Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 June 7

= June 7 =

Do Democrats demand elections without ID?
Some pro-Republican propaganda implies that the Democrats (Obama himself?) postulated it to be racist to require identity documents for political elections. Is there any truth in that? Google didn't help. --KnightMove (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. Sure sounds like pro-Republican propaganda. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * HiLo48 is wrong (I have no problem directly refuting him as he didn't even bother to provide evidence) - there is actually a lot of truth to it. In general, Republicans prefer elections with a higher threshold to voting because lower turnout helps them (see my thread above); Democrats prefer lower threshold. And lest we immediately accuse the Republicans of being disingenuous and trying to disenfranchise voters: they point out that  to do many functions in society today requires ID (renting a hotel, cashing a check), and that not requiring an ID can lead to voter fraud - something that, in conservative lore, has helped Democrats in the past (most notably, Chicago) . IMO, neither side cares as much about the integrity the system as it claims. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing I of course forgot to include: Jim Crow laws also created obstacles to voting, so any obstacle to voting at all (include requiring a photo ID) is seen by many as racist, fair or not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Still sounds like pro-Republican propaganda. And a statement like that doesn't need evidence. It's just an opinion from a disinterested party, which you're welcome to ignore. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. (Wink.)  Kingsfold  (Quack quack!)  18:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are of course layers to this: One is encouraging electoral turn-out, another is whether there should be a requirement to show photo-ID, a third is whether the claim that demanding ID to vote is racism, and the fourth is that Obama himself said so. As I see it, the OP is: Has Obama, or the Democrats, said anything along the lines of 'Demanding photo-ID to vote is racist?'
 * As per the discussion above, people who do not have photo-ID (i.e. passport, driver's licence) tend to be poorer and/or non-white, and more likely to vote democratic. Obviously, if you could prevent them from voting, the Reps are more likely to win. (50 votes out of 200 is only 25%, but it's half of 100.)
 * While what Magog writes is true: There are many things that require photo-ID in today's society. However, in certain contexts, it might no be necessary to prove one's identity. For example when you live in a small town where "everyone knows everybody else".
 * As for the question of whether anyone has said such a thing: I recall seeing a segment of Rachel Maddow where she laid out how requiring photo-ID disenfranchised minority voters. Now, of course, Rachel Maddow doesn't represent the Democratic party, and I don't recall her saying "racism", although such an understanding could be read between the lines. V85 (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there is a very simple solution to this problem that I imagine would satisfy both parties if they were being honest about their motives: the US could copy some European countries (see Voter registration) by requiring all residents to register their address with the (national or state) government, automatically placing everybody who is eligible on the electoral register, and providing everybody with a national (or state) ID card, which would be needed to vote. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't have internal passports in the US. I would vigorously oppose any such provision. --Trovatore (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, but. having lived in different European states and (for half a year) in the US, I think this opposition is ill-founded. In practice, the combination of drivers license and SSN already serves as an (low-quality) mandatory ID in the US, but because of the lack of a single unified and reliable system of identification, many transactions are unnecessarily complicated, and many actors, both state and private, collect a lot of redundant data. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The social security card is not ID, and a driver license is not mandatory. --Trovatore (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Stephan Schulz -- the idea of a centralized federalized nationalized identity document (which would mean that anybody who was found outside their home not carrying such a document could be automatically be arrested by the police), is extremely unpopular in the United States among both rightists and leftists, and it would require a crisis much more severe than 9/11 for it to have any realistic chance of being implemented. In recent years, the so-called "Real ID" process has pretty much come to a screeching halt because many states have told Congress to stick its unfunded mandates where the sun don't shine... AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Christ on a bike, AnonMoos. How exactly did you tranmogrify the suggestion of a need for an ID card to enable one to vote, into "which would mean that anybody who was found outside their home not carrying such a document could be automatically be arrested by the police". FFS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because many of the opponents of a centralized federalized nationalized U.S. ID card think that it will lead to that situation by means of an inevitable slippery slope. I'm just reporting the arguments which have been made... AnonMoos (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * They wouldn't need to be internal passports, it just seems obvious to me that if the government is going to require everyone to have an ID to vote, then they should make sure that every eligible voter has ID. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that might actually be a nontrivial argument against voter ID. I have to think about it some more. --Trovatore (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The basic anomaly is that the problem of in-person voter impersonation fraud is vanishingly rare in the United States (only a tiny handful of cases ever brought per year), yet Republicans keep aggressively pushing strong measures to solve this more-or-less non-existent problem -- and it's observed that the aforementioned Republican-backed so-called "solutions" have collateral damage which mainly impacts on Democratic-leaning demographic groups. Many Democratic political types remember that the nucleus of the Bush administration federal attorneys firing scandal came about when local U.S. district attorneys came under intense White House political pressure to prosecute cases of so-called "voter fraud" which looked extremely dubious or non-existent to the local officials investigating the facts of such cases. AnonMoos (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is completely, totally Republican propaganda, with the single express purpose of trying to disenfranchise as many Democrats as possible, so they can win more elections. It's not racist, it's "classist". One thing to keep in mind for these so-called voter ID cards: They had better not cost anything, or it will amount to a poll tax, which is unconstitutional. The Republicans are counting on folks not bothering to get such cards, especially as they would need to provide proof of citizenship, i.e. they would have to get copies of their birth certificates - which costs money. That's another potential basis for challenging the ID. No one has to pay in order to vote in federal elections. It's a violation of the U.S. Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, that most people have ID, and Florida, in tightening its voter rolls, found several thousand non-citizens on the rolls and deleted them. Usually, the statistic that is used against such laws is the number of convictions, which are indeed few, as it's generally not viewed as a high priority by prosecutors.  There have been considerably more voter fraud cases than treason cases, though, which makes me think that perhaps it would be a good idea to eliminate the laws against treason, in the eyes of those who do not want voter fraud laws.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Most voter fraud in the U.S. is either connected with absentee ballots, or is due to piecework contractors for turn-out-the-vote groups turning in bogus registrations with random junk names (since such contractors get paid by the number of voter registrations that they succeed in obtaining). The second type of problem doesn't involve the casting of any actual fraudulent votes, and neither problem will be solved by voter ID requirements -- since voter ID requirements can fix very little other than the barely-even-existing-at-all "problem" of in-person voter impersonation fraud. AnonMoos (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Two of the more important issues are mentioned here. First, many older blacks were never even written a birth certificate during the segregation era, and some of them have lived without cars (or at least driver's licenses) ever since.  Second, getting an official copy of the birth certificate (if it exists) can cost up to $60, which individual poor persons may not be ready to spend for one lousy vote.  And those lost votes add up... Wnt (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of people is actually small; as no ID means no travel except in a car, and that you can't get into a government building to see your social worker. Most of these statutes contain grants to take care of such situations.  However, as Democrats want students to be able to vote at their school in November, even if they have home-state DLs in their pocket, it's a convenient excuse.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that means -- you don't generally need an ID to get on local public transport in the U.S., nor to enter state benefits offices (you seem to be confusing city buses with airplanes, and state benefits offices with federal courthouses). AnonMoos (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck getting a bus pass though, at least a subsidized one. At any event, discovery of people who don't have an ID and can't conveniently get one is a great find by would-be plaintiff's lawyers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You might not be able to get a **subsidized** bus pass without ID, but you can sure get regular ones without ID. Did it for years, myself. Monthly passes wound up cheaper than paying each day I went to work, and did not require any ID. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Scott Walker and collective bargaining
When Wisconsin governor Scott Walker's reforms are mentioned, it is invariably reported that they "removed collective bargaining rights" from most public employees. What I have never been able to find out, in detail, is what exactly that means. Does anyone know?

