Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 8

= June 8 =

comprehensive list of ways a child can help a family
here are three things a child can do to help his fsmily: take down the trash, load the dishes, cook, for example breakfast for everyone but just as easily lunch or dinner. Now, can someone give me a comprehensive list of ALL usual things a child can do forthe family? Thank you. 92.230.69.243 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (ps in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I am the child in question!)


 * Here are a few ideas from the Family Life merit badge. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No. It is impossible to have a comprehensive list like that - it would have millions of items on it, at least. We can give a few more examples of household chores that a child could do and we can probably find all kinds of "experts" giving advice on what kind of chores to give children if that would help. It would help to know how old you are, though. --Tango (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I said the word "usual",So its only indescribable millions the way the job requirementd for cleaning a hotel room are. Yes, it's millions, but no, not really. I'm twenty-something and have moved in with parents due to economic hardship. 92.230.69.243 (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, the first and most useful thing to do is probably to ask what you can do to help. If that doesn't work you might try asking yourself two questions: 1) what are your family's main needs? 2)what things can you do yourself, that no-one else in the family can do as easily as you can? All the best, --Alþykkr (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (All WP:OR) From experiences with friends whose adult children have moved home again:
 * • Do more than "your share" of household cleaning and maintenance; in particular, make sure any private space you have is kept to the general household standard of "clean and tidy".
 * •Don't add to the household's expenses in ways you cannot immediately cover and don't buy yourself treats that you don't share.
 * • Where facilities are shared (from bathrooms and kitchens to TV, stereos and computers) don't abuse the amount of time you are using them.
 * • If you act like a guest in most matters, rather than an owner, there are less likely to be conflicts. Saying "thank you" for things you used to accept as your due (like meals and clean laundry) would be a very good plan.
 * • Have a plan and an end date, or a way of knowing when you reach that date, and share this information with the permanent residents.
 * • If there are "house rules" like, for example, "No strangers at breakfast" or "Add anything you use the last of to the shopping list", be scrupulous about following them. (The time for rebellion was before you left the first time.)
 * • Observe and accept the household's routines. At the very least, do not disrupt them.
 * As you can tell by the list, my friends had some very poorly behaved adult children, for which they took some responsibility. (If you are already doing all these things, then your household will be a pleasure to share.) Bielle (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would summarize all the detailed items with this premise: "Do whatever you can to make your parents' lives easier." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has missed the way that millions of children help their families. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While a number of 20+-year-olds may wish that child-labour laws applied to them, I don't think they do. :-) ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bielle (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of Israel's recent international/diplomatic strategy
Okay, I know this will look like trollbait given the current context, but it's not, so don't waste any trollfood here, take it to your local trollpound! ;)

Israel's recent strategy puzzles me (from a logical viewpoint) and I haven't seen much, beyond discussion of whether it is right or wrong (which doesn't interest me) to alleviate my puzzlement. This puzzlement derives from the fact that, at least as viewed from an external, layman viewpoint (whose only source are online news outlet, mainly the BBC) Israel doesn't seem to be at all concerned, of late, with potentially angering its allies. This is somewhat hard to understand, as a general rule of course (can't have too many allies), but especially in Israel's case (historically dependant on foreign aid and support, because it's surrounded by potentially hostile, and often hostile in effect, countries).

I derive this observation from a series of recent incidents:
 * the "height of humiliation" incident with the Turkish ambassador (which however resulted in an apology);
 * the well-known recent incident in which new settlements were announced during a visit by Joe Biden (which however was declared a bureaucratic mistake by the Israeli PM);
 * the allegedly Mossad-conducted Mahmoud al-Mabhouh assassination, which included the use of forged passports (prompting Australia to expel an Israeli diplomat in retaliation);
 * and of course, the recent "Gaza flotilla" incident, about which I have read many saying that if Israel had only waited until the flotilla was in its territorial waters to intervene, it would've caused much less outrage.

