Humanities desk
< September 6	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 8 >

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.

September 7

Reference check for Commission (remuneration)

Could someone with access to a copy of McConnell, Cambell R.; Brue, Stanley L. (2008). Economics (Seventeenth Edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. ISBN 978-0-07-329392-9 please verify what is written on Commission (remuneration)? Page numbers are missing. Phearson (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't access the book online, but I looked at what it is used to reference, and it doesn't seem to back anything controversial. If you found multiple sources which contradicted what is backed by the book, than you could remove the reference to the book without even knowing if the book did say "X" or not. Public awareness (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrating the legend of the Cave of Salmanica / Devil take the hindmost

Hi. I have a desire to illustrate the tale of Devil take the hindmost / the Cave of Salmanica. I've tried searching google images for woodprints from the 15th / 16th century with these text strings, and I'm not getting anywhere. The closest image shows a very static view of Satan negotiating with a scholar. These don't have the dynamism or pressure of the concept of "get out before the end of the semester if you want to survive" that the phrase in English has. Does anyone have search tips for early Western printing wood blocks? (I believe I have seen an appropriate block, about 20 years ago, so I've forgotten where). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a story? Or did you mean just the idiom? I have no idea what the 'Cave of Salmanica' is, did you mean 'Salamanca'? It's probably too obscure to expect any woodblocks of it printed, especially in the 15th/16th century. You might try searching for other woodcuts of demons and devils instead. Plenty of them from the middle ages. Hexen Meysterey from 1545 has a picture of a demon abducting a witch for example. There's also Gustave Doré's very evocative woodcuts of Dante's Inferno.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a legal decision a verifiable source?

I would like to add controversial content to wikipedia article in regards to background information on a company. In this regards are the following sources considered "verifiable"?

1. Breach Notices - several Breach Notices have been issued to a company by a government authority in regards to specific breaches of federal laws. The Notices have been sent to relevant parties and is also available to the general public. However it has not been published online and must be specifically requested by a member of the public if they wish to view it.

2. a request for a legal opinion (in regards to the above) - prepared by the government authority for their legal department. As above it is not published online but is available to the general public on request.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.115.132 (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best place on Wikipedia to get advice on whether a source is acceptable is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wikipedia:Help desk is another good place for asking questions about writing or editing Wikipedia, and you should ask there if you need more advice (this reference desk is for factual questions about the world in general, not questions about Wikipedia)).

Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Verifiability are the relevant policies. The requirement is not that a source is easily available, but that it is available for everyone who wants to check it, a requirement which your sources seem to meet.

Note that when you're using primary sources such as legal documents you should be careful to restrict yourself to facts that are obvious from the text. The Wikipedia:No original research rule means you cannot interpret documents, or try and figure out what the writers meant, or fill in gaps; you can only repeat what they explicitly say. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary_and_secondary_sources for more information.

Having said that, what's the worst that could happen?. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:RSN is a better place to discuss this, but just as a general principle, if the information has not been covered by reliable media sources, it probably does not belong in our article. Looie496 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you for your advice. I will repost the query in the appropriate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.115.132 (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have currencies based on commodity money suffered extreme inflation?

