Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 17:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there was no requirement for all the provinces to ratify. The federal government did negotiate with the provinces and when 9 out of 10 agreed they felt that was sufficient (and the Supreme Court of Canada later confirmed this). This is not to say that Quebec does or does not have a legitimate grievance; that would be a political debate which would not belong here. I'm only talking about the legal requirements. By the way, to clarify another point that some are confused by, the Constitution Act, 1982, did not supersede the existing constitution of Canada; it was added to it, just as the Bill of Rights and later amendments were added to the US Constitution. --Anonymous, 05:22 UTC, July 4, 2010.

Controversial/interesting legal cases

I'm looking to kickstart my (UK) school's LawSoc with a quick talk/introduction. As an idea for a keynote speech (as opposed to other procedural notices), I thought a controversial case would be good. My first idea was a case of diminished responsibility or similar; something where you could say "Joe Bloggs killed his wife, and walked free". With diminished responsibility itself, such dichotomies between the accepted actions and sentence are rare, since this defence only reduces the crime to manslaughter (maximum term of life anyway). Do the refdeskers know any cases, like this one where defendants have done something very serious, and yet walked out the courtroom? 92.9.43.115 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Although not exactly like the case you mentioned, O. J. Simpson murder case may be of interest. 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have an American law school degree. Lexis/Nexis contains British law. The list of international jurisdictions covered is amazing to me b/c I started with traditional books in a library. I assume WestLaw may do. When I want to highlight my skills, I choose a controversial area of law being shaped by the U.S. Supreme Court. Complexity is more important than controversity. For example, I wrote my writing sample on a limited aspect of the Establishment Clause. Besides commercial databases, accessing legal news sites may be helpful. You may already have done so. Appellate decisions receive much secondary research information.

Since I am not certain what subject matter your course comprises, the above is all I can offer. ADD: I can read an actual decision and learn the facts and holding. A fresh take or putting the case in broad context is helpful.75Janice (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)75Janice

If you want to stir up debate about something that will only get more legal attention in the coming years, bring up this controversial topic: is a psychopath less culpable for his crime because his brain is not "normal", a genetic condition that is not his fault? Read more here. —Kevin Myers 16:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the above suggestion is superb. When OJ Simpson was on trial, I had nothing to do so I watched the trial and read some of the books it generated. Fugue states were referred to in the commentary. During a fugue state someone can kill a person and not know it. I wrote a thesis on the insanity defense. The intersection of mental health and criminal law attracts much scholarly writing. 75Janice (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)75Janice

Here is an article mentioning the case of Kiranjit Ahluwalia and other women, from Sussex and elsewhere, whose murder convictions were overturned. Some more are listed here. Although as you say a manslaughter conviction was substituted, in many cases the final sentence was non-custodial. Sussexonian (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

One interesting case is that of Staff Sergeant Willis Eugene Boshears, a US Army officer stationed in England, who was acquitted by an English court on 17 February 1961 of the murder of Jean Sylvia Constable. He admitted that he had strangled Miss Constable but his defence that he had been asleep and dreaming at the time. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be homicidal somnambulism. WHAAOE. Karenjc 15:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And automatism throws up some interesting links too. Karenjc 19:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

