Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 November 12

= November 12 =

visa question for short story
Does a hungarian citizen today require a special visa for up to 3 months in america or can they just go with their visa without doing anything first —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.31.236 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This web site should help you with your question. --Halcatalyst (talk)

East york and york
Are former cities of east york and york are considered the southern part of Toronto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.161 (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say so...East York is, well, in the east, and York is sort of in the middle. The "southern" part of Toronto is Toronto proper, pre-amalgamation; "downtown" is in the south, from (let's say) Bloor to the lake. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I ask that because Toronto has North York which borders with East York and York in the south and borders with Scarborough in the east due to Victoria Park Avenue and borders with Etobicoke in the west due to Jane Street. I want to if they were considered as south or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.187 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We have an article on the former city of Toronto, before any of the amalgamations. I think that is what you're looking for, but I wouldn't say that all of that was "south" either. We just don't really talk about Toronto having a "south" portion, we just say "downtown". For definitions of that we also have the article Downtown Toronto. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Some departments of the amalgamated city divide it into 4 districts, corresponding roughly to the old cities of Toronto, North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough -- but they tend to use a simplified version of the boundary between Toronto and North York, and to reflect this fact, some departments do refer to the "south district" and "north district". As far as I know this districting has been decided on independently by each municipal department (parks, schools, water, etc.), and so the boundaries as well as the names vary -- for example, one department may use Eglinton Avenue while another has something more complicated.  Thus the treatment of York and East York may also vary.


 * By the way, before the amalgamation the boundary of Etobicoke was the Humber River, not Jane Street. A small section the Toronto/York boundary did more or less follow Jane, though.  --Anonymous, 23:45 UTC, November 12, 2010.

Scandinavian flags
Why do the Scandinavian countries, which are generally liberal, use blatant Christian symbolism in their flags? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Because "liberal" and "Christian" are not mutually exclusive. The flags also date much further back than liberalism (and, actually, further back than the Lutheranism that is currently predominant there). See Nordic Cross flag. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)...well, 1) you can be both a liberal and a Christian, 2) Scandinavia was not, by any means, particularily liberal when these flags were first adopted. The flag of Denmark originates from the 14th century. The flag of Sweden has roots to the 16th century. Btw, the separation of church and state in Sweden took place in 2000. --Soman (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism doesn't preclude being religious, but it does preclude state endorsement of a particular religion. --75.33.217.61 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The cross is not necessarily Christian, and hasn't always been so, even. See Ankh, a symbol concerning Egyptian Theology. For future refernce, the word used in The New Testament for the execution of Jesus is stauros, literally "an upright stake, esp. a pointed one" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament, p. 586). schyler (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the Scandanvians weren't thinking about the Ankh when designing their flags, and I am also pretty certain that the cross was well established in Christian iconography (regardless of its true origin) when the cross flag motif found its way into the Scandanavian countries. -- Jayron  32  05:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the Scandinavian cross conspicuously lacks the closed-loop component of the Ankh, and the "torture stake" thing is a JW-specific theory which is conspicuously unsupported by the consensus of Classical scholarship. AnonMoos (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * See Dispute about Jesus' execution method (permanent link here).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure many definitions of "liberalism" preclude state endorsement of a particular religion; however, the social organization of the Scandinavian countries certainly went hand in hand with state religion. Norway, for example, still has a state church. The Faroe Islands is (I believe; this is based purely on anecdotal evidence on my part) the most Protestant Christian country in the world. The coupling of Christian politics with US Republican-style parties, I think, mainly a North American thing. Sure, continental Europe (meaning Europe less Scandinavia and UK/Ireland) has a lot of strong Christian Democratic parties that can be socially conservative, but not "small-government" in the US sense. Jørgen (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, it's not as if we don't have people here in the Nordic countries (as a Finn I must insist on this) who think the cross violates their rights or something. But unlike France or the U.S., the Nordic countries never had a revolution. Therefore we lack revolutionary traditions such as the separation of church and state, and indeed republicanism (Finland became a republic almost by accident). Our liberalism has developed slowly and more or less peacefully, like in Britain.--Rallette (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is as much about "not having a revolution" as "the revolutionaries not being as radical". After all, the Norwegian Constitution of 1814 represented a break with history and was strongly French Revolution - inspired, and Sweden and Denmark also had constitutions introduced in the 1800s. Jørgen (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A matter of taste I suppose. At any rate, three of the major Nordic countries remain monarchies, if ever so constitutional, and republican Finland still has its official church (although some pedants will insist it's not a "state church"). In Sweden it was actually illegal until the 1960s for commoners to change their name into something that sounded too much like nobility! No "hanging the last nobleman by the entrails of the last priest" then. In all our breaks with history, we've held on to symbols of continuity.--Rallette (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No revolution in the Nordic countries? Finland was on the verge of becoming a socialist workers republic (see Finnish Civil War), a revolution only crushed by foreign intervention. --Soman (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is drifting off topic, but of course what I meant was no successful revolution, that is to say, none of these countries is constitutionally founded on a revolutionary act, the way France or the U.S. are.--Rallette (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Turkey makes a huge point out of being a secular country, and yet it has what is generally thought to be the most common symbol of Islam on its flag (although it's often pointed out that Islam doesn't have symbols per se and that the crescent and star are historical symbols "of the land"). These flags were adopted way before the Nordic countries became a haven of irreligion, and they are kept as a uniting symbol reminiscent of common history and common culture. The Nordic cross is a symbol for a country's "Nordicness", that's why Estonia tried to adopt such a flag a while back, and in my mind has little to do with Christianity anymore. I'm sorry to hear that some people in Finland (and probably in the other Nordic countries too) have a problem with the cross, thinking it violates their rights, because even though I'm not from a Nordic country I love the flags and I think it would be a huge mistake to give them up. Sorry for this turning into a rant. Rimush (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I assure you, it's a very small minority, and hardly even vocal. No need to worry.--Rallette (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Danish flag is the Dannebrog, the original of which (legend tells) fell from the sky during the Battle of Lyndanisse against the pagam Estonians in 1219. It was accompanied by a celestial voice saying ""When you raise this banner against your enemies, they will yield before you". The banner fell into the arms of the Danish archbishop who presented it to King Valdemar II. The tide of the battle turned and the Danes were victorious. It is claimed to be the oldest flag in the world in continuous use. Not a tradition to be given up lightly. Alansplodge (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do the Scandinavian countries still have state churches and, except for Finland and Iceland, monarchies? --J4\/4 &lt;talk&gt; 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what sort of an answer you're looking for; presumably "They have state churches because it seemed like a good plan when the churches were set up and they haven't since been disestablished" isn't going to cut it. It might help if you explained what you find incongruous in the existence of state churches in the Nordic countries. Marnanel (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * When the Danish constitution of 1849 was instituted, it was decided, on account of disagreement, to postpone the question of separation of church and state until a later date by adding a clause that said that the position of the church in regard to the state should be specified by law (§66). Until this date no politician has deemed the cause of taking this issue up as being beneficial for their careers, so the issue has been postponed in all the subsequent constitution revisions as well as in the regular lawmaking. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the a state-mandated church violate freedom of religion? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * An "established" or state-supported church can be very different from requiring all the inhabitants of a country to belong to a specific religion. AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In England, the Anglican Church of England is the established church. Any penalties for not belonging to it ended in the 17th century. The Baptist and Methodist churches were both founded in England despite having an established church. Today, the CofE has a few perks, such as representation in the House of Lords and they get a leading role in all the great national celebrations and commemorations. There is no Government funding. There are a few downsides, in that the Government has a say in the appointment of bishops and in major changes to its constitution (although this is more theoretical than real). In Scotland the established church is the Presbyterian Church of Scotland which has fewer ties to the state and the Queen has to change religions as she crosses the border. There is no established church at all in Wales or Northern Ireland. Freedom of religion is regarded as a constitutional right in the whole of the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite the whole. No person who is now, or has ever been, or is even married to, a Roman Catholic can become the monarch.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   06:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a bit unlikely to impinge on anyone's religious freedom in the foreseeable future and the abolition of that legislation has been under discussion for a while. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still in place, so let's discuss what is. Are Prince Charles and the rest of the 1,500-odd people in the Line of Succession not included in "anyone"?  They are most certainly NOT free to become a Catholic or marry one, if they have any hope of becoming monarch.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   18:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