The only specifics I know about is that salary increases are capped, unions must recertify annually, and cannot have their (apparently voluntary?) dues deducted automatically from paychecks. The latter two provisions were recently struck down, if memory serves, but they seem like nuisance requirements anyway, intended to make unions spend resources but not fundamental limitations. The first provision is of course more serious but wouldn't naturally be described as taking away collective bargaining, just an advance position saying how much one side is willing to give.

So does anyone know more details? Are union reps actually prohibited from going to whoever makes salary decisions and trying to bargain? Is it something like a change from closed shop to open shop? Or what, exactly? --Trovatore (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You could start with our article; Collective bargaining, Alansplodge (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This article and this more recent one have some detail on Wisconsin. Workers who use collective bargaining get higher pay and benefits (pensions, healthcare, etc), because they're in a stronger negotiating position than individual workers, and they can take bad offers to binding arbitration, and agreements are binding for a fixed period into the future for old and new staff (so no sudden changes in pay and conditions or forced re-negotiations or hiring new workers on lower salaries). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I may have misunderstood, but it sounds like both the above answers are trying to explain what collectivve bargaining is, where AFAICT, the OP is asking what the law changes in Wisconsin did. To be fair, they may be useful since it sounds like the OP doesn't understand why the severe restrictions greatly curtail the ability to collectively bargain. 2001:0:4137:9E76:247C:A71:833A:FA41 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I started with the question "What I have never been able to find out, in detail, is what exactly that means." I understood that he was referring to "collective bargaining rights", which I hope is explained in our article. Apologies if I picked-up the wrong end of the stick. Sorry, I can't help with the other stuff. Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see that I did in fact state the question ambiguously. I was not asking what collective bargaining meant.  I was asking what the changes in Wisconsin were. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As one would expect, 2011 Wisconsin protests, 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 and Scott Walker (politician) seem to do a decent job. Note that it's not much use technically being able to collectively bargain if what you're being allowed to bargain over so severely limited to be close to useless, however most of our article simply say the rights were severely curtailed rather then removed. 2001:0:4137:9E76:247C:A71:833A:FA41 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I did look at that article, and could not find anything that could be unambiguously described as removing the right to bargain collectively. That's sort of the general reason (not meaning our article specifically, just the reporting in general) that I asked the question.  -Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know how union you are, so I'll explain as if you were a very young person. Our article on the act states, "The bill would make various changes to limit collective bargaining for most public employees to wages. Total wage increases could not exceed a cap based on the consumer price index (CPI) unless approved by referendum. Contracts would be limited to one year and wages would be frozen until the new contract is settled." and that the armed wing of the state and firefighers are exempted.


 * Limiting bargaining to wages means that occupational safety, hours of work, conditions of work, promotion structures and hierarchies, levels of work, anti-discrimination, equity, workers' control, tools payments, materials payments, leave, leave payments are all excluded from bargaining. Most workers and most trade unions care about bargaining about these issues.  Additionally, most people who've been through industrial bargaining are aware that each issue to be bargained presents the opportunity for leverage or the exertion of power.  The employer has this opportunity every day of the year regardless of bargaining.  Unions are often restricted by laws that fail to honour international conventions regarding the right to strike, and so end up being able to exercise power only during bargaining.


 * Wage increases being capped to a maximum of CPI is invidious. CPI is a poor measure of actual working class expenditures (for a variety of boring reasons, and in the case of the Australian C-Series straight out bourgeois class warfare in the statistics office of the government).  CPI measures are the minimum increase workers can accept, as it represents their continued reproduction.  If workers are held down to below CPI increases, not only will they be relatively emiserised in terms of share of total social product, but they will be specifically emiserised in terms of the volume of use values consumed.  If you ate real cheese before, prepare to eat government cheese next year, and no cheese the year after.  In my experience of bargaining, and reading about bargaining, decided wages relatively rarely exceed the capitalist's $X figure amortised against future wage increases, because the bargaining power of the employer becomes used more and more heavily, and because of poorly organised unions.


 * One year contracts with wage freezes means that the employer can freeze wages during the bargaining period. My last bargaining period was something around 2.5 years.  This element of the law is an attempt to make yellow dog unions.


