Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 12

= November 12 =

74.14.117.196 questions
These all look like home work questions, and we don't tend to answer such things, though we may provide some pointers. I've pushed your questions down a heading level and inserted my own first level heading. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I, for one, encourage the answering of all homework questions (I wont be the one to do so though). I believe it can only lead to my children having a competitive advantage in the job market in the future. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Having other people do your work for you does not give you a competitive advantage over the long term. Having one's own skills is far more beneficial. Teach your children that and they'll be better off. Give a man to fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is as important to know how to obtain information from others as it is to be able to find out the knowledge for yourself.194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed the joke: answering the homework questions of others will harm them, leaving 38's more virtuous children ahead. —Tamfang (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha! Haha! I'm using that joke.
 * But also, I don't think we should have a problem with linking them to the proper articles and remind them to use the search feature. Mac Davis (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the IPs appear to come from different locations. If they didn't there would be an obvious retort Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Athenian
How was the Delian League transformed into the Athenian Empire during the fifth century B.C.E.? Did the empire offer any advantage to its subjects? Why was there such resistance to Athenian efforts to unify the Greek world in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Peloponnesian War
Why did Athens and Sparta come to blows in the Great Peloponnesian War? What was each side's strategy for victory? Why did Sparta win the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hellenistic and Classical Age
How does Hellenistic art differ from that of the Classical Age? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Athens, Sparta and Thebes
Between 431 and 362 B.C.E., why did Athens, Sparta and Thebes each fail to impose hegemony over the city-states of Greece? What does your analysis tell you about the components of successful rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)



Alexander the Great
How and why did Philip II conquer Greece between 359 and 338 B.C.E.? How was he able to turn Macedon into a formidable military and political power? Why was Athens unable to defend itself against Macedon? Where does more of the credit for Philip's success lie-in Macedon's strength or in the weakness of the Greek city-states? What were the major consequences of Alexander's death? What did he achieve? Was he a conscious promoter of Greek civilization or just an egomaniac drunk with the lust of conquest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For your last question, see false dilemma. Algebraist 01:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course we have articles about all of these that might be a good place to start. Delian League, Peloponnesian War, Hellenistic Greece, Classical Greece, Alexander the Great, Philip II of Macedon...I don't know if we have one about the Athens/Sparta/Thebes question though. However, the better answer would be to read your text book... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The answers your teacher wants are in your textbook. If you crib answers from the internet, it will be pretty obvious. I say this as a teacher who has gotten kids kicked out of school for copying history homework answers off the internet. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)



How does he look like
How does a Moor man in Mauritania look like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a look through Category:Mauritanian people and it's various sub-categories. However very few of the individual people articles have photographs.  Astronaut (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This set of photos includes several photos of Moors in Mauritania. Marco polo (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Afro-Arab
Which Arab countries have black population? in your article Category:Afro-Arab says so but I need to know which country has the most and which one has the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess would be that Sudan would have the largest black Arab population. Wrad (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

homosexual African-American & homosexual White American
How many homosexual African-Americans and homosexual white Americans are there in the U.S.? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * More than elsewhere. {rimshot} —Tamfang (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that the incidence of homosexuality varies from "race" to "race". People of certain cultures may be more open about it than those of other cultures.  The numbers would be proportionate to the relative numbers of African-Americans and "white" Americans.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the article on African American, in the 2000 US Census there were 36.6 million African Americans living in the US. Estimates to the number of gay people in a population vary, but usually stated as 2%-7%, which would mean that there are something like 700,000-2,000,000 gay African Americans in the US. Note though that this is an imprecise calculation, it doesn't take into account homosexuals living as heterosexuals, and completely disregards the Kinsey scale. There are probably many, many more that are bisexual or have homosexual leanings, the 2-5 part of the scale. Belisarius (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Kinsey Scale doesn't imply normal distribution. However, you're right in that there're probably a lot more people living homosexually than will admit so openly, especially given common biases in African American culture. You might be able to find some data on openly homosexual people (1-2% of men, 2-3% of women, if I recall the number correctly). Steewi (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that the Kinsey Scale is normally distributed, I just meant that that 2%-7% refered to the more extreme ends of the scale, and that more people in the middle, that might not be 100% homosexual, but could easily fall in love with someone of their own sex. Belisarius (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack, if you thought I said something about rates of homosexuality, I didn't: I said something about concentration of Americans. —Tamfang (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't assume that the US consists only of white and black. Another lead is down-low and Men who have sex with men  in general. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

