Humanities desk
< October 1	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 3 >

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.

October 2

RCMP

Why does the Canadian police still use horses for transportation? Wouldn't motorcycles or police cars be more practical? --70.245.189.11 (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RCMP has been driving cars for about as long as the car has existed. Ceremonially, they will ride horses when, like, riding in parades and stuff like that. But for standard law-enforcement purposes, they use cars like every other police agency. Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police#Modern_era has picture of the various cars they use. --Jayron32 01:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police#Equipment_and_vehicles is also good information. --Jayron32 01:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When they say "Mounted", they really mean it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with Clarityfiend) Even in today's day and age, a cop on a horse can be a very practical law enforcement presence. The height makes them quite visible, which both helps the officer see things around them, but also makes their presence very known to everyone about. They're frequently used in crowd control, where their large size and imposing presence are very big pluses. See Mounted police for some more information. Evidently, the United States uses them to patrol the Mexican border as well, where the terrain is not so suited for motorized vehicles. Buddy431 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am sure that the RCMP uses horses in law enforcement. However, they do not do so any moreso than other law enforcement agencies. Heck, the city police where I live has a mounted unit, and its not that big of a city. Buddy431 brings up a good point; lots of law enforcement agencies use horses. However, the RCMP does not use them to the exclusion of other transportation methods (which is what the OP implied) despite the word "mounted" in their name. --Jayron32 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be other polices forces who use horses as much as or more then the RCMP, however I would be careful with general comparison to other law enforcement agencies.

While the Malaysian police (PDRM) evidentally do have mounted units, I don't know where these are used, but I don't think they are used much. There are some pictures and stuff of them on parade, but the only discussion of the PDRM mounted unit I could find in a reliable source is [1] which just mentions it briefly in the context of a wider story about the Perbadanan Putrajaya mounted unit. The story also mentions some advantages of mounted units. Although I guess you could call that a law enforcement agency of sorts (although as our article notes the term is primarily a North American one and usually refers to police forces in particular), I don't think mounted units for city council enforcement teams and the like occur much at all in most parts of Malaysia either. For example the Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur evidentally has a mounted unit as well but again I don't know what they're used for (this site [2] suggests they're primarily used as sport for the enforcement agents). Living in Malaysia for 19 or so years of my live I don't think I ever saw in action whether on the news or in person any mounted units.

Our article List of mounted police units#New Zealand mentions a mounted unit for the New Zealand police but I can't find any mention or pictures of it in a reliable source and from this discussion [3] it seems that while it once existed, it's fairly long dead (how long appears to be in dispute). From [4] it appears mounted units may be somewhat dying in the US too.

In other words, the use of mounted units depends a lot on local conditions, expectations and traditions IMHO. So while the RCMP are not unique in their use of mounted units, others don't have them at all and some of those that do use them a lot less then the RCMP and others agencies which use them a lot (relatively speaking).

(In a similar vein, the New Zealand police use motorcycles a lot less then the Malaysian police.)

P.S. It's not clear to me that the OP intended to imply the RCMP use horses to the exclusion of other modes of transpoort. They may have simply been intending to suggest that in their opinion, motorcycles and cars would always be better.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last night I saw an old edition of the BBC comedy quiz QI. The subject of the RCMP came up and there was an extended gag about them trying to chase drug dealers up stairs while on a horse (I think they knew that most of the audience understood that the RCMP don't often use horses now). BTW, about 20 years ago in the City of London, I saw a mounted policeman and a police patrol car racing from opposite ends of the street to answer an emergency call at a bank. The car won but only just; the mounted officer won a round of applause from the bystanders. Alansplodge (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto police ride horses sometimes too. I've never seen them catch anyone like that, but I have seen cars pulled over by police on bicycles. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Silver Saddles" detail, was an old NYPD term. Much photographed.--Wetman (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where police have abandoned overt brutality, I think there's an intimidation factor about a line of horses, because no one is really responsible for what the horses do, if a line of police on horses presses against a crowd of demonstrators or vice versa. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do American businesses accept Canadian coins?

