Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 11

= May 11 =

late 1950's embossed images on paper
I am helping organize a new collection at my local historical society, and i have come across a group of things so strange i need help identifying them. I have roughly ten green cards, made out of heavy paper, about the size of baseball cards, but they all vary in size slightly. They were most likely made at the end of the 1950s. Each card is embossed with an image of a baseball player from a traveling team called the Indianapolis Clowns, but the embossing is kind of in the style of Ben-Day dots or halftone. From other papers attached to these and in the same file, it seems like these cards were sent to newspapers to go along with press releases for the baseball game, but i can not find anything resembling them online. Can anyone help me figure out what these are? --Found5dollar (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, incase it helps, it says "Please return mat" on the reverse of some.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A stereotype mat is what that is. See "The Papier Mache Matrix" section on this page, for example. Such mats were easy to send through the mail, so advertisers, news services, and such would have them made up for distribution to local newspapers. The newspapers would then have already-composed text (or, in your case, already-halftoned images) that they could drop into their pages. Deor (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! thanks! i have never heard of this type of printing. thank you for informing me of what it is!--Found5dollar (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Electoral reform in UK
The 2010 election is thought by many to have produced a result which has been unfair to the Conservatives. Indeed, Michael Heseltine has been saying for a long time that the Conservatives had a colossal mountain to climb. Is this a consequence of the figures in the 2001 census being used? Or of the decisions made by the Boundary Commission? Or of the "first past the post" system? And what should be changed to make it as fair as possible, consistent with strong and stable government? This last question includes the question as to which possible other system would be fairest. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard to maintain that the general election result is unfair to the Conservatives - with 36.1% of the vote, they took 47.0% of the seats, almost securing a majority. This is a consequence, principally, of the first-past-the-post system, which greatly benefits the two largest parties (and, to a lesser extent, small parties with highly concentrated support).  That said, in 2005, Labour took only 35.3% of the vote and secured a majority, suggesting the system is even more beneficial to them.  This is a result of two main factors: Labour's more concentrated support, mainly in larger cities, and the tendency of supporters of several smaller parties to vote tactically against the Conservatives.  The more concentrated support means fewer votes for Labour which don't help to elect someone.  The tactical voting has a similar effect, although it seems to have been less of a factor in 2010.  The concentration of much of Labour's vote in large cities, which typically have declining populations, versus the Conservative's tendency to do better in areas with growing populations, combines with the use of 2001 census figures to ensure that Labour-held seats tend to have smaller electorates than Conservative ones, again disadvantaging the Conservatives.  Given that the Boundary Commission are compelled by law to only consider population figures from the last census and not any later changes, I haven't heard any serious accusations that their decisions disadvantaged the Conservatives.  Overall, the differences are not vast, the Conservatives have often secured large majorities, and had they come close to taking a majority of votes, they would have a large majority in the Commons. Warofdreams talk 12:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The fairest system is certainly some form of proportional representation, probably the single transferable vote. Because it is fairer, it will almost certainly give more representation to smaller parties.  It can be consistent with strong and stable government, but it is more likely to be reliant on coalitions (not necessarily weak and unstable, although they have that reputation in the UK). Warofdreams talk 12:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the election results were "unfair" to anyone, it was surely the Lib Dems - 23% of the votes, under 9% of the seats. Their support is quite widely spread, so that they more often come second to either Conservative or Labour, rather than winning seats themselves. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * STV (or Preferential Voting as we call it here in Australia) isn't a proportional system, and it doesn't typically give more representation to smaller parties - only 3 of 150 seats in the Australian House of Representatives are not held by the two-and-a-half major parties. However, it is rather fairer than FPTP, as it means no-one's vote is wasted. FiggyBee (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * STV certainly is a system of proportional representation, as listed in our article on the subject. The House of Representative system (sometimes described as single-member STV) is known as the Alternative Vote in the UK, and is less proportional, but generally still classed as PR. Warofdreams talk 13:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that STV. Yep yep.  Personally I fail to see how proportional voting gels with having "local" MPs; I think sacrificing one for the other would be a poor trade. FiggyBee (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The two don't gel. The system the Lib Dems and others want for the UK is "STV-in-multi-member-constituencies". The UK will have to decide whether it wants to keep the local MP-constituency link or go for a closer reflection of the popular vote. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it would mean much larger constituencies, with each one having several representatives. Three members is probably the minimum workable number for multiple-member STV, and perhaps ten the maximum - so, in Westminster terms, one constituency might be a small county or a fairly large city.  Incidentally, the Conservatives are proposing keeping FPTP and having fewer MPs, which would also mean larger constituencies - although not so large as STV. Warofdreams talk 14:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Spoke with someone who had been in the Boundary Commission recently. Essentially you could merge two adjacent constituencies, so not increase the number of MPs and inject some more interesting results in parliamet.