Now I myself can see a number of explanations, including of course that which there is probably no real "strategy" behind this (it is for instance not very probable that the Joe Biden incident was deliberate and calculated). However, I would very much like to read an analysis of Israel's recent actions from an expert in diplomatic relations, international strategy, or military strategy. Do you know where I could find such analysis? If you wish to contribute with your own thoughts, feel free to do so... just as long as it's sourced and doesn't turn in a "right or wrong" discussion. Thanks in advance ! --Alþykkr (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on international relations, but I think you might be giving certain people more credit than is due by assuming there is a master plan at work here. I think much of what you mention above was simply bungled. Certainly the Mossad didn't expect to get caught using forged passports (assuming that's what happened). Similarly, regardless of who is at fault for the deaths of the people on the boat, someone clearly screwed up on the Israeli side -- either the commandos panicked or the navy failed to recognize what they were dealing with on the Turkish ship. I can't imagine the Israelis would have gone in there with guns blazing on purpose to wipe out as many of the people on the boats as the could -- even if they had the minds to do so, there would be no advantage politically to doing so. One thing I've learned from working in and around politicians for much of my life is never to trust that the people in charge know what they're doing. They're human, and they make mistakes just like us. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had thought about that, of course: part of it certainly derives from the fact that human errors get amplified by the attention everyone focuses on the Middle East and Israel in particular (and also, of course, by the tense situation there, which means that human error can translate in deaths easier than elsewhere). Perhaps comparing with Israeli diplomatic behaviour during the 1970s would provide a good perspective. However, even if it's all unintentional "screwups" (which is perhaps a good but somewhat limited explanation), it leaves the question of: why isn't more care taken to avoid screwups as much as possible? This doesn't seem to be done much. I could also ask: why isn't damage control applied more vigourously after a screwup? Going back to the flotilla case, nothing has been said on the Israeli side to the effect that there might have been a mistake, or that loss of life was regretted, or any such partly mitigating statement (not talking about apologies, real apologies being somewhat rare in politics, everywhere). --Alþykkr (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't discount the possibility of internal politics, some of which may be quite murky to a native, let alone an outsider. No state is monolithic and Israel is no exception. Something which may harm the Israeli state may be advantageous to a faction or interest within that state. I'm not saying this is so or accusing anyone of anything, just noting this as a possible line of inquiry. Herostratus (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this statement. Israel's political system is complex partly because the many parties in Knesset (parliament) form these coalition governments with many disparate factions. E.g., in the Biden visit, it has been hypothesized that the Minister of Housing Ariel Atias of the religious conservative party Shas was intentionally trying to embarrass the Obama administration, PM Netanyahu of the larger center-right Likud party, or both with the timing of the settlement building announcement. Because of how the Knesset is organized, small minority parties can wield a lot of power in Israel's government. —D. Monack talk 08:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As in any other country with an electoral system, foreign policy is often at least partly subservient to electoral politics. The cover story for this week's Economist is "Israel's siege mentality". According to the Economist, many Israelis believe that (most of) the rest of the world hates them, so there is no point worrying about public opinion outside Israel. Government figures may share that view, or may act with an eye to that view, even if they don't share it. Also, of course, there is probably an element of incompetence among the Israeli political leadership.  They may not appreciate the importance of external support for Israel. In this article, the Economist states that "Israel can no longer take American support for granted".  This obviously implies that Israel has taken U.S. support for granted. Israeli leaders may feel or have felt that, no matter what they did, the United States, with its military might, would always defend Israel.  Marco polo (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be to Israel's advantage to have peace? For instance Northern Ireland had tons of money poured into it during the troubles and now they're talking about needing to cut back. I think Israel would be better off having peace but it would not be in the interest of many people who have got ahead because of all the conflict. Dmcq (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There have always been war profiteers. You could make the equal argument that it's in the best self-interest of some Islamic politicians to continue warring against Israel as opposed to taking care of their own problems. Jews learned a long time ago that many peoples despise them, so the "siege mentality" has a firm basis in reality. Don Rickles made a joke that contains that idea, commenting on the first black President: "Next time we'll get our first Jewish President, and then we'll declare war on everybody!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Would it be to Israel's advantage to have peace?" Sure, it would. But this assumes that Israel is able to secure peace. The widespread belief in Israel is that if they unilaterally submitted to all of the Palestinians' stated demands, then attacks on Israel would increase. The perception is that Israel's withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza only emboldened Hezbollah and Hamas and led to more rockets and other attacks on civilians. We can argue about whether this perception is accurate, but in politics perception is reality. —D. Monack talk 21:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One can achieve peace with an eye for an eye. But Israel have far exceeded its quota of eyes for an eye and that is not the way to peace. An eye for an eye can be considered as negotiating, one doesn't have to unilateral submit to all demands. Dmcq (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You could say the exact same thing about the Palestinians. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but who's settling whose land? There was a Palestine before there was an Israel, and it is Israel who has illegally (per UN resolution 242) expanded their borders. (Note- I'm not picking sides here- I'm just playing devil's advocate).  