successful therapy per Freud
When asked to describe the outcome of successful therapy, Freud is supposed to have said the patient was returned to the cold, gray world that everyone inhabits, or something like that. Can anyone point me to the actual quotation? --Halcatalyst (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a famous sentence at the end of Studies on Hysteria, where Freud writes:


 * "...much will be gained if we succeed in transforming your hysterical misery into common unhappiness." ("...viel damit gewonnen ist, wenn es uns gelingt, Ihr hysterisches Elend in gemeines Unglück zu verwandeln")


 * Might this be what you are looking for?--Rallette (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, "common unhappiness" is the phrase I was half-remembering. Thank you. --Halcatalyst (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Health Insurance Premiums
On any given year (preferably the most recent), how much money is spent on health insurance premiums as a whole in the United States (not per family)?

Please provide sources, preferably internet articles. Your timely and informative answers will be most appreciated. 66.229.203.112 (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite answering your question, but this search revealed lots of evidence that US healthcare is the most expensive in the world, including the first link - this PDF from the University of Maine - which indicates "the United States spent $4,178 per capita on health care in 1998", a total of around $1.2 trillion. Quite how much of that is only insurance premiums, I don't know. 212.123.243.220 (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Is child prostitution really being ignored in the U.S.?
I keep hearing media reports (there was another one on CNN just now) saying that incredibly large numbers of young children in the U.S. have been forced into prostitution on the streets. A figure in child prostitution is 162,000 and I've seen even higher figures - figures that would mean that there are several child prostitute liasons per capita each year in the U.S.

