Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 14

= May 14 =

Sport Spectation
Why do people like to watch sports so much, in some cases watch them more than play them?

Take NHL for example. There are people who list the schedule of the whole season, take down every game, list the teams playing in those games, then they mark who won and who lost. And then for these people, it is such a focal conversation topic, for example: "Oh, Carolina's going to win.". And the sports commentators comment on people who have injuries, and newspapers have a whole REGULAR devoted section to sports, and statistics, which I don't understand.

Football is the same way.

Does this help explain this phenomenon?174.3.123.220 (Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)alk:174.3.123.220|talk]]) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's entertainment. It's watching highly skilled athletes doing things that you and I couldn't possibly do at that kind of level. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a film Woody Allen was in (I can't for the life of me remember which one) where his character was explaining why he, being more brainy than brawny, could possibly be interested in watching sports. He quipped something that whereas academics, philosophers and other intellectuals can spend their entire lives arguing with each other about who understands the world better, in the realm of sports the answer to the question "who is best?" becomes much more definite when one team beats another. Gabbe (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For the layperson, playing a full hockey game would be positively exhausting. Plus assembling twenty or thirty guys to play is no mean feat. Plus the equipment, the rink... same goes for many others sports. It's just much easier to flick on the tube and have your interest satisfied that way. Sure you can play hockey with as little as one person, but then it's just not the same is it? Vranak (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And as the question says, it is a focus of conversation. You can talk for hours with fellow fans about games that you are all equally incapable of playing yourselves. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * News, Weather, Sports - all mostly-harmless topics. And this, from A League of Their Own: (Tom Hanks) "What's this? Crying? There's no crying in baseball!" (player) "It's hard!" (Hanks) "Of course it's hard! It's supposed to be hard! If it were easy, everyone would do it!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well consider past empires (Greek, Roman, etc). Everything they did has long since been over so clearly whatever miniscule effect on real life a sports game in progres might have, it is still more than the effect on the present that a historical account of a past kingdom in progress can have. Yet people still read about past kingdoms. Why? Well, for one thing, to learn more about the present. Is there anything from sports to be learned regarding real life? Why, of course, from sportsmanship to rivalry. So, in sum, not only do I understand sports fandom, but I consider it having at least as great claim to serious following and study as ancient history does, on the grounds that it has at least some (if only economic) connction with present day real life. 84.153.189.240 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but sports fandom was just as insane in ancient Rome an Greece as it is today. Chariot racing is the ancient soccer (or NASCAR or Formula One or whatever). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this make gladiators the ancestors of hockey players? (I went to a fight and a ludus broke out.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. They had their own groupies and everything. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We can also compare boxing to the medieval joust. The latter was far more dangerous, however.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Short story, poem, picture, etc. about teamwork
I'm looking for some great short story, poem, picture, etc. about teamwork. I've googled it but I couldn't find a good one. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Graham Greene's The Destructors is very good. Zoonoses (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Five Run Away Together.--Wetman (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Charge of the Light Brigade? --- OtherDave (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Country of the Blind by H.G. Wells.  dlempa (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

English and British Duchesses of Normandy in the Channel Islands
Were all English queens and British queens technically titular Duchesses of Normandy in the Channel Islands? Is there any reference in their time to that title after the year 1204?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read the "Duke of Normandy" article? Gabbe (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have. But I wonder if there are any claims by the female consorts of British monarch on the title Duchess of Normandy. Like was the title ever used to apply to them.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never read anywhere that the title Duchess of Normandy was ever used by an English or British consort or applied to them; however, you might want to ask User:Kittybrewster or User:Surtsicna as they both know a lot about titles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All English queens from Matilda of Flanders until Isabella of Angoulême were also Duchesses of Normandy (though most of them used the title Duchess of the Normans). Eleanor of Aquitaine is known to have styled herself "by the Grace of God, Queen of the English, Duchess of the Normans, Duchess of the Aquitanians and Countess of the Angevins". All these titles but the Aquitanian one were acquired by her second marriage. Her daughter-in-law, Berengaria of Navarre, signed herself ""Queen of the English, duchess of the Normans and Aquitanians, Countess of the Angevins". So they definitively used the titles Duchess of Normandy and Duchess of the Normans. Surtsicna (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Surtsicna, you answered this question beautifully. I shall therefoe mark it as resolved. I was curious as well about the title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

