Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 December 5

= December 5 =

Last woman hanged in thew UK?
Reference Wikipedia page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom

1. I was taught growing up the Ruth Ellis was the last woman hanged in the UK. This happened when she was hanged in Holloway Prison on 13th July 1955. Wikipedia's link above states this as fact.

2. The same Wikipedia article goes on to say that Gwynne Owens Evans was hanged in Strangeways prison on 13th October 1964.

3. Would you please clarify this information and let me know who should be known as the last woman hanged in the UK. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipswich1978 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Gwynne Owens Evans was a man. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * [Nitpick alert] His middle name was Owen. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The statement that Ruth Ellis was the last woman hanged in the UK (on 13 July 1955) is therefore correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, most "babies names" sites on the web show Gwynne as a Welsh girl's name.. The male variant is usually Gwyn or Gwynn. Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an unattributed assertion on the Discussion page of the relevant article Murder of John Alan West to the effect that "Gwynne Owen Evans" was a pseudonym and that the individual was not actually even Welsh, which might explain a mis-spelling. I am dubious that he would have been tried and hanged under a pseudonym, however. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.94 (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That story is repeated on these sites: Stephen's Study Room: British Military & Criminal History in the period 1900 to 1999 and Capital Punishment U.K.. The latter is compiled by one Richard Clark who has published two books on the subject. Apparently Evans's real name was John Robson Welby, but he went under the name of "Ginger" Evans. Perhaps he had changed his name legally. Alansplodge (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Gwyn' is short for 'Gwynfor' which is a Welsh male name, as well as 'Gwyneth' which is a female name. Incidentally Gwynne Owen Evans went to the gallows on 13 August 1964, not October. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Budget cuts and "creating efficiencies"
Hi. In budgets, total services are often limited by external debt or internal spending, meaning that non-essential (and sometimes partly-essential) services will have to be cut or taxes raised to allow the budget to fit everything. Some policymakers strive to create efficiencies in the system, usually by eliminating all non-essential services. However, I still don't understand why this is necessary. What would be the problem in, say, making an existing service much more efficient as to reduce its total cost-load? Or implementing a service or program that generates value, for example a public arts program or green energy infrastructure, either in the short-term or longer-term. Another idea could be trying to increase tourism. Obviously TANSTAAFL, but there seems to be no reason behind exponentially-growing debt concerns and increased austerity measures, that in the longer-term actually cost more because money is spent on the police force to hold back protesters. Why are there no (or few) forums for public input on how to create efficiency in the existing system to minimize the need to cut services? Please describe the feasibility of anything I mentioned. Thanks. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 02:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "efficiency" in labour often involves forced wage reductions, forced condition reductions, or attempts to force higher productivity without meeting the productivity/payment curve of labour in society. These are strongly resisted by unionised workers, and resisted in varying fashions involving very very traditional tactics by ununionised workers.  Attempts to force efficiency by "rationalising" production without consultation results in labour process change and back to the power of labour versus a capitalist (even if the state is the capitalist).  This is especially true if the attempt to increase efficiency involves an attempt to increase productivity beyond the social average (ie: super-"profits" from super-exploitation).  Efficiencies in non-people costs, if the state is non-corrupt, means the state is forcing productivity out of the non-state sector, which leads to worker and capitalist resistance.  About the only place efficiencies can reasonably come from is sectors of the state that are far below the average rate of capitalisation or labour productivity.  Given that the state tends to offer services... it tends to be labour productivity.  While there are some attempts to capitalise service sector work; the primary means since the 1970s of enforcing labour discipline has been outsourcing to private capitalists who have no compunction against hardcore labour conflicts, and using the threat of outsourcing to keep bureaucrats and government workers inline.  Given that states have accepted the "firm" style neo-liberal model of management, while not having access to the brutalisation, cheating and profiteering of private capitalists; government supplied services are behind the eightball and further, outsourcing tends to be deeply corrupt. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what governance system currently applies where you are at the moment, but that system is a significant influence on how decisions are made around state spending. There is the politically doctrinal argument, and then there is how government works in the real world.
