Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 16

= November 16 =

Spanish voiceless velar fricative
Is the sound /x/ in Spanish of Celtic origin? --Cerlomin (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean the guttural "ch" sound (as in a word like "Loch" or "Chanukah"), it might be coincidental. Seems like this came up on the Language desk a while back. Meanwhile, the articles on X and Spanish pronunciation might provide some insight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, just to throw a monkey wrench into the works, see Celtiberians. There were Celts in the area now known as Spain (their influence is today strongest in Galicia).  Of course, the same or similar sounds are present in Germanic languages (c.f. German "Ich"), see Visigothic Kingdom, and Arabic, see Al-Andalus.  In other words, I think the best answer may be "we don't know for sure" given that there have been multiple groups of people who have lived in the region now known as Spain whose languages all had that sound in it; it may be difficult to decide which (if any) of them contributed it to the modern Spanish phonology.  -- Jayron  32  01:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer to this question is almost certainly no. This sound developed in Spanish in early modern times, more than 1,000 years after any Celtic language was spoken by anyone indigenous to the Iberian peninsula. See History of Spanish. Marco polo (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Cerlomin (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethical consumerism
Sometimes consumers who dislike income equality nevertheless buy goods and services from large corporations. This question pertains to ethical consumerism. How easy is it for a consumer to function effectively, while avoiding purchases which contribute toward (what he or she believes to be) excessive profits? I am looking for referenced links to scholarly research about theory and practice. —Wavelength (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ISBN 978-0-8070-3263-3 -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Online book reviews disclose that Fran Hawthorne's book, The overloaded liberal: shopping, investing, parenting, and other daily dilemmas in an age of political activism, discusses many ethical decisions confronting consumers.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Business ethics
Sometimes business people who dislike antisocial behaviors nevertheless sell goods and services that are addictive or problematic. This question pertains to business ethics. How easy is it for a business to survive financially, while avoiding sales which contribute toward (what it believes to be) sinful pleasures, delinquent behavior, and societal dysfunction? I am looking for referenced links to scholarly research about theory and practice. —Wavelength (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It'll really depend on what it considers to be said negative things, won't it? There can't be a generalized answer for this, except that anyone truly considered about said ethics would have to look at their entire supply chain, uses of product, etc., and then weigh each of those stages against their values. If you are selling cigarettes it probably isn't going to be possible no matter how you dice it; if you are selling, say, chocolate, it'll depend a lot on your supply chain; if you're selling ball-point pens it may or may not be straightforward. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is it when I see the words "business ethics" I feel like refering the OP to oxymoron? -- Jayron  32  02:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Because your views towards businessmen are too cynical, and the average businessman is probably more ethical than the average citizen, but might not seem that way because he has substantially more power over many more people? --140.180.3.244 (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that claim based on the field of business ethics research? Please provide citations, because it doesn't conform with the research I've seen, which suggests ethics depend heavily on the individual corporate environment and that businesses often reward immoral behaviour in managers moving them up the corporate hierarchy: "managers base their decisions on surviving in the corporation and creating the greatest advantage for themselves, whatever the ethical consequences. Because managers are often moved frequently, they can make decisions that look good in the short term.  ...  The managers' short term profit pushes them up the hierarchy, enhancing their survival and rewarding them for unethical decisions." . --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Marginalist theory would imply that ethics have a cost and a price, and that at different points on the curves of demand and supply different profit points form. Marxists would note that any ethics forced upon firms are the result of class struggle, and that in these cases ethics (limited liability, elected boards, balance sheet notification, occupational health and safety, "a fair days pay for a fair days work," green capitalism) better serve maintaining the existence of capital than unrestricted class warfare in that domain. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