I'm thinking of a situation where, for example, a country uses gold coins as its currency. Then an enormous gold deposit is discovered, which makes gold 100 times easier to mine. Everyone knows that once a mine gets built, the currency will lose value, so they rush to convert their cash into hard assets. Has anything like this ever happened? --99.237.252.228 (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, well there was the Price revolution where the large amounts of stolen gold and silver from the new world flooded Europe. I know that during the Klondike Gold Rush prices were locally very high, but I guess it depends on the cause for the high prices if thats localized inflation or not. If high prices were wholely because of lack of supply, than it wasn't inflation, if it was because all retailers were gouging maybe that would be inflation. Again something half related to what you're talking about may be an incident in time where one nation which was a major producer of a crop and one year it was entirely hit by disease or drought. The afflicted nation would may have their curreny drop a bit, while others who produce that crop may rise. If your only interested in the last part of "rush to convert their cash into hard assets." than I think the rich often do that in recessions or economy collapses. Public awareness (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wider understanding of how money actually works is a relatively new thing (and understanding is still not universal, considering the relatively wide acceptance of very strange ideas about one particular shiny metal). Most of the gold and silver from the new world were mined rather than stolen. There was no such flight to other assets when a mountain of silver was mined at Potosi - though such discoveries did help fuel inflation, and a generation of war on mainland Europe. bobrayner (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fall of the rupee may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that Price revolution doesn't mention, is that our article Ottoman Empire says "the huge influx of Spanish silver from the New World caused a sharp devaluation of the Ottoman currency and rampant inflation. This had serious negative consequences at all levels of Ottoman society." Interesting that it had such a profound inflationary effect on an empire mostly in south-east Europe and the Middle East, when the silver (and gold) was actually arriving in western European countries like Spain, Portugal and England. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money is supremely fungible, and is designed to be easy to transport in an era when a lot of trade goods were actually quite difficult to transport in large volumes - and the Ottoman empire faced the Mediterranean (and the Adriatic, Black Sea, Danube, &c) so the effects of surplus silver (and/or a dip in the real value of silver) wouldn't take long to percolate through the empire. However, I'm not sure that Ottoman inflation was entirely due to new world silver; they were quite capable of creating their own inflation. Ottoman silver coinage was debased both before and after the discovery of Potosi; and when somebody opens the taps on a massive new supply of silver, you wouldn't expect widespread debasement of silver coinage to be the first government response! bobrayner (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In James Blish's "Cities in Flight" future history, there are several incidents when monetary standards based on scarce commodities collapse due to technological advances, if I remember correctly... AnonMoos (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip_II_of_Spain#Economy hints on it a bit, but a major cause of repeated collapses of the Spanish economy in the late 16th century was the inflation caused by the massive influx of gold and silver into Spain from the New World. --Jayron32 15:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

transexual

can a person be both transexual and gay at the same time? 220.239.49.223 (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Transexual does seem to say that, so yes. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ObPersonal only, but of the several transsexual people I've been acquainted with or known about, some have been attracted to members of their original biological sex, some to their adopted sex, and some to both. Which attractions would be definable as gay I'm not sure about. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.1 (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "gynephilia" and "androphilia" were created partially in order to short-circuit such semi-philosophical conundrums. See the various graphs discussed on Talk:Androphilia and gynephilia... AnonMoos (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the documentary series Sex Change Hospital, quite a few of the male-to-female transsexuals remain in relationships with their female partners. In fiction, the character of Jason on Hollyoaks is a female-to-male transsexual (though he has not yet had an operation) in love with a boy. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Blanchard's transsexualism typology.--92.251.204.141 (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Parliament

Is there a book you can get that lists every single MP in the House of Commons, along with a brief biography. I have one of these for the 2001 Parliament (this book: [1]) but they don't seem to have produced one for any of the subsequent intakes. Is there an equivelent? Many thanks, Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dods Parliamentary Companion is the standard reference, although it's insanely expensive for private individuals at 295 GBP[2]. You might find it in a library.

The Guardian has information on every constituency and MP on its website, taken from various sources, but it doesn't really match the old book and doesn't include proper biographies.[3]

The other important book on the 2010 election is Cowley and Kavanagh's authoritative book The British General Election of 2010[4] but it principally covers the election rather than parliament, and probably doesn't have all the information you want.--Colapeninsula (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several biographical guides to MPs but this is a commercial field, and they tend to be expensive. Dod's Parliamentary Companion, previously mentioned, is the market leader and has been published since 1832; they do a 'special' which appears just after each general election but this too is quite expensive. The only 'popular' guide that is always published after each election (since 1929) is 'The Times Guide to the House of Commons'. The Kavanagh and Cowley book mentioned above is interested in electoral matters and does not contain biographies.

If you just want to browse then there are online sources. Parliament's own website contracts to Dods for their top line data: List of MPs. The BBC's 'Democracy Live' has biographies of MPs and others. If all else fails and you're desperate, have a look at TheyWorkForYou which suffers from the handicap of being compiled by people who know little about politics. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who has a self-written biography for almost all living past and present British members of parliament. The Who Was Who series has the final versions of entries for those who have died going back to the late 19th century. Anyone with a public library membership in the UK can access the up-to-date text of both here. Moonraker (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Size of UK EEZ and Scottish waters

I've been trying to find the answer to what seems like a very simple question:

"What is the area of Scottish waters as defined by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999?"

I can find a piece in The Herald saying that the answer is 127,000 square miles, a figure repeated in the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament here (end of col. 17).

