Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 22

= August 22 =

Pointless English eccentricity: To the Manor Born
Wonders will never cease. For those who’ve never seen the program, To the Manor Born starts off with how the owner of Grantleigh Manor has just died, leaving his widow Audrey in financial circumstances so dire that she has to sell up. The late owner is never seen, just mentioned at various times.

His name was Martin – except it wasn’t Martin at all, but Marton [sic]. This was not the writer's plan for the character. It came about as a simple typo, and when he was made aware of it, the writer wanted to correct it. But the producer liked the unusual spelling and insisted on keeping it, in the spirit of the family name also being unusually spelt: fforbes-Hamilton [sic]. His justification was: “everyone will pronounce it as Martin so what's the difference”. What’s the difference indeed? Viewers never see Marton’s name written anywhere, and its spelling is never mentioned, hence viewers would naturally assume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that it was spelt in the usual way, Martin. A perfectly justified assumption normally, and one completely in keeping with Occam's Razor, but one that turns out to be wrong in this case.

There seems to be nothing resembling a point in having an unsuspected and never-mentioned spelling variant like this. It’s pure unadulterated eccentricity for its own sake. And we can’t even blame the writer, except for incompetent typing. Eccentricity I dig big time, but pointless eccentricity just seems like a waste of time.

Are there any similar cases, where in the mind of a writer or co-creator there’s something unusual about a (seen or unseen) character, but it’s decided not to reveal (*) that unusual fact to the readers/viewers, who remain blissfully unaware of it? -- Jack of Oz  [your turn]  01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC) (*) Those who happen to access the program’s website or get hold of the scripts of the series would discover it’s Marton, but even then they’d probably assume it was a typo and would need some convincing otherwise.


 * I think you have the answer to your question already - this is 'Pointless English eccentricity' - but since the English are renowned for (amongst other things) their eccentricity, it is an assertion of Englishness. Actually, to anyone who has ever been within a hundred yards of a Marxist, and has observed the English class system for more than five minutes, it is clear that isn't merely an assertion of Englishness, but an assertion by the old land-owning aristocracy that they are still in charge, and that they control English orthography (hence the bizarre mismatch between the way they spell their names, and the way they pronounce them). It isn't 'pointless' at all - it is class struggle, pure and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why draw racist conclusions regarding the spelling rather than attributing it to the quirks of writers as writers? And is there some objective answer or actual help you are looking for?  Gotta love Mrs Poo. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What has race got to do with Jack's question, or with my response? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Typical English thing to do? What if he had said Irish, Welsh or Scotch?  Next he'll be saying Englishmen have loverly accents. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You were the first to mention the word "typical". Please confine your comments to things I actually write.  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  02:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Given I was answering Andy, who said "renowned" and "assertion of Englishness" and used English six times in his answer, and that I didn't put quotes around the word, I think you knickerbunching over this is a typical overreaction. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Medeis, if you knew anything about the program in question, you would know first and foremost that it is English, and that the program itself is a statement about English culture (or at least one section of it), and in light of this, Andy's comments about it being not "merely an assertion of Englishness, but an assertion by the old land-owning aristocracy that they are still in charge" made perfect sense. Calling that comment racist, and implying he could have said Irish, Welsh, or Scotch (which is a type of whiskey, not a nationality) is actually ridiculous, nonsensical, and even irrelevent. Think about it. Or watch the program and then think about it. It's an English program about England. :) -- KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What is your goal in pointing out that the show is about the old English aristocracy? I didn't suggest it was actually Vietnamese.  I didn't say "he could have said Irish, Welsh, or Scotch".  I asked what if he had said Irish, Welsh, or Scotch.  As in, oh, it's just 'an expression of Irish belligerence' or 'Welsh stinginess'?  (And btw, Scotch is a perfectly cromulent adjectival parallel to Irish and Welsh.  Given that I didn't say Irishman or Welshman its hardly relevant to claim I should have said Scot.)