United States geography
My question is why are some of the states that make up the USA absolutely massive in central to western areas whereas the ones on the east coast in particular are tiny, for example Rhode Island. It just seems a bit disproportionate that you have huge and tiny sections of a country like that. Thanks, Hadseys 11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * History of the United States would be a good read, especially the "westward expansion" section. The USA started as relatively densely populated areas on the east coast, and the states were all small and manageable by 18th century standards. The western areas, generally more sparsely populated, needed to encompass a much larger area in order to have the minimum needed for becoming states. And by then, we had a network of railroads, so managing much larger entities became feasible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and a lot of vast territory in the west was acquired by treaty or purchase, such as Louisiana Purchase and Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence the need to manage on a much larger scale. Even now, much of the great plains remains sparsely populated, particularly areas like Wyoming and the Dakotas. Some of those western states have counties that are considerably larger than some of the smaller eastern states. But they are also much less densely populated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Another factor would be disproportionate representation. No matter how few citizens a state has, it's entitled to at least 1 representative and 2 senators, thus giving them a proportional edge already, as we see at Presidential election time sometimes. If you cut Wyoming into pieces the size of, say, Connecticut, not only would that area have a disproportionate voice in Congress, you might have some "states" with virtually no residents. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hadseys, I note you're from the UK, which had its rotten boroughs, in their way even more disproportionate. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pocket boroughs". Now I've got a Gilbert & Sullivan song in my head. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and a lot of vast territory in the west was acquired by treaty or purchase, such as Louisiana Purchase - I always wonder if this is a fair assessment. It's clear that Jefferson's government bought whatever claim France had on Louisiana from Napoleon. But certainly France's claim to the area was spurious at least by Natural Law, Jefferson's favorite justification for the Declaration of Independence. Large parts of the territory sold had never seen a Frenchmen or any European, and it certainly already was occupied by people who had every expectation of assuming it was theirs. So, generously speaking, what the US bought was the right to steal the land from the indigenous people without intervention from France... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it is probably more accurate to say the US bought the right to tell the other European powers to stay out of that bit of land. We had to do our own "treaties" with the natives.  Googlemeister (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it sad (and tedious) that European editors glibly remind us Americans of how we stole the land from the indigenous peoples, while forgetting that this was an occurance in all the Americas, Africa, Australia, the Phillipines, etc. with various European nations claiming land for their sovereign and displacing the indigenous without so much as a by your leave. Oh, and while we are at it, let us not forget about Europe with the Normans invading England, then centuries later English and Scottish planters displacing the Irish in their own land; then we have Napoleon and his dreams of conquest, the Austrian Habsburgs and the Balkans crisis which catapulted the world (including the USA-ahem) into one of the most bloody, unnecessary wars ever fought on this weary planet of ours. Last but not least we have the Anchluss, the first step on the march of Hitler's Wagnerian lebensraum fantasy. It's convenient, not to mention cool to lay every bloody act, genocide, and atrocity on the big, bad Americans' doorstep while nonchalantly ignoring one's own nation's past, bloody misdeeds. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh! Godwin's law already! Edison (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * while forgetting - who forgets? We should not bowdlerise history on either side of the Atlantic - or anywhere. Tu quoque is as good as "an eye for an eye" - it makes the whole world blind. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, Stephan. Let's close this thread as it just generates hostility and we have really drifted far away from the OP's question. Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the establishment of the United States, some little states got disproportionately large representation (2 Senators regardless of population) as an inducement to ratify the Constitution, giving up their sovereignty and entering a union which they could not subsequently leave voluntarily (see also American Civil War: you can choose whether to join, but once in you can't leave, like the Mob). Edison (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, they can choose to ask for statehood, and Congress has the final say in the matter. As far as secession is concerned, unfortunately the Civil War kind of decided that question by force rather than by court ruling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What the h..l is Godwin's Law? And why should I care about it? Whenever a European begins his or her self-righteous attacks against Americans (for committing what Europeans have been doing for centuries), it's obvious that Hitler has to be brought into the equation. For starters, Hitler was European, and he committed one of the worst acts of genocide in mankind's living memory, and if that wasn't enough, he launches a war against a continent that was still healing from the last war (again started by Europeans). So..... when a European has the temerity to rub the genocide of the Native Americans into my face along with Vietnam, Bush, Iraq, etc., I will pull him or her up and ask (with all due politesse), to please judge their own nation and its history before flogging the knackered horse of anti-Americanism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You should care about it because invoking Hitler is taken as a sign of weakness in one's argument. True, Godwin's Law is usually invoked in discussions about current government policy rather than European history.  This cartoon is relevant.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you are asking me to accept that challenging someone about Hitler is a weakness  in my argument. Who says it's a weakness??!!!! I could just as easily have brought up Slobodan Milosovic, Oliver Cromwell, Vlad Tepes, Torquemada, Cortes, Caligula, Elizabeth Bathory, Catherine de Medici... there is no shortage to European names I could match to every George Dubya Bush or Armstrong Custer (or whichever American George it's trendy to hate at the moment). I chose Hitler because of the sheer magnitude of his crimes and the fact those same heinous events are now being given the Cavalier treatment by some Europeans who prefer to cast Americans in the same role as Hitler and his followers. I am not saying all Germans supported Hitler, nor is this meant to be an anti-German tirade; rather it is anti-Europeans-who-hate-Americans. As an American I am fed up with every bl..dy thread or question being twisted into a cat-o-nine-tail's whip with which to flog Americans and their history! Have I made myself clear that I have not accepted defeat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You ask who says it's a weakness? Godwin's Law says it's a weakness.  I am not quarreling with you about anything, just trying to explain Godwin's Law, a widespread, well-known, and amusing point of argument.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's a violation of Godwin's Law to compare Hitler to Hitler? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I once had one of these exchanges with a hip young German—clad in black with the obligatory blond dreadlocks—who asked me "How does it feel to live in a country built on the graves of millions of murdered Amerindians?" I responded "How does it feel to live in a country that carried out the industrial murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies, leftists, and gay people?" He stormed off in a huff. How is it that some Europeans think that they can get away with this kind of historical sanctimony? Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The only people in Europe who aren't anti-American are the Albanians. Also, the Russians, Romanians, and Moldavans I've met are more interested in how we live than berating us for daring to live.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I don't want to generalize about Europeans any more than I want them to generalize about Americans. I've found plenty of Europeans in every country who are not reflexively anti-American. And certainly, I wouldn't deny Europeans the right to criticize U.S. government policies.  I criticize them myself.  Marco polo (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We all criticise government policy. The problem I find with many (not all) Europeans (remember I live in Europe and I experience anti-Americanism on a daily basis) is that, while I may criticise a nation's government, I don't by extension blame the citizens for the actions of their elected rulers; whereas many Italians I know here blame me for US foreign policy!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I take European hostility towards America as underlying resentment for having bailed them out at least twice in the last century (three times if you count Kosovo) - a living example of the old saying that "no good deed goes unpunished." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This phenomenon is a product of history. In fact, each state has its own unique history. The reasons why each one was created and then admitted to the union as they were have to do with the arcane details of the politics of the day. The smallest states are in the northeast.  This is so because they, like all other states on the eastern seaboard (apart from Florida) started as English colonies. Each of the little states was settled by a group of people who, for one religious and/or political reason or another, did not want to be part of a neighboring colony and so founded their own little colony.  Some of these split off relatively late, such as Delaware, which did not completely separate from Pennsylvania until 1776, and Maine, which did not separate from Massachusetts until 1820, after the United States was already independent.  The larger eastern seaboard states other than Florida—New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia—all began as areas granted to an individual proprietor or to a company of proprietors by the English crown.  Actually, all of these areas were originally granted by the Charter of 1606 to Virginia, but the other colonies were set aside for other proprietors by subsequent charters.  In each case, negotiations resulted in relatively large areas being granted.  To the people in London making the grants, the borders probably looked like arbitrary lines on a chart.  With the exception of odd leftover bits of territory such as Vermont and West Virginia, which broke away from Virginia in the 1860s for political reasons, the remaining states were created from territories that had not been occupied by English colonists before the United States gained independence.  Florida became a part of the United States when the United States acquired the previously Spanish territory through a treaty.  It was not broken up before statehood.  Like Florida, almost every post-independence state began its existence as a U.S. territory before being granted statehood.  Territorial boundaries were drawn mostly based on administrative convenience.  Because most future states east of the Mississippi River (and a few to the west, such as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri) began as territories before railroads existed or linked them to other U.S. territories, their size was somewhat limited by the slowness of travel.  Texas and California are somewhat special cases, and you really need to read their histories to understand why they are as they are.  Also, before 1860, admitting states to the union always involved compromises between proponents and opponents of the spread of slavery.  Typically, for every new free (non-slave) state, a slave state had to be admitted.  Each side had some interest in limiting the size of states admitted so as to maximize the potential for the admission of future states on each side.  After the 1860s, railroads began to spread west of the Mississippi, and vast areas became thinly settled rather quickly.  As a result, relatively large areas were marked off as territories and later admitted as states.  This is a generalization, but to understand the details, you need to read the history of each state.  Marco polo (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You expressed this beautifully, Marco. Yes, one has to read the history of each state to understand how and why it came into being. Another thing is that various states attracted different classes of people. For instance, Virginia and Maryland had many younger sons of English gentry amongst thier settlers, whereas Puritan New England had mainly yeoman farmers. The English Civil War divided many of the colonists, as the South tended to be Royalist, while the North was obviously Roundhead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