So far, so good, but according to Exclusive Economic Zone#United Kingdom, the UK's "home" EEZ is 298,718 square miles. Subtracting 127 from 299 leaves 182,000 square miles of UK EEZ which are not Scottish waters. Looking at the map in the EEZ article, this seems very unlikely. And The Daily Telegraph, here, stated that the Royal Navy's Fishery Protection Squadron patrolled the "80,000 square miles" of English, Welsh and Northern Irish waters, but not Scottish ones. Even in the strange world of journalism, adding 80 to 127 should produce 207,000 rather than 299,000.

Although differing treatments of Rockall could account for a substantial difference - up to 60,000 square miles according to this paper (see p. 83 & map on p. 85) - that still appears to fall short of the apparent discrepancy. So, something is fishy here. At least one of these numbers has to be wrong. Does anyone know which, and why? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This study has a copy of what appears to be a map of the 1999 boundaries, with grid lines. Judging by this map they're half a degree of latitude by a degree of longitude; it may be possible to make a calculation of defined area from that. (My very rough estimate was ~~230,000 sq. mi., but there's some pretty big error margins on that!) Shimgray | talk | 16:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German newspapers

What were the major newspapers in Germany during the first half of the twentieth century? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Berliner Tageblatt, Frankfurter Zeitung, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Vossische Zeitung, Vorwärts, and, for a relatively short period, the Völkischer Beobachter. Marco polo (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Der Angriff, the Nazi party's newspaper, was important for a few years but expired in 1945. Moonraker (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

apostrophe placing

Does the possessive of a name ending in x have an s after the '? Since the name would be pronounced as though ending in s, surely it would then be treated the same as for example James' or Charles'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.122.186 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether to place 's after James or Charles is a question of style. Most modern style guides recommend placing 's after names that end in s, except for Biblical, Greek, and Roman names such as Jesus. So, the most common way of writing the possessive for James would be James's. In fact, the second s is pronounced in most varieties of English. The same is true for names ending in x. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is: If you personally say the 's, then write it; if not, don't. So, James's brothers were not members of Jesus' disciples. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but being consistent within one sentence might also be desirable. You might also be writing for a publication that has a style guide. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am being totally consistent with the rule I outlined. I never say what sounds like Jesuses, but I do say what sounds like Jameses, and so the spelling will vary even within a single sentence. The look of these things is not the main issue here, as was well-demonstrated in an edit I made last night. The existing text had "Jacques' father", yet a moment's thought tells you that the s in Jacques is silent, but the possessive version does have the s sound, and it should therefore be written in as Jacques's, regardless of how it may look. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can make a "rule" like that based on how you personally pronounce it, especially if you end up doing two different things to the same type of word in the same sentence,. That just looks silly, IMO. It's a matter of style. --Viennese Waltz 08:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a matter of style. There's St James's Palace and Court of St. James's. It would be wrong to spell these with just James', under any circumstances. I called my approach "my rule of thumb" ("a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation"), not a rule per se. It may look silly, but I'm damned if I'm going to write Jesus's when I don't pronounce the final s, or James' when I do pronounce an s that isn't there - just for the sake of so-called stylistic consistency. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What you need to do is to change your odd pronounciation pattern. Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To what, exactly? (Not that I have any intention of changing anything, but hypothetically.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either say Jesus's mother and James's mother or say Jesus' mother and James' mother. It seems clear the reason why your writing style doesn't make sense is because while it may be a logical system following on from your pronounciation, your pronouciation system itself doesn't make sense. (Of course that's true for a lot of English, but let's not go there....) No reason why the s should be pronounced for James but not Jesus. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many names ending in x (French ones, mostly, such as Devereaux) end in a vowel sound, so an apostrophe and s would normally be used in any style. I think that the others (such as Fox) would also take 's even in styles that mandate James' . Deor (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the play The Beaux' Stratagem is spelt without an s, which always looks odd to me. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. But maybe beaux is pronounced like beaus. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Possessives deals with this question and approves three options, of which number 3 is the sensible one supported by Jack of Oz. It also says "Apply just one of these three practices consistently within an article." On Devereaux, the traditional English pronunciation of that is "Deverooks". Moonraker (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I do pronounce the possessive of "Jesus" as "Jesuses". And as for "Devverooks" for Devereaux, I am astonished. It is one of our family names and is pronounced always "DevverOH". Bielle (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That tradition referred to by Moonraker has not translated beyond England's sceptered isle. Ed Devereaux of Skippy fame was Devve-roh, never Devve-rooks. Other Devereauxs known to me are pronounced likewise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

knighthoods

Who are some people who have refused knighthoods? Organize this text file (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See our article Declining a British honour, for a partial list. Mikenorton (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euro and the debt of others