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They negotiated a peace with Egypt for the Sinai, and the Israelis withdrew. The other parties could do likewise if they really wanted peace. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt: Israel is (literally) a cold war nation - Jews relocated to the region at the beginning of the cold war, Israel became a nation at the height of the cold war, and the entire nation is steeped in cold war middle east oil policies. The Israeli government operates under cold war presumptions (in which one spies on one's friends as much as one spies on one's enemies, and in which tricky little political victories are achieved through a mix of arrogance, propaganda, and small-scale violence).  If you went looking for a modern day James Bond, he'd almost have to be Israeli, because Israel is one of the few nations left that plays that game with complete seriousness.  Israel isn't really doing anything different than they've always done (e.g. you can find examples of Israel getting caught spying on America and Britain going back 30 years), it's just that the rest of the world has moved on a bit and so the behavior is not long (for lack of a better term) quite so 'sexy'.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Israel would not have been created in 1947-1948 without the Soviet Union's diplomatic support, accompanied by arms imports from Czechoslovakia, and the Arab-Israeli conflict wasn't really fully aligned with Soviet-U.S. confrontations until 1967. AnonMoos (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Two (not entirely coordinated) thoughts come to my mind: 1) recent diplomatic debacles are not unintentional "screw-ups". They are well-planned parts of a consistent strategy. Israel has repeatedly violated international law and human rights during the recent years (bombing of Lebanon, more bombings of Gaza, targetted assasinations overseas, Gaza siege and now the massacre on the Freedom Flotilla participants). However, afterwards Israel walks away with impunity. If we take this to a person-to-person level; if a person continously can harass other people and receives no sanction (due to friendship links to an authority person), then that person is continously pushing the boundaries of what is ok practice. By committing atrocities, Israel stakes its claim to an exceptionalist position in the world political system. 2) The motivation behind action might be different than "national interest". It was widely speculated at the time that the 2009 Gaza carnage was merely a prelude to the Israeli electoral campaign, by initiating a war Olmert and his allies would shift focus away from their own problems. Had IDF allowed the Freedom Flotilla to reach Gaza or intercepted it peacefully, it could have hurt the standing of Netanyahu in the domestic opinion. After all its not the UN General Assembly that will elect the next Israeli govt, and for individual politicians it can be more important to remain on a good foot with their voters than the international community. --Soman (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of this has to do with Israel hearing constant threats from Achmadinejad and Hezbollah saying they'll "blow up Israel". Everyone knows that it is the Israelis, not the Iranians, with nuclear weapons; however, Israel has gotten very good at playing the victim, and have managed to distort Achmadinejad's image as being a mentally unstable man.  These threats are obviously transparent, and Achmadinejad is using them for his own political purposes in Iran.  However, Israel has managed to convince people that these threats are real, and use them as excuses to commit atrocities, and then walked away with impunity.  One thing people forget is that Syria is also dealing with Hezbollah on their borders.  Syria is a secular nation, and their president has every intention of continuing this- however, because they don't have someone making (obviously transparent) threats on their statehood, they would be strongly condemned for trying to settle, say, Golan Heights.  In short, the UN General Assembly has no sway over the Israelis; either the Americans or British (or both) would have to directly stand up to them before they would back down and start acting within the parameters of the UN regulations the other nations around them are held to.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Blade of Northern Lights -- the Israeli people (and certainly the Israeli government) remember collectively rather clearly that Adolf Hitler set down many of his long-range goals unambiguously in black and white for anyone to read as early as 1925, but "respectable" European politicians tended to dismiss this as mere Munich beer hall maunderings and cheap rhetorical pandering to the extreme wing of Nazi supporters, which would probably have little relationship to what the Nazis would actually do if they ever gained any degree of power. Partly as a result of this historical experience, if any one says that his goal is to "throw the Jews into the sea" (or comparable), then the Israeli government takes him at his word, and acts accordingly.  The Israeli government doesn't panic, and most of the time it doesn't allow itself to be stampeded into rash or unwise hasty actions -- but if a group like Hamas includes the racist bigoted "hadith of the gharqad tree" (whose message is basically that God wants Muslims to kill all Jews) in its founding charter or constitution, then the Israeli government calibrates its actions in light of the knowledge that the ultimate goal of Hamas is to kill all Jews -- and patronizing condescending lectures by outsiders about how Israel should simply ignore supposed meaningless "extremist rhetoric", and should open negotiations with Hamas without setting any pre-conditions, are rather likely to fall on deaf ears in Israel. 22:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In a blockade on a foreign country how would a blockade breacher enter the blockaders own territorial waters?--178.167.206.65 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Details of the Saxbe fix
Saxbe fix includes the following clause in the second paragraph of the "Legality" section:"Historically, the class of person has not been an issue."What is meant by "class"? The relevant section of the US Constitution doesn't address social classes or any other sort of classes, and this is the only point in the entire article at which the word "class" appears. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also checked the talk page, by the way; "class" appears thirteen times, but it's either in the context of article ratings, class periods in law school, class action lawsuits, or classified information. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried checking out http://www.steptoe.com/assets/attachments/3658.PDF, which is apparently the source for the allegation (p.94). Trouble is, I can't see anything related to class on p.94... --Alþykkr (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The sentence was in the article as of 28 February 2009, when it was passed as an FA; I'm going to try to ask one of the editors who worked on the FA nomination.  Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't bother, I found it, it's on p.95...