--70.245.189.11 (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're (currently) close enough to the same value that it's not worth risking a sale and antagonizing a customer over a few cents. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x2!! I had this response written for the original question of "Do they" and then it got changed to "Why do they"It depends. For the most part the answer is yes. If you're dealing with the owner of the store, they tend not to. If you're dealing with just some hired help, they'll just pass it off to someone else as their customer just did to them. Banks won't accept them though. Dismas|^(talk) 02:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, they only do in states near Canada. When I lived in New England, I probably got at least one Canadian coin back in my change about once a month or so. Being of nearly identical size and shape as American coins of the same denomination, they are easily confusable, so no one bothers to check. Stores in New England take them freely and give them as change freely. I now live in North Carolina, and in ten years, I haven't gotten a single Canadian coin since being here. Not one. I would have noticed by now, probably, and they really don't make it this far south. If a clerk got one, they quite possibly wouldn't accept it, simply because they wouldn't recognize it. --Jayron32 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having actually made the mistake of including Canadian coins when trying to pay for something on a visit to Raleigh, I can confirm that they will just look at you funny and ask for American money. Also despite being 26 at the time, they wouldn't accept Canadian ID when I tried to buy beer! → ROUX ₪ 03:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've occasionally received Canadian pennies and quarters as change, and I live in Missouri. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my part of the country, I only notice a Canadian coin in change once every 5 years or so, but I did once find a Croatian(!) coin... AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure 99% of the time because the clerk didn't look close enough to distinguish between Lincoln and QEII. Grsz¹¹ 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get them in California once in a while. Maybe more often than I notice, since I probably spend some without the other person noticing either. I notice them mostly after vending machines reject them. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked retail in California some years ago, we were told to try and get rid of them as quickly as possible by putting them in customer change. They couldn't be filed with the bank, and most people don't want them, so they were considered undesirable to have mixed in with other change. We were told similarly about dollar coins, which were too much of a hassle (and people also didn't want them). This was some years ago now so maybe the attitude on dollar coins has changed (I've seen a lot more of them in the last five years or so than I did before). --Mr.98 (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It works the other way too. Along the border in Canada, American money is usually accepted at par (or according to a fixed rate where one American dollar is worth some specific number of Canadian dollars - I remember they do this at the McDonald's at the border in Windsor). Throughout the rest of southern Ontario, since the border isn't too far away, it's pretty common to see American coins. I get them as change frequently. The difference in value is minuscule. One time I paid bus fare in Toronto with a handful of American quarters! American bills are usually accepted too, but I guess the farther away from the border you get, that might be rarer. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the above is bogus. I have seen Canadian cents and five cent pieces in rolls of coins which come from the bank. The bank cannot afford to pay someone to carefully examine each coin to see who minted it. Some foreign coins make it easily through US bank coin counting machines. If they are about the right diameter/thickness/weight they are accepted by the bank and sent on to someone else in a roll of coins. My bank accepts foreign currency as well, and deposits it to my account at today's exchange rate. Edison (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It works in Europe as well, from what I have seen in foreign countries, that is, within five minutes of the hotel, there are some shops that accept, or at least used to, british money, though at a slightly worse exchange rate than the banks. around the southeast coast here there are a few shops now that will accept euros, rather than sending away a potential customer simply because they have the wrong money, they can now slightly overcharge them for the inconvenience. I expect this is not the case, though, further from places with lots of tourists. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in southern England, I get a US quarter in place of a 10p roughly as often as I get an old shilling, and used to get a frank: that is, not very often, but often enough to recognise it. Shillings I keep, quarters I try to pass on. Franks were worth holding onto until the next trip over there. Machines don't seem to accept quarters. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the purely conventional aspect of coins, see Unit of account.--Wetman (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in The Netherlands, near both Germany and Belgium. Before the Euro, many stores in this area (in all three countries) routinely accepted Dutch Guilders, German Marks and Belgian Francs. Usually at slighty worse exchange rates, and sometimes they would only accept bills in the foreign currency, and give change in the local currency. Also people in the area often would have 2 extra wallets were they kept money in the 2 other currencies, for when they went shopping across the border (rather than making constant trips to the bank to change all foreign money). 93.95.251.162 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

cuddly gourds

I remember seeing a chenille gourd in a mail-order catalog a few years back. But I'm trying to remember which company sold chenille gourds. I can't seem to find them. Can anyone help me out, please? Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried typing those two words into Google? I just did. → ROUX ₪ 07:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did, even the same for Dogpile. Still, nothing relevant.24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number Plates on cars being blanked-out on TV

I started noticing a few years ago that TV news reports (in the UK at least), started to blank-out number plates when footage of celebrities' or politicians’' cars were shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseywasey (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I think this is reasonable, this practice now seems to have escalated to that virtually every number plate is now obscured.