 * What are you talking about? 'English' isn't a race, it's a culture. Possibly an ethnicity, although I am yet to be sold on that. There's nothing racist about pointing out the properties and rules of a culture, or the entire field of anthropology would be hounded out of the universities. Is Watching the English a racist book? Weird spellings of upper-class names and many (non-class-based) place names, are indeed typical in English culture. And eccentricity is indeed famously tolerated or even celebrated, but generally only when found in the upper classes. If the upper classes use a weird spelling of a common name, it is 'eccentric' and a sign of their ancient breeding. If the underclass use a weird spelling of a common name, it is a sign of how tacky and déclassé they are. This isn't race: it's the class system alive and thriving. 86.163.214.39 (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ...And need I point out that I am English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Racism is the attribution of moral or psychological traits to ethnic groups as collectives, whether positive or negative, whether done by self or others. If JackofOz had meant English speakers or British subjects he could have said so. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So you think that cultural anthropology is racist? A rather extreme perspective... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You'd have to give an example. To say that shipbuilding was a part of Viking culture or that Vikings praised martial valor in songs would be one thing.  To say Vikings are valiant is another.  And to say the English are silly yet another. The French, on the other hand. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have to give an example at all. You have accused me of racism on the most ridiculous of grounds. I think this says a great deal about you, and nothing about me, though frankly I've got better things to do with my time than engage in pointless debates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are the one who asked the fatally vague question if I think cultural anthropology is racist--and if you expect an answer, yes, you will have to give an example. If anyone is wasting anyones time it is he who asks questions for which he expects no answer. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was you who started this, by implying that I was racist. Can I ask you to withdraw that? I'd hate to have to bring such a trivial matter up at WP:WQA, but I think you need to acknowledge that such comments are entirely inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actual help? Why, yes.  Please re-read my question that starts "Are there any similar cases, ....".  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  02:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This sort of thing is common in the writing of all sorts of shows, and seems, again, to be a quirk of writers, not of any sperticular ethnicity. Can't think of any other examples off the top of my head, but check inside joke.  Always wanted to be Penelope Keith when I grew up. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that a simple misspelling is kind of... odd, but unseen jokes in scripts and screenplays are pretty common, I think. My favorite is a stage direction in the play Der Besuch der alten Dame, which begins something like
 * ''Morgens. Stadtzentrum.  Der Bahnhofvorstand steht vor den Bahnhof.
 * If your German's rusty, this says "Morning. The city center.  The station inspector is standing in front of the railway station."  Except that the German word for "station inspector" is, in the German manner, literally "railway station in-front-of stander."  So the inside joke is at the expense of the playwright's own language.  Very droll, and of course doubly delightful to a struggling American college student. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem that odd really, as there is an actual person named Marton Csokas...okay, he's Hungarian, but still. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One counterexample does not disprove the oddness of Marton. --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  08:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can anyone share with us an eccentricity which had a point? HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the original question, are the entries in All There in the Manual (Warning: TV Tropes will ruin your life) what you're after? Professor Dumbledore's homosexuality is something that was never revealed in the Harry Potter books either. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Not answering Jack's question but have to agree that there's no denying it, the English are an eccentric lot, not just tv producers. They get up in the morning to a hearty full English breakfast, before donning their Morris Dancing suits followed by a quick burst of God Save the Queen. They then jump on a double-decker bus for the nearest pub to enjoy a pint of warm beer before heading out for a game of cricket on the village green. The spectators respond with rousing shouts of "splendid", "what-ho" and "terribly good, what?" The players go off at 4pm for tea and cakes each one raising their little finger while sipping the lovely beveridge. Oh, and of course their sole topic of conversation is the weather.