The contours of the class "Senator[s] or Representative[s]" has not been an issue in any appointment to federal office...
 * So no relation with a social class. --Alþykkr (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If I recall this section correctly, it was an attempt to break down the clause. It is an exclusion of eligibility for a certain class or classification of individuals. In this case it is Senators and Representatives. It does not affect any other qualified individuals. If you think the word class is hard to understand in context let me know. A lot of eyes have been on this article at WP:FAC and WP:DYK so I think it is probably O.K. since no one has had an issue with it before, but I am open to change for a better word.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reworded this sentence to "Historically, the positions affected by the clause has not been an issue: all have agreed that it refers to members of Congress." I see this as a fair representation of the sentence in the source and clearer as well; please revert if you disagree, since law isn't at all my specialty.  Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be good, anyway, to replace "p.94" with "p.95". I'm gonna go ahead and do it. --Alþykkr (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would definitely be good. It might also be good for me to fix my grammar: "the positions...has not been".  Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet
In the text of Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, does the author explicitly identify the actual age of either Romeo or Juliet? If so, does anyone know the act/scene/line numbers for these references? If not, what are the ages of these characters generally accepted to be (by scholars, etc.)? Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Juliet "hath not seen the change of fourteen years" according to Act 1, Scene 2, line 9 (also mentioned in our Juliet Capulet article). I don't think it says Romeo's age, but he is probably around the same age or a little older (our article suggests 16). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Which means, of course, that were Romeo and Juliet to consummate their love in modern America and anyone found out about it, Romeo would be locked away for statutory rape and forced to register as a sex offender. Make of that what you will! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * However, see Statutory rape. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Retroactively applying laws from current US culture to a late Renaissance or early modern Venetian culture is not really all that helpful. Googlemeister (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAPBOX anyone? Dismas |(talk) 14:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Romeo would also be locked away for the whole murder thing, too. Paul (Stansifer) 15:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Talking of the real age for both Romeo and Juliet. Do keep in mind that the play composed by Shakespeare was usually formed by taking a story from history or legend and using that to make a play.  So, Shakespeare was, taking such a legend for the script lines, making the contrast stark for the drama.  This is the case of so many of his plays.  MacOfJesus (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mac, try not to just make things up. R&J was not based on a "legend" by any definition of that word.  The source dates from November 1562, less than four decades before the play. 63.17.62.133 (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why ask if you know so much, with so much drama. "history or legend", I said.  I have studied Shakespeare, and not from just an Encyclopaedia.  MacOfJesus (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not "history," either -- again, avoid making things up. As for "why ask?": I didn't, I'm not the OP. 63.17.70.108 (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you say it happened 40 years previous to the Drama. Then, yes, that would be history. However, this is a study not drama. I am used to speaking to a person with a name, not a number.  MacOfJesus (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I need to find if someone has died, and this is tricky...