Now I have a hard time reconciling this with all the crazy stories about prosecutors going after children as "child pornographers" for "sexting" each other, going after businessmen who end up with one underage image among thousands on their hard drive, district attorneys threatening companies for carrying Usenet, legislation and prosecution targeting anonymous remailers and encryption software and torrents because something might slip through, and now media companies chastising Amazon for not reading every single vanity e-book anyone tries to sell on their site. It sounds like the country has a vast excess of highly trained technical enforcers looking for political prisoners to lock up, while kids are out on the streets right in the open every single night getting raped to profit the people who kidnapped them. And I've seen some sources saying that even when the "johns" get caught they don't get imprisoned and branded as sex offenders. Are things really that blatantly, flagrantly fucked up here? Wnt (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are at least three different things here:
 * Sexting. Classic middle class anxiety about their kids' sexuality — a common panic and every 5 years there is a new one (remember the rainbow party fears?). This one happens to be centered on the new power of social networking.
 * Heavy prosecution of child pornography or sex offenders. A more general "save the children" impulse that has in the last 10-15 years taken a complete "zero tolerance" thread in the US, leading to increasingly restrictive laws, heavy minimum penalties, and often counterproductive measures. What you are describing is a secondary effect of heavy enforcement of a zero tolerance policy — picking up borderline cases and putting them in the same category as the hardcore offenders.
 * Actual child prostitution. Hard to detect, hard to break up, hard to prosecute (prosecuting the prostitute gets you no progress at all; prosecuting pimps is hard; prosecuting "johns" is a fairly inefficient way to go about it), primarily affects outcasts (runaways, homeless, etc.), potentially has a lower awareness level amongst the middle class. American attitudes towards the homeless are generally pretty bad; Americans equate poverty with failure and many think that the homeless are just "lazy" and enjoy spending all day begging for scraps. (Or worse, they have ludicrous fantasies about how good they have it off, living off of charity.) If this gets recast as a "child" issue and not a "homeless" issue, perhaps there would be room for better attention and remediation. I've seen the figure that it takes on average only 48 hours for a child runaway to be approached by a pimp.
 * I focus on the middle class here because it is generally speaking the middle class who seem to be responsible for the "morality legislation" in the US. This is just a generalization on my part, though. It's not surprising to me that would find different levels of media attention, and thus prosecutor attention (prosecutors have political ambitions, too), towards these three different things. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with 98 - there's a NIMBY class distinction here. The same distinction that results in the JonBenét Ramsey murder getting literally years of national press (and its own wikipedia page) while the deaths of inner city toddlers in drive-by shootings might merit a page six paragraph in the local paper.  Standard bourgeois attitude: bad things shouldn't happen to anyone, but they shouldn't happen more to some people than to others.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Without having read any report on this, I'll also offer that most people would think there's a difference between the calamity of a 13-year-old being a prostitute, as opposed to a 17-year-old being a prostitute in a place where 17 is the age of consent. The latter may well still be called "child prostitution".  I mention this without wishing to trivialize the problem for either.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Deaths of inner city toddlers in a drive-by shooting would merit only a paragraph in the local paper? Can that really be the case? How inured to violence has the US become????? In the UK, I bet also in Canada, Australia, NZ and Europe, it would definitely make national TV news. Probably also a high profile police investigation. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Ludwigs2 didn't cite a source for his claim about the hypothetical toddlers. Though I don't disagree that there's a class distinction in how the US media blares crime news.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not that the US is inured to violence so much as that violence against Black kids is not considered to be very interesting or newsworthy. There is a "you know how they are" aspect to those stories, even if it is sympathetic with the victims. If a white girl is abducted or dies under unusual circumstances, expect massive regional or even national attention. If a Black girl has the same happen, at most you'll get fleeting local attention. It's a race thing, it's a class thing. I doubt it is limited to the United States, though. Scrape away and practically every place has people whose plights are ignored, because if you really reported on them what they deserved, there'd be no room for anything else... --Mr.98 (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the same race and class phenomenon is seen toward Aboriginals in Canada. For example, it's been said that that's why it took so long for Robert Pickton to get caught--the media (and even police) just don't pay nearly the same attention when Aboriginals and/or prostitutes go missing.Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why it would be seen as hard to prosecute. There was just a huge flap about sex ads on Craigslist.  If the prosecutors were interested in stopping prostitution, rather than scoring points against the First Amendment, all they would have had to do was post some ads for "barely legal escorts", then offer responders the opportunity for an encounter with someone younger if they want.  Just setting up a sexual liason with a child puts the john in the position of those people you see in To Catch A Predator, while the adults can be ticketed for soliciting a prostitute and fined to pay for the operation.  I don't see where they'd have any difficulty doing this at all, if they wanted. Wnt (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's called entrapment, and is illegal. It's also anti-productive. You may end up with a lot of people in jail, but how many of those would have solicited child prostitutes if they would not have been actively encouraged? And how many of those that do engage in sex with child prostitutes do not use ads to select their victims? Success is not measured by the number of convictions, but by the reduction in the phenomenon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on typical practices involving drugs, I thought entrapment was harder to establish than that. I'm not sure how people go about finding child prostitutes, but I would think that no matter how they do it, there should be a way to put out poisoned bait. Wnt (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a function of race, though race plays into it. The JonBenet case got a ton of press because they were a wealthy family training their daughter to be a socialite.  She was someone with "prospects", and bad things are not supposed to happen to people with prospects.  People without prospects are (largely) ignored by the press unless they do something outrageous.  based on 1990-1995 data  (and doing a little calculation) there are roughly 150 child homicides in the US every year.  It's safe to assume that most of those involve low SES minorities, but a casual search of your favorite news archives will show you that only a tiny proportion of such homicides get national attention (1 every couple of years, perhaps), and those invariably involve upper class caucasians.  do the math.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To back up Ludwigs2 on this, Connecticut residents (and some New Yorkers) will know of a place called Squantz Pond in New Fairfield. Between 1997 and 2007, there were 12 drownings, more than any other place in the state.  I was there for the last of those 12 drownings; as an off-duty lifeguard, I was involved in the rescue, which rapidly turned into a recovery.  Later, my dad and I found that 11 of the 12 drownings were Latinos from New York City, and one (in 1999) was an upper-middle class 9 or 10 year old white girl from New Fairfield.  The 1999 drowning had much more coverage; part of it was that the girl was from Connecticut, but it was also largely because she was white upper-middle class.  Furthermore, the town DEP tried to play a smokescreen game to cover their asses and how they fucked a lot up, and it was only because my dad and I wrote something to the first selectman (mayor, for those unfamiliar with CT) that even he knew what happened- and he told us that every other time, no one had cared enough to say anything.  I think this syndrome is largely what's affecting child prostitution, although 162,000 in the US also seems a bit high; I suspect if you cut 17 year olds (who are of age in many countries) out, that number would be substantially lower.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * the Op wrote "I've seen even higher figures - figures that would mean that there are several child prostitute liasons per capita each year in the U.S." Come on.  If "several" means "at least three and sometimes more," that would be about a billion per year, if not more.  The OP is either BS-ing here or is innumerate. 63.17.63.136 (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note 1,000,000,000 / 162,000 = 6172 / 365 = 16 liasons nightly. I don't know how often child prostitutes actually submit to a customer, but if the figures are really "several times higher" than 162,000 I think that this deduction would be plausible. Wnt (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Treason in medieval England
While editing an article, I discovered that treason was not officially a crime punishable by death until 1351. I never knew that (I have read loads of books, editing numerous Wikipedia articles and watched countless documentaries on medieval England). Can someone please elaborate on this? I know that Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March was not executed for the act of treason (which is what he did), but rather for having assumed royal power and other crimes punishable by death. Yet the word treason was not mentioned. I find this curious.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did you discover that? I can tell you all about treason in crusader Jerusalem, if that helps; there are probably similarities. In Jerusalem, there was two types of treason, "apparent" (for example if someone allied with a Muslim state) and "non-apparent" (basically an accusation without obvious proof). Accusations of treason could be solved by judicial combat, and although death was certainly possible in combat, the punishment was normally disinheritence and exile. This is specific to crusader Jerusalem and Cyprus, but in the thirteenth century there were two political factions who went around accusing each other of treason and had to constantly fight judicial duels. However, there is at least one example in the twelfth-century where the king considered an action (in this case an attack by the Templars on a Muslim ambassador) to be an attack on himself, lèse majesté, and that was punished by execution. Sorry, I blathered on there, that's probably not even relevant, haha.  England, of course, is different because it had an older tradition of common law, and the laws and courts developed much differently than those in France and elsewhere. I would guess that treason was punished by exile or disinheritence in England as well, and for whatever reason it was upgraded to a capital crime in 1351, if what you read was correct. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I read it here: Hanging, drawing and quartering and here: Treason Act 1351. As I had mentioned before Roger Mortimer was not hanged for the crime of treason but rather for having assumed royal power.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Prior to 1351, treason was a vaguely defined crime. Treason and traitors in Norman and Anglo-Norman history, c.1066-1135, which examines the topic in detail and would be well worth organising access to, describes treason in Norman and early Plantagenet England as betrayal of an overlord or friend of noble or royal rank, particularly in a deceitful manner.  During the twelfth and thirteenth century, high treason became more closely associated with attacks on the king.  It states that a typical punishment would be exile and disinheritence, as Adam Bishop suggests. Warofdreams talk 16:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * a bit on the original research side, but I think you're getting tangled in different governance models. Treason (in the modern sense) is a crime against a state: a person is assumed to be bound to a state as a citizen, and so acts against the state one is bound to are categorized differently than 'acts of war' (acts against a state one is not bound to) or 'crimes' (acts against other citizens of a state).  the modern concept of 'state', however really isn't more than a couple of hundred years old - prior to that there wasn't a clear distinction between the state and its ruler, and so treason was much more of a personal breach of trust than an abstract act of sedition.  compare the related word 'treachery', which still carries to older sense.  treason as an idea goes back to Cain and Able; treason as a legal construct doesn't really come into its own until the distinction between ruler and state solidifies.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with the English Common Law is that by definition it wasn't written down as a statute, but it was a practice of custom that had developed over time. As a result, we don't have any statutes but only limited examples in a few sources.  Fordham University has a good collection of early English Common Law.  It would take some research, but apparently, King Alfred's Dom speaks of "treason against his lord."  It is unclear if this is treason in the sense we know of it.  I can only read Latin and I'm not sure where we can find the original language source for this dom.  However, Bracton also mentions treason against the lord king:

"Habent etiam servi personam standi in iudicio contra dominos suos de seditione domini regis, et aliis quae fiunt contra personam eius, quia ibi admittitur quilibet de populo, et contra dominum suum de atroci iniuria, ubi agitur de vita vel membris, vel roberia" "'Bondsmen even have a standing in court against their lords, for heinous wrongs, where life and member are involved, or for robbery, and for treason against the lord king and other acts committed against his person, for in that case everyone is allowed to speak.'"
 * The word he uses is seditio, which is where we get our modern word for sedition. Since ancient times, this word has meant "insurrection."  The domini regis/Lord King qualifies the type of sedition of which the serf/bondsman has standing in the courts against his lords.  This is a very clear, 13th Century English reference to treason in the same sense that we know of it today.  What is interesting to note is that Bracton qualifies sedition against the Lord King to be a felony.  All felonies were punishable by death (hanging) or exile at Common Law according to Bracton.  What happened to the land of felon was a complicated matter of great interest to heirs, wives, lords, and the king.  I would have to argue that treason was punishable by death earlier that 1351, but I cannot say exactly when it was established as a capital offense.  At least a hundred years earlier, it was firmly established in Bracton's time and not a new principle.  The English translation of Bracton on Harvard Law School's website is actually quite good.  I would be curious to see if the Dom of King Alfred also used the word seditio; if he did, one might be able to make an argument that the penalty of death for "plotting against his lord" was a 9th century recognition for the death penalty for treason.  My feeling is that 1351 is way too late and the concept and punishment had several hundred years of precedent.  It may take some digging, but I am confident it could be established as earlier.  Gx872op (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Assize of Northampton from 1176 lists treason as an offense. I can't find the Latin at the moment so I'm not sure if it's traditio or seditio or something else. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind the distinction between High treason and Petty treason (clarified in some links included above but not explicitly mentioned), and possible confusions arising from omissions of the qualifiers in context. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This guy Bartholomew de Badlesmere, 1st Baron Badlesmere was hanged, drawn and quartered in 1322 for rebelling against Edward II, which was of course an act of treason. It seems that in 1351 the law specified what crimes actually constituted treason and promulgated the Act of Treason. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the first sentence of that article provides the answer: "The Treason Act 1351 is an Act of the Parliament of England (25 Edw. III St. 5 c. 2) which codified and curtailed the common law offence of treason."