has anyone had any experience of cooperative learning?
Hi all, I've been reading some scholarly articles by Robert Slavin about cooperative learning. His main innovation is to get students to do group work, such as some mathematics worksheets or a history project, but to assess them individually, and give each member of the group the average mark for all members of the group. He suggests it removes the problem of shirking, because each member will be tested individually, and also requires students to support each other, since their marks will be affected by everyone's performance. He makes fairly strong claims about the results from various studies, although their success has been questioned by Bossert (1988), "Cooperative activities in the classroom", available from JSTOR, if anyone wants to check it out. It all sounds reasonably good, but has anyone had any experience with this (either themselves when they were at school, or as teachers)? Slavin claims it is used in thousands of classrooms around the world, so I am hoping there will be someone out there who will dish the dirt, as it were. It is sometimes claimed, for example, that these methods disadvantage gifted children, because they "waste" their time helping others, while at the other end of the scale, it is claimed by proponents that they help a lot of disadvantaged students. Any info? Thanks in advance. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In my schooling, kind of early versions of this were used occasionally and sporadically, and I was glad it was not more often, because it really did not suit my particular personal style of learning or working. You kind of had to spend time establishing a team pecking order or social hierarchy before even starting to do anything, and go through votes or consensus to determine what to do, and if you were outvoted and fundamentally dissatisfied with the approach decided on by the other team members, then you were pretty much screwed.  AnonMoos (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I remember this only too well myself, but I'm wondering if it might be different in the form Slavin is proposing. We had to do various group projects (although I mostly enjoyed them after all the carrying on) but there was no individual testing afterwards. Basically, there are heaps of approaches around, but Slavin's ones have a lot of individual focus to them - the maths one, as I understand it, is even just about getting peer tutoring going in ordinary classwork, rather than a group project. But I do remember the problems with the pecking order carrying over from the playground, and I can imagine it being a problem. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you're asking for personal experiences, I'm a student, and cooperative learning doesn't seem like an idea many students would support. First of all, it's clearly unfair. If the teacher is explicitly acknowledging that one student deserves a 90% and the other a 40%, how can he turn around and give both of them the same grade? The 90% student could claim that the other person slacked off, fulfilled none of his promises, didn't arrive to the 5:30 meeting they agreed on, watched YouTube videos while they were supposed to be working together, and refused to do his fair portion of the work--and the teacher's grades would be evidence supporting his claims.
 * Second, the nature of groupwork doesn't lend itself to a gifted student helping a disadvantaged one. If A and B are the strong and disadvantaged students, respectively, groupwork usually involves the following. First, A and B meet and discuss a general framework for the project. Each person agrees to do 50% of the work. Both A and B procrastinate until 1 or 2 days before the deadline, at which time A hurriedly finishes his portion, and B either sends his portion to A or gives excuses about why he couldn't finish it, in which case A is forced to do B's work. By this time--usually the day before the deadline--A rewrites B's portion due to its extremely low quality, only rarely interacting with B. A submits the project the following day. Needless to say, B doesn't get much help from A, and from what I know about poorly-performing students, would probably get impatient if A tried to tutor him. I'd consider myself a successful student, and I'm guilty of doing exactly what A does in my story.
 * In my school, peer tutoring pretty much occurs only amongst friends (who tend to be equally good or bad at academics), and at after-school peer tutoring sessions. These sessions are voluntary, and there's no reward in being a tutor, but a surprising number of people volunteer. There's a greater sense of social responsibility and obligation than most people would expect in middle/high school students, but that doesn't generally extend to any form of groupwork. Also note that I'm talking only about middle/high school; I have no idea about university or grad school.  --140.180.3.244 (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Your peer tutoring experience is exactly what I am interested in, and I must admit, I'm rather surprised by the civic virtue of students, if they are volunteering their time like this. However, to clarify, the kinds of group project work you are talking about are quite different - research differentiates quite carefully between all the different systems on the market, perhaps because each researcher has his own "brand" or pet style, that he supposes to be superior. Results in practice are always mixed, but Slavin seems to be doing relatively well, although I emphasise, only through a specific method, which, moreover, comes with a fairly comprehensive set of materials attached, and from what I can gather, a hefty pricetag. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't realize Slavin's method was that specific. I thought it was just group work with individual grading, but everyone sharing the average grade.
 * Incidentally, Slavin is a researcher promoting a proprietary system? That seems like an obvious conflict of interest for a researcher, and automatically makes me skeptical about his ideas.  Human nature is such that even if Slavin has perfectly pure intentions, the commercial prospects would make him a biased observer who sees only what he wants to and cherry-picks data to fit his expectations.  Also, if his system is truly revolutionary or amazingly effective, it seems profoundly immoral to charge a hefty price for it.  A revolutionary educational method should be the common property of mankind, not the means by which one "researcher" gets rich.  --140.180.3.244 (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention the testing is done after the group study/ peer tutoring, in class, without the ability to confer, and the grade is computed afterwards. As far as conflict of interest goes, I believe it's not uncommon, but in this case, as often happens, the commercial product has emerged from the research. There is still the possibility that, before doing any research, someone is testing a pet theory that he can also make a buck out of, but in my experience, the attachment to the pet theory, and the desire for recognition among academics, are stronger motives, for good or for ill. I know because I've been there myself, and it is hard to be objective. Knowing that you are going to face the peer review process (our own group learning) is what keeps you honest. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Group assessment is claimed to reduce the amount of marking time conducted by academics. I would check discipline specific assessment strategies before reducing your labour input in this manner.  Many people believe that assessment by groupwork reduces the quality of education—I'd suggest that Universities have never provided quality education, and merely a space for people who might want to self-educate to do so in groups on the sly. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The main problem with Slavin's approach is that he incorrectly assumes that all students in a group have the same individual goals, and thus all have the same motivation to see all members of the group do well. That is fundementally the problem of ALL group work, and Slavin's approach does not actually solve that problem.  Consider the following situation:
 * Bob and Alice make a group. Alice is a college-bound student whose primary motivation is to get an A on as much as possible, to maximize her chances to get into a college and earn scholarships.  Bob is a stoner who's primary motivation is to avoid being hassled.  As long as he gets at least a "D" in every class, he has no desire to work any harder, since that means he still graduates on time, and doesn't have to retake any class; this keeps his parents and teachers off of his back, which is all he asks for out of life.  Of course, Alice has the motivation to teach Bob well enough so he gets an A on his individual assessment.  Bob has zero motivation to learn a damn thing; Alice will ace her test because she absolutely has to, and Bob can actually fail his test with a shitty grade, and Alice's "A" will bring Bob's grade up to the "D" he needs to avoid being hassled by his parents.  Bob and Alice belong to different social groups, so Alice is unable to use social pressures to encourage Bob to do better, Bob doesn't give a shit if Alice has a negative opinion of him, because they don't run in the same circles and thus Alice's opinion of Bob doesn't create any social stress on him.
 * Slavin's approach works well with highly motivated students who have similar goals, it doesn't work well in modern, heterogenous learning environments. -- Jayron  32  04:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback - a very interesting observation. Can I ask what is it based on, since you are obviously familiar with it - is it from research, teaching, or experience as a student? It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 2 and 3. Mostly 2.  That is, as a teacher, I have seen this sort of thing play out a lot during group work.  As a student, I was in honors programs with a largely homogeneous population of highly motivated college-bound students.  As a teacher, I have taught in a school system which has moved away from leveled classes and more towards heterogeneous learning environments.  There are two basic ways to deal with this: Slavin-style group learning or Differentiated instruction.  In my experience, differentiated instruction works much better in environments with a wide range of students in terms of ability and motivation.  The way it works well for me is as follows:
 * Be clear on grading expectations. Each assignment needs a clear outline or rubric presented ahead of time which outlines what work is required for an "A" and a "B" and a "C" and so on.  For example, let's take a history paper.  You would distribute to students a rubric as follows:
 * A work will require a paper to fully address the topic, to be almost entirely free of spelling and grammar mistakes, require at least 5 independent sources, which must be fully footnoted, and none of which can be an encyclopedia or similar work, and one of which must come from a scholarly journal.
 * B work will require a paper to fully address the topic, to have no more than 5 spelling or grammar mistakes, require at least 5 independent sources, which must be fully footnoted, no more than one of which can be an encyclopedia or similar work.
 * C work will require a paper to fully address the topic, to have no more than 10 spelling or grammar mistakes, require at least 5 independent sources.
 * D work requires a paper to fully address the topic.
 * Or something like that. That allows each student to have clear expectations and to be able to "choose" their own level of success based on their motivations.
 * For the record, when I taught in a school which did level students by ability, I saw much more successful results from the ALL students, even those at the lower levels. That's because I was better able to tailor my instruction to those students, and was able to assess what their motivations were and meet them easier.  My favorite class of all time was actually the lowest level physical science class the school offered.  Once the school system abandoned leveling and started putting all students of all levels into unleveled classes, I saw a marked decrease in the performance of students at the lower levels.  Rather than be more motivated to do well, such students became more isolated from the educational environment and were less likely to perform well than when the students were surrounded by more like-minded peers.  The problem with unleveled classes with very heterogeneous student populations is not at the upper level; highly motivated students are highly motivated no matter what the environment.  The problem is at the lower level, students who aren't highly motivated have a harder time finding their place within the classroom environment and are more likely to "tune out" than when they are in a class that can be tailored to their needs and abilities.  That has been my experience.  -- Jayron  32  05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Jayron - I do so wish I could reference Wikipedia..."Bob can fail with a shitty grade..." :). I'm also impressed by your standards - I never would have passed one of your history assignments, although I didn't do it in upper high school (years 11 and 12 here). I didn't know journals existed at the time. That's exactly the sort of answer I was hoping for, but more information from anyone is most welcome. A very interesting thread. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * From my experience as a student group learning works well in top groups of highly motivated students. The best experience I had was in a "homework group" in the top maths set. We would all try the homework and then go through it together. As long as someone attempted the question we would help show them how to do it. When people had used different techniques we had interesting discussions of the "best" way to answer a question. In contrast I had to work with a mixed group in History where I was told to write someone's essay or I would be beaten up in the playground. Of course I did .... word for word the same as mine! -- Q Chris (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think even excellent students may become less studious in classes with group grades. For example, if the choice is between studying for a class with individual grades, where doing well on the test will ensure a good grade, and studying for a class with group grades, where doing well on a test in no guarantee of a good grade, time spent studying for the first class appears to be more beneficial. StuRat (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Another thing that often happens on group projects is that each member tends to fall back on their strong points. Perhaps one is best at research, another at writing, and a third at making graphics.  Together they might well do a better project, however, don't we want to get students to improve their weak points, too ? StuRat (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Madame Hoare
Does anybody know the birthday, working period, and death of Mrs. S. Hoare or also known as Madame Hoare? She was a photographer in Tahiti during the latter part of the 1800s.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell us another one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * She's a real person (whether her name is pronounced "whore" I don't know, but this isn't a joke). All I can find is this website, which says her name was Sophia, and she was the widow of Charles Burton Hoare, an English photographer in Tahiti who died between 1876 and 1879. She moved to San Francisco in 1904 and died between 1910 and 1920. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hoare is a perfectly normal and respectable surname in the UK and, apparently, Australia - but, according to that linked list, not in the US, interestingly, where I guess it must have worse connotations, or offend people's delicate sensibilities to a greater extent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of use think of hoar frost, hoary beards, and hawthorns before anything else, unless the context suggests otherwise. But then, some of us can order a cocktail, spot a peacock, and put out seeds for blue tits without giggling like schoolchildren. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The surname Hoare definitely occurs in the United States, too. Marco polo (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Leonard Hoar was President of Harvard College from 1672-1675. The story that one of Harvard's houses was to have bourne his name, but was vetoed because of the unsavory tone of "Hoar House" is, sadly, probably not true. - Nunh-huh 17:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems Mrs. S. Hoare was the wife of Charles Burton Hoare (1833-about 1879), born Sophia Johnson. She seems to have left Tahiti in 1896 and died in the U.S. between 1910 and 1920. See . (Oops, it seems Adam Bishop already posted this above...sorry, I should read more thoroughly:)- Nunh-huh 17:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

