Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 30

= October 30 =

When did the US and the UK become allies?
Comploose (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See United Kingdom–United States relations. A common interpretation is that they were neutral from 1815 to the 1880s, and became "allies" sometime between then and the First World War (depending on your definition of allies). HTH, - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 00:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to chapter 5 of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, the U.K. offered several concessions to the U.S. ca. the early 1900s (on the Alaska boundary dispute, fisheries and the Panama Canal) as part of a general policy of reducing colonial frictions to allow for greater diplomatic freedom of action in Europe. The U.S. and U.K. weren't militarily allied until 1917... AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that after World War I, although there were close economic ties, the US was careful to keep itself aloof from any military alliances. The US didn't join the League of Nations, which was dominated by Britain and France. US military planners even had plans for war with Britain, see War Plan Red. Although Britain and France were favoured over the Axis at the start of World War II, they still made us pay top dollar for the arms they were sending us (I believe that we had to pay up front in gold bullion). See British Purchasing Commission. Later on there was Lend Lease and help with convoy escorts, but the US didn't enter the war against Germany until Hitler declared war. Alansplodge (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's being a bit technical. Franklin Roosevelt had a bit of a problem with the U.S. Congress (and public too) at the time, but Pearl Harbor changed everything. Although it made the case for war in Europe much stronger when Hitler, somewhat inexplicably, declared war on the U.S. after it declared war on Japan. But don't mistake American isolationism post-WWI for hostility towards Britain. Lend Lease can hardly be seen as anything except the U.S. helping the Allied powers. Nevermind the next ~6 years. Shadowjams (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also note that the US opposed the UK (and France and Israel) during the Suez Crisis. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that the definition of "ally" is not "blindly endorses everything the other does". The U.S. - U.K. alliance does not preclude them disagreeing on major issues.  -- Jayron  32  05:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)The U.S. opposes All three of those countries quite often on lots of things. That's hardly here-nor-there when answering that question. But maybe the better question is when's the last time the U.S. and Britain have directly been in conflict, and/or indirectly (diplomatic maneuvering hardly qualifies). Yes, what jayron says exactly. Shadowjams (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that the last time that the U.K. and U.S. fought a pitched battle was the Battle of New Orleans, though Britain did economically support the South in the Civil War, see Cotton diplomacy, and Union blockade which notes the unofficial support of the South by the British in defiance of the embargo. There were probably some naval skirmishes between privately-manned British ships and Union ships during the Civil war.  -- Jayron  32  05:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Britain hasn't fought Russia since the Crimean War, but it doesn't mean that we're allies. Alansplodge (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Being allies is more than not being at war with each other.  The US actively opposed the UK during the Suez crisis, so they were not allies during this period. StuRat (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that final statement. Allies don't cease being allies just because of a different point of view over a major issue.  If the UK had not supported the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, that would not have meant they were no longer allies of the USA. --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  19:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you said, but "not supporting" is not the same as "actively opposing". StuRat (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The UK and US were both signed the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949, which bound us to come to each other's aid if either one were attacked, whether there was a diplomatic dispute in progress or not. So in strictly military terms, the answer to the question is:-
 * 1) 1917 to 1919
 * 2) 1941 to 1945
 * 3) 1949 to the present
 * Any other definition of being "allies" is, as can be seen above, rather debatable. More recent sicking sticking-points in US / UK relationships can be found at Special Relationship Alansplodge (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sicking-points = vomitoria? :) --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  22:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Doh! Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Two questions about the Japanese military
1. Does the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force use metric or imperial units for navigation? 2. In WWII, do IJN pilots carry swords during sorties? A8875 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For Q.1, I presume they follow the standards here. Otherwise, Japan appears to be metrified. Mingmingla (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Then what about outside of navigation? For short distances would they use yards or meters? A8875 (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They would use metres, as yards are a completely alien concept and they would have no reason to adopt British measuring systems. They currently use the metric system. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference for that? A8875 (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1957 KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * See Japanese units of measurement; "From 1924, the shakkanhō system was replaced by the metric system..." So it seems that they went straight from their own indigenous measures (of Chinese origin), to the metric system, without ever using Imperial or US measures. However, the International Nautical mile of 1,852 metres was adopted as an international standard in 1929, so I imagine that the Japanese naval forces navigate in nautical miles and metres. I can't find a direct reference for that at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you two, but I'm asking about the JMSDF in particular. I am well aware that Japan is metricized but that has little to no bearing on what a specialized field use in specialized situations; consider how altitude is still measured in feet in most metricized countries. I'm looking for references specific to the JMSDF.A8875 (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would altitude 'still be measured in feet' in a country which has never used feet as a measuring system? It's measured in metres. The | Japanese Wikipedia page on Mt. Fuji gives the height of the mountain in metres. This is what we are trying to tell you. Japan is completely metricised, apart from measuring rooms in apartments by tsubo. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * KageTora, there's a bit of confusion between height and altitude. In aviation altitude is given in feet, see flight level. So Mt. Fuji would be in metres but Haneda Airport is at an elevation of 21ft. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like the JSDF is exempt from the metrication laws. In practice seems like most naval and aviation equipment uses US customary units. Your contributions, however erroneous, are much appropriated, but please try to provide references next time. A8875 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * However, our article, International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea says; "In 1975 the assembly of the International Maritime Organization decided that the 1974 convention should in future use SI units only." Although warships are specifically exempted from these regulations, they would have to follow them when communicating with civilian vessels. This wouldn't rule out the use of nautical miles or knots, as these have been approved for use with the SI system. The links supporting the use of US Customary units quoted by A8875 above, appear to refer to the maintenance and calibration of US made equipment, rather than navigational use, which was the original question (I only found a machine translation of the third link, which talks about the size of American built helicopter rotors among other things). Please correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Japanese Naval Aviation Uniforms and Equipment 1937-45 (p. 56) says, "The only known exceptions to naval fighter pilots carrying a sword in their aircraft during flight would have been between late October 1944 and the end of the war, if a pilot were assigned to a kamikaze suicide attack mission." According to The Feel of Steel, "... in World War II, Japanese kamikaze pilots took their samurai swords into their cockpits in order to go to their deaths with honour." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aren't those two statements mutually contradictory? Unless "exceptions" is being used in an unusual sense? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The first statement could be interpreted to mean they were only allowed to kamikazes. It sounds a bit odd to say that only kamikazes couldn't take swords. Unfortunately, my preview doesn't show the previous page, which might have cleared things up. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a view of the previous page (55) which says; "Army officer pilots sometimes carried swords into their aircraft, as a symbol of authority... Navy pilots on the other hand, did not follow this tradition, and thus did not carry their swords in their aircraft for two specific reasons." (My summary:) 1) Not enough space in the cockpit of naval aircraft 2) The large piece of steel might affect the compass. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Support for Romney's healthcare plan
Can someone provide references that show thinktanks, organizations, fact-checkers, etc, that support elements (or all) of Romney's healthcare plan?