 * Treason was a common law crime well before it was codified by Parliament. Your question obviously predates it, but by the American Revolution, treason was understood as a distinguishable, if not legally distinct crime. There's a reason the American Constitution specifies treason specially, require two witnesses. Of course under the common law treason, as with all felonies, had a punishment of death (that's what made them felonies).


 * What I'm very curious about, and know nothing of, is whether or not treason was considered distinct legally in England between 1300 and 1800, or around then. Shadowjams (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Another interesting question: The U.S. Constitution specifically abolishes the corruption of blood, which appears to be provided for in the Act. If anyone has any background on that I'm very curious. Shadowjams (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the English flag a Nordic Cross flag?
The red cross on a white background. Does its design come from Nordic roots of centuries ago? 92.28.248.229 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. They are all Christian crosses but the Nordic crosses are all offset towards the hoist. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Nope. The flag of England is of medieval origin and predates the first Nordic cross design, the Dannebrog which is said to be from the 13th Century.--Rallette (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It most likely doesn't predate the Dannebrog, as they are both of medieval and crusader origin (the myth of Dannebrog falling from the skies should of course be taken with a big spoonful of salt). But yes, Alansplodge is correct that it is not a Nordic cross flag. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, both their origins are obscure. But based on our articles, the red cross of St. George has been acknowledged as the symbol of England since the early days of the crusades, while the first sources connecting the white cross on red to the king of Denmark are from the 13th and 14th Centuries (although the article on the Danish flag mentions as "possible" some coins of an unspecified earlier date).


 * Curiously, our article on the Scandinavian cross gives no theory on the origin of the asymmetrical design (the Dannebrog is a square banner in the earliest depictions). And a quick search fails to bring up any commonly accepted theory either. Some say it developed from the asymmetry inherent in a shield, but I have another idea: if you take a square banner with a cross and then make it into a swallow-tail by adding two triangular sections, you get an asymmetrical flag that's only one pizza slice away from a basic rectangular Scandinavian design.--Rallette (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or if you wrap one side around a pole it becomes asymetrical. 92.15.30.196 (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Did Isidore Gluckstein enclose a park?
In the fifteenth chapter of Chesterton's book The Flying Inn we find a poem named The Song of Quoodle. The second stanza runs:


 * "They haven't got no noses,
 * They cannot even tell
 * When door and darkness closes
 * The park a Jew encloses,
 * Where even the Law of Moses
 * Will let you steal a smell."

In the tenth volume of The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton, it is claimed that the fourth line of this stanza originally said "The park Old Gluck encloses" (Old Gluck being "Sir Isadore Gluckstein") and that Chesterton's wife emended the line without his knowledge because of her worries about a possible libel case (these worries arising from Cecil Chesterton's part in the Marconi scandal) thus "making a valid comment on the exclusion of the public from parkland seem like an antisemitic diatribe".