When was it, if it even occurred.
Greetings. I apologise  in  advance  for  the  rather  graphic  subject  matter  of  the  following  question,  but  being  of  age,  I  watch  documentaries  of  Historical  and  recent  events,  some  of  which  end  up  being  of  a violent  nature. Last night  watching  an  informative  episode  of  Tough  Nuts - this  one  on  Mick Sayers,  and  his  involvement  with  the Fine  Cotton  Ring  In,  among other  things  ( an event I remember  at  the time),  and  seeing  how  a  number  of  the  names  of  some  of  his  associates  all  tie  in  with  each  other  in shows  such  as  Underbelly  and  the  mid nineties  mini series  Blue  Murder,  I  thought  then  of  an  event  I  recall  from  the  1980's ,  and  I  hope  I  have  this  right,  and  I  also  hope  this  does  not  upset anyone  looking  in,  but  from  what  I  recall,  around  1986,  but  I  cannot  be  exactly  sure  of  the  year,  there  were  four  teenage  schoolgirls  murdered  in  a  house  in  Sydney,  but  when  I  looked  on  a  list  of  major  crimes  in  Australia,  I  did  not  see  one  like  this,  so  I  am  wondering  if  anyone,  especially  those  of  You  over  the  ditch,  who  may  remember  what  happened,  when  and  why,  since  I  know  for  a  while  after,  the  Police  were  finding  no  suspects. Was anyone  caught  and  punished  for  this,  and  one  would  ask  also,  who  could  ever  do  such  a  thing ? My understanding  was  the  girls  were  all  friends,  staying  at  the  house  of  one  of  them - whether  just  visiting  a  while  or  for  a  slumber  party,  and  it  appears  there  was a  knock  at  the  door,  one  girl  answered  and  she  was  immediately  shot. This is  all  I  recall. I realise  this  is  quite  an  upsetting  event,  and  at  the  time  I  was  saddened  and  angered  by  it,  since  if  it  could  happen  there,  it  could  happen  anywhere. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly  06:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to be sure, are you misremembering the film Picnic at Hanging Rock? The film came out at about that time, and has a similar (though not identical) theme.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find anything very much like this. The closest I can find are: David and Catherine Birnie (who murdered 4 women on separate occasions in 1986, mostly in the Birnies' house in Perth) or Bega schoolgirl murders (two schoolgirls killed in suburban NSW while camping in 1997).  Could you be mixing it up with an American event or a fictional murder?
 * I really don't know what the question has to do with Picnic at Hanging Rock which is set 100 years previously and takes place in the desert and doesn't feature any murders. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hanging Rock, Victoria is nowhere near any place that Australians call a desert. You might be thinking of Uluru, previously known as Ayers Rock.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, it's more wilderness than desert, but Picnic at Hanging Rock is clearly not set in Sydney. Also, it's not a true story. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I  have  heard  of  the  movie  Picnic  at  Hanging  Eock,  as  far  as  I  know,  I  have  not  seen  it,  or  at  least  all  of  it,  and  even  if  I  did,  it  was  not  at  that  time.