 * ALR (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the obvious approach (although, if it was thought beneficial to reduce the overall number of MPs, it would be a good chance to do it, while still increasing the range of views represented in Parliament). The problem with two-member constituencies is that they are rather likely to be safe seats - where only two parties have a realistic chance of winning a seat in most years.  Better to have four- or five-member constituencies, which would make the final results more proportional. Warofdreams talk 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It does depend how it's implemented, personally speaking for a long period I've felt unable to consult my MP because we are diametrically opposed on a number of issues; civil liberties and state intervention so nothing significant ;)
 * If we had multi-member STV with two members per constituency then at least I'd have choice. I'd be uncomfortable about any more than two members for the commons although potentially for an elected upper house I would see less of an issue.
 * ALR (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And you don't see the problem here? Instead of having a local MP whose job it is to represent the community,  You have a Conservative MP who represents conservatives, a Liberal MP who represents liberals, and, I don't know, maybe a BNP MP who represents honest hard-working Englishmen.  Politicians don't get the reality check of having to work for people who don't agree with them, and politics just becomes more and more polarised and off the wall. FiggyBee (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You end up with two local MPs who between them represent their electorate in a way that actually reflects their voting opinions more than it does now. So in a two member constituency there may be two from one party, or one from one and a second from another.  No system is perfect but in recent elections there has been extremely low turnout, a growing number of ostensibly safe seats and a professionalisation of politics.  Again reflecting back to my own constituencies, in three of four I've been represented by someone with no real world working experience.  My current MP has been a party apparatchik since he left University and has done nothing credible.
 * There are very clear risks with any political reform, as you point out there is an increased likelihood of small, single issue parties being involved in parliament, but if that's a reflection of what the electorate want then that indicates that the system is improved. As you point out, many parliamentarians are detached from reality, FPTP is a significant cause of that.
 * ALR (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We could have a long, loooong discussion about whether parliament reflecting what the electorate wants would be an improvement to the system. :) We have 95% turnout in elections here (because you get fined $20 if you don't vote).  I've worked at a polling station and met the electorate, and I'm afraid that if we got the politicians we wanted, we'd end up with the politicians we deserve. FiggyBee (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Under AV or STV, politicians need to attract transfers from constituents for whom they are not the first choice. They actually have an increased incentive to work for the whole community, or at least most of it, rather than under FPTP where many seats are safe and some MPs get away with do very little in the way of representation. Warofdreams talk 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I'm a fan of the benevolent dictatorship :) Democracy stinks.
 * ALR (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Define strong and stable there are significant risks with having large majorities, as we saw from the Blair regime where parliament was effectively marginalised and there was insufficient scrutiny in the house.
 * What we're seeing is a consequence of FPFT in a multi-party environment. I'm not a big fan of arguments around fairness in politics, what we need is a system that means that the representation in parliament is representative of the people.  As an example my own MP managed to win somewhat less than 50% support in this constituency.  What we have seen this time has been an increase in turnout and that may have had a significant effect.  There was discussion of engaging younger voters and increasing turnout even in safe seats where it's always been a problem getting people to vote against an incumbent.
 * A different system would change the dynamics in the house, personally I feel that some form of proportional system would help increase turnout. From what I understand from electoral geeks the most representative system is multi-member constituencies using STV.  Delivering that would involve a significant boundary review.
 * ALR (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw Colin Hay speak about this; his view was that introducing PR would have little effect on political engagement or turnout, but would generally be of benefit in that Parliament would be more representative. Warofdreams talk 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True. I've seen arguments in both directions and my own view is that wider reform is really needed to assure engagement.  I have a passing interest in this, not as passionate about it as some I know, so I'm not an expert.
 * ALR (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unrepresentative government? Overprofesionalisation of politics? Don't wan't a despotism? Easy, take the last census, make a list of people of appropriate age (what is currently voting age) in each electorate, randomly select a number of people in each electorate. They're your representatives. No votes, unlikely to get a professional politician, perfectly representative (at a particular resolution of "representative") --203.22.236.14 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