So, dear Reference Desk, my questions to you are:
 * Who was the mysterious Sir Isadore Gluckstein? Could he have been Isidore Gluckstein, the co-founder of J. Lyons and Co.?  If so, was he ever knighted?
 * What and where was this parkland that Gluckstein brought Chesterton's wrath upon himself by enclosing? Marnanel (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A brief biog here. He was the eldest son of Samuel Gluckstein, the co-founder of Lyons. No mention of a park but I 'spect he could afford to have one. Maybe some confusion with Sir Isidore Salmon (also connected with Lyons) who was knighted in 1933. Alansplodge (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Me again; could be a connection with Cadby Hall, the Lyons HQ in Hammersmith, which apparently expanded in all directions. Just a guess really. Alansplodge (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The missing Louis
A few years ago, my French teacher mentioned something about French monarchs being poor with numbers. As an example, she said that one ordinal number was accidentally skipped when naming Louis the new king. I don't remember which number was skipped (13 has been considered unlucky for ages so in that case it could've been intentional) but the category| reveals nothing about such omission. So, is the "missing Louis" just a legend? Thanks! 88.112.51.212 (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Louis XVI's son was considered Louis XVII by royalists, although he died in prison during the revolution, so the next Louis was Louis XVIII. Is that what she meant? That wasn't because they were bad with numbers though. Was she referring to the Merovingian and Carolingian kings? They are sometimes not numbered, and there were numerous kings in different territories that make up modern France, so it can be confusing. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a List of French monarchs, FYI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you! 88.112.51.212 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose it could be argued (in fact I'm sure I have seen it argued...but where?) that the name of Clovis or Chlodovech I, King of the Franks should be modernised as Louis I, the name Louis being derived from Chlodovech. In that case Louis the Pious would be Louis II, and all subsequent kings of that name would be bumped up by one.  There's a good short discussion of the name at Clovis I. Antiquary (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also there was no Napoleon II (or at least he didn't really reign). 109.170.169.29 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also the famously non-existent Pope John XX, though he perhaps takes us rather too far from the OP's question. Antiquary (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your teacher's observation likely refers to a famous poem by Jacques Prévert called "Les belles familles " which lists all the kings named Louis, then ends: "qu'est-ce que c'est que ces gens-là qui ne sont pas foutus de compter jusqu'à vingt" (what's the matter with these people who can't even properly count to twenty). --Xuxl (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the history behind Christmas programs?
Can someone help me find the origins of the Christmas Program where children provide the information about the Christmas story in a worship service, usually around Christmas time? I assume it was after Dr. Martin Luther's time, so I wondered if he began them. If not Luther, then who and when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerSanMax (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I searched Google book search and could find nothing on the custom, but given the love of folks in medieval times to do plays and pageants regarding the Bible, I would not be surprised if Christmas reenactments (stable, babe,mother and father, shepherds, Wise men) did not have an origin before 1000 AD. The "Christmas Pageant" enacted by children might well date to the 16th century as you surmise, but I could not find a history of the custom. Edison (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nativity play is relevant. schyler (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Mosque
Where was the first mosque built and does it still exist? Lexicografía (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ka'ba exists, still. Hipocrite (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Ka'ba was NOT built as a mosque. It seems to have been a pagan site which was later converted into a mosque. Perhaps the first mosque was built in Medina? Flamarande (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently the first mosque was the Quba Mosque in Medina. However the current mosque on that site is from the 20th century, as the old one was torn down to make way for the new. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was presumably the first one, but the oldest one in continuous use is, I think, the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This would be one of those places where religious doctrine and the history of architecture diverge; so, for the benefit of those who may be confused, let's note that basically, the Kaaba is considered to have been the first mosque as a matter of doctrine (whatever secular historians or archaeologists may say), while the one in Medina was the first one built by Mohammed or his followers. At least as far as I understand.--Rallette (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

separtion of family
does a localcounty government have the right to tell you who can live in your house or property,such as your parent or children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.171.26 (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Where in the world are you asking about? Note also that we are not allowed to give legal advice here, so if this is more than a matter of curiosity, we probably can't help you. --Anonymous, 23:49 UTC, November 12, 2010.