US one-party state
I just read that the US is now effectively a one-party state, because the same party has the president plus a majority in both the house of representatives and the senate. How uncommon is this? I am surprised at the lack of info on past US elections on Wikipedia. We love lists, don't we? So why can't I find a list showing all the elections? (Even the Dutch elections are covered a whole lot better on the English Wikipedia.) Amrad (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh..... that's an extremely misleading usage of the term one-party state. A one party state is usually used to describe a state where only one party is allowed to form the government which is definitely not the US. The US isn't even close to a Dominant-party system yet (a country where realisticly only one party can form the government) IMHO. I'm not sure why you think we're lacking info on US elections. We have an article on every Presidential election from 1789 to now Template:U.S. presidential elections, the same for the Senate Template:U.S. Senate elections from 1908 (I think this is the beginning, the Senate members used to be elected by the state government rather then directly by the people of the state IIRC), and the House from 1789 Template:U.S. House elections. If you want lists, we have a bunch of stuff like List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin, List of United States presidential election results by state (and while not strictly election related List of United States congressional lists) and Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency may interest you). Our Template:U.S. gubernatorial elections is somewhat incomplete but wasn't what you were discussing. We also have an article on each Congress from the first Template:USCongresses. So really, I personally strongly suspect our coverage is far better then that of Dutch elections, although I've never looked at Dutch election articles extensively. As for your specific question, according to History of the United States Democratic Party, the Democrats has the same control from 1992-1994 (and actually for the 40 years preceding 1994 except 1981-1987 they had both houses so any Democrats presidents during those 40 years would be the same thing). According to History of the United States Republican Party, the Republicans had control of both houses from 1994 to 2001 then 2002 to 2006 and since Bush took control in 2000, they had all 3 in 2000, losing the Senate in 2001 to 2002 (I can't recall exactly but I think one Senator abandoned the Republican party, I'm sure many articles mention it somewhere) and then regaining it until 2006. It does note that their gains in 2002 were somewhat of an oddity since "This marked the first time since 1934 that the party in control of the White House gained seats in a midterm election in both houses of Congress" Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth among Republicans and conservatives -- the ones who keep chanting that the U.S. is really a center-right nation -- because Karl Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority has turned out to be...premature, at the least. One effect has been a great deal more fretting about "one-party rule" than you heard when the GOP was in control of the presidency and Congress.  I recall Speaker Dennis Hastert's notion that legislation could come to the House floor only if supported by "the majority of the majority."  In other words, a bill supported mostly by Democrats, with enough Republicans to give it a chance of passing, would be stalled the leadership because it wasn't supported by at least half the Republicans.
 * Party discipline among the two major U.S. parties is also more a theory than a practice -- e.g., Joe Lieberman, who was the Democratic nominee for vice-president four years ago, actively campaigned for McCain/Palin. (Yeah, yeah, he's an "independent.")  Committee chairmen in the House and the Senate have a great deal of power, and the president doesn't always have many ways to sway them.  A challenge for Obama will be managing the conflicting agendas of longtime liberal Democrats and newer more conservative ones like Senator Jim Webb of Virginia.  --- OtherDave (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The complaining is not just among Republicans. Historically, whenever the same party has controlled the White House and the Congress (regardless of which party it is), economic growth has slowed, unemployment has risen, and real wages have fallen. Wikiant (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Rove that most people in the US are of a center-right persuasion, but I think the question is more where the center is. The US is farther right than Europe, at least as I understand it, but why are they the center? As a follow-up-esque question to the OP, there's a bit of a perception that in recent years that politics is moving away from the middle and that some increase of Political radicalism is happening? SDY (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some data. Algebraist 14:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I love articles like that: "If we ignore anything that doesn't fit with the conclusion that I want to push, the data backs my conclusion completely!" -- k a i n a w &trade; 15:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just looking at the conclusions of the first few paragraphs, I have substantial doubts about the article. That people don't know what party is more conservative may indicate that they simply don't care about politics, not that they know the "other side."  To be more formal with the questions, though:
 * 1. Is there any evidence of increasing radicalization of US politics?
 * 2. Is there evidence that McCain intentionally abandoned the moderate vote? (i.e. leaked memos, emails, and other documents, not the conclusions of pundits).
 * 3. What, if any, rigorous definitions are there for a "center" in US politics?
 * In all cases, I'm looking for political science answers and neutral data: Declarations against interest, numbers from at least nominally neutral organizations (i.e. at least somewhere between Fox and MSNBC) and "big picture" academic speculation, not blogs and pundits. If there are no answers along those lines, so be it.  SDY (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The lastest exit polls, all over the news and interweb, say that 22% of US voters identify themselves as "liberal," 44% call themseleves "moderate", and 34% say they are "conservative." For conservatives, this indicates a center-right nation. For liberals, this indicates that the average American is too stupid to know that he's a liberal. ;-) 71.72.148.80 (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To me it indicates that whoever did the survey was too stupid to ask a question that actually results in meaningful answers. Self-identification works well for things like race which experts agree is a pretty meaningless concept (so if you really want statistics on it, self-identification is your best option), it doesn't work for political opinions. --Tango (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's pretty obvious you don't like the results, which has resulted in you saying some silly things. :-) The poll did produce a meaningful result -- how people identify themselves on a simple political spectrum -- but of course a more detailed survey would produce more useful data. And experts do not agree that race is a "pretty meaningless concept"; the biological validity of race is now doubted, but as a social construct, it's anything but meaningless. 71.72.148.80 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't a very meaningful question. Though it seems useful to politicians decided whether or not to use the word liberal, which I'm sure is very important. It's a bit better in context.  71.72... here is obviously going on about the results from the "Edison Media Research" exit polls as reported by the AP and CNN.
 * There are some surprising (to me) results. 76% of voters attended college, but only 44% of voters graduated college. That seems like a pretty wide split.  It also amuses me that among this year's voters there are more conservatives than liberals, but more democrats than republicans. APL (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Moses's Egypt?
Where can I find a good definition of the term Egypt when used in Exodus? It's certainly not the modern country Egypt. It was the name of a rule or civilization or country back then. Do we know which specific date or pharaoh Moses interacted with?