tourism statistics
Hello everyone. I'm searching for statistics on the number of tourist visitors per country (or attraction) - I'm not looking for the big/top places, but for places that get between 400,000 to 500,000 visitors per year. Can anyone help by pointing to an attraction/country in that range? Thank you very much, WikiJedits (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I just noticed the other day that the US Space & Rocket Center gets right in that range (470,000 visitors per year). &mdash; Lomn 13:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lomn, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. Much appreciated. (More are welcome, everyone!). I found one myself here – the entire country of Paraguay had 428,000 visitors in 2008. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Searching for "500000 visitors per year" turns up quite a few: Tombstone, the Minh Mang Tomb and the Mercedes-Benz Museum are just three examples. Related searches will doubtless find many more. Warofdreams talk 15:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks also. I needed something really fast and you guys were great, many thanks. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Genocide
Where did the first genocide take place? Who were the victims and who were the culprits? B-Machine (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We have an article: Genocides in history. FiggyBee (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with above) The term was coined in 1943 by Raphael Lemkin in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe largely to address the actions of the leaders of Nazi Germany before and during World War Two, specifically what is now known as "the Holocaust", and was used in prosecuting some Nazi leaders at the Nuremburg Trials. It was first defined as an international crime by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was passed in 1948.  The first time this law was enforced was in 1998, in relation to the killings in Rwanda in 1994.  People have retroactively applied the definition to past conflicts, sometimes with considerable controversy.  See Genocides in history.  For example, Ben Kiernan has evidently called the destruction of Carthage during the Third Punic War "The first genocide". Buddy431 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If your question is when the first recorded genocide took place, the answer might be the destruction of Carthage, or the extermination of the Amalekites. However, if your question is when the very first genocide took place, the answer is that it almost certainly occurred in prehistoric times, so we don't know when or where it happened.  In fact, genocide probably predates Homo sapiens, according to this article, among others.  Marco polo (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * According to a TV show I saw a few months back, Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal Man may have co-existed in Europe. And you know which of those two is not around anymore. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither chimpanzee wars nor the disappearance of Neanderthal man fit the description of Genocide. FiggyBee (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Having read the description you linked, Figgy, I think that those two situations do fit the description. Can you say why you think they don't?  Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I also saw something recently saying that scientists think there was some interbreeding between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. If so, then they were close enough genetically that they could be considered humans. However, we don't know why the Neanderthals disappeared. Genocide is only one of the possibilities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Apes aren't killing other apes because of their "national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Nor do we have any evidence that Neanderthals were so targeted.  Genocide is a 20th century political concept and what constitutes genocide (or doesn't constitute genocide, in the case of suppressing dissidents) should be seen through that filter. FiggyBee (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on how narrowly you want to define national, ethnic, and racial. If you want to say that genocide can only exist when those categories take their modern form in the context of nation-states, then by definition, there could not have been a premodern genocide.  However, at its root, ethnicity is really about "us" versus "them", with the distinction being made on cultural grounds.  As such, the distinction almost certainly predates Homo sapiens.  Chimpanzees have a sense of "our band" and "that alien band".  Chimpanzee bands have distinct cultures and traditions, and individuals identify strongly with their bands.  When one band annihilates another, it can be seen as a kind of genocide. I don't see how this is qualitatively different from one prehistoric tribe trying to annihilate another or the Nazis trying to annihilate the Jews. Of course the latter was at a vastly larger scale than either of the former, and it made use of a more sophisticated range of technology, but I don't see why these are necessary for genocide. Marco polo (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Kechemeche
What does KECHEMECHE mean in the Algonquin/lenape language? they were the indigenous people of cape may county along with the tuckahoe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You probably should ask this at the Language Ref Desk. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He or she has already asked there, and I have responded there. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Roman empire vs Chinese three kingdoms
Lets pretendthat in the 1st century AD, The Roman Empire and Three Kingdoms China went to war for some reason in Afghanistan/Iran. Who would be likely to win, and why?--92.251.166.171 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the impossible logistics of the situation, I'd say the Afghans would kick both "superpowers" out of there like they have done ever since... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the Parthian Empire might have had something to say about it... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is "Three Kingdoms China"? By it's very name they were three separate regimes, fighting each other. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely you mean the Han Dynasty, which didn't break apart into the Three Kingdoms until 220. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese economy
Why is Portugal in seeming never-ending economic stagnation whereas neighboring Spain (until 2008 or so) has experienced continuous and rapid growth during the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st? --Belchman (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Portugal is relatively small and isolated in comparison to its neighbor Spain. Vranak (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think your perception is accurate. Like Spain, Portugal experienced solid economic growth during the 1980s and 1990s.  This growth occurred in both countries after they joined the European Community as firms from other parts of the EC set up operations in the two Iberian countries to take advantage of their relatively low labor costs.  Both countries experienced the global recession of 2001. In the years that followed, both countries' manufacturing sectors suffered from the effects of expanded European trade with China, whose labor costs were much lower than Spain's or Portugal's.  However, a real-estate bubble in Spain helped to compensate for weakness in manufacturing as thousands of Spaniards took jobs in construction and real estate.  As we have seen, Spain's real-estate bubble was not sustainable, and it is arguable whether Spain improved its position relative to Portugal over the full course of the last decade.  Spain's unemployment rate is now twice as large as Portugal's. See Economy of Portugal.  Marco polo (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hasn't Portugal been rather poorer than Spain for generations? Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wasn't Salazar more opposed to accepting foreign aid than Franco as well, I think I read that somewhere around here.148.197.114.158 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Constitution law
Is there a law in the US Constitution that mandates people take part in the 2010 Census? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.94.214 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Constitution merely requires that a census take place. The actual law that requires participation is in the United States Code, specifically 13 USC §221. That particular law assigns a maximum fine of $100 for point-blank refusal to answer, and $500 for deliberately providing false answers. There is a specific exemption for questions dealing with religion. Xenon54 (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution, Laurence Tribe says:

"there are two ways, and only two ways, in which an ordinary private citizen ... can violate the United States Constitution. One is to enslave someone, a suitably hellish act. The other is to bring a bottle of beer, wine, or bourbon into a State in violation of its beverage control laws—an act that might have been thought juvenile, and perhaps even lawless, but unconstitutional?"
 * So almost nothing is unconstitutional for a private citizen. Paul (Stansifer) 20:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Treason is also specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. This may be splitting hairs (and not being a lawyer, I don't have a hair-splitting license in this area), but I think that the Constitution doesn't forbid citizens from committing treason, it defines treason and permits congress to forbid that.  I seem to remember hearing that the reason for this was that the authors were worried about a despotic administration using the charge of treason to silence opposition.  Paul (Stansifer) 02:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, treason is defined in the Constitution and Congress is authorized to determine the punishment, except they are forbidden from "attainder" or "corruption of blood", i.e. making the descendants of the treasonous person also somehow guilty ("tainted"), which I assume was to address things that might have happened under British rule. In theory, Congress could make treason punishable anywhere from, say, a 50 dollar fine, all the way up to hanging. As a practical matter, very few Americans have been convicted of treason, as such. John Brown was one of them, except it was treason against the state of Virginia rather than the US, as indicated in the article. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and executed for espionage, which is pretty much the same thing as treason. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Xenon54 has a very good point, although I wouldn't advise anyone to follow any advice on here without consulting a lawyer first. As for the constitutional question, that sounds exactly right. The American constitution's discussion of treason has been practically irrelevant as far as I know, largely because there are plenty of capital crimes an individual may be convicted of regardless constitutional limitations. Shadowjams (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the law: Besides there really no reason NOT to answer the questions. For most people the questions are very benign, but the info gathered is very important. It started by effecting the count of our House of Representatives. Plenty of others use this data, so it is very much in your best interest to be counted and counted accurately. There is a small percentage that is asked more detailed personal questions by mail. However these questions are only handled by a select group of Census employees and NOT by your local area. If you are randomly selected to receive the more detailed questionnaire. There is no way this personal information could be liked back to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderley (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought they had abandoned the "long form" this time around. In any case, everyone should participate in the census. It's a civic duty, and it's harmless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The more people in a town/county/state, etc., the more grants they get from higher levels of government and the more representation they have in legislatures. So answering the census form makes sense unless you hate your city. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Heaven
About what percent of Jews today believe in an afterlife for the good (excluding reincarnation)? &mdash;C Teng(talk) 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is a Jew? If you mean people that believe in the tenets of the Jewish religion, then by definition it is 100%, since an afterlife is one the Jewish principles of faith. --Tango (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With the current wording, the answer to your question would be a very small percentage. As it happens, it is only the minority of Jews who observe the laws of Judaism, and as such, either choose to disagree with religious teachings or are completely oblivious to them.  As such, although all observant Jews by definition (as in Tango's post above) believe in an afterlife, observant Jews are but a tiny minority of Jews alive today.  And it's not entirely clear what you mean by "for the good" and "excluding reincarnation."  Do you mean, by the former, to exclude those who believe only in a Hell, and by the latter, to exclude those who believe only in a physical afterlife (in the sense that the dead will return to life on planet Earth) but not to exclude those who believe in some sort of metaphysical existence?  Perhaps you could clarify.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You do have a few ethnic Jews who practice other religions; most of my relatives and I are conservative Christians from a historically Jewish family that converted a few generations ago. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Question on Henry VIII
(Copied over from Helpdesk  Chzz  ►  22:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