@Jeanne - see Godwin's Law if you haven't already. As for why people (not necessarily Europeans) are talking about Americans stealing from the Indians is... because the question is about the creation and expansion of the US states, particularly the western ones. Not talking about US treatment of the native population there would be a hopeless bowdlerization. When we get a question about Spain's history, we can talk about all the Moors and Jews and various other folks that got burned or beheaded or worse. You are the one who got on the soapbox first. Matt Deres (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is actually a book out now called How the States Got Their Shapes -- it's not the most scholarly of works, but it does explain to some degree why each state is the size it is. The coast of the country got settled first, so the big thing in the charters each colony received was the extent of their coastline. No one gave much thought to the interior, which is why several of the original 13 states are so elongated. Most of the other states were created by the federal government as territories before becoming states. Obviously, the original states didn't want to be overwhelmed by new states in the Senate, so they didn't want to turn the Northwest Territory, for instance, into 100 new states. Also, the Western areas (the area known as the "West" moving closer to the Pacific as time went on) started out being thinly populated, so it made sense to give them a lot of territory. Furthermore, Congress felt that a territory should have at least 60,000 people before becoming a state (as stated in the Northwest Ordinance), and the only way to get 60,000 people out of a frontier area was to have generous borders. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a decent book, but a better one on the subject is American Boundaries by Bill Hubbard Jr. I've noted some serious errors in How the States Got Their Shapes, for what that is worth. As others have said, the basic answer is that the eastern states evolved out of often vague definitions during the colonial era. The US federal government had power over state creation, including boundaries, from the creation of Ohio. While there was some attempt to keep new states relatively small (Iowa being a good example), in general a larger size prevailed, for various reasons (read that book). One key reason was that the West was mostly arid, making agricultural development risky or impossible. If you've ever driven across Wyoming, it should be obvious why it is a big state, relative to eastern states.````