I'm trying to figure out what the name these Egyptians themselves would have given to themselves as a people or to their nation.--206.248.172.247 (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Exodus has some information on when the Exodus might have happened, if indeed it happened at all. Algebraist 12:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So I'm looking at Egypt between 1500 and 1200 BCE. New_Kingdom_of_Egypt--206.248.172.247 (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tradition generally holds that the unnamed Pharaoh in Exodus is Ramesses II, though documentary evidence is sketchy. That the Exodus is undocumented by non-Hebrew sources is unsuprising.  The Hebrews were a relatively small group of people; and were likely not recognized by non-Hebrew peoples as distinct from any of a number of other Canaanite tribes, such as the Philistines.  Slave revolts were not uncommon in Ancient Egypt; and The Exodus, while a defining moment in Hebrew history, probably doesn't rate as much more than a blip on Egyptian history.  The basic theme of the book (member of enslaved class rises to high government official and has a positive impact on his own people) occurs multiple times in the old Testament, cf. Joseph, Daniel, etc. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to our article Ptah, the likely name used by New Kingdom Egyptians for their country was Hat-ka-Ptah (pronounced haht-kah-ptah)—"the house (or estate) of Ptah." This name was the basis for the Greek place name Aigyptos, which later morphed into our name Egypt.  Marco polo (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how adding a couple of hs can make pronunciation clear. —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fastest growing sorority?
I'm trying to find the fastest growing sorority in the U.S. I did a quick search on google and there are a few that mention it but I don't exactly trust the sources. Help would be very much appreciated. 71.244.5.124 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