To whom it may concern,


 * Hello my name is Angela.. I have been catching up on some history of KingHenry VIII. I was just reading some footnotes from your on-line wikimedia. I don't study this, but what I have found on the site for King Henry VIII,, and the actual death of Catherine Of Aragon to the election of Pope Paul III has got me confused. I'm sure I may be able to go to the nearest library to find out more, but thought you would like to know.. As follows


 * Catherine of Aragon was Queen of England from: 11 June 1509 – 23 May 1533
 * It also says she died 7 January 1536
 * Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon


 * Next to be known as Queen after Catherine of Aragons' anullment to King HenryVIII, Is Anne Boleyn.


 * From 28 May 1533 – 17 May 1536 (Beheaded 19 May 1536)


 * Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn


 * Now what I am confused about are: Of the actual year of Catherine of Aragonsdeath and Pope Paul III election to time.

Paul III (*)13 October 1534  10 November 1549 Henry VIII between ages of 42 and death. Final break from pope


 * It is said on the Bio of King Henry VIII, that Catherine of Aragon died 15 months after Pope Paul III was elected. But according to the bio of King Henry VIII (at bottom of page) This is what it says: Catherine of Aragon died 15 months after his election. On (*)17-Dec-1538, four years into his pontificate, Paul III excommunicated Henry VIII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England


 * Too, I am confused about the actual time of the Popes election and excommunication to Henry VIII
 * I am sorry if I have it wrong. I have never looked any of these history facts up in my time of school, only now.. Cause I am more aware about the importance of history. Also that it is, in those times, I have always had a very deep inner-connection too. Maybe it's just facination or mere intuition. Either way, please, If I am wrong, fill me in if you'd like. Otherwise I hope I may havehelped the next reader.