As long as Euro countries are not allowed to print Euros in a whim, why does it matter whether other Euro nations have debt or not? 88.9.108.128 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, because they need to borrow and are charged increasingly large amounts of interest on such debt. Or simply cannot raise the funds they perceive they need. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't borrow together, AFAIK. Each Euro country has its own bonds, with a different interest rate. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make. They have to borrow money. Borrowing money costs money - iirc, for some euro countries, about 8-10% of government revenue is spent in interest payments. How is this a "why does it matter" situation? (And yes, they borrow on their own account; again, how is that relevant to the "why does it matter" question? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean: why does Germany care if Greece has debt? Why is it a disadvantage for Germany? Germany get its bonds sold at a lower interest, independently of Greece. That's not about why Germany cares about its own debt or Greece caring about its own debt. Why does having a common currency ties the Euro countries together? 88.9.108.128 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partly because they were denominated in Euros, German banks and Germany itself are significantly exposed to Greek government. Thus, confidence in German banks - and hence the German economy as a whole - is dependent on the outcome of the Greek economy crisis. There is also lending to Greek banks, which isn't included in the figures there. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC) [Revised.][reply]

Indeed, I think it's the amount of exposure European banks have to Greek, Irish, Spanish and Portuguese debt. There's a very real domino theory, that if one goes, so go them all. And then the larger countries are in a lot of trouble, because they're holding worthless debt. Big problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an explanation using lego - also as a PDF --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the above imply that if Greece had another currency, but the same debt amount in euros towards the Germans, it still would be a pain in the ass? Then why are some in Germany crying let's save the euro? And isn't the German strategy, lending right now even more money to the über-indebted Greece, obviously deemed to fail? (excluding hypothetical situations, like Greece starting to grow at an accelerated pace). Quest09 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you read our European sovereign debt crisis article, which I think will answer a lot of your questions -- and if not, it will at least give us a starting point to work from. Looie496 (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues: One is the exposure of banks in the creditor countries (especially Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, and France) to the debt of the debtor countries. Because this debt was issued in euros, these banks assumed it was safer and therefore have a greater exposure to it than to the debt of a non-euro country such as Russia. If one debtor country defaults, then the other debtor countries will face a loss of confidence in the markets, leading to interest rates on their debt rising to the point where they can no longer service it, leading to a chain of defaults which would threaten the entire European financial system. This is probably the bigger issue. Another issue is that, even if Greece were to default without a contagion of default, the Greek financial system would be annihilated. Nearly all Greek banks would fail, the government would be unable to meet its obligations, credit would be unavailable, the country would not be able to fund vital imports, and the economy would in effect collapse. Without outside assistance, the consequences could be quite severe, including a failure of the food provision system and possible famine. In such a situation, the best option for Greece could be to declare a bank holiday and forcibly convert all deposits and debts to a national currency, which would be devalued against the euro. If there were contagion, quite apart from the plight of the banks in the creditor countries, other debtor countries could be forced off the euro as well, leading to a shrinkage or breakup of the euro block. A third issue is that, if the euro zone members fail to come up with a long-term solution to the implicit unlimited guarantee that creditor countries have extended to debtor countries without any fiscal control over debtor countries, the future viability of the euro is very much in question. There is no other major currency that involves a currency union without a fiscal union, and many economists have argued that a fiscal union is the only way to really "save" the euro. Marco polo (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An old question, but here are some additional answers. Whether other Euro countries have big debts, caused by big spending, or not affect each other. Much of the answer depends on the actions of the ECB. If the ECB acts to bailout, to buy shaky debtor country's bonds, then these country's debts are obviously safer & more payable, at a lower interest. This supports spending & aggregate demand in the debtor country, throughout the Eurozone, and indeed the world. And it makes the banks of the creditor countries like France or Germany more solvent & stable. So at times like these, where deflation, depression, instability & unemployment are the threat, ECB support is essentially a win for everyone. A stay of execution & provision of the capacity for non-austerity for debtors like Greece, continued export driven prosperity for Germany. But because of we are currently in a "dark age of macro-economics" (Krugman), irrational, incomprehensible & innumerate theories rule the economies of major parts of the world, and constructive ECB support is conditioned on nearly universally destructive austerity. At other times, the Eurozone may be faced with a prospect of inflation because if each national economy were assured of unconditional ECB support, then the incentive is for each to spend as much as possible, to run as big deficits as possible, to effectively "print Euros in a whim". As if each US state had the right to print US dollars. The only thing standing in the way of this is the frequently violated, not very workable Stability and Growth Pact. Having a common currency prevents Greek currency from devaluing to make its exports cheaper & imports dearer. It causes Greece to become increasingly indebted in a foreign currency, the Euro, but also less able to earn this currency. And since it cannot print this currency, it makes the Greek government less able to sustain full employment, and causes the titanic production, real wealth losses of mass unemployment. ECB intervention has the effect of making the currency "less foreign", but can have the bad/ unjust effects noted above at other times. But at present, IMHO, the Eurozone (& Britain, & USA soon enough) are insanely, fanatically, innumerately biased toward austerity & purposeless self-inflicted pain, to the benefit only of the banking elite. A Eurozone wide per capita distribution of Euros, or Job Guarantee could make the Euro more workable and just, but these are unlikely in the near term.John Z (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of unconstitutional law