descendants of ancient famous figures
Do they know the lineage of any ancient kings, emperors or other famous or important people? I know this Italian guy who swears up and down that he's a direct descendant of Julius Caesar and I can't convince him that no one knows that for sure. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no well-established descents from antiquity. That doesn't stop people from believing in them. There are some reasonably well-proved descents from persons living as early as 400 if you accept Irish chronicles as sources, but none dating back to Caesar. I suspect you'll never convince your friend, though: if you lower your standards of evidence you can claim descent from almost anyone, including fictional figures like Wotan, Adam, and Eve. - Nunh-huh 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Wotan or Adam and Eve are mythological figures rather than fictional ones. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Descent of Elizabeth II from the Franks is an interesting read. --Cameron* 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Many Jews claim descent from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah. Wrad (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is apparently a pretty good line of descent from Confucius, but descent from Caesar would be very difficult to prove conclusively. Steewi (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason he says he's descended from Caesar is because Roman Mythology says that Caesars family were descendants of the goddess Venus, so he thinks he can say he's descended form the Gods. Not that he actually believes this, he says it sort of tongue-in-cheek, but it would be cool if he could prove that. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone from 1000s of years ago has descendants alive today, chances are most of the world population is descended from them (bar a few isolated tribes somewhere possibly). At the very least, if Julius Caesar still has living descenents then anyone native to western Europe is probably descendent from him. Assume his lineage has doubled every generation and generations average 25 years that means he should have about 22000/25=280~=1024 descendants by now. Seeing as the world population is about 6.5x109, you can see that there has clearly been such an enormous amount of inbreeding to the extent that almost everyone will descended from him by now. --Tango (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I claim direct descent from Mitochondrial Eve, so there. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Kohanim claim direct descent from Aaron. Queen Elizabeth II is supposedly descended from Mohammed.    Little Red Riding Hood  talk  00:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OH WOW!! Does this mean I can trace my lineage back to Caesar and therefore the gods too?! :D BAD ASS!!! I'm gonna tell everyone I know that I'm a demigod. (Of course, I won't bother to tell them that they are too...) 63.245.144.68 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you think about it, every one of us is descended from people who are utterly lost to history because they only started keeping records relatively recently. But some of them might have been kings in their own time.  No matter how far back you can trace your most distant known ancestor, they had parents, and they had parents ... and so on, back at least 80,000 generations.  Whatever we know of our genealogies is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg of our actual history.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW I have the same family name as a notable writer from over 1,000 years ago. Since the name is somewhat uncommon, I've often wondered how I could find out if we are distantly related?  Astronaut (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to trace genealogies precisely that far back, but the general principles Tango alludes to above mean it's very likely you're descended from whichever of his relatives have surviving descendants at all. Algebraist 16:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Mikhail Lermontov claimed to be descended from Thomas the Rhymer a.k.a. Thomas Learmont following the same principle...AnonMoos (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Often, people use a book named something like "Famous Descendents of Charlemagne" to trace lineage to notable people. The problem is that the book was created, not for accurately defining family lines, but for allowing those who paid nicely to have a book that shows they are descendent from royalty.  I've looked at it and it claims I'm descendent from British, French, Norwegian, and Turkish royalty.  So, you can see that it is important to take lineages of long ago as best guesses, not facts. --  k a i n a w &trade; 16:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no way of verifying a descent from Julius Caesar - he only had two children mentioned in ancient sources - his daughter Julia, whose onnly child was stillborn (she died in childbirth), and his (probable) son by Cleopatra, Caesarion, who was murdered on the orders of Augustus while still a child. Caesar is supposed have had numerous affairs, but any other illegitimate children he may have had have gone reported. Brutus, the son of Caesar's mistress Servilia Caepionis, is likely too old to be Caesar's son, but Servilia had other children who could conceivably have been his - but even if you could trace your descent to any of them, you couldn't definitively claim to have been descended from Caesar. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently one of my late great-grandmothers was an exiled Nepalese princess. Avnas Ishtaroth drop me a line  00:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A lady who my brother worked with was part of the exiled Eritrean royal family and supposedly is related to the Pharoahs. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The further back into their ancestry you go, the more likely any person is to have royal heritage. And many royals had the opportunity to have lots of children, which poorer people couldn't, especially in societies which allowed the men more than one wife at a time. French artist and film maker Marjane Satrapi, for example, acknowledges that she is descended from Persian royalty in the ninetenth century; however, Satrapi points out that "the kings of the Qajar dynasty...had hundreds of wives. They made thousands of kids. If you multiply these kids by generation you have, I don't know, ten to fifteen thousand princes and princesses. There's nothing extremely special about that." Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the House of Saud, which includes thousands of members, although not many of them have any political power. Etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