 * In the UK there is cultural resistance to many of the techniques that the state could use to drive down costs whilst maintaining service to the citizen, in part because the size of ones fiefdom is a measure of ones success in the public sector but also because the mechanisms to allow different public sector bodies to work effectively together aren't particularly strong themselves.
 * That said there is a finite limit to how much one can reduce the costs of the "back office" without significant structural changes to the public sector, and those structural changes would need a cash injection. There is little political appetite to engage in the changes required, and in any case it would be very disruptive to delivery of service to the citizen.  There is also the inevitable resistance to the headcount reductions needed to make any significant change to the cost of the public sector, without the ability to get rid of swathes of unproductive individuals all one does is move the deckchairs around, to butcher a metaphor.
 * There is a political drive to make public sector bodies, where appropriate, revenue generating as a  method of reducing the need to remove services.  There is a degree of cultural resistance to generating a surplus in many public sector bodies, and in any case they're frequently not competitive when actually compared against private sector peers.
 * ALR (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One problem with revenue generating governments is that they tend to compete with private industry and governments either lose, or use the law to win, in which case the private companies lose and lay off their workers. Some areas where govs have done this are liquor distribution/warehousing and running lotteries.  Lotteries also have the effect of taking money from the poorest segment of the population, thus increasing demand for social services there.  (Liquor also disproportionately impacts the poor, both in money spent and the negative effects, but prohibition of alcohol doesn't work, so it's a moot point.)   StuRat (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems in the US that every politician running for office claims they will solve the current budgetary woes by making current services more efficient, and by trimming wasteful spending. Trouble is, all the low-hanging fruit of this type was plucked long ago, and a real attack on waste would (a) involve cutting big defense projects that are zealously guarded by many interests, and (b) not save 100% of the money being spent on the big defense project, because some large percentage of the project is being paid in salaries to Americans, who turn around and buy lunches and rent and TVs with the money.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It would save 100% of the amount cut, but then tax revenues would also go down, so the net effect on the deficit would be less than the cuts. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole debate about whether state spending is value generating is one that will go on and on. Whilst it doesn't in itself increase the size of the economy it does generate financial activity so here is a second and third order effects on the private sector.  Unfortunately that's predicated on the size of the public sector spend being high enough to have an impact and I've never seen a credible comparison with the opportunity costs.
 * Politicians stick with simplistic arguments around trimming waste because they're nice and easy, and are rarely challenged during the electoral competition. When they try to put their grand words into practice the realities hit home.  Everything in the public sector is defended by vested interests; unions, employers, direct beneficiaries of etc.
 * One approach that has had some success at the local authority level here in the UK is a form of direct democracy around budgeting. Putting tools online that allow people to express an opinion about the share of public expenditure on various services.  As part of that it demonstrates some of the flow through costs of their decisions, so in principle they reach a more informed view of the impact.  As an example reducing funding on roads preventive maintenance increases the need for corrective maintenance on a seasonal basis, impacts on the cost of delivering other services and has an impact on local business activity.
 * The usefulness is limited to local, once the area starts getting to big the "impacts" can be rationalised away. The biggest problem is that those that express an opinion are a self selecting segment of already politically engaged individuals.  The consultations are not always representative and can end up biased towards extremes; either left or right wing nutters.  The other thing they don't do is alter the total pot of money available.
 * In essence politicians of all stripes avoid subtlety in their arguments as the majority of the electorate aren't engaged enough for it to matter. It's not worth spending money oin that segment who might change their mind it's more about spending money getting those who have made up their minds out to vote rather than staying at home.
 * ALR (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