The subject is Ye Htoon. The problem is, he's Burmese. Burma has been a notoriously closed society for nearly 50 years, with low Internet accessibility, and any source material would be in Burmese, which we don't have for this article. This article has been vandalized multiple times since I started it, as the man is basically an enemy of the state. He's even edited this article and provided the photo, but attempts to contact him via his Wiki account have been fruitless. However, two different IPs have posted him as dead of late. I reverted as they were unsourced. It could be just vandalism, it could be for real. Google is bag-o'-nothin', any ideas where else I can look? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like there's good documentation of Mr. Htoon being alive as of the end of 2009, both from the sources in your Wiki article, and also from elsewhere on the web. After that, silence.  That means that the applicable principle is Biographies_of_living_persons, and I quote: "...anything questionable should be removed promptly. Any individual born less than 123 years ago is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death."  So Wikipedia should continue to assume Mr. Htoon is alive until a reliable source states otherwise.  --M @ r ē ino 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my feeling as well, but this has been nagging at me. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Off topic, I'm a bit concerned about his being called (by Chris (クリス • フィッチュ? -- not clear) "basically an enemy of the state." He appears to be a dissident, and little more. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One get's the feeling that in Burma anyone who is not a member of the government is regarded as (at least potentially) an "enemy of the state". DuncanHill (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To put it mildly, the Burmese junta can make the Chinese government look like a bunch of fuzzy bunnies. At least there are parts of China where people have a decent standard of living- the Burmese conduct particularly violent raids on dissidents, and shoot people in the streets at random. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Geography/GK question
I am looking for the name of a metro city a,which has the symbolic name of a Physician b.It is home to a beverage company for the last 60 years

Would appreciate any help.

I did search wiki but without much lick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.249.183 (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you share the prize with us if we gave you the winning answer?--Wetman (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is from the same people who claimed The Alamo was the second most famous religious building in the world (archived here), you'll probably be out of luck even if somebody here puts the effort in to find an answer that matches the so-called question. Actual facts are not their strong point. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Two-up, two-down council house
What is a two-up, two-down council house? --90.130.31.46 (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See this article: Council housing. A two-up, two-down refers to a house (usually terraced, but sometimes semi-attached) that has a living room and kitchen downstairs and two bedrooms upstairs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Two rooms downstairs (dining room and living room) plus kitchen, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) In the UK, it's a council house - that is, built and originally maintained and managed by a local authority - with two main rooms downstairs (plus kitchen) and two bedrooms upstairs (plus bathroom). Many were originally built to high technical standards, but often disappointingly mundane design on large estates, and many (but not all) council estates later reflected social problems. Many 2-up 2-down council houses were actually semi-detached, rather than terraced.  Many former council houses are now privately owned, following the right to buy legislation introduced in the 1980s.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Two-up-two-downs are not usually council houses but sometimes are. They are a very typical Victorian small house. Downstairs the front room was the parlour and the back room the kitchen where the family cooked, ate and spent most of their time. There was usually a small extension at the back in which was the scullery. Upstairs were two bedrooms, one for the parents and the other for the children, and perhaps an extra small bedroom in the "back addition". Itsmejudith (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jeanne: I've never heard "semi-attached": the usual phrase is "semi-detached". (I believe the North American equivalent is "duplex"). --ColinFine (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, I had meant to say semi-detached. Sorry, it's been a bit of a Wikidramatic day, and it has obviously affected my brain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how widespread this is, but both terms are used here in SW Ontario. A semi-detached domicile is where two units are joined so that they share a "living" wall. A semi-attached domicile is where the units are joined by a something like a garage or other area that isn't lived in. My own place is part of a six-unit freehold "condo" (though "freehold condo" always strikes me as a contradiction) that is semi-attached to one neighbour and semi-detached to the other. Matt Deres (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK, such a "semi-attached" house would usually be termed a "linked detached house" (or link detached). WDHAAOE, but see here. Gwinva (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A two-up two-down council house would be unusual, as normally council houses are built to higher standards. In fact the technical standard and spaciousness of most council houses was better than the average house built at around the same time, due to Parker Morris Committee standards which were since abolished. Sadly due to the social problems that council estates have a reputation or stigma for, I would not want to live in one even though they are usually cheaper than private housing. 