Now then, my real reason for responding here: as one born and bred in the northern part of the island of Great Britain, I have never been so insulted in my life to be told that Scotch is a type of whiskey. A type of whiskey indeed! It is WHISKY, what? --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, whisky. It's not your averidge beveridge.  :)  --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  19:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ho,ho. Yes, my excuse is our new neighbour has surname Beveridge.  Has same root though ; o )  --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, in some Scottish manuscript traditions, "ff" was used at the beginning of a word in place of upper-case "F", which is where the thing of lower-case "ff" at the beginning of a name comes from. (Not to be confused with Welsh "ff", which can occur at the beginning of a word, but does not replace capitalization.) AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It wasn't really "ff", just a capital "F" written in the Gothic or Blackletter script. See this 15th century example. Alansplodge (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe -- but when it was translated into other script styles, it sometimes came out as "ff", not "F"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed; a transcription error that became an affectation (not just confined to Scotland methinks). But all the better for it. The fact that a tradition is founded on a mistake makes it all the more appealing - to me anyway - and I am English but not an aristocrat. Oh, I seem to have answered the original question ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

War Powers Resolution lawsuit
What is the current status of the Kucinich lawsuit against Obama for sending military forces to Libya, supposedly in violation of the War Powers Resolution? It seems that the media has neglected this topic, most likely because the public has lost interest in the matter. Is the case likely to go all the way to the Supreme Court? Is this likely to become an issue in the upcoming presidential election?Ragettho (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0811/Justice_Department_asks_to_toss_congressmens_lawsuit_over_Libya_.html. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see it being a political issue in the presidential election. It could be an issue for other Democrats to use against him in the primary, but a major primary challenge is rare for a sitting President.  As for Republicans using it against him in the general election, that doesn't seem like it would work.  After all, Ronald Reagan started the fight with Kadaffi, so criticizing the man whose actions seem to finally be eliminating him as a terrorist threat would backfire. StuRat (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was in Germany when Reagan bombed Qaddafi. I was in NYC when PanAm died.  I hope to wake up tomorrow to hear that Qaddafi has been hanged.  Of course no one will hold it against Obama if that drag queen dies today.  Only Nixon could go to China. μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If he hasn't been hanged yet, then he's still covered by WP:BLP, including here, so please comment with care. (Drag queen? Lol.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, certainly, no offense meant to drag queens. I should have said retro Queen Latifa impersonator.  Or dusky Dame Edna.μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And this from the man who wanted to be Penelope Keith when he grew up. Pais (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Next time she blows up a PanAm jet dressed like Bozo the Clown, you let me know. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think he dresses like Zippy the Pinhead: . Also notice the common facial hair stubble: . StuRat (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the docket:. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the odds of getting any traction in the lower courts (much less going to the Supreme Court) are essentially zero. There is no way the court will accept that Kucinich--or any other possible plaintiff--has standing (that is, that he is somehow specifically injured by the violation of the War Powers Act), and you have to have standing to bring a lawsuit. (In recent years, the Supreme Court has been tightening requirements for standing.) Since it's unlikely that anyone has standing (and almost certain that Kucinich does not), the remedy for such a violation is impeachment by Congress. If the Congress doesn't care, though, all that's left is to vote them out in the next elections. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

When did Babylon die?
The city of Babylon existed in the 2nd millennium BC, and still existed around 300 BC when Alexander the Great overthrew the Persian Empire that had threatened Greece. I see to recall that within a century after the time of Mohamed, it was still there and it got conquered or colonized by Muslims. But now it lies in ruins. Was it still a living city in the year 1000? Or 1300? Or 1500? Or 1700? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Dictionary of Biblical Prophecy and End Times writes that Antiochus I moved the capital to Seleucia (90km away from Babylon) and moved Babylon's civilian population there too. "Except for a brief period of renewal under Antiochus IV (173 B.C.), Babylon for all practical purposes ceased to exist." Mithridates II of Parthia apparently "found Babylon in desolate ruin" around 122 B.C., and Trajan found "nothing but ruins" in 116 a.d. Lucian wrote that people would soon be searching in vain for Babylon, comparing it to Nineveh. (J. Daniel Hays, J. Scott Duvall, C. Marvin Pate, Dictionary of Biblical Prophecy and End Times, Zondervan, 2009, ISBN 9780310571049)---Sluzzelin talk  04:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You might have been confusing two different Babylons, since there was an Egyptian fortress of some importance by that name, and a town surrounding it. Medieval writers often made the same mistake.  The Egyptian Babylon was captured by the Moslems in 640, eight years after the death of Muhammad. --Antiquary (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