 * And, of course, the exemption for the armed wing of the state is icing on the cake—it quite clearly indicates that none of these measures are grounded in equity, but in naked class warfare. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not really interested in discussing the merits of the changes. I am trying to find out what reporters mean when they say "removing collective bargaining rights".  Specifically, this bit about "limiting collective bargaining to wages".  What does that mean?  The union side is literally forbidden from mentioning non-wage issues in negotiations?  That would be the literal interpretation, but it strikes me as unlikely to be the case.  If it is the case, OK, then I know (though I'd still be curious what the enforcement mechanism would be).  But if not, then what? --Trovatore (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You've hit the point where you simply need to read the act itself. Speaking as someone who has been involved in bargaining campaigns under similar limitations, deregistration, massive collective fines, and massive (and recurrent) individual fines are generally the enforcement techniques.  I think in my case, unauthorised action is 10K per member per instance.  Your industrial and juridicial system will vary. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What I predict will happen as a result of the limitation to "bargaining on wages only", is that the wages will go up at the CPI rate, but all other benefits (health care insurance, retirement, etc.) will be steadily eroded, then eliminated. Since these are a substantial portion of the overall compensation package, total compensation, in real terms, will go down each year, until all benefits are eliminated. StuRat (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Why no new Shakers?
I just happened across our article on the Shakers, who have dwindled down to three members at the Sabbathday Lake Shaker Village. What confuses me is that there is apparently a large body of Shaker writings and cultural leavings, widely disseminated in the U.S. So I would have predicted that some low rate of converts would emerge from the population, even in the absence of any church or infrastructure, and given their significant holdings and name-recognition and ongoing publicity, I'd think they would attract many (whether honest or not), even if it were only visionaries with some notion to take over the church and recast it according to their own ideas. Wikipedia actually featured a non-religious VHEM with some similar results, which is growing. Yet the article says that the Shakers remain fully open to converts; it's not just that they don't take people. What's the explanation? Wnt (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Shakers don't proselytize; though they are open to converts, that requires people to wish to join of their own choice. People would have to seek them out to join.  They are essentially a protestant, celibate, monastic order.  While celibate monastic orders have long been a part of Catholic and Orthodox strains of Christianity, they are an oddity among Protestant Christianity.  Modern Protestants don't place any value on life-long celibacy; though they often value "abstinance before marriage", the Protestant ideal is for men and women to marry, and to have children.  Since Shakers don't do that, it doesn't attract a lot of mainline or evangelical Protestants.  Basically, being such an oddity, they simply don't have any way to replenish their numbers, and so they're dying out.  It happens, many faiths and religions die-out.  There's not too much earnest worship of the Roman gods these days, nor does one run across many Manichaeans -- Jayron  32  17:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What your explanation doesn't cover is "what has changed ?". That is, surely all of those conditions also existed back where they were thriving.  What has changed, IMHO, is that people now have more options.  Some people joined monastic orders because they couldn't survive on their own, but the modern welfare state has pretty much ended the threat of starvation/death by exposure.  Others joined because they were homosexual, and thus needed to suppress all sexual activity or would be jailed/killed, etc., but now they can "come out".  Still others joined because they were true believers, but science has led to the rise of atheism/agnosticism, and even those who are nominally religious often only attend church on special occasions.  So, membership of most monastic orders is down.  However, the Shakers may be hit even worse than most, for the reasons you listed. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Shakers declined substantially in the 20th century and were reduced to two communities, one at Canterbury, New Hampshire, and another at Sabbathday Lake, Maine. The Canterbury community, led by Emma Belle King, decided to take no new members, apparently out of concern that members might join just to get access to the Shakers' still substantial assets.  Some accounts say that the community closed the covenant, see the discussion in this 1983 article, which also mentions a prophecy that there will be a religious revival and the Shakers die out when there are fewer Shakers than there are fingers on a child's hand.  The biography of King in Historical Dictionary of the Shakers disputes the claim that the covenant was closed in 1957 or 1965.  The last Shaker at Canterbury died in 1992.  The small community at Sabbathday Lake continues to accept members.  John M Baker (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wnt, one factor contributing to the decline in Shaker membership is the disappearance of institutional orphanages. The Shakers used to accept orphans into their membership. Now that orphans are eagerly adopted in the US (except for orphans older than, say 12 years old) that dried up a source for new Shakers. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 16:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Eid ul Fitr and Eid ul Adha january 4th