This is  strange,  since  I  can  clearly  recall  this  event  I  am  talking  about  exactly  as  I  described  it,  but  yes,  it  could  possibly  be  that  I confused  it  with  other  vicious  crimes -  which  certainly  occurred  even  in  those  days.

In fact  for  many  years  I  had  the  idea  that  the  Milperra  Massacre  occurred  in  1987,  when  we  know  that  it  actually  took  place  in  1984,  although  on  the  other  hand,  sometimes  my  memory  is  surprisingly  sharp.

It's more  a  case  of  if  I  get  it  wrong,  I  really  get  it  wrong,  but  if  I  am  correct,  I  am  almost  spot  on.

The thing  with  this  is,  there  are  so  many  similar  events  all  over  the  world,  and  it  is  almost  like  some  events  conform  to  a  kind  of  pattern -  say  like  girl  kidnapped  by  gang  of  boys -  then  there  may  be  many  different  cases  when  such  a  thing  happened,  even in  different  but  like  countries,  such  that  something  in  America  in  the  eighties  would  bear  a reasonable  resemeblance  to  any  similar  crime  in  the  Lucky Country  in  those  days.

For sure,  what  I  am  describing  also  resembles  a  massacre  carried  out  in  Chicago  by  a  man  named  Richard  Speck  who  killed  eitht  nurses  in  their  boarding  house  in  the  sixties,  but  a  ninth  survived  and  identified  him - bearing  a  resemblance  to  an  episode  of  CSI  Vegas  where  six  showgirls  were  killed  -  but  this  occurred  before  I  was  born  and  I  had  not  heard  of  the  case  until  the  nineties.

Over the  years  I  have  heard  of  many  similar  or  related  events,  but  even  if  in  the  newspaper  one  wonders  if  they  are  not  just  urban  legend -  like  the  story  I  heard  in  1985  where  a  teenage  girl  decided  to  dress  as  a  burglar  to  scare  her  friends  and  ends  up  stabbed  to  death  by  her  boyfriend  who  thought  she  really  was  an  intruder  -   that  was  supposedly  America,  and  all  these  years  I  believed  it,  but  never  looked  for  any  other  proof.

I am  sure  the  case  I  am  thinking  about  was  in  the  front  page  of  the  papers  but  cannot  be  sure  if  I  saw  it  on  television. Now my  memory  is  playing  tricks  on  me  these  days  I  could  date  this  as  early  as  1983,  and  as  late  as  1993,  but  still  believe  it  more  likely  to  have occurred  from  about  1985  to 1988  inclusive.

I shall  try  find  things  in  the  Christchurch Star  and  Press  at  the  time  because  I  am  sure  one  paper  published  pictures  of  the  four  girls. Any other  thoughts  also  welcome. Thanks  Chris the Russian  Christopher Lilly  03:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In USA, can you lose your money if you marry another person
I am not asking for Legal advice, I just want to know if this could happen to a person in USA. That if you marry someone you could lose your money.

QUOTE If you marry someone who has defaulted on a school loan and you have money in an account, etc. They will take it in as little﻿ as a few hours. "They" have people watching over these marriage records running searches, just waiting. It happened to a friend of mine. No warning just empty accounts. END QUOTE