 * The original poster geolocates to somewhere in the US. The answer to the question is "sometimes".  It could be possible for a local prosecutor to obtain a judge's order to remove a child from a home, though I think in most states, the state's Child Protective Services agency would argue this before the judge, rather than the local prosecutor arguing.  In turn, most courts use the best interests of the child (according to that article) as the standard of making decisions.  As for a local government ordering an adult to eject a parent from the house, I think this would be by means of a restraining order, though I think it would be unusual for a restraining order to be issued by a judge in a situation where one of the two people isn't requesting the order.  I suppose a judge could issue a restraining order that forces a parent and (adult) child to stay away from each other (including not living together) if they're both in a violent gang or something, and the judge is attempting to break up the gang.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note also that you can be charged with "harboring a criminal" even if the criminal you are harboring is a relative. -- Jayron  32  02:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are jurisdictions where the number of people in a residence (house or apartment) is limited by contract, as in a lease. There may also be guidelines of "maximum occupancy" for health purposes even in freehold situations. If there are illegal relationships between family members,  incest for example, the law may intervene.There are also frequently restrictions on increasing the size of buildings on a lot in order to accommodate more people, relatives or not, though parents are sometimes excepted. Bielle  (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In the U.S. familial relationships are afforded due process rights and so local ordinances like Bielle is talking about almost never apply to nuclear families, no matter how large. Supreme Court cases have considered extended family rights, particularly the rights of grandparents over parents (grandparent rights are not protected in the same way that parental rights are). As a practical matter, those with standing (usually the state, which includes, but doesn't often actually involve, the attorney general, parents, etc.) may challenge parenthood determinations. Those differ state to state, but it'd be overgeneralizing to say that only the "local prosecutor" handles these sorts of issues. It's often state agencies, occasionally the parents in child custody actions.


 * While the familial relationship has due process rights, that doesn't mean parental rights cannot be terminated by the state. That's a well accepted, if relatively infrequent government role. What it does require though is a hearing, a right to be heard, and all of the other trappings of due process. Shadowjams (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We had a case locally. There is a prohibition agains "sex offenders" living within a certain distance of a school. When the parents of a registered sex offender live a block or so from a school, he can't live with them. 63.146.74.132 (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The OP asks if a) someone has a house or property, and b) the owner wants to have a given person live there, then c) can the local government say "no"? Assuming it is not a totalitarian government, the answer is, obviously, no.  The answers above all describe specific sitautions that are not about "who can live in my house?" but rather "who must be removed from my house"?  Those are two different questions.  If you kidnap someone and keep them in your basement ... YES, the government forbids that.  If Charles Manson escapes from jail and you let him live in your attic ... YES, you lose.  But, DUH.  So, DUH, if a child in a custody battle, or a neglected elderly person with Alzheimer's, or some other protected individual must be removed from your house (with due process), the government can do that.  But otherwise, NO, the government cannot tell you who can live in your house or on your property, so long as the manner of "in" or "on" doesn't violate a zoning requirement.  If you're a renter, the situation may be different, but then it wouldn't be the "government," it would be the landlord, using the government's courts. 63.17.63.136 (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

United States Balance of trade
Can it just keep on getting bigger and bigger and bigger without any problems? Where does the money come from to pay for it? 92.24.183.233 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you may be misunderstanding what a trade deficit is. This is simply the value of stuff that US citizens and companies sell to other countries, minus the value of stuff that US citizens and companies buy from other countries.  If that number is negative (which it has been in the US for decades) then you have a trade deficit.  If you combine your thinking about every citizen and company in the US into one big blob, then I suppose who "pays for it" is those citizens and companies; but this doesn't mean that the US as a whole actually loses money every year; see the Money creation article.  As our balance of trade article states, many economists think a trade deficit is good for the economy.  Others disagree.  Sorry for the vague answer but there are competing points of view on this topic.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The money to pay for the trade deficit is lent to the United States by foreigners. When dollars leave the United States to pay for imports and those dollars are not returned to the United States to buy imports (which is what happens as the result of its trade deficit) those dollars typically end up buying U.S. debt, including U.S. government debt and other U.S. securities.  As a result, a persistent trade deficit results in a growing foreign debt, as you can see in this article.  Can it keep getting bigger and bigger without any problems?  Up to a point, yes.  Beyond that point, no.  Nobody really knows at what point problems begin (or began).  Some would argue that part of the cause of the recent (and, some think, ongoing) financial crisis is in fact the imbalance resulting from the U.S. trade deficit and growing indebtedness.  This was one of the topics of discussion at the recent 2010 G-20 Seoul summit.  Marco polo (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * On the long run a trade deficit is a bad development for a country. The USA has endured thus far because foreign investors keep on investing in the US economy by either buying stocks of US companies, lending money to US firms and banks and by buying US government debt (as the post above already explained). This flow of (foreign) money is VITAL for the US economy. As everthing in the universe this will not continue forever. A possibility is that a new "national economy" promising more or/and safer profits will appear. Then the majority of foreign investors (smelling better profits) will predictably invest their money in the other country. This will diminish the flow of (foreign) money to the USA. Many of the money-lenders (investors who lended their money) will collect their money to invest it in the other country. This just MIGHT diminish the value of the US dollar to a point in which people start to panic creating a run against a plummeting US dollar. Another possiblity is that all this happens, but slowly, safely and without creating a panic. Flamarande (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Please take all our posts with a grain of salt. Remember that a couple of decades ago many were predicting that the Japanese economy would buy and dominate all others. It just didn't happen.