American Accent

What has changed in the American accent in that it sounds so different from recordings of people talking in the 1930's and 40's? It seems like the general change in cadence has been rather dramatic. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't changed much at all. There is no "American" accent. The classicAmerican accent is from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. Everywhere else has a different accent. Plus, the age of the recordings changes the voice.--92.251.158.103 (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There was also an affectation (not really an accent) which existed before the days of electronic amplification of speech. When people spoke before a crowd, they had to speak in a very specific and deliberate manner to be heard in a crowd. Besides speaking loudly, this means that people had to speak slowly, clearly, and enunciate in a certain way. During the time period when amplification, radio, and television were just becoming commonplace, the recordings of public speakers sound weird to modern ears (I think of FDR's "the only thing we have to fear" speech) because people were still speaking in that trained manner for speaking to audiences. That method of public speaking died out with the last generations to be born after the age of amplification, but for the early days (1930's and 1940's) there would be people who were "trained" to speak that way, and so the recordings of these people sound weird to modern ears. --Jayron32 01:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it. There is a selection bias, because obviously the people we remember with this accent are actors or famous people whose voices were more likely to be recorded, but they actually did have a different accent. Aside from FDR the one I think of most is Katharine Hepburn. They were from old wealthy New England families, and that's how those people spoke normally. Our Boston Brahmin and Boston Brahmin accent articles are not very useful, unfortunately, but this is a real thing. I'm sure we had a question about this recently, but I can't find it...if we could find that I think there are some other useful links to follow. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither Hepburn nor FDR were from Brahmin families, nor did either speak with a Brahmin accent. The Hepburns were from Hartford, with familial connections to Maryland and Upstate New York. FDR was from old New York Dutch (from the Roosevelt side), the same group that produced presidents such as Martin Van Buren, of French Hugenot ancestry (the Delano family), though with some connection to Plymouth Colony. The Boston Brahmins are a specific insular group in Boston itself. There are many other such upper class groups, but they do not necessarily share a linguistic or cultural connection. --Jayron32 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I meant the Brahmin accent is one example of this. It is not an affected accent that people were trained to use for TV or radio. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither was what I was describing. What I was describing was a manner of speach that people were trained to do BEFORE TV or radio. There was a manner of speach that people used PRIOR TO TV or radio which carried over to the early days of TV or Radio. Public speaking necessitated it. --Jayron32 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever, that still has nothing to do with anything. Geez, this is like talking to Vranak. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have listened to many recordings of ordinary people from the 1930's and 1940's who were recorded on good equipment, and who were just speaking normally, not trying to speak like a orator, and whose speech sounds quite different from people of the same socioeconomic level in the same towns today. Scholars have studied the same individuals over decades in some towns, as and have noted shifts in pronunciation, so it is not just a population shift of various ethnic groups. Right now there is a shift in typical midwestern speech such that "hog" is pronounced such that the vowel sounds more like the o in "cot" and less of an "aw" sound. In addition, rural speakers in the west or south had a much stronger "hick" accent in older recordings. Edison (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion at the Straight Dope Message Boards has some interesting ideas on the topic. --Jayron32 03:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I know from personal experience that recordings from the early 20th century sound quite different from modern speech, even within the same geographic regions. I always wondered if this was a consequence of the recording equipment of the time. Roosevelt has a definite affect compared to even speakers 10 years later (like Eisenhower as president). But I don't think that's the full story. So I agree with the OP, this issue isn't settled simply with assertions about accent. Shadowjams (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Could it be the effect of mass communication? Most modern broadcasting is slanted toward the rather flat midwestern accent, with news caster english being the Cleveland dialect if I remember correctly. Over time, this mass broadcasting could have the effect of modulating out of existence regional dialects. Sort of like moving to a different region, over time your pronunciation begins to reflect more the people now around you and less the people in the area you came from. We now have 3 or 4 generations of people who have learned to speak as much by watching tv and movies as listening to their parents. This would theoretically tend to dilute a regional accent. Same principal but a much more drastic example is several monolithic languages such as English driving many of the worlds smaller languages to extinction. 76.22.140.195 (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

UK marriages, mid-80s

This is for a novel-in-progress. I read "Marriage Law" but it didn't help. I need to find out marriage laws in the UK in the mid-80s (and possibly in European countries as well, if what I'm asking about doesn't work in the UK). The four characters affected are a widowed father and his adoptive daughter and a widowed mother and her biological son. The son and daughter have fallen in love; the father and mother have fallen in love. Can both couples legally marry? Or only one couple? If both, does the order of the weddings matter - that is, if the mother and father married first, would that prevent the daughter and son from marrying? Thanks.Blewten (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer; but I cannot see anything in the circumstances you have described which would cause me to even suspect there was any problem or anything out of the ordinary. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If there were a law prohibiting the marriage of step-siblings, e.g., then there would be a problem. The Citizen's Advice Bureau says "People who are step relations or in-laws may marry only in certain circumstances. For information about when step relations and in-laws can marry, you should consult an experienced adviser, for example, at a Citizens Advice Bureau." They might know about the 1980s. Try them, Blewten. --NilsTycho (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bill Wyman was married to the daughter of his son's wife. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Assume that UK law on prohibited degrees of relationship have not changed since the 1980s. (I can't find any evidence that they have.) In this case, the biological vs. adoptive status of the children is immaterial; the important factors will be the ages of the children, the degree to which they have lived together as a family, and the order in which the couples plan to marry. The law says "Step-relatives may marry provided they are at least 21 years of age. The younger of the couple must at no time before the age of 18 have lived in the same household as the older person. Neither must they have been treated as a child of the older person's family." If the four have never lived together as a family, either couple may marry, and if the children marry first it won't affect the parents' plans. But if the parents marry first, then the children become step-siblings and cannot marry until both are at least 21. If either of the children is under 18 at the time of the parents' marriage, or if they have all lived together as a family when at least one of the children is still under 18 (whether this is before or after after the parents' marriage) then the children will probably never be able to marry legally even after they both reach 21. See here for info. Karenjc 08:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the helpful replies! Yes, I was worried about the kids becoming stepsiblings.Blewten (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)