International Criminal Court and domestic prosecution
The sentences handed down by international criminal tribunals such as the ICTY often seem quite lenient relative to those given to 'everyday' murderers and other serious criminals by domestic courts in many countries. See e.g. Veselin Šljivančanin. Given that, I could understand a certain reluctance on the part of countries deposing their dictators (e.g. Libya) to hand them over to the ICC if they might one day be released, whereas a domestic trial might result in a sentence of death or life imprisonment. If someone like Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, now apparently captured, is handed over the ICC and for whatever reason ends up with a ten-year sentence (perhaps they aren't able to pin direct responsibility on him for certain crimes), does this preclude his eventual prosecution and re-sentencing for the same crimes in Libya? As I understand it, the preference is that signatories to the Rome Statute deal with the kind of crimes it covers domestically if possible, and the ICC is there to catch those that fall through the cracks. This would lead me to suspect that under which jurisdiction a trial is held (domestic or international) is a kind of either-or matter, but is that legally the case? If it is, would Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, as a Libyan citizen, ever be discharged into the hands of the Libyan authorities (either at the end of a sentence or if he was found not guilty), if the Libyan authorities intended to prosecute him themselves for whatever he'd faced trial for at the ICC? Similarly, could people currently serving sentences imposed by the ICTY one day find themselves released from international custody then back in jail wherever they'd committed their crimes, after new trials there? Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no special knowledge of international law, but one consideration in a case like Gaddafi is to ask under what domestic law he could be prosecuted. If the alleged crimes were in fact acts carried out legitimately according to the recognized government at the time, they would arguably not be (domestic) crimes at all.  To prosecute would require retroactive legislation being enacted, which would then run the risk of criminalizing a large number of citizens when the incoming régime and world opinion wishes to see reconciliation.  So to transfer a few high-ranking people off to The Netherlands may be a solution acceptable to all.  Only time will tell.  Sussexonian (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Scipio Africanus brother
Scipio Africanus had a younger brother named Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus. How much younger was Lucius? How many years younger?

According to Lucius's article: He was finally elected consul in 190 BC with his co-consul being his brother's old second-in-command Gaius Laelius. That last sentence in the section Early career doesn't seem to make sense to me, in the part ...with his co-consul being his brother's old second-in-command Gaius Laelius. --Doug Coldwell talk 18:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, in the reference book "A greater than Napoleon: Scipio Africanus" By Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart

http://books.google.com/books?id=LfoxYQhpMBUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Scipio+Africanus+Napoleon&hl=en&ei=b6NSTrOQAeHj0QHNtuD0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=brother%2C%20Lucius&f=false

it states on page 14 that Lucius is Scipio's elder brother. In the article on Scipio Africanus it says:

Scipio offered himself as a candidate for the quaestorship in the year 213 BC, apparently to assist his less popular cousin, Lucius Cornelius, who was also standing for election.

Is it really suppose to be "less popular cousin, Lucius Cornelius" or is it suppose to be "younger brother" instead?--Doug Coldwell talk 18:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Livy, Scipio Asiaticus is Scipio Africanus' brother, but it's possible that they had a cousin with the same name (in fact I bet they had a whole bunch of cousins with the same name...). I haven't found anything yet about who was the older brother, though, or their relative ages. As for Gaius Laelius, each year had two consuls, so that year Asiaticus was one consul and the other was Gaius Laelius. As Laelius' article says, he was second-in-command of Africanus' army that conquered Spain. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Adam. I am a little confused with these names and trying to get them all correct as to who was who. I did just find in Polybius Book X Paragraph 4 (p110) After this his elder brother Lucius was a candidate for the aedileship, which is almost the highest office at Rome open to young men, it being the custom to elect two patricians...
 * http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/10*.html


 * In our article on Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus it says He was the son of Publius Cornelius Scipio and the younger brother of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus.  - perhaps the article is wrong? Maybe it should be older brother. In the article on their father it indicates that he only had 2 sons. Since Lucius must be an older brother should the article on Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus be changed to reflect this.