 * Sincere thanks,
 * Angela Gabriel —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyPlavwell (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The dates seem to be correct...Paul III became pope 13 October 1534 and Catherine died 7 January 1536. The problem is that no one (at least according to our article) is really sure when Henry was excommunicated. It may have been by Paul III on 17 December 1538, or it may have been in 1533 by Clement VII. I don't like the sources in the Henry VIII article though...footnote 35 is extremely vague. Churchill's very broad history is not a very good source for this. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just did a Google search. Spartucus and others say 17 DEcember 1538, one says 11 July 1533. I will go through some books I have on Henry later to see if we can pin down a definite date, although I'd put my money on 1538.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's what J. J. Scarisbrick says on pp.317-18 in his bio Henry VIII: In Consistory on 11 July 1533, Pope Clement solemnly condemned Henry's separation from Catherine of Aragon and marriage to Anne Boleyn and gave him until September to return to Catherine-under pain of Excommunication; however, it was suspended for another two months and was never promulgated. On 30 August 1535, a second excommunication was drawn up (page 334) after Henry's execution of Bishop Fisher. On 17 December 1538 Pope Paul finally prepared to promulgate the Bull of Excommunication against Henry. This comes from page 361.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have since added this as footnote number 36 to the Henry VIII article, which I must say is poorly written in parts, and would greatly benefit from some heavy-duty editing to bring it up to par with the excellent Anne Boleyn article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it's been established that Henry was excommunicated on 17 December 1538, can we mark this as resolved?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Air ambulance costs
How can I find out how much air ambulances can charge for a flight? Anyone know of any cases in which the price was lowered? References will be greatly appreciated!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.156.1.178 (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about can charge, but they do charge anything from $0 upwards. You'll have to give us more specifics. I removed "legal question" from your subject line because we're not allowed to answer those, so I hope it isn't one! :) BTW, do you think our article on air ambulances has quite enough photos?  Sheesh. FiggyBee (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We can answer legal questions. What we can't do is give legal advice. They are different things. --Tango (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your IP address seems to come from the US, so are you asking about air ambulances in the US? Like any emergency care, they won't ask about money until afterwards, so I'm sure there have been many times when they haven't charged since the person carried has no insurance or money of their own. --Tango (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They charge, definitely. They occasionally sue too. They collect at a lesser degree though. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick look on Google produced this article, which quotes a price of $17,000. One of the commenters says that this was the price quoted to the insurance company, but that air ambulance providers may also quote a lower "non-insurance cash price".  I leave it to you to google >air ambulance cost air ambulance "cash price"< to see what else turns up.  Marco polo (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler
If someone went back in time and killed Hitler, history wouldn't change dramatically, because another Nazi leader would take his place. But how would history change if someone went back in time and prevented Hitler from being born? That way, the Nazi party wouldn't have risen to power at all. --75.33.219.230 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only is your premise almost certainly incorrect (that history wouldn't change dramatically) but your questions is, although perhaps unintentionally, completely ridiculous. Just as a very vivid example, have you ever seen Back to the Future?  Obviously the purpose of the film is to embellish on minor changes in the past for the sake of the plot, but as you can probably extrapolate in a more real manner, even minor changes can have tremendous effects on the sequence of history.  So let's end this now.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone killed Hitler after the Nazis had already risen to power, his second-in-command would have taken his place. However, if Hitler had never been born, the Nazis would never have risen to power, preventing the Holocaust. What effects would this have? --75.33.219.230 (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hitler filled a "need" felt by the populace after they had been crushed by Britain and France. Here's something to consider: What if someone actually went back in time and killed someone who was ten times worse than Hitler, leaving Hitler as the much lesser of two evils? Forgetting that, someone else likely would have come along to capitalize on the anguish of the German people. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 23:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Try Making History (novel) for one imagining. FiggyBee (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If Hitler had never been born, then some other loser named, say, Schicklgruber, would have likely emerged to espouse the complaints of suffering Germans after WW1, to tell them they were a great people, that they were not really defeated in WW1, and that they should step forward and take charge of the world. Maybe the next Fearless Leader would not have blamed the Jews for Germany's ills, would have formed an alliance with Britain or the U.S. instead of Russia, or would have delayed WW2 until 1952, with vastly different results. Edison (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why couldn't the Nazi Party have risen? It was created without Hitler, they could have found another Fuhrer.  There is a book, I can't remember the title. about a woman going back in time and killing Hitler's mother, therefore preventing him from being born.  