So wouldn't there be thousands of students in USA eager to marry you to discharge their debt? 220.239.44.187 (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a hoax. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The law varies considerably from state to state, but generally at most you are only liable for debts incurred during the marriage. There may be rules in some states regarding seizing money from a joint account to pay debts of one party.  But I agree with Bugs, there's no way they can raid a spouse's private bank account.  But don't take this as legal advice, because it isn't. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What if a partner defaults on a loan contracted previous to the marriage? Does the newly wed couple start to pay that premium interests together? 88.8.67.30 (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it depends BOTH on jurisdiction and on how the couple handles their own finances. Both my wife and I had student loans we incurred while single; when we got married we consolidated these loans into a single loan and pay it off from our joint checking account.  We have effectively merged our finances into a single entity; there is no "my money" and "her money".  That's a personal choice we made for ourselves, and means nothing for what other couples may or should do.  Couples which do maintain seperate finances may, in some jurisdictions, remain seperately liable for debts incurred seperately.  Philsophically, in some ways, a marriage is a partnership, not unlike a business or a corporation, and as a partnership it can exist as a legal entity seperate from the individuals that make it up.  Just as a shareholder in a corporation is limited in liability to the value of the share (your personal finances may be protected if a corporation you own part of incurs debts), similar situations can exist in a marriage.  Depending on your jurisdiction, this may require such arrangements to be covered by a prenuptial agreement.  Depending on how concepts like "common law" apply in your jurisdiction, the outcome of something like a divorce may depend on how you "lived" during the marriage.  For example, if you maintained seperate accounts and kept your finances completely seperate from each other at all times, that may be handled differently than if all finances of the marriage were managed jointly.  Or, some jurisdictions may treat all marriages as the same, regardless of how finances are married.  YMMV, and IANAL, and YSCALIYHARQITA (you should contact a lawyer if you have any real questions in this area).  -- Jayron  32  14:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The point of the question isn't about joint funds. The question states that "they" will take all the money out of your bank account as soon as you say "I do". How many blows to the head does a person need in order to believe such idiocy? -- k a i n a w &trade; 15:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "They" do not exist. Every government agency has a name. All of the employees are overworked people who really don't care about you or anyone else. They just want their paycheck at the end of the month. If you believe that some peon in some beige office in Washington DC is checking every day to see if you got married, you need to go outside and look around. That stuff you see is the real world. Get to know it. It is a lot more fascinating than the make believe world of conspiracy theorists. -- k a i n a w &trade; 13:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You only say that because you don't believe in this particular conspiracy theory. There have been plenty of real conspiracies and coverups, many of which shocked both the American public and the rest of the democratic world.  --140.180.3.244 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Real conspiracies happen. That doesn't make this nebulous "they" any more real. The IRS does have the ablity to sieze bank accounts and property if you're in default on taxes; a court could also find for a private company, to sieze such things. But there's going to be a record, and there's going to be notifications beforehand. Most likely, said person never told his/her partner before it happened (if this story has any truth at all). &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * When you marry someone, you form a household and in effect share your finances, even if you maintain separate accounts. So, in a metaphysical sense, when you marry someone, you really do marry their debts. That is, a portion of your household's finances will have to go to servicing that debt, and a portion of your joint assets may go to paying it off.  No matter how you slice it, it is that much less money for vacations or retirements.  Now, if you have your own bank account, I don't think that the government can take it the minute you get married.  But you will feel the impact of your spouse's finances when you marry him or her.  Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Prenuptial agreements can be set up which maintain seperate finances for the individual members of the couple.  It is perfectly fine to set up a marriage as one would set up a roommate arrangement: each party is responsible for 1/2 of joint expenses (housing, bills, food) but each party also maintains their own income and discretion over the spending thereof.  That may not be the standard way that a marriage is arranged, but with the proper documentation in the form of a prenup, there is nothing particularly wrong with doing so.  -- Jayron  32  15:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. Still, it is hard to imagine a married couple terminating their relationship because debts and/or job loss and/or illness make it no longer possible for one of the two to contribute 50% of household expenses. That certainly isn't my idea of marriage, but I guess it is legally possible.  Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Lots of wives would terminate their relationship because the husband can no longer contribute 100% of household expenses. There's a colloquial name for them:  golddiggers, women who marry for money instead of love.  My own parents divorced not because my mom is a golddigger, but because she apparently had no intention of ever getting a job and helping support the family.  Money is not, and has never been, irrelevant to marriage.  --140.180.3.244 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What 140.180 said. If you look at any study or list or whatnot which describes the "Top ten reasons for divorce", money issues are always there, sometimes even higher ranked than sexual infidelity.  This list has it listed #1, This one has it #3, This one has it #4, this one has it at #7.  That's just from teh first page of a google search.  Now, none of those is necessarily a reliable source, but it gives you an idea that there is significant emphasis placed on money in terms of having a successful marriage.  -- Jayron  32  18:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The examples cited actually prove my point that a marriage normally involves a merger of finances. The terms (in modern Western marriages) are typically communistic: (1) from each according to his ability to each according to his need. The cases of divorce that were cited are cases where the wife was not willing to contribute according to her ability.  This presupposes an idea of shared finances.  Of course, there are sometimes other terms, such as: (2) from him according to her monetary desires and from her according to his physical desires. (These terms, by the way, are the same as those that exist between a prostitute and her client, except longer term.)  The case of the golddigger's divorce may have been a case where she thought that the terms of the agreement were (2). I never denied that marriage has a financial component. On the contrary, my point was that it has a profound financial component.  Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the other thing then is that, if there have been n marriages in the history of the world, there are n+1 ways that a marriage can work. In simpler terms: you cannot presuppose that a marriage can only work one way; yes the "normal" western view of a marriage is of a complete partnership of equals (especially in recent decades).  Even recently this was not always the case; the idealized marriage of the middle 20th century was of a working husband and a stay-at-home housewife.  Your point is valid, Marco, but the cynicism of (2) isn't all that helpful; however, one could simply expand the idea that most marriages involve a merger of value rather than finances.  That is, each partner contributes equal value to a marriage, even if one contributes no cash to the marital finances.  A housewife isn't just a fucktoy which the husband works to provide shoping money for; she may provide as much value to the marriage as the husband, just not as much money.  Couples make decisions on who will work and who will stay home based on a myriad of factors, and no two marriages are identical in this regard.  -- Jayron  32  20:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, "there are sometimes other terms..." (not limited to brutally cynical term (2), which however has certainly characterized some marriages). Anyway, I don't think we really disagree. Marco polo (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Jean Barker, Baroness Trumpington