Suppose in the United States, that a law is found to be unconstitutional. What happens to anyone who has already been convicted of the offence in question (Not necessarily the people who brought the case). If they are in prison would they be released, and would this happen automatically or after an appeal? Would the offence be removed from a criminal record, and again, would this be automatic? Would people punished under a law later found to be unconstitutional be eligible for any kind of compensation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.125.245 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The law doesn't have an automatic trigger that ejects all the convicts from prison. What happens is that in every case, the convict's attorney files a motion with the original judge, or with that court's appellate court, to throw out the conviction. The judge with whom the motion is filed will then throw out the conviction, and the prisoner will be released. No, no compensation for the imprisoned, as, at the time they were convicted and imprisoned, this was all done according to the law at the time. Sorry I can't find a citation in the 5 minutes I've had to type this; I had thought Lawrence v. Texas would possibly yield an example, but that Texas sodomy law was an outlier already, so nobody seems to have been sitting in the clink because of it when it was ruled unconstitutional. 207.239.83.130 (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically you file a habeas corpus appeal, I believe. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a few cases that I took interest in a while back, I noted that when laws are declared unconstitutional, the declaration is not retroactive by default. It must be explicitly declared retroactive - in which case the lawyers who work on it are stating that those convicted solely on that law should be allowed to have the conviction overturned. So, no, it wouldn't be an automatic release of all the prisoners. Really, there is rarely (if ever) a case in which lawyers do something that doesn't create more work (and more money) for other lawyers. So, the lawyers get paid to make the law. Then, they get paid to convict people with the law. Then, they get paid to overturn the law. Then, they get paid to overturn the previous convictions. -- kainaw ™ 02:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness, for lawyers, could you imagine a world without them?--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it's the democratically elected government (presumably) who hire them to write then overturn the law in the first place...

In any case, about compensation, in many countries there's what's called an ex gratia payment if someone suffers some injustice due to machinations of government. Is there a practice in the US of giving people such a payment due to the law incarcerating them being overturned? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some rulings are declared retroactive, some are declared not retroactive. I don't think you can sue for false arrest or false imprisonment if the arrest and incarceration were actually thought to have been constitutional before the ruling. Generally speaking you have very little room for damages if the procedure used against you was legal at the time; such is my understanding. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People have won lawsuits against governments for malicious prosecution. However, I'm not aware of anyone in America actually getting compensated because they were convicted of breaking a law later overturned. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled a few years back that sodomy laws are unconstitutional. But I've never heard of anyone trying to get money from the government because they were convicted for that former crime. Any state government that would have prosecuted someone for sodomy before the Supreme Court case would have been completely within its rights to do so. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our Surpeme Court decided the issue as to whether one could sue for an arrest under a statute later found unconstitutional in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967).[5] Officers are not required to predict the constitutionality of the statues they rely upon when acting with good faith; however, they can still be sued for other reasons, just not by virtue of a statue being declared unconstitutional. Gx872op (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though that looks like an important case, its issue was whether one could sue the arresting officers and judge under a statute later found unconstitutional. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look up a 1st year torts class outline or bar exam study guide to see how Section 1983 torts claims work with sovereign and prosecutorial immunity. See the text of 11th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The arresting officers are exactly who you sue. The burden is very high for judges and prosecutors as they generally enjoy prosecutorial immunity when acting in their official capacities. Exceptions are when they are creating a policy of civil rights discrimination, or when they are acting with intentional malice or deliberate indifference. Gx872op (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an enormous body of U.S. law dealing with retroactivity issues when a statute is declared unconstitutional after it has taken effect (and the even greater complexity when a law that for awhile was thought unconstitutional is then declared constititutional again, which has also happened). In fact, there is an entire book on the subject (The Effect of an Unconstitutional Statute by Oliver Peter Field) although it dates from 1935 and therefore is obviously no longer current. For a long period of time, the U.S. Supreme Court took the position that it would sometimes declare a statute unconstitutional with prospective-only effect, but the Court decided about 20 years ago in the Lampf decision that this was generally not a proper practice.