British India - Army and Navy chiefs


This is a photo taken in 1948 in the Dominion of India. From the left are C. Rajagopalachari (Governor General), Baldev Singh (Defense Minister) along with the three service chiefs of the Indian Armed Forces. Of the three service chiefs, i can identify the one in centre as Air Marshall Thomas Elmhirst from his shoulder tabs (striped ones used for both Royal and Indian Air Forces). But i cannot identify the other two - which one is the Navy Admiral and which one is the Army General. Can someone id them from the uniforms? (their peaked caps are distinct and should help) --Sodabottle (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The one on the left is recognisable as General Sir Roy Butcher from a photograph on this http://www.normanby.info/bucher.htm site (the top google hit found under that form of his name). Further googling the other two officers' names similarly finds sites with photographs of them. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks!. I had guessed from the pictures. But needed a second confirmation from the uniforms.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Certainly the General is recognisably wearing an Army-style cap with a downward-inclined peak, while the Admiral, though not well seen, is clearly wearing a Navy-style cap with upward-inclined peak. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confirmation! Exactly what i was looking for :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Asha Rose Migiro
Hallow,

May you please assist me with the full address of Asha Rose Migiro,

It will be highly appreciated,

Thanks and best regards,

Tracy

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggrecious2010 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * United Nations Headquarters‎, New York, NY 10017, USA.