Somebody has wrongly removed the fact that she is jewish because it isn't cited. She said so on Desert Island Discs. Is that a good ref or can someone find another? (She is also a very good egg) Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally, audio sources that have been broadcast by a reputable organisation are fine per Identifying reliable sources. You should provide date of transmission and other relevant details in the reference. For a claim about a living person, some people will prefer a source that they can check more easily, e.g. online or in print, and that should be provided where possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I listened to it but I didn't note the date. I just added the category. It wasn't a big deal. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  13:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 25 Nov 1990 -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Any further confirmation please? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  22:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether the reference is reliable or not, the fact doesn't belong in the article unless a reliable source says that she has publicly declared that it is significant in her life. Compare WP:BLPCAT (which is about categorization by religion, but I think the same applies to content, though I haven't found a specific reference for this). --ColinFine (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the broadcast version of the programme includes mention of their religion, in the tightly timed and even tighter edited environment of Desert Island Discs (they don't even play the "discs" in full), you can definitely assume it's significant in their life, either to the positive or negative. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Median Wage in the United States in 1793?
Is there a way to know what the median wage in the United States was in 1793? (Or up to 1800?) --CGPGrey (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Measuring Worth US Wage, interpretation is another matter. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Legal definition of assault
How is assault actualy defined as in law because I have been told that simply placing ones hand on another person can be classed as assault in British law. Is this true ? 92.27.75.60 (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Confusing this issue is that the word "assault" can mean either an "assault" in a stricter sense or a "battery". Relevant to your question is a battery, which is only defined in common law (this answer refers only to England and Wales, I should point out). It is "the unlawful application of force against another person [with intent to do so]". This certainly includes touching. "Unlawful", by the way, means "without lawful excuse". However, so called "everyday touchings" are exempt, those which relate directly to ordinary conduct. Tapping someone on the back would fall into this category, as would bumping into them on a crowded street or train. However, forcefully turning someone round could count as a battery. In all cases, this is without their consent. Remember also that, the actual law aside, the Crown Prosecution Service has a "public interest" requirement for prosecutions. I've put down some of my thoughts at User:Grandiose/sandbox2 because I was drafting the article there. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Assault comes from the Latin assultus meaning a "leaping or bounding to something." Battery comes from the Latin battuere meaning "to beat."  The legal sense captured these two different meanings with assault involving the violent act but not the contact and battery involving the beating.  It came to pass that battery would also include the slightest contact because as Lord Blackstone revealed, the law does not concern itself with measuring the effects of violence for the individual's space is sacred and not to be violated.  It has always been the case under British law that the law does not concern itself with trivial things de minimis non curat lex, wrongs without injury damnum absque injuria provide no remedy, and the hand that touched softly molliter manus imposuit is a defense to assault. Lord William Blackstone reports that a case in which a defendant removed the hat of another could not be battery or assault.  This may or may not be true today.  The question that has eluded scholars and jurists for centuries is where should the law divide between rude behavior and a criminal act deserving of punishment.  To answer your question, merely touching someone may constitute an offence depending on the circumstances.  However, without malice or violence, the act will make for a weak prosecution.  On a related note, America revised its criminal statutes in the 1970s to eliminate most common law definitions of crimes.  "Theft" now encompasses shoplifting, larceny, embezzlement, extortion, false pretenses and blackmail.  "Assault" now encompasses assault, battery, mayhem, dueling, and menacing.  Generally, assault must involve violence.  When it does not, Americans tend to group the crime under the general heading of "harassment" which is to engage in a course of conduct that serves no legitimate purpose other than to harass, annoy or alarm.  There are a couple of states out there that still hold onto larceny and battery as crimes, but the majority have changed to the dictionary defintition known to both Brits and Americans. Gx872op (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Generally, assault must involve violence." It would depend on your view of "violence". Kissing, spitting, and cutting of hair; even the touching of clothing. The legal position is wide. The position adopted by the CPS is not nearly so wide. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So for example, if I wanted to talk to someone & they turned to walk away but I put out my hand to stop them by placing my hand on their arm or their chest, what would that be classed as legally, if anything ? The reason I ask is because I was under the impression that legally, no one can touch you without you permission. Because that what i've been told by friends & family for years. 92.27.75.60 (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The facts you suggest are somewhat different in that you are physically preventing someone from engaging in a lawful action: walking away. Your use of force is sufficient to prevent this.  Depending on the circumstances, this could be considered assault.  If the person doing the shoving is a little old lady and the person stopped is a professional footballer with a nasty reputation, it may not rise to the criminal level.  If it is a man placing his hand on a woman's chest in order to stop her, it would probably be assault.  People would find that offensive (and it may be difficult to prove that the shove was intended as a grope).  The test has been whether a reasonable person in the circumstances objectively would have considered the contact to offend common social decency.  However, because assault (and battery) have historically been reserved to more severe and violent cases, the crime may not be charged in favor of another such as harassment, disorderly or tumultuous conduct, disturbing the peace, or some other offence.  Common social mores are the key.  The law protects the sanctity of your personal space and your liberty of movement.  The circumstances of the contact and the common standards of society (represented in the opinion of the magistrate or the jury) will determine where to draw the line.  Placing your hand on someone's chest can be assault in some circumstances, yes. Gx872op (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