But she takes a copy of the Time-Life History of World War II with her, it's discovered in the 1970s, and Germany, still led by unreconstructed Prussians, decides that they can do a better job than Hitler did and start a World War.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What if someone went even further back in time and prevented the birth of Jesus? Now that's something we can ponder upon!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They might have, how ever could you tell? --203.22.236.14 (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of the book came to me this morning. It's Elleander Morning by Jerry Yulsman.  The plot is slightly different from how I remembered it, too.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see this talk page on a sister project for examples of why killing Hitler (or preventing him being born) is a bad idea. -- Daduzi  talk  08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite following that story, but I can see various problems with it. There were great technological advancements connected with WWII, which helped spur technological growth in the 1950s. WWII and its aftermath also ended the Great Depression. The war may have been bad for many individuals, but from the materialistic standpoint, it worked out well. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * . This is the most ignorant thing that has been posted on the Humanities desk in my memory.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. War does result in accelerated technological development and it does help end recessions (it gives the government an excuse to spend lots of money, which kick starts the economy - without that excuse you risk rebellion at the tax rises necessary to pay for it). That said, the Great Depression was showing signs of ending before the outbreak of war, so it probably was only shortened by a little. --Tango (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no quibble with those two theoretical points; my problem is with the spectacularly stupid claim that "from the materialistic standpoint, [World War II] worked out well", for which Bugs has to provide a citation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It ended the Great Depression, spurred technology, and the USA emerged from it a superpower. Those items are material gains. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 07:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be contentious Bugs, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the USA emerge as a superpower following World War I? After all, it was the USA who was largely responsible for the Roaring Twenties.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost. But we didn't have the mojo to prevent Britain and France from crushing Germany and setting the stage for WWII. After that one ended, we said, "OK, Europe, this time we're going to do it our way." As a result, Germany is a strong and peaceful nation. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 09:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These are common idiotic American tropes you are repeating, and you have still not provided a citation. For starters, every single person of the 70 million dead had been both a producer and a consumer.  The economic toll on the world was staggering.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember NATO was set up after the Second World War, so that pretty much put the brakes on Europe and its overlong history of strife.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Great Man Theory. Vranak (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Betting to lose
I've heard over and over again lately about big finance betting on certain investments to lose. How is this supposed to work? It seems odd that one would buy an investment in order for it to lose.198.161.203.6 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about the Goldman Sachs incident, they didn't buy the investments, they sold the investments, allegedly without telling investors that the creators of the portfolio stood to make a lot of money if it failed and, indeed, were going to short it to death. FiggyBee (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * More generally, see Short (finance). The basic economics of shorting is simple to understand (you sell what you have with the intention of buying it back later when it is cheaper), but I admit to not totally getting how it applies to derivatives, which is what the recent news is about, I believe. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Markets generally are people "betting" that their predictions about the world (crops are good, crops are bad; oil production is good, oil production is bad; IBM does well, IBM doesn't do well... etc.) are right. For everyone that thinks company XYZ will do well, another group of people will think that XYZ won't do well. An efficient market allows people to place their money both on the upside and the downside. Shorting allows people to place their bets on the downside. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, you sell short what your broker has access to, not what you own (the latter would just be market timing). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true. Short selling, as our article indicates, involves borrowing the security and then returning it as collateral at the appropriate date. Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Spread betting is a related topic that may be of interest. Spread bettors can make large gains by gambling on price changes - up or down - in all manner of commodities, and financial spread betting is a large and growing market because (in the UK at least) winnings from gambling receive more favourable treatment for tax purposes than gains made by dealing in financial assets.  Ka renjc 09:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also in some markets you can sell shares that you don't have, as long as you buy them back on the same day, since the settlement is done based on the end of day situation, no one looks if you have bought them in the morning and sold them in the afternoon, or if you have done the reverse. --Lgriot (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Borrowing = you don't own it, but Lqriot has an interesting point. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the Magnetar podcast from This American Life that talks all about it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)