--Shantavira|feed me 13:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cases of Judgment notwithstanding verdict
I just recently stumbled upon the Judgment notwithstanding verdict article. How rare or common is this judgment? Does anyone know of any actual cases where a judge had to apply this? Because to me it seems very unlikely that this kind of situation would ever happen: a "judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict" and so "the judge enters a verdict notwithstanding the jury findings"; one would think that only if they were bribed or under duress that a jury would give such an unreasonable verdict as to invoke this judgment; othe--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)rwise everyone on the jury could, by some freak chance, really be that mentally incompetent. So any actual precedent cases of this happening would definitely be interesting to read about... I'm probably not making any sense. -- &oelig; &trade; 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Books Advanced Search is your friend: shows the appeals record for several such verdicts. Some general info is at , , , . Sometimes the judge is the only voice of justice in a deranged world, and finds himself having to take an unpopular stand. In the landmark civil rights case of the Scottsboro Boys, Judge James Edwin Horton committed career suicide in the racist south of the 1930's by setting aside an Alabama white jury's verdict of "Guilty" in the case of Haywood Patterson , a black man, accused of raping a white woman.  Edison (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Louise Woodward case is a famous recent case.John Z (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Had Lee Harvey Oswald lived long enough to be tried and convicted, the presiding judge might very well have applied this judgement.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of the time factor in which Oswald is claimed to have performed so many feats: 8 seconds to fire off at least three shots at a moving target, using an 1890-vintage rifle with a rusted scope, from the 6th floor of the TSBD; then in 90 seconds time climb over the stacks of boxes placed around his sniper's nest, sprint across the warehouse floor, carefully hide the rifle between books, walk quickly down the open staircase and be seen breathing normally by Officer Baker; 45 minutes later he is in Oak Cliff where he allegedly shot Officer JD Tippit, yet didn't rob him (a man on the run would surely have needed cash). A good lawyer would have pointed all these improbabilities out to the jury, and it's possible that had the jury gone ahead and found him guilty, the judge could have applied the judgement. I say could as he might have supported the jury's decision.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually he only needed 8 seconds to fire TWO shots. The first shot was the 0 point of that time scale. Also, from the way he talked to the reporters in the police station, he certainly came across as a guy with a rehearsed answer when asked if he kill JFK. However, had he actually gone to trial, lots more evidence might have come out, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * His response to the reporters sounded like he'd been programmed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At the time it sounded like a rehearsed answer. But a trial would have been interesting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have been the trial of the century!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, we've already had at least 2 of those. How many "trials of the century" can there be!  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently at least one per generation. Somehow, I suspect that the trial of a President's assassin might trump those other two. Even now, I can see Oswald's tell-almost-all autobiography appearing on bookshelves: IF I Did It, I Must Have Been Programmed by the CIA/FBI/KGB/Mafia/IBM. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and can you see all Oswald's former girlfriends with their tell-all autobiographies describing his prowess between the sheets?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * JNOV or Judgment as a matter of law, as it's widely called now under the federal rules, is sometimes requested by the losing party. There are specific rules that govern the timing and preconditions to requesting a JMOL, most importantly that one asked for a directed verdict at closing. But as the standard would suggest, it's rarely granted. I'm talking about federal rules in the U.S., and I don't know how it works in state court, nor have I actually studied any statistics in federal court about it, but that's just my instinct about how it works. Shadowjams (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

SDLP & British Labour
I'm fascinated by the links between the SDLP and the UK & Irish Labour Parties. I'm especially interested in the SDLP's taking of the Labour whip in the House of Commons. I don't understand the significance and mechanics of this. I've read what I could find on WP, but I'd appreciate any refs to other sources (or WP articles I may have missed). Thanks