 * Now while it's possible that they had a cousin with the same name (maybe a whole bunch of cousins with the same name), how many were running office with Scipio Africanus (with a reference). It appears there is just an older brother that can be verified with that name that was running office with Scipio. Let me know IF you find further on this. Thanks...--Doug Coldwell talk 11:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Polybius seems to be the only one who says that, everyone else either doesn't say who was older or says that Africanus was older. That would make sense, since Africanus held higher offices and military commands. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe Africanus was more popular and better liked than his brother. Can you give me references that say Africanus was older. I thought Polybius was suppose to be an excellent reference, perhaps even better than Livy.--Doug Coldwell talk 15:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought so too, especially in this case, because Polybius apparently interviewed Laelius himself. But Africanus must have been older. For arguments that Africanus was the elder brother, see "Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War" and "Scipio Africanus: Soldier and Politician" by H.H. Scullard, and the article "L. Cornelius Scipio: A Salvage Operation" by J. P. V. D. Balsdon. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Adam for reply. One of the Secondary sources for Scipio Africanus is Scipio Africanus: Greater Than Napoleon, W Blackwood and Sons, London, 1926; Biblio and Tannen, New York, 1976. ISBN 0-306-80583-9 by B.H. Liddell Hart. Hart on page 4 of the 1992 edition ISBN 1-85367-132-0 it says The reliable data on which to base a study and a judgment are practically limited to the words of Polybius and Livy, with but a few grains from other, and admittedly less trustworthy, ancient authorities. And of these two, Polybius, the earlier, is almost contempory with events, the friend of Gaius Laelius, Scipio's constant subordinate, from whom he could get first-hand evidence and judgments. He had the family archives of the Scipios at his disposal for research...