92.28.249.23 (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an article with a nice graphic about the sizes of newly built homes in different countries: ... the US houses are almost three times bigger than the UK ones, though if you compare this against the list of countries by population density, Denmark is exploiting its available space the best, for some reason. 213.122.69.140 (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I found that remarkable (76m² is a pretty small average) until I read the disclaimer: all UK surveyed houses were in London or within 1 hr commute of London. No one (except the BBC, which can be astonishingly London-centric) would assume that the London houses sizes typified UK house sizes. Gwinva (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The average size of new houses in the UK has fallen a lot over recent decades, partly because there are many more small 1 and 2 person households than there used to be, but mainly because of the very strong planning policies against greenfield development (including green belt policy - not necessarily the same thing), forcing developers to pack as many units as they can into small sites, in many cases brownfield sites within existing towns and cities. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all your answers! --90.130.31.46 (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possibly worth adding that most 2-up, 2-down houses would not have had toilets or bathrooms (in the UK English meaning). The toilet would have been outside, reached via the back door, and there would have been no bathroom at all - bathing would be done in a tin bath in the living room. --Phil Holmes (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True. I uploaded the image of the terraced houses seen here, and I stayed in one of them. I believe the toilet was outside (although a bathroom could have been added, I don't remember as it was in 1981), and the attic was converted into another bedroom where I slept-and from where I took this photo. I do recall the house as being very primitive with a stone floor. My friend in Dublin lived in a semi-detached house with no bathroom, an outside toilet and a tin bathtub kept under a table in the kitchen. His house was built in East Wall in the 1890s.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My house - a three-up, three-down terrace of about 1880 - didn't have a bathroom until the 1960s. The only toilet was in a brick lean-to against the back wall. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True. I've lived in a couple of old 2-up, 2-down Victorian terraced houses in the last 10 years, and they had the kitchen and bathroom clearly added to the back at a later date. Tiny kitchens and bathrooms, built in the space that presumably used to have the lean-to. The downstairs rooms had old fireplaces, so presumably, historically, you could have cooked in those. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Most Victorian houses (even poor ones) had a kitchen and scullery, equipped with a coal-fired "range" with a hob, oven and back-boiler. Our page on the Kitchen stove doesn't describe it. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Oh, if the OP would like to see videos of typical terraced houses, he should check out YouTube's clips of Madness's Our House, Dexy's Midnight Runners' Come on Eileen, The Police's Invisible Sun. All of these, plus many more show terraced and council houses.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Welfare programs as incentive for wealthy to reduce earning gap
After reading and listening to a lot of economists talk about different countries economic systems, and the pros and cons (such as those in China, India, etc) and comparing that to what we have in the US, something struck me. In a free market you don't have any government interference in striking the price of labor, of goods, of ideas, etc. Every large country's government has chosen a way to control the market (through incentives of some form) with the intention of stabilizing the economy. In the US a huge component (by dollars at least) is the welfare provided by the government to pay for the bottom fraction of workers to live (instead of doing work that would, theoretically, not provide them with enough earnings to survive.) This is largely financed by the work done by the top fraction of the workers, and the obvious intention is to prevent people from starving, becoming vagrant, committing crimes, etc. However, comparing its effect to other countries ways of tackling poverty, it struck me to look at welfare as an incentive on the top earners to create an economy where there are enough jobs to not need so much money spent on welfare. This is based on the hypothesis that given no incentives, the high earners would gladly not create prosperity for the low earners (those below the line of being able to work to survive in an acceptable way) since it would give them little benefit. So, by the government putting a requirement on the economy to support the low earners in one way or another, it is promoting actual prosperity over a widening wealth gap? I am not asking for an agreement on this (or anything besides a casual critique), instead I would like to know if there are any books or studies that approach state welfare from this angle. Thanks! --144.191.148.3 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The politics of welfare is not exactly an area of expertise, but it has been a serious interest of mine since my university days almost 30 years ago, and I have never come across a theory or justification of welfare on the grounds that you propose. One of the more influential theories, that welfare is a means of social control, was laid out in Regulating the Poor by Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward. The usual conservative critique of welfare programs is that they remove incentives for the poor to seek work.  This is almost the opposite of your (unorthodox) theory that it serves as an incentive for entrepreneurs to create jobs.  