Thanks. -- Jethro  B  01:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you want Republican party backed thinktanks, organizations, etc. or Democratic party backed thinktanks, organizations, etc.? -- Jayron  32  01:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer neutral organizations, but as long as it's reputable, I'm fine with that. -- Jethro  B  19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the plan he passed as Massachusetts governor, or his current positions on federal government involvement in healthcare (which don't seem to add up to much of a coherent "plan")? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the policies he wants to implement as president, if he's elected. -- Jethro  B  19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you ever find any specifics, the rest of the country would like to know as well. He's been very vague on how he plans to accomplish any of his goals (repeal the parts of Obamacare he doesn't like, "fix" Medicare, remove the deficit, lower taxes, etc.). &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, and that's why I turned here. But he's made claims like Obamacare removes $716 billion from Medicare and he'd put the $716 billion back in.  So if there's some group that says "Our factcheck backs this up" or "our research backs this up," I'd be interested in that.  That's just an example.  I understand how tough this can be, normally I'd just google it myself but most of it seems to be negative (and I need positive in order to play devil's advocate). -- Jethro   B  22:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny thing how Paul Ryan had the same $716 billion maneuver in his proposed budget, but that didn't keep Romney from choosing him as VP candidate. Maybe Romney should run anti-Ryan ads... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Undent. Kaiser is a reputable source on most things healthcare, but for our daily consumption Politifact gave Romney's $716 billion a "Mostly false". Politifact also told me Romney has said his plan would 'look most like' his VP's. It has a few points only, such as Medicare for younger-than-55s. Politifact ruled it untrue that, as advertised, most of those individuals would enjoy as good healthcare as members of Congress. Politifact ruled it true that the expenses would go up on average (I believe double), citing Kaiser which who said it was "because private plans have higher administrative costs and typically pay higher fees to providers than Medicare." 83.108.141.146 (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but my question asked for support, not opposition. -- Jethro  B  03:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is politics. Romney himself has said that he will repeal Obamacare in its entirety, then on the very next day said he will keep children under their parents coverage til 26 and the ban on denying coverage of pre-existing conditions.  Under no circumstances would it benefit a politician who wants to get elected to announce a specific plan--it would give his opponents something concrete to attack and would in Romney's case, if it were anything but the promised full repeal, confirm to the justifiedly skeptical base that he's a socialist squish.  This is just like Obamacare, you are going to "have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it" in January. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Even before the 2012 presidential election loomed, congressional Republicans have never come out with anything which could remotely be called a "plan" (i.e. specific policy proposals with accompanying numbers which add up) that would allow pre-existing conditions restrictions to be eliminated. Any such plan, if it wasn't "single payer", and retained a role for private insurance companies, would inevitably start looking a lot like Obama's bill.  Certainly establishing individual health savings accounts as the main way of paying for insurance won't do anything about pre-existing conditions by itself (and in fact it could put people even more at the mercy of insurance company profit motivations -- not to mention stock-market fluctuations -- than today, unless accompanied by stringent government-imposed safeguards).  Unfortunately, one prominent feature of Mitt Romney's campaign -- ever since Obama's "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose" quote was maliciously taken out of context in November 2011 -- has been blatant out-and-out lying which goes significantly beyond ordinary garden-variety self-serving political spin: The Onion even wrote an spoof article about how Romney's strategy for turning around the campaign was lying more.  If you feel comfortable that Romney will find a way to preserve the elimination of pre-existing conditions restrictions in that context, then by all means go ahead and vote for him... AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Winner-Take-All - Part 2
I obviously spawned a lively discussion which was good by the way. I learned a lot which is what intended. But I am still curious about the second part of my question I asked above. What is the history of this winner-take-all policy enacted by most states? Has it been enacted since the beginning of the electoral college (seems unlikely to me but you never know)? Did it happen later? When did it happen? Did all of the states adopt it simultaneously or was it slowly one by one by one?70.58.0.141 (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See Electoral vote changes between United States presidential elections and in particular the footnotes of the tables for info on states not giving all their electoral votes to one candidate, all the way back to 1816. These footnotes give the impression that splitting a state's electoral votes was the exception rather than the rule even back then. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Postponing elections?
Given the damage being wrought by Hurricane Sandy in the USA at the moment, does provision exist for the Presidential election to be postponed to help with the clear-up? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but how would postponing it help with the clear-up? --Viennese Waltz 10:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Postponing because many New Yorkers won't be able to vote next Tuesday might be more meaningful, specially for Obama, since these are millions of Democratic votes. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Voters from both sides will be equally inconvenienced by the storm. I don't see how it could disproportionally affect Democrats. Whether Obama wins NY by 1 vote or 1 million votes doesn't matter, since it's still 29 electors in the end. A8875 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They won't necessarily be equally inconvenienced. Generally there's a big urban/rural split in party affiliation, and in New York, urban/rural follows the Upstate New York/NYC split. Note the location of red versus blue in File:New York Presidential Election Results by County, 2008a.svg. Upstate, being further from the coast, (as well as things like generally less reliant on subway travel, etc.) will be less inconvenienced by the storm than city dwellers. Will that make enough of a difference to tip the results? Who knows, but probably not, as New York state polls solidly Obama, and even a moderate inconvenience to Democrats is unlikely to change that. - I'll also link the well-followed FiveThirtyEight blog on this topic -- 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.124.30 (talk)