When was the last time Eid ul Fitr fall on January 4 and when was the last time Eid ul Adha fall on January 4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.46 (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1870 and 1974, respectively. I used the calculators here . These are the years for Canada, where your IP is located to; there is a disclaimer that the calculation may be a day off for other places. 184.147.126.249 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I read the disclaimer wrong - it may be a day off no matter where you are. For a real confirmation, you'd need a news story or announcement that the festivals were held on those days. P.S. can someone strikethrough my sentence above "These are the years for Canada..."- I don't know how to make strikethrough. thanks. 184.147.126.249 (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅...easy too ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you (easy when you know how :) that's the tricky part. 184.147.126.249 (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Europe
Besides France, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, and Vatican City, which other European nations are Roman Catholic-majority with non-Roman Catholic Christian minorities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.46 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you use the term "nation" I won't bother naming the different Catholic majority German states, but there are Austria, Slovakia, Poland and Luxembourg. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Catholic_Church_by_country.Anonymous.translator (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Belgium as well. I would have thought Czech Republic, but apparently not according to our article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What! Does the Defenestration of Prague mean nothing to you? Alansplodge (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Croatia should have come...the war there was essentially religious.
 * Though as a nation only Porugal, Austria (?), san Marino and croaia would count..sLOVENIA AS WELL
 * Bear in mind though that after the Cold War and communism many people dont identify with religion, hence a formerly Lutheran majority Germany is notw a Catholic plurality. (most from the south (Bavaria) that were West Germans)Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Malta, it appears. It's the state religion there, at least. Pfly (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Malta is almost universally Catholic, 93.89% of the population according to Religion in Malta. Lithuania is another strongly Catholic nation (79%). Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hungary was traditionally a bastion of Catholicity, spawning a number of saints. It's down to about 51% now according to the table linked above, but I suspect that had a lot to do with the malign influence of the Communist era, when it wasn't feasible to be a practising Christian.  --  ♬ Jack of Oz  ♬ [your turn]  22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Or possibly the benign influence of Communism, which shivered the blah blah, false religiosity, blah blah. More significant with Hungary is the extreme secularisation of the 20th century with the final dismantling of serfdom and estates systems, and the conversion of the Hungarian peasantry into a modern mix of small farmers and agricultural workers while massive urbanisation occurred.  Hungarian social democratic culture until 1956 (for obvious reasons) was very secular, and unlike in Poland religion did not become an ark for the oppressed.  Modernisation is probably the best explanation, as these processes of secularisation occurred under Austria-Hungary, just as much as under the Soviet, just as much as under Horthy, just as much as under Rakosi/Kadar.  The trend to secularisation was a secular trend—ha ha. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In 1989 In Hungary I got into a number of political conversations with people in tourist-facing roles. One person wanted an answer to why Protestants and Catholics were in conflict in Northern Ireland when in Hungary they got on so well. They had common cause, I suppose. At the time they were all quite cross with the Rumanians. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What did you tell him? Its not about religion but about race/sub-race (if you must). Explains the similar ethnic conflict there. As in Basque vs. Spain. Corsica, Brittany, Alsace-Lorrane (?) vs. France. N. Italy vs. rest, etc.Lihaas (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping that you could list the nations who are Roman Catholic majority especially with German nations: I am confused about them. Is Switzerland a Roman Catholic majority nation? Is Austria a Roman Catholic majority nation? Is Liechtenstein a Roman Catholic majority nation? Is Germany a Roman Catholic majority nation? Is Belgium a Roman Catholic majority nation? Is Luxembourg a Roman Catholic nation? Please just say yes or no to each question. Thank you.