On this subject, are there any direct descendants of Christopher Columbus and the passengers on the Mayflower?72.229.139.171 (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

what is the period of time the supreme court hears cases
is the period of time an hour?

is it something else?


 * What do you mean, the time between when one case stops and the next starts? I doubt there is a set period. --Tango (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean how much time is allotted for oral arguments, the Supreme Court web site states that hearings are scheduled for one hour,(I assume the time is split between the parties) and two cases are scheduled daily when the Court is in session. There is no set time for reaching a final opinion. I assume that when all the opinions (majority, plurality, concurring, dissenting) are prepared, the decision is announced and explained by one of the justices. The Clerk's Office releases the opinion the same day. 75Janice (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)75Janice
 * Yes, the time for oral arguments is split evenly between the two parties (and believe the time the judges spend asking them questions from the bench counts as part of their time; does anyone know for sure?). - Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to tell what's being asked here, but the Supreme Court of the U.S. is prescribed to start a term on the first Monday of October. So the 2008-2009 term began on October 6th and it sounds like that when a term ends, so the Justices can take off on other gigs or vacation or whatever, is not prescribed and varies somewhat but is usually mid summer, sometime around July or August. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It may help the OP's understanding to mention that the Supreme Court, like other appellate courts, does not hear cases. It considers appeals from lower courts.  No new evidence is presented.  Instead, advocates for the two sides present briefs and other documents either in support of the ruling of the lower court, or in an effort to have that ruling overturned.  Most of the real work goes into these documents.  As Jmabel points out, the oral argument time is brief, and talkative justices (some of them making points to one another in the form of questions to the attorneys) can gobble up a lot of that.  The justices (and their clerks) spend a great deal of time going over documents presented on both sides, and more time drafting the court's eventual decision.  Even a straightforward case like Feist v Rural Telephone Company 499 US 340 (1991), which dealt with copyright, resulted in a thirteen-page decision.  Virtually every paragraph contains references to two or three other cases.  --- OtherDave (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Run on a currency?
The last line of Invergordon Mutiny says
 * "The Invergordon Mutiny caused a panic on the London Stock Exchange and a run on the pound"

I know what a run on a bank is, but what does a "run on the pound" mean? --Carnildo (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Much the same: the value of the pound against other currencies falls. I'm assuming currency exchange rates were not fixed in that period. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * People rush to exchange their pounds for foreign currency which appears less threatened. Wrad (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In that period, would they have been exchanging their pounds for foreign currency, or for gold?  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Foreign currency, mainly, there isn't enough gold to buy gold with it all. When people trade foreign exchange they don't generally own the currency they're trading, they borrow in one currency and use that to buy another currency, the amount of money you actually need to have in your account (called the margin) is pretty small (10% is common [ie. if you have $10,000 in your account you can buy $100,000 worth of foreign currency], sometimes less, probably much less for big institutional investors [since they're low risk - at least they were a year ago...]). --Tango (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I should say, you don't necessarily have to buy and sell currency in order for it to be a run on the pound, selling things valued in pounds (UK based assets, mainly) and buying things valued in some foreign currency has the same effect. --Tango (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)