 * Unsurprisingly, this is a much discussed topic. A simple search for something like 'us postpone election sandy' will find plenty of results (some are indirect links) like     . From those results, some states have existing provisions for postponing their elections, others would need new legislation. However the date for presidential elections are set by the US Congress to the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. Theoretically Congress could legislate for a new date but there isn't any real existing provision for postponement, in fact Congress has previously passed a resolution against postponing elections in the event of a terrorist attack. Note if the election dates are postponed this doesn't change the date when electors have to meet meaning you'll get less time for possible recounts etc. The general consensus is a postponement is unlikely although some measures like extended voting hours may be used. Funnily enough as per previous discussions there has been a big push for early voting, it seems that Sandy may be another push for future elections at the very least. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's basically a case of "too bad". How elections are run is a state-by-state affair.  You can bet there will be no support in congress for making any changes or allowances.  New York may hold off on certifying its results for about a month as did Florida in 2000, but the votes have to be cast by election day.  As said above, all voters of every party affiliation are equally inconvenienced in a district.  And there is the time honored solution of cheating. μηδείς (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "all voters of every party affiliation are equally inconvenienced in a district"- that's not true at all. Transportation and power are the issues. People with their own transportation and power generators (i.e. rich people) are much less inconvenienced. Poor people are more inconvenienced, and this affects one party more than the other. Staecker (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Guess you've never heard of limousine liberals and have no familiarity whatsoever with NYC politics where the working class votes Republican, not the rich. In any case, getting yourself to the polls is your responsibility, no one else's.  Michelle Obama herself said it:"You wake up on Election Day -- you might have a cold, babysitter gets sick, it's raining, the car broke down, I could go on -- toilet overflowing. There are so many ways to mess up a day when you don't have a lot of time," she said to laughter.   The notion that the world is unfair because enough Democrats haven't voted yet is yet another leftist delusion.]