 * Every one of those countries has an article titled "Religion in..." such that you can find the numbers youself. For example, see Religion in Switzerland or Religion in Germany.  Feel free to read each one yourself, and find the answer.  Also, be aware the distinction between majority and plurality.  A majority means more than half.  A plurality means the most of all possibilities, but not necessarily more than half.  For example, Switzerland has no majority religion, as no single denomination has more than 50% of the population.  You can read for yourself the exact numbers in the article linked above.  For convenience, I have linked a template below for all of Europe.  -- Jayron  32  03:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary papers
Does anyone know where to find Correspondence Relative to the Society Islands and Correspondence dealing with the agreement between Great Britain and France respecting the Sandwich Islands? I think they are English Parliamentary papers.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite the same titles, but guessing from context of other questions, you could try the "British and Foreign State Papers 1842-1843" here; it certainly has correspondence regarding the Paulet Affair of 1843.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 21:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can get "Correspondence relative to the Society Islands. 1843." through House of Commons Parliamentary Papers, a paid-access database. I can't see the Sandwich Islands paper, but didn't try very hard and it might be there somewhere.  HCPP offers a free trial, but not sure if it lets you read the papers. I searched via an institutional log-in - most British universities and some libraries will have access.  --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

S. S. Hill
When did S. S. Hill visit the Island of Maui? He wrote Travels in the Sandwich and Society Islands and the chapter on the Island of Mawhee starts with the date 6th February but doesn't say the year. The book was published in 1856 but I am sure that wasn't the date of his visit.


 * A little Googling narrowed it down to sometime in the period 1847 to 1850 during his trip around the world. Took a bit of lateral thinking, but a quick look at the online version of Travels in the Sandwich and Society Islands starts with him leaving Kamchatka and a quick Google search reveals his book Travels in Siberia, so his trip through the Pacific follows on from his Russian journey. So with another bit of lateral thinking, searching for "SS Hill" and variations (apparently his name is Samuel Hill) and the most likely year (1848) brought up this, which puts his arrival in Honolulu on the 24th December, 1848; you should be able to date his travels mentioned in the Travels in the Sandwich and Society Islands book from there.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 19:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

dual nationality - usa & UK
I note that Alan Cumming has dual nationality having become a US citizen. How does this reconcile with "I renounce my former ties and allegiances"? Kittybrewster &#9742;  22:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nationality is not a synonym for citizenship. Now, if you really meant to say that he has dual citizenship, the article and section Citizenship_in_the_United_States also has some important information. -- Jayron  32  22:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And the UK Border Agency notes that one does not lose one's British Citizenship on becoming a naturalised citizen of another country (although one may have one's right to spell "naturalised" properly rescinded). There's a form (it's Britain, there's always a form) to allow a renunciation, which they suggest is appropriate for those whose new citizenship is of a country which isn't content with dual citizenship - but, as the article Jayron32 linked suggests, the US (while perhaps not entirely happy about things) isn't such a country. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm British, born in the UK and my mum is American. I have dual citizenship even though my nationality is British.  I have an American passport and everything (as well as my British one). --  role player 22:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here one has to distinguish the legal notion of nationality from other notions. If you are an American citizen, then ipso facto you are also an American national, and therefore legally speaking have American nationality.  (The converse fails &mdash; for example American Samoans are American nationals but not American citizens).  If you're discussing notions of nationality other than the legal one, then there are various options as to what you might mean &mdash; some people in the States use "nationality" as a more-or-less synonym of "ethnicity".  The European notion of "objective nationality" is not generally well-thought-of in the States, but presumably has some adherents.  --Trovatore (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As the U.S. State Department notes, somewhat fence-sittingly, U.S. law does not mention dual nationality nor require a person to choose between U.S. and another citizenship... yet "the U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy." --- OtherDave (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)