Marco polo (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What a terrific series of misconception! Let's start with, "In a free market you don't have any government interference in striking the price of labor, of goods, of ideas, etc.” Off the top of my head, minimum wage and anti-dumping laws come to mind. Next, “welfare . . . is largely financed by the work done by the top fraction of the workers,” suggests that the wealthy pay most of the taxes, which is not the case (there aren’t enough wealthy people to do that). Third, “the obvious intention is to prevent people from starving, becoming vagrant, committing crimes, etc” suggests that there is not a shred of human compassion in the intent of the law, with which I disagree. It is about as immoral as this statement: “given no incentives, the high earners would gladly not create prosperity for the low earners.” And so, I recommend reconsidering your prejudices preconceived notions and seeing if you can’t answer your own question from a less bias more neutral perspective. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take a look at your own prejudices before dismissing the theory. First, in an 100% free market (the kind of free market that only exists in very microeconomic senses, or in textbooks) there would not be things like minimum wage and anti-dumping, that was my point since I wanted to illustrate that welfare is basically another form of government influence on the labor market on the bottom end (where the money is spent) and at the top end (where the money is obtained).  Every national level market has regulation (restriction of freedom) of some sort, so debating the freeness of the market is left to looking at what influences the regulations have.  Moving on... in the US at least, Wikipedia can attest to "In 2007, the top 5% of income earners paid over half of the federal income tax revenue."  Since federal income tax is the major contributor to federal programs like welfare, it's safe to say that the top 5% contribute more toward welfare than the other 95% (especially the poor who basically pay nothing to the federal government).  Morality is a topic left for philosophers, I am interested in the economic impact of welfare programs.  Are you sure you mean moral in the English sense, by the way?  Let me finish with a reiteration This topic was not started as a critique on tax laws, fairness, etc., I merely wanted to see if there were any prevalent theories that connected welfare to prosperity from the top down instead of the bottom up.(the rest of my response is below.) --144.191.148.3 (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that compassion for the poor is widespread among high earners, at least in the United States. However, I do agree with many of DOR (HK)'s other critiques. To me, his most powerful critique is that most taxes in the United States and other countries are in fact not paid by top managers or entrepreneurs in a position to create many or any jobs. In fact, the bulk of taxes are paid by what in the United States is known as the upper middle class. These are mostly professionals and salaried employees who have little capacity to create jobs. So paying for welfare from these people's taxes is not an effective incentive for job creation. Another point that I would make is that, at least in the United States, a large majority of welfare expenditure goes to pay for healthcare and income support for the elderly.  So even if entrepreneurs were to create jobs, their taxes would not drop much as a result, since the elderly—especially those with health issues—are unlikely to seek employment if social security payments meet their needs. Most of the rest of government expenditures go for military outlays, education, and so on. Welfare payments to able-bodied adults are a tiny fraction of government expenses in the United States. So it is hard to imagine a desire to reduce one's own taxes being an incentive for job creation even among the small fraction of taxpayers in a position to create jobs, since creating jobs would have little effect on those people's taxes. Marco polo (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another problem with this idea is that you could somehow get rid of unemployment. Most modern economists would tell you that there is a natural rate of unemployment. Even if you presume that nobody is lazy, unwilling or unable to work, there will always be frictional unemployment and structural unemployment not to mention the cyclical unemployment caused by recessions and other fluctuations in the business cycle. There will always be unemployment in a free market economy and so welfare or charity have always been needed to fill the gap. Even if all high income earners started purchasing pointless goods and services to keep welfare payments and their tax bill down, all they would end up doing is increasing wage prices (by increasing the demand for labour). That sounds like a good thing on the face of it, but increased wages means increased prices and therefore inflation. And in an economy with a central bank that means higher interest rates and so less investment spending. Unemployment may end up slightly lower, but in the long run this will be at the expense of considerable investment spending and thus overall economic growth. This is why governments don't simply spend their way out of unemployment by hiring all unemployed people to do something extraneous. See phillips curve and ISLM too.Jabberwalkee (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In reading about poverty that exists in developing nations like India and China, it strikes me that something happened (or is still happening) in the USA to prevent extreme poverty that isn't happening in those two countries (with comparisons of their political systems aside). One of the things that occurred to me is the possibility that welfare is an equalizer not just by raising the living standard of the poor, but as an indirect influence on the wealthy to promote bringing people above the poverty line so they can be individually prosperous instead of be a burden to those paying tax.  I don't mean this exclusively in a low wage labor sense (trying to squish out joblessness by providing make-work and not really creating wealth); I am also considering that when there are additional means of production (through investment by the wealthy) then overall wealth is generated at a faster rate.  It may be trivial, but I thought it was an idea worth following for a bit.  Thanks to everyone that responded! --144.191.148.3 (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, have you considered the difference in GDP per capita and history may be two of the reasons? Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relatively high floors beneath the standard of living of the poor and the welfare system itself are the result of 1) a relative shortage of labor, particularly skilled labor, which in turn led to 2) a powerful labor movement. If you compared China or India today to Great Britain or continental Europe in, say, the early 19th century, I don't think you'd see much difference. In the large Asian countries today and in Europe 200 years ago, there was a huge population of surplus agricultural laborers willing to compete against one another for industrial work at subsistence pay rates. (Wage levels were never as low in the United States or, earlier, in the American colonies because of the shortage of labor relative to resources, including land.) By the early 20th century, however, northern and central Europe and, increasingly, the United States had become heavily urbanized, opportunities for emigration had expanded, and the growth of industrial capital was starting to outstrip the growth of the labor force.  In this context, labor unions and socialist movements were able to use strikes and political action to win higher wages and government welfare guarantees.  These demographic and political preconditions for the redistribution of wealth and income to the working classes do not (yet) exist in India or China, though we are starting to see signs of a shift in this direction in the more highly skilled sectors in China.  The existence of a large reserve of poor and underemployed rural laborers eager to compete for jobs has kept wages low in these countries and has hindered the development of an effective labor movement. (In China, political repression has also hindered labor organizing.) At the same time, a traditional culture of family-based charity has made the establishment of a welfare umbrella in these countries less urgent.  If a rural-to-urban migrant in India or China loses his job, he generally can return to his native village, take on marginal agricultural work with his family, and expect them to fill his rice bowl at the end of the day.  Marco polo (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking at wealth in India, and the fast growing wealth gap between some of the richest people in the world (several who are Indian) and the 400 million Indians who don't even have electricity. Planet Money had a piece recently on how prosperous capitalism doesn't necessarily raise all the boats, and that got me thinking about what the fundamental differences are in the markets of the US and other countries and how the US has managed to obtain relative prosperity for almost every single citizen. GDP is an important part of measuring a nation's wealth, but the question I am asking is what market forces tend to cause GDP/capita to be genuinely increased at a consistent rate, something the US and other western nations have done but developing countries (even open, capitalist ones) constantly struggle with. I could go on for hours; but this is a fine stopping point for the welfare discussion. Thanks again! --144.191.148.3 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is amazing (and instructive in regard to the effectiveness of propaganda) that in the OP's statement "the obvious intention is to prevent people from starving, becoming vagrant, committing crimes, etc.," the OP fails to mention one of the primary reasons "welfare" exists: in a consumer economy, the lowest rungs of the economy must ALSO consume.  "Welfare" is not primarily an altruistic or anti-vagrant/crime program; it is a method to sustain the consumer economy at a level that hinders recession/depression.  Money must circulate, and the rich do not spend 100% of their wealth (whereas the poor do); if a large fraction of the economy has no money, they must be given money so that they will spend it and support the consumer economy.  As Keynes pointed out (only half-joking), you can help sustain an economy by burying cash and hiring people to dig it up. 63.17.62.133 (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Balance of evidence in UK civil courts
Is the standard of proof required for civil courts in the UK always "balance of evidence", ie the judge has to decide if the plaintiffs or the defendants claim is more likely, or can in some circumstances a higher standard of proof be required, for example "beyond all reasonable doubt" or some intermediate standard? Not legal advice, I'm just curious. Thanks 92.28.249.23 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally the standard is the balance of evidence, but there can be exceptions. They tend to be in cases where the issue involved is akin to criminal proceedings: an example of an appeal case in which the issue of the degree of proof required was central is R (on the application of AN) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Others 2005 EWCA Civ 1605 (21 December 2005). Here a patient detained in a special hospital under the Mental Health Act challenged his detention, arguing that the tribunal which had agreed to detain him applied the wrong standard of proof. Although the case finds that the civil standard of proof applies, the court clearly considers that it can be legitimate for a civil case to use the criminal standard of proof. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See also rebuttable presumption and conclusive presumption. Although the standard does technically remain "on the balance of probabilities" these are circumstances where that is practically not the case. Another example is the proof of "actual bias" of a judge, minister or administrative decision maker (although we have no article on actual bias). There is a case (husband and wife I think, name escapes me) where the House of Lords said that the civil burden of proof depended on the circumstances and the consequences of the decision.Jabberwalkee (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To back this up; it is "on the balance of probabilities", with some exceptions. Libel, for example, is a civil claim, but the burden of proof is on the defendant. It is also possible to have an equity case where the standards of proof are those used in criminal trials - beyond a reasonable doubt. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)