See also, which in particular says
 * Federal law says that if a state fails to conduct an election for federal races on the day Congress chooses, the state legislature can pick a later date. But state and federal laws don't always jive perfectly. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has said his state's laws don't grant him authority to reschedule the presidential election.

and
 * changing the date would wreak havoc for state and local elections also scheduled for Nov. 6. States might have to hold two separate days of voting, which could bust state budgets. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It will be possible to hold elections virtually everywhere on Election Day. However, areas without power won't be able to use means of voting that require electricity.  In these areas, photocopied paper ballots could be distributed, marked, collected, and counted manually, as was done in times past.  Polling places are generally distributed densely enough in urban areas that (able-bodied) people can walk to them, and even in less urban areas it is possible to drive to one's polling place without crossing large bodies of water, so flooded tunnels shouldn't be an impediment.  The only impediment would be rigidity and incompetence on the part of state and local authorities, and of course those could come into play.  Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The US Constitution authorizes the Congress to set a uniform date for national elections. In an emergency, presumable the Congress could grant special dispensation to a state that might be unable to conduct its election on the normal day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

can the same person be chairman and president with a different ceo?
can the same person be chairman and president with a different ceo? Meaning, that this person actually operationally runs the show, answering to the CEO.

But the CEO, quarterly or once a year, actually answers to this person. Can this be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely The chief executive officer and chairman of the board and company president (often "chief operating officer") are separate positions within the usual corporate governance structure, though in many companies they are held by the same person. The board of directors is technically the group elected by the shareholders of the company to run the company in their interest, while the so-called "C-suite" (CEO, COO/President, CAO, CIO, etc.) is the group hired by the board of directors to actually manage the day-to-day operations of the company.  So it works like this: The shareholders elect a board of directors, who hire the CEO and President and other C-level executives, and THOSE people then handle the operation of the company.  There's nothing to prevent the board from hiring themselves into the management positions of a company (and many do so), but there's also usually nothing requiring it.  Indeed, this is one of the difference between American-style corporate governance and that found in other parts of the world: In America, there is often considerable overlap between the board of directors and the C-level management of a company, in other places there are two distinct groups of people with non-overlapping membership: the supervisory board (which represents the shareholders) has a distinct membership from the executive board (which manages the operations of the company).  In the U.S. it is usual (though not universal) that the same people serve both roles (The same person is both CEO and Chairman and sometimes President/COO as well).  But they don't have to be.  -- Jayron  32  11:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe I missed it, but I don't think that really answers the OP's question: The question presumes the rank ordering chairperson (1) > CEO (2) > president (3), and asks whether positions 1 and 3 can be held by one person (A) while position 2 is held by another person (B), so that B reports to A (CEO reports to chairperson) and yet A reports to B (president reports to CEO). Duoduoduo (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The current Chairman and CEO of Coca-Cola, Muhtar Kent previously served as Chairman and President simultaneously, with a different CEO. So for at least a time, Coca Cola had the "1 and 3" positions held by the same person, with the "2" being a different person.  See .  I have no idea what this meant for the practical aspect of corporate governance, but it has happened.  -- Jayron  32  20:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Ted Bundy
Is it true that he was a psychologist? and my second question is whether or not would it be possible for another Ted Bundy to exist now with all the technology in the criminal field. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Marc Dutroux existed in the mid-1990s... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Robert Pickton's case is even more recent. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer to your first question can be found from a careful reading of the early part of our Ted Bundy article; psychology was the only one of his several university courses he completed. He graduated in the subject from the University of Washington. But he never worked in the field - his work was as a political activist, and his continuing studies were in Law. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

And technology is no protection against a charming, trustworthy psychopath. alteripse (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Journal Officiel des Établissement Français de l'Océanie
Where can I find "Journal Officiel des Établissement Français de l'Océanie" of August 30 to