plush version
I'm currently trying to find a plush Kwanzaa set. The kinara, the candles, and the cup must be plush. (I feel plush candles are much safer for young children.) Where's a good place to start? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to side track the question but could someone educate me (and possibly others) on what a plush candle is? A Google search isn't turning out to be very helpful considering I keep getting too much noise related to plush stuffed animals which are sold alongside other gifts such as candles.  So far, the only picture that I've seen of a product described as a plush candle is a candle in a jar but I don't see how being in a jar makes anything "plush".  Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 07:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, at one point Abbey Press sold plush Advent wreaths. (The accompanying candles were also plush.) Those types of things made a safer alternative to regular Advent wreaths, especially for young children.24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any plush sets, but this google search has some interesting "make your own kinara" activities which may be fun for kids and provide an alternative. -- Jayron  32  14:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One caution, toddlers who figure out how to use a lighter might try to light the wick on the plush candle, causing a fire. Obviously, lighters should be kept away from toddlers, but one left in a purse might be discovered by sticky little fingers. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not if mothers store purses in a safe place out of children's reach.24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Easier said than done. The mother who comes home with a baby that needs changing and grocery bags in her arms and is trying to answer the ringing phone won't always fully secure her purse. StuRat (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the lighter would be stored in a secure cabinet instead of the mother's purse.24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslav navy
What is the current fate of the Yugoslav Navy ships, shore fishing and other things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.106.171.3 (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears, from the article Yugoslav Navy, that the personel and materiel were divied up among the former member states of Yugoslavia. Several of the successor states have no coastline, and thus no use for ocean-going vessels.  It looks like any of the ships which are still in service are mostly parts of either the Croatian Navy or the Montenegrin Navy.  -- Jayron  32  14:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In particular, one of their vessels, the Yugoslav yacht Galeb, was transferred to the Montenegrin Navy after breakup. The yacht was formerly the property of Tito, who used to hold lavish parties there, with invitees including Elizabeth Taylor. The BBC program "Three Men go to Venice" included a section where the presenters visited the yacht in its new base at Rijeka, having been purchased by the city for use as a museum a few years ago. Clips can be found on teh internetz, which show some of the rather extraordinary features of the boat, such as the somewhat OTT cocktail cabinet. Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina have one coastal town, Neum. Apparently it isn't enough to warrant having a navy though... Pfly (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather amusingly, the pride of the Serbian Navy, the ex-Yugoslav command ship RPB-30 Kozara is a veteran of World War II, in which she did sterling service as a floating brothel for officers (but not gentlemen) of the German Army. . Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's part of the general hypocrisy of mankind that whatever officers do to or with people not of the same social caste does not affect your his status as a gentleman. It's a bigger violation of etiquette to call Miss Catherine Rotheringham's behind "a fat ass" in polite society than to throw a hand grenade into a schoolyard full of children with a slightly different skin colour. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say, in my country, a gentleman does not consort with prostitutes. Or be rude to ladies, or throw hand grenades at children. But we're getting off topic here. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good one! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas tree
WHAT IS THE TRUE STORY OF THE CHRITMAS TREE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.178.245 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "true story", but they were uncommon in most areas of the English-speaking world before the mid 19th-century, and were introduced mainly under German influence... AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Originally, the christmas tree was a spruce. Also called the Yule tree, it started in acient times as an offering to the germanic sun god, Sōwilō, to encourage his return the following year. The spruce tree was a symbol of vitality, as were many other evergreens according to dendrolatry - the pagan worship of trees. With the introduction of Christianity into germanic regions, this solstice tradition died out. However it was revived in the 15th century under ambitions, and was almost imediately catholisised. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See http://www.christmastreehistory.net/ and Christmas tree.
 * The Bible forbids the adoption of religious customs from other religions (http://mlbible.com/2_corinthians/6-14.htm). When the Israelites made a golden calf, they pretended that it was acceptable for their worship (http://mlbible.com/exodus/32-4.htm), but God had a different view of the situation (http://mlbible.com/exodus/32-8.htm).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to be rude, but the OP di not question the catholisation of non-Christian religious traditions. That is a totally different discussion which could very well take over this present dicussion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For instance, christmas itself is the catholisation of a collection of pagan winter solstice festivals. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, "catholisation" is not really a word. The proper spelling would be "Catholicization" (or "Catholicisation" in non-Oxford British spelling).  However, the word doesn't seem to make all that much sense in context above, and in any case, the Christmas tree seems to have been introduced into the English-speaking world as much or more from Protestant regions of Germany as Catholic (certainly Albert the husband of Victoria was a Protestant). AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wavelength -- the group that you're referring to objects to a rather peculiar eclectic assortment of diverse odds and ends (from Christmas to the pledge of allegiance to blood transfusions), and I'm not sure whether most people outside that group really care too much about the eccentricities of its taboos. AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One little bit of history — if I remember rightly, Zion Lutheran Church introduced the Christmas tree to the US city of Cleveland, Ohio, and got quite a bit of difficulty in the press as a result. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I had always understood that the Christmas tree originated in Alsace.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "By the early 18th century, the custom had become common in towns of the upper Rhineland, but it had not yet spread to rural areas." We have a perfectly serviceable article - the OP should read that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos, I have a comment and a question. (1) I referred to the Israelites.  (2) Do you want me to deprive interested people of what the Bible says?  (Genesis 18:22–33)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take two. (Deep Cover 1992: 107 min) --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   17:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In any case, as I've said before, those who originally set the date of Christmas very probably thought that they were aggressively taking dies natalis solis invicti away from the pagans and appropriating it for the greater glory of Christ and the benefit of Christians -- not that they were being "influenced by paganism"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, it is not uncommon for protestant groups to have retained or incorporated catholic ideas in the past. An example is infantile baptism, which was introduced by the catholic system, which was retained by the protestant movement. It shouldn't be odd that protestants accepted the christmass tree if it accepted christmas and other catholic traditions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia Christmas tree article, through the 16th to 19th centuries the Christmas tree seems to have been promulgated by Protestants more than Catholics... AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about the Bible? Jesus Chrits was a completely unrelated Norse lumberjack who only really felt comfortable in the great outdoors. In order to be able to sleep soundly at night, he brings the forest into his own home.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   13:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is besides the point, who promulgated it most, it was initiated by catholics, namely the Blackheads. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)