 * What if all countries switched and let Somalia or Haiti mount a huge balance of trade deficit, so that they all bought new cars, imported food, designer clothes, and big screen TV's financed by foreign loans such as presently benefit the US? Why do the various creditor countries find it beneficial to themselves to loan all this money so the US consumers can splurge year after year? What is the catch, or when does the reckoning come due? Edison (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The catch is that all of this is based upon human trust. Human economy needs human trust in order to function properly (remember that humans sometimes behave irrationaly and, worse of all, unpredictably). The foreign investors will invest their money into the USA only as long as they expect/trust that they are going to make a handsome profit. In the second they lose this trust and start to fear that they are going to lose their money they will withdraw/reclaim their money asap (every one of us would do the same). One or two losing this trust is negligable. If the majority of the investors suddenly lost their trust would create panic collapsing the market.


 * As for why do investors keep investing in the heavily-indebted USA the answer is complicated. First, most are not investing in the 'whole country' per se but in individual companies (especially choosing those which are making profits and are NOT indebted). Other companies are indebted but are creating/developing new products which they plan to sell in huge numbers, generating more than enough profits to pay the loans (it's a gamble: will the product be good enough, or not?). Other companies are indebted and have no way out (and will disappear). In final analysis ALL companies need to sell their products to customers. The problem is that way too many US citizens are increasingly indebted. If/when a large protion the costumers decide to reduce their spending or become unable to get credit the companies will not sell their products in quantities large enough to make profit. This creates a problem. One of the solutions is to simply sell abroad. In order to sell abroad the product needs to be possess a good quality/price balance.


 * Money-lenders who are buying US government debt either: A) trust that the interest will be paid and that they can recuperate their money. B) are lending their money for other reasons.


 * As for Somalia and Haiti you have realize that we are not talking about individual companies (Somali telecom companies seem to be profitable). We are talking about hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of companies, banks, etc. In other words most investors will NOT invest their money in Somalia or Haiti because there are simply way too few Somali or Haitian companies, banks, etc make enough profit to be considered valuable/worthwile. Those few that make large amounts of profit probably already have foreign investors behind them.


 * It's also a matter of political stability which goes hand-in-hand with economic stability. The investor has to trust that his investiment will generate profit. A company needs political stability in order to operate/sell and make profit (unless it sells guns or amunition :). Neither Somalia or Haiti (and so many more) are stable enough to be trustworthy in the eyes of foreign investors. Let's be honest here: Most of us simply would never invest our money in a Somali or Haitian company. Why? Because we do not trust that a company could make any kind of profit in such a shitty country and we don't want to lose our money. Investors basicly think as we do. They might have more information, know more insider tricks, etc but they will invest mostly in companies operating in countries with political stability and a market large enough to generate profit. Flamarande (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying the money to "pay for" the trade deficit is lent to the US by foreigners is not really correct, a very bad way of saying things, though the rest of Marco's explanation is OK. Foreigners have no power to (legally) create US money; they must get the money from somewhere else - the US economy, and ultimately, the US government. What foreigners - in practice, central banks of trade surplus countries like China & Japan do is buy US government bonds with the dollars they already have. They get these dollars because they buy them from their own exporters, who want yuan or yen, not dollars. This keeps up the value of and demand for the dollar, the world's leading reserve currency. A reserve currency nation must run a trade deficit (Triffin dilemma). This demand, reserve currency status confers a titanic benefit on the US economy: The US as a whole can export dollars, which the government can create by keystrokes in a computer, and receive real wealth, cars & computers in return. The US has also been used as a consumer/importer of last resort, to boost exporters' aggregate demand, a place for nations like China, Japan and Germany to send their export surpluses to and keep their domestic economies strong and unemployment low. (Their behavior is similar to that of the US before WWII and for some time after.)

Essentially, and with some caveats, having a trade deficit or an unfavorable balance of trade is a benefit. Nations (like everyone else, their own worst enemy) often rant and rave about how they want trade surpluses, but when it is a question of life or death, they want trade deficits. Exports can not logically be necessary to an economy; imports may be. Exports are only the price which may be needed to pay for imports. The Marshall Plan was one big European trade deficit, balanced by a US trade surplus. What China is giving the USA right now is a Marshall Plan. It is an index of how irrational much of economics is and how badly economies are run now that the US is complaining to China, instead of saying thank you. A major negative effect of big trade deficits is that they are deflationary. The dollars are leaving the US and sitting in the PBOC (in the form of bonds). The US as a whole does lose money (net financial assets). Wynne Godley was in the forefront of economists pointing this out on the US trade deficits. To offset the deflationary impact of the dollar leakage, a government budget deficit - the only way to create dollar denominated net financial assets - which is at least as big as the trade deficit is necessary to sustain it. (Money creation can mislead, btw.)

The answer to whether it can get bigger and bigger depends on how the benefits of the trade deficit is used. If a nation uses the resources freed up by the trade deficit intelligently to build itself up, trade deficits could go on for a very long time, many decades, probably to the point that the trade surplus countries begin to reorient their economies towards domestic consumption, rather than exporting and "exporting unemployment". Europe after the war used its trade deficit wisely and well. I don't think it is going out on a limb to say that the US is not running its economy or foreign policy as well as Europe (or the US) back then. Keeping unemployment very high, spending government money on running around the world bombing countries at random to incite terrorism in order to convince its people to support the random bombing policy and demonizing the nations giving it a Marshall Plan are the kind of things postwar (as opposed to prewar) Europe did not do.John Z (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)