Hart goes on explaining why he feels Polybius is the most reliable source for Scipio Africanus. I tend to go along with him, rather than the sources you provided. While you say, But Africanus must have been older. you have not furnished any evidence or good sources to this info. Why do you say "But..."? I can provide in both Primary and Secondary sources that Scipio had an older brother. You have not shown any EXACT references, just general Secondary sources that is NOT backed up by any Primary sources or any logic why you believe that Scipio was the eldest son of the family.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, neither of us really have anything, we both have Polybius and we both have secondary sources that agree or disagree with Polybius. Clearly some disagreement about it. This has nothing to do with you or me, so let's not make it personal. Polybius is probably the best source, and is certainly the closest in time. Liddell Hart certainly agrees with him, and that is a valid route to take. But the secondary sources I mentioned, Scullard and Balsdon, disagree, especially Scullard, since he was one of the major Scipio scholars in the twentieth century. Scullard thought it was very unlikely in Roman history for a younger brother to eclipse the older. Africanus went through the cursus honorum before Asiaticus, Africanus had higher military commands, etc. Here is Scullard's argument from Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War (if that doesn't go to the right page, it's pages 38-39, including the footnote on 39. Notably, Africanus was already consul apparently before Asiaticus had served in any office, and Asiaticus was not consul until many many years after Africanus. Maybe we can find more people who agree or disagree with Polybius if we looked, but there could be other reasons to disagree. Polybius was Greek and wrote in Greek, even when writing about Roman affairs; did he speak Latin? When he interviewed Laelius, did Laelius speak Greek? Did Laelius forget who was born first? Did Polybius misremember what Laelius said? Did Polybius just make a simple mistake? Did Laelius have some ulterior motive to pretend that Lucius was the elder brother? Of course it's possible that Polybius was right, Lucius was the older brother, and there are other reasons why Publius was the more famous and more honoured despite being younger; maybe Lucius was incompetent, or less ambitious. So in summary, we know the timelines of both men's careers, where it seems that Africanus is the elder, but we also know that Polybius says Asiaticus was the elder. Other than that, what else can we say? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, now that I am reading Liddell Hart, I notice that he is not an historian and his biography of Scipio is not a work of critical scholarship. He seems content to quote Polybius and Livy and leave it at that. I'm not sure why you would prefer him to Scullard or anyone else. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and questioning the logic of the statements in Polybius and Livy also helps the argument that Asiaticus was older. Livy (28.3 and 28.17) says that Asiaticus was with Africanus in Spain, and we know that Africanus was still very young at that time, only about 25. Would it make sense that there was another military commander who was even younger than him? No one wanted to go to Spain except Africanus, so maybe that included the older and more experienced Asiaticus. But we could also conclude that because no one else wanted to go, Africanus had to bring anyone he could find, even his younger brother. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Very good points Adam. Thanks for looking up the Livy references and the other items. Its an interesting argument.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Enron - Enterprise Risk Management
What were the three leading practice enterprise risk management measures/principles Enron had in place that were appropriate to its business model? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.14.17 (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) The Big Lie.
 * (2) We're too big to fail!
 * (3) 2012 isn't too far off. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Storage Wars
I was watching the TV show "Storage Wars" the other day. For those unfamiliar with this program, it is a show where several people buy abandoned storage unit contents at an auction, usually without either the buyer or the seller knowing exactly what is in there. My question is what would happen if they were to find stolen goods in the locker, such as "The Concert" by Vermeer? I doubt they would be permitted to keep the piece, but would they get reimbursed for their purchase cost since the seller is not supposed to benefit from the proceeds of a crime (trafficking in stolen goods in this case)? Googlemeister (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The stolen material would be returned, presumably making the sale void in part or full. There is presumably some sort of contractual arrangement about what to do if there is some complication in the sale.  They could always sue. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The sale is as is FWIW. Heck, if I were them, I'd return it to the rightful owners for the reward money. I recall that when the auctioneer (in Auction Hunters I think) spotted a seemingly illegal firearm, he had to take it to the police to check it out, but if it wasn't in plain sight, it was up to the buyers. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes obviously in the scenario I outlined, there is a substantial reward, but I could just have easily substituted a kilo of cocaine or an M-60 with "Property of the United States Army" stamped on it. Googlemeister (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In the US, it varies by state, of course; but in general, Frank, the guy buying the storage unit, is obliged to call the police and report the stolen property. If Frank knows he has stolen property and does not report it, this is a crime; as this California law states, Frank could do a year in jail.  When Frank does report the stolen property, the police will seize the stolen property and try to return it to the rightful owner.  Frank is out of luck, monetarily, and will not get reimbursed at all.  If the owner cannot be found then the police department will usually auction the property after a couple of months or maybe a year; and the money goes to the state.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So then Frank gets punished for acting in good faith? Googlemeister (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * &lt;broad generalisation&gt;Yes. If you buy goods, which later turn out to be stolen, then you lose the goods, and what you paid for them; you have to sue the seller to reclaim the money. However, it is not a crime to buy, in good faith, stolen goods. &lt;/broad generalisation&gt; CS Miller (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How is not reporting stolen property that you are aware of acting in good faith? This thread is tendentious, and you have been answered.  Are you trying to argue that a private "as is" sale abrogates laws forbidding the transfer of stolen property?  Do you have some actual further question? μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Buying in good faith Medeis. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about not reporting said property so I don't know where you came up with that.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no, you said "acting" in good faith, which is what I reacted to. As long as you understand that intermediate good faith actions don't establish title over stolen goods you're good to go. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the United States, a purchaser acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer. This is the law in all 50 states.  Because the trasferor of stolen goods does not possess title to them, they cannot be transferred legally.  If someone purchased the goods, the contract is void and the purchaser may recover the value i.e. the purchase price. Normally, a storage unit facility will gain title to the goods deposited at the facility.  The storage facility is permitted by law to seize the assets in the facility for satisfaction of a debt.  It is by operation of law that the title to the goods passes from the renter of the unit to the storage company.  If the renter never had title to begin with, title cannot pass. Gx872op (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