far-right groups in Europe
Do far-right groups like Danish People's Party and National Front of France actually support in favour of western immigration meaning they accept immigrants from with Europe? Isn't that against their party platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.190 (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what their policy positions are, but freedom of residence within Western Europe has been more or less guaranteed by EU laws/treaties going back 20 years or more, and it wouldn't necessarily be logically inconsistent for such political parties to make a distinction between what they would regard as "culturally assimilable" vs. "culturally unassimilable" immigrants... AnonMoos (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Migration within Western Europe is pretty much a non-issue in Western Europe today. Migration from Eastern to Western Europe is different though. Some West European far right parties, particularly in Italy, have sought to bar or reduce migration from Eastern Europe (even from EU countries, particularly regarding Roma people). The legal framework of EU membership and international treaties is less relevant for these parties. --Soman (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Many far-right parties, like the Danish People's Party and British National Party, oppose EU membership: see Euroscepticism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst others support remaining in the EU. So the EU isn't the central issue on immigration policies of these parties. The Italian parties calling for a ban on Romanian immigration are certainly not opposed to EU membership as such. --Soman (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They might have a problem with the EU membership of Romania and other poor/Eastern European though. Flamarande (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Danish People's Party and National Front are very vocally against the EU, so while they do have to accept the freedom of movement in EU currently existing, they do not support it at all. The "cultural assimilable" distinctions mentioned by AnonMoos is a good summation of what they would probably want instead. Although how those distinctions could be defined in terms that could be made into law is beyond me. Judging from the results of the previous 10 years in Danish politics where DPP had a considerable say in especially the immigration politics of Denmark, they don't seem particularly concerned with the immigration restrictions meant for immigrants from third world countries also ending up applying to Western immigration. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Llywelyn the Great as Prince of Wales
Greetings. I failed to start-up a discussion on List of longest-reigning British monarchs regarding Llywelyn the Great and his reign as Prince of Wales. The problem is the page refers to Llywelyn's reign as monarch of Wales (counting only the principality of Wales) rather than of Gwynedd (stating it to 45 circa). From his wikipage, I see the tenures for such titles do not coincide: the Prince of Gwynedd being 45 years circa, and the Prince of Wales being only 22 years circa. I rather confused to which tenure we are to follow. Any advise regarding this would be greatly appreciated. --George2001hi (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Llywelyn never used the title "Prince of Wales" himself, nor did any contemporary call him that; it was applied by later historians to indicate his real power. Aparently the widest-reaching title he ever used himself, according to Llywelyn_the_Great, is "Prince of North Wales and Lord of Snowdonia".  So, he was never a formal regnant "Prince of Wales"; if you are counting his actual used ruling titles, the "Prince of Gwynedd" is probably the only one that should count for your purposes.  -- Jayron  32  21:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

follow-up on help in locating poster
In my previous post, I requested help in locating a copy of a WWII poster. It was described as a seafaring sailor flashing the 'victory' sign. The top text read "If You Can't Go Across..Come Across!" The bottom text read "BUY WAR BONDS". The artist who created the poster was Ernest Fiene. The publisher was Abbott Laboratories. Are there more resources out there?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to buy one, this place has one that appears to be for sale, though it doesn't say what the price is (you have to contact the owner via the "Contact Charles about this piece" link). Here's another place, which has one as part of a lot of five pieces up for auction. One sold for $78.00 on eBay less than a month ago. Just Google for "Abbott Laboratories" +"If You Can't Go Across" to see what's out there, and keep searching periodically until you find what you want. (If you don't want to buy one but just locate one, the search also turns up a couple of museums that hold copies.) Deor (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)