Two recent examples - an episode of "Fifth Gear" showing a test drive of a new car - and even more incredibly, I just noticed two successive videos on MTV - the first one was blocked out "professionally", the second one just had a black rectangle super-imposed on top of it?

So my question is - Has a law changed recently, or have all TV companies made a decision to "blank" number plates and secondly is this going to happen for dramas/films....surely these numbers are fictional.....but that's what confused me about this occurring in music videos? Jaseywasey (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it's about number plate cloning - if you've just stolen a car or want to use yours for a bank robbery, you could find a similar one on TV and get some dodgey plates made up. Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too complex to be true. The perps can just drive down the street and pick up the first tag that fits their purpose. Unless, of course, the car is really unique (in which case cloning makes little sense). East of Borschov 10:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is simply that it's easier to do, which means producers are more likely to do it on the chance that it's necessary. Consider:

ten years ago:

lawyer: Although I don't know of any specific case law, it'd still be better if we blanked the number plates when we show the cars

video editor person: Eek! I'd have to manually do that on thousands of frames on the Avid. It'll take me aaaages

lawyer: Don't bother then

but now:

lawyer: Although I don't know of any specific case law, it'd still be better if we blanked the number plates when we show the cars

video editor person: That's not too hard. I can have the Avid do a track matte with an automatic mosaic filter on it. It'll take me a couple of hours.

lawyer: Better safe than sorry

These days there are options (and particularly some plugins) for things like Avid and Final Cut that let an editor locate the area for a track matte in real time (the editor just watches the video and keeps their cursor over the area to be blurred). Even with a bunch of different elements to blur (these days they do faces, number plates, offensive t-shirts, and sometimes advertising and street signs) that only entails a pass through for each blur locus. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican City

Are there any registered cases fo births in the Vatican City? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.195.43 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Republics Democracies

Besides the US, what ~~"republics"~~ "democracies" are actually ~~republics~~ democracies? Most (e.g. the UK, Canada, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands) are really constitutional monarchies. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~We have a List of republics. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

(edit conflict)On the right is a map of Representative Democracies according to [5]. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US not a direct democracy either when it comes to voting for president. Never forget the Electoral college. The countries you list are democracies. We vote for our government. I know this has been covered many times before on these desks. 24.83.104.67 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't Canada a constitutional monarchy rather than a democracy/republic? After all, Queen Elizabeth II appoints the members of the Senate and can veto any law passed by Parliament, or even dissolve Parliament altogether. The same is true of the UK and other Commonwealth countries, just replace "Senate" with "House of Lords". --70.245.189.11 (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing your terminology. Democracies and constitutional monarchies are not mutually exclusive. Canada is both, as are Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark and other countries. Technically, the Queen could do those things you say but she only acts on the advice of her Canadian Prime Minister. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But she can fire the Canadian Prime Minister, as well as the British and Australian Prime Ministers. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, only the Governor-General of Australia or Canada can do that. No British monarch has thrown out a government since the English Civil War and although theoretically they have the power to do that, it would have to be followed by a free election so not really all that despotic. Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan's first statement is wrong; the G-G is (officially) just the monarch's representative and anything the G-G can do, the monarch can also do personally. However, if the monarch started doing things unilaterally in any of these countries, the result would simply be that there would very soon be an end to the monarchy, hopefully without the need for a civil war this time. --Anonymous, 04:57 UTC, October 3, 2010.

Plus, even many republics aren't remotely democratic. China, anyone? 24.83.104.67 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone got the up-to-date republic/monarchy:democracy/not democracy diagram? Do we get to blame the US education system for this recurring misunderstanding? 109.155.37.180 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Vatican City

Was what we said last year. See this archived discussion for possibly relevant points. Have any of the countries shifted out of their boxes since then? 109.155.37.180 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to point out the obvious. "Democracy" is a 'prize' word, and many politicians in many countries are more than willing to claim it regardless of the actual political system involved. objectively, however, all you can say is this:

There are a large number of countries that have democratic features (e.g. institutions that ostensibly give political power to the general populace to some small extent, those these are often facades)
There is a smaller number of nations that actually grant actual (rather than ostensive) political power to the general populace (though often this is indirect power - operated through representatives - rather than direct power)
- Many of these systems are tiered, allowing the populace more influence in local politics but curtailing their influence in national politics
There is a small number of nations that allow the general public to influence national policies in any direct way, through national referenda of some sort
There are no nations that are democratic in the strict definition of the term (generally speaking - and ironically - those who advocate for fully democratic systems are usually labeled anarchists or communists, with unpleasant results)

Democracy is a very difficult system to set up, and an incredibly difficult system to maintain, for reasons that Aristotle outlined thousands of years go. basically, democracy requires citizens who are ideologically committed to the democratic process and mature enough to be able to place collective interests ahead of personal interests, otherwise democracy collapses quickly into an unstable mess. --Ludwigs2 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lesson here is the formal constitution of a country is not necessarily what makes it democratic or undemocratic. The British North America Act, 1967, which forms the core of Canada's constitution, clearly says that the governor general (appointed by the queen) can reject any bill passed by Parliament. But nowadays, the governor general (who is really chosen by the prime minister) always assents to the legislation passed by Parliament when the government asks him to. Canada only remains a monarchy because its people know this is the case. On the other hand, there have been some republics with completely democratic constitutions that were entirely ignored. The Soviet Constitution called for more or less free elections and human rights. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May we assume you mean the British North America Act, 1867? --Jayron32 23:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As in Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea? Astronaut (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baralongs - Southern African ethnic group

Just reading Baden-Powell's report on the Siege of Mafeking. In it, he makes reference to a group called Baralongs. He lists them separately from Whites and Natives in the casualty lists. Does anyone know anything about them? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a google seach gave me this, which claims they are one of the Bechuana tribes of the great interior plain of the transvaal. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) archive.org has:

The Baralong take their name from their earliest recorded chief Morolong, under whom, according to tradition, they migrated from a country in the far north, probably the region of the lakes, about 1400 a.d. After four generations they reached the Molopo River and settled their first permanent residence somewhere near Mafeking. Here for many years the tribe enjoyed peace and increased in numbers and wealth, reaching the zenith of its prosperity in the days of the chief Tau, about the 14th in descent from Morolong. Sections of the tribe had at various times migrated eastwards and north- westwards, but their loss was made good by recruits from alien tribes such as the Batlaping and Batlaro, who had submitted to the Baralong.

...and more. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks, but why would B-P list them seperately from the Natives? DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question; I'll have a look in Tim Jeal's big fat biography and let you know tomorrow if I find anything. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right - it appears that there were two black African settlements at Mafeking; the Baralongs and the Fingoes (about 5,500 in all). Not much is said about the Fingoes, but the Baralongs were trusted by the British. "Baden-Powell knew that since the valley (to the south of the town) was full of huts, he could prevent the enemy from using it simply by providing the Baralongs with arms and ammunition" (p.229). Not only did the Baralongs repulse an attack by this route, they were active in cattle raids and other guerilla attacks on the Boers. There were also 2,000 black African refugee miners from the Transvaal mines who arrived just before the seige. Jeal lists seven ethnic groups that they come from, some from as far away as Mozambique. They were less trusted and some were badly treated by the Baralongs. B-P refers to these as "refugees" or "foreign natives" which may be your other group. I hope this helps; in any event I fully recommend Jeal's book which does much to dispel the myths (good and bad) surrounding B-P. Alansplodge (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alan, I did read Jeal some years ago, he is rather good. Now I have to find where my copy is! DuncanHill (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "public subscription"

I find few instances of the term in Wikipedia or elsewhere on the web, and even fewer explanations. My interest stems from a passage in American Gods, in which a certain project in Lakeside was to be funded by the city council and any shortfall to be made up by "public subscription." Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically the same as a stock or bond. Anyone has the option to purchase a subscription. The purchase money is used to pay for the project. The purchase amount (and more) is paid back over time. -- kainaw ™ 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another version is a pledge of a gift toward a worthy project, without any expectation of being paid back, The latter would be a "loan." Edison (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Donations from the members of the public" would be my translation.Alansplodge (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public appeals have been a pretty common way of getting things built, particularly community resources and public memorials. Subscriber lists for such projects were generally published, so the identity of donors and the amount they donated were usually a matter of public record unless anonymity was requested. Bigger donors might get a permanent mention on a plaque on the finished school/hospital/library/whatever. Enhanced reputation for the donor, who thereby appeared generous, socially responsible and (of course) rich enough to afford to give money to good causes. Funds for the project (maximised by the public nature of the subscriber list, since stinginess or absence would be noted by your contemporaries). But Wikipedians know all this anyway, don't we? Ka renjc 14:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]