cultural mixing
How is it that some countries like Australia, the US, and the UK have been pretty successful at running a country where there are a large amount of immigrants who came from a different culture, whereas other countries were not so successful, such as those of the Balkans, or Sudan? Is it because the successful countries had a very dominate culture at the start and brought in other cultures in smaller doses? Googlemeister (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sudan and the Balkans might be more comparable, in the UK context, with The Troubles, than with its patchy record on cultural integration. I think the one is a question of polarised communities tending to extremism, the other a question of cultural assimilation and acceptance buttressed, as you note by a dominant culture. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's much easier to absorb incoming immigrants into a melting pot rather than to assimilate a native population into a larger cultural space. In the second case, forcing language shift and so on usually takes centuries —and the sudden emergence of nationalism is a constant possibility during the process—; whereas in the first case cultural assimilation only requires two or three generations. --Belchman (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Our article melting pot is all about the subject of immigrants' cultural integration, mostly in the US but also in other countries; and its "See also" section lists other related articles. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is really a case of apples and oranges.. as far as one can say the Balkans and the Sudan are dealing with demographics shaped by immigration, that 'immigration' took place at least 500 years ago.


 * True, but I am not referring to immigration, rather the mixing of culture within a nation. Immigration is one vehicle but not the only one.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Having more recent immigrants can be helpful, in that any trouble-makers can be deported, like in the case of the Rajneesh movement in the US. If they had US citizenship, the only option would be imprisonment, which would then lead followers to commit acts of violence, etc.  Note that this implies that new immigrants must be evaluated and deported if they don't properly integrate into the larger society. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's notable that of the three nations you listed as being "successful", one was one that had a long history of multi-cultural empire, and the others were originally colonies of the same said nation. It does not seem to be a wild jump to suggest that this long history of multiculturalism (usually at the barrel of a musket or cannon, to be sure) did not pave the wave for (centuries later) more stable multicultural societies, as opposed to nations who never had foreign holdings and spent a considerable amount of time squabbling over a single piece of land, or attempting (in the case of the Balkans) to establish themselves as a unitary "nation" in the first place in the hopes of overthrowing oppressors or things of that nature. This is a broad brush to paint these with, to be sure, and not a very good way of understanding either the "success" stories (which are individually more complicated than your lumping lets on) or the "unsuccessful" stories (which have their own very particular histories). It is an unoriginal observation that imperial powers become themselves colonized as well, at least culturally, by their colonies. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the things that helps places like the U.S. and the U.K. with "cultural mixing" is that the disparate cultures are not neighboring cultures, usually. That is, there is not a long history of millenia of cultural warfare between, say, the Pakistanis and the Scottish; so they don't really have much of a reason to hate and distrust each other in the same way that the Serbs and the Croats do... -- Jayron  32  02:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The sheer affluence of Australia, America, and England stand out from your counterexamples of Sudan and 'Balkan states'. Where there's wealth, there's harmony. Vranak (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The USA, Australia, and England all have significant histories of racist violence and hatred. E.g. Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow laws, Elijah Mohammed, National Front, English Defence League, Pauline Hanson, 2005 Cronulla riots... There's never been a Rwandan-style massacre, but that doesn't mean it's always harmony.
 * Part of it is probably that inter-ethnic conflict in a region tends to occur as the result of wider sudden changes and instability, e.g. the collapse of communism in eastern Europe; the independence of Nigeria (the Biafran War); the various wars in the Congo and central Africa (which were largely about money and resources) leading to the Rwanda genocide; the Great Depression leading to various fascisms in the 1930s Europe, etc. Different ethnic groups lived alongside each other in e.g. the Balkans, central Europe, or west Africa for centuries, with the occasional war, but no attempt at genocide, then something happens and a rapid downward spiral begins. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked, Australia was founded on the physical and cultural genocide of a whole variety of ethnic groups. Much of the physical genocide was based on massacre, Myall Creek massacre gives an account both of the culture of massacre and a particular incident.  In general, the physical elimination of people was connected with direct attempts to dispossess people of land, usually outside of white law, as part of an illegal stock running process. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The relative harmony can also be explained by the fact that the English do not do ideology. If you are a Jew among right-wing Germans, you won't integrate, no matter what. Being a part of English, American or Australian society is more a pragmatic question, a question of how you behave. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