When a criminal statute is declared unconstitutional, what generally happens is that each case needs to be reviewed to determine the impact of the ruling on that specific case. If the defendant was charged and convicted only for violating Statute A, and Statute A is invalidated, the conviction will normally need to be vacated; but it may or may not be possible, depending on double jeopardy considerations, to prosecute the defendant for violating Statute B which remains in effect. But other times, the defendant is convicted of violating A, B, and C: if A is invalidated, the defendant still is convicted of violating B and C, but the sentence may need to be decreased. This is what is going on now with respect to many convictions under the "honest services" statute that was recently declared unconstitutionally vague; of many prominent defendants with convictions under this statute, the most prominent is probably Conrad Black. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good place to look for converting to Judaism from a (desit/atheist)ish viewpoint

Can any one recommend somewhere, or some people, or something liek that, ideally in south east england, where someone who isn't me could investigate converting to judaism from a perspective that may even be atheist? Would be best if there's loads of stories, info, etc Egg Centric 21:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean an atheist converting to Judaism? Since there are atheist Jews, maybe that's an (awkward) possibility. Or are you jusn an atheist who is curious about convertion to Judaism? Quest09 (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify Quest09's point, there is cultural Judaism and religious Judaism; see the article with one of the oddest titles on Wikipedia: Who is a Jew?. 207.239.83.130 (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you (or your friend) want to convert to the Jewish religion, then a liberal synagogue - either UK Reform or the more liberal Liberal Judaism - would be a good place to start (they tend to be more welcoming to converts than the more conservative branches). There are several synagogues in SE England, so you could find the one nearest. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if the person is determined to convert and wishes to be regarded by all Jews as Jewish, (sadly not something that can be said of Reform or Liberal conversion,(or even Masorti in the UK) they'll need to convert Orthodox. In the south east of England, the first port of call would probably be London Beth Din, although there are other Orthodox courts in London. I have some personal experience in this matter and would be happy to discuss this by email - click the link on my userpage. Our article Conversion to Judaism is a useful resource, too. --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about the pound sterling

Dear Sir the question ihave is about the pound. I was told that the pound sterling was static on the stock exchange from 1945 to 1976 is this true.Or was it ever static at any time.Would it not be to our advantage if the pound stayed at one set price say average it over the last 5years to get a figure say £1-70. Then we would know where we were up to and work around this figure.I hope you can answer my question and i hope you dont think it to be a silly question thanking you from L Swindells — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.249.195 (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't true. (You aren't using quite the right words, but it wouldn't be true even if you were.) Our article Pound sterling#Bretton Woods and the sections that follow it describe the history of the pound over that time period. Looie496 (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pound sterling has never been traded on the stock exchange. However, it was part of a system of fixed exchange rates from 1945 to 1971, the Bretton Woods system. During this period, the pound sterling was pegged to the U.S. dollar (and other major currencies) at a fixed exchange rate, though the peg was reset twice, in 1949 and 1967. In both cases, the pound was devalued. That is, it became worth less relative to the dollar. Since 1971, the pound has had a floating exchange rate. Marco polo (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1967 devaluation prompted the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson to assure the British public that the "pound in your pocket" wouldn't be affected; a phrase that gave the press much ammunition later. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]