Is mise, Stanstaple (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In 1913 the British Labour Party decided to give the Irish Labour Party exclusive 'rights' to organize in all of Ireland, a move resented by protestant Labour politicians in Northern Ireland at the time. There have been several unfruitful attempts convince Labour to became an all-UK party by opening a branch in Northern Ireland (see Northern Ireland Labour Party, Labour Party of Northern Ireland). SDLP and British Labour are fraternal parties and the implication of your comment is that SDLP MPs sit in the same group as British Labour MPs. --Soman (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The SDLP is a member of the Socialist International, as are the British and Irish Labour Parties. The British Labour Party hasn't stood candidates in NI since 1913, as Soman says; the Irish Labour Party hasn't stood candidates in NI since 1964.  The SDLP therefore has never stood against either of these organisations and are happy to take the British Labour Party whip in the House of Commons.  But the SDLP is also an Irish nationalist party, and on that basis, its relationships are rather more complex.  A possible merger between it and Fianna Fáil has been discussed, although that now appears unlikely.  Some British Labour Party politicians are closer to other parties in Northern Ireland - for example, Kate Hoey is a unionist and has supported DUP and UKUP candidates in the past; Jeremy Corbyn has been considered close to Sinn Féin. Warofdreams talk 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did European colonists want to go to India so badly?
I know they have spices and such, but lots of countries had spices. Plus it seemed like a REALLY long way to go just to get some spice. Some insight into this would be helpful. Were their assumptions to what India had, exaggerated? ScienceApe (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * History of India, especially the redirect to Colonial India, may provide some clues. You could also check out the India article and see where it goes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also British Raj and John Company. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll also want to look at Spice trade and Silk route. India was a very 'strategic' country for nations in those days. It's not like today where things can pretty much by-pass countries (what with planes) and 100s of major international ports, back in the day the key Trade routes were much more important, and having 'control' of them could be hugely beneficial. ny156uk (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Spices brought the first Portuguese traders to India in the 16th century. Once they saw the richness of the country, they realized how much more it had to offer. Until at least the 18th century, India was a rich part of the world, at least as rich as western Europe. It had been at the center of long-distance trade in Eurasia for centuries and had amassed great wealth in precious metals. It produced a large agricultural surplus as well as expensive tropical woods, cotton (not produced in Europe until the late 18th century), and lots of luxury goods. Europeans were eager for access to the lucrative trade possibilities. After the mid-18th century, the British also began to see the potential for revenue extraction and industrial profits (by making India a market for British manufactures). Marco polo (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe most of the British who lived in India were posted there by the government, as India never attracted the type of permanent European settlement such as the USA, Canada, South Africa, etc. India required a large number of military personnel as well as government officials and civil servants to enable Britain to administer and maintain British rule. Most of the British eventually returned to the United Kingdom, apart from many of the railway workers and soldiers, who married Indian women; hence the sizeable Anglo-Indian community. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, kind of. See the East India Company and Company rule in India. The British conquest of India was mostly a commercial undertaking until 1858. Most white settlers and Anglo-Indians left for the UK in 1947 out of fear of reprisals. Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, re: spices—spices are a pretty good commodity for these guys because they don't go bad and they can be shipped in very high volumes without too much trouble (they don't break, they are consumed in relatively small amounts, they are widely popular). Pound for pound many of them were probably far more valuable than gold. Each ship of spices you brought back would be pretty valuable. I think discounting the idea that the spices would have been a monetary incentive by themselves is incorrect. Many of the spices in question could not be easily grown in quantity in other countries with the agricultural technology of the time—they depended on very specific weather and soil conditions. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Indian climate was not suitable for settlement on a vast scale such as the US was in the 16th and 17th centuries. India was far more populated than the American continent as well. As Alan says, India was mostly a commercial enterprise for the British as it previously was for the Portuguese. I must read the linked articles before I comment further though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that India seemed to have a real psychological pull for the British as well, for reasons not directly related to spices. Something about Vedic mysticism perhaps. Vranak (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, a real psychological pull for profit which develops from a large market on account of a large population. Add to that extremely valuable spices, gems, gold, tea, and last but not least, huge amounts of opium for the Chinese empire whose emperor had forbidden to buy any kind of British/European goods whatsoever (and Chinese tea, porcelan, etc were being paid in gold and silver). "Vedic mysticism" at its finest indeed. Flamarande (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The pull of profit was there certainly, but there was something beyond that for many. I'm reminded of M. M. Kaye's characterization of India as "that beautiful, bewitching, often maddening and sometimes terrifying land". DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I scoff at the notion, Flamarande, that the only reason anyone would spend time in India (in this century or any other) would be for rank mercantile profiteering. I mean, come on. England is England -- not everyone wants to spend their whole existence there, regardless of how many gold doubloons they may or may not have. Vranak (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it was all about the money. I'm just pointing out that profits and power were without any doubt whatsover the main reasons for the overwhelming majority of the British/Europeans of the 17th, 18th, and even 19th century. And yes, some British colonizers eventually fell in love with India, its people and culture but only after they got there in the first place (and most traveled to India to gain something). I somehow doubt that Vedic mysticism produced any kind of "real psychological pull for the [majority of] British [colonizers]".


 * Let me also point out that most British returned to the UK. We can also be certain that the stockholders of the East India Company were interrested in profits and little else. I vaguely remeber that they even attempted to remove some gems from the Taj Mahal and were considering to dismantle it. Flamarande (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See Imperialism, Colonialism and White Man's Burden. Edison (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a further note to the explanations above: "spices" didn't originally just mean flavourings for food but a wide range of commodities including dyestuffs and drugs. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * England had a large supply of younger sons who would not be inheriting their family's wealth. India was more of a meritocracy (for Europeans, not unfortunately Indians) than Europe. Many social reforms such as Bentham's Panopticon prison design and reform schools for street youth were tried out in India first. I have just done a quick search and not found backup for the Panopticon idea..I got this from an English Prof. some fifty years ago. The Magdalen asylums were also installed there. (When they were started they were considered a good thing)   User : Sesquepedalia