paramilitary/terrorist groups and their opposition to drugs
Why is it that many (most?) paramilitary or terrorist groups claim they're against drug dealing? --Belchman (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Because if they were advocating dealing drugs, they would not be viewed so favorably. These groups are at the root making a political statement, and like a politician, they try not to give ammunition to their opposition.  That and a certain religion is not in favor of drugs, so their group doesn't brag about being dealers.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Spanish Basque separatist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna has murdered at least one well-known drug-dealer. Do you think they did it for propaganda purposes "we are a 'clean' group fully dedicated to our cause" as you suggest —if I understood what you said correctly— or for another, more "practical" reason? --Belchman (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am speaking in broad generalities. These groups are varied and encompass a wide swath so applying this to any one specific group is not going to give consistent results.  I mean there is a whole segment out there called narco-terrorism that this totally does not apply to.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ETA sees drugs as a perversion of their basis (the young). People on drugs normally won't engage in any political activity - violent or not. That would undermine their basis. On a side note, I have to say that ETA is quite weak nowadays, comprised probably by less than 100 terrorist, almost unable to plan and carry any attack. 88.9.108.128 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Stop terrorism...encourage drug use among teenagers." :-) StuRat (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The IRA were sometimes sarcastically called "social workers with armalites" when they tried to punish Catholic wrongdoers and perform police functions among the Catholic community, due to the fact that large numbers of Catholics did not trust the Protestant-dominated police. However, paramilitary groups in Colombia, Burma, Afghanistan etc. are heavily involved in narcotics production... AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of arguably terrorist groups, from Hamas and Hizbollah to the Black Panthers have combined social provision with militarism. If they didn't do anything for their communities, they would be unlikely to get support; most terrorists, guerrillas, etc, depend on at least tacit support from large parts of the community.  Some people join terrorist groups to fight oppression, others to fight anyone they can. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that while they claim to oppose drug use, many still get money from drug traffickers. They can form a symbiotic relationship, where the drug cartels provide financing for the terrorists, who in turn offer protection from government forces. StuRat (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that a lot of stuff about terrorism, and support for terrorist groups, doesn't make sense if you assume the members of the group are evil, or greedy, or just want power. Terrorist groups, in general, are made up of idealistic people who are prepared to put themselves in danger, even die, for the sake of their cause, which they usually see as something to improve the lives of those in their community. Of course, how they define their community, and how they define an improved life, and the general lack of concern for those outside their community, are all causes for concern. But they don't usually consider drugs in their community a good thing, because members of the community don't generally consider a drug-dealer moving in or their people taking drugs to be a good thing. They might profit from drugs sold to people outside the community, but that's about funding the cause. They care about the people in their self-defined community, and the community usually cares about them. They are the husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, looking out for their families. They don't want something like drugs to harm their community.


 * Consider the way the Taliban gained support by building a network of good roads into rural areas. If you were living there, would you believe the outsiders who bombed your roads and buildings, killing and injuring people you knew, or the group your neighbour's kid joined who rebuilt the road? It's not an attempt to trick the local community: this is actually the stuff these groups care about. They are grassroots. They are dangerous, murderous fanatics in favour of repressive laws, but they are grassroots and seriously care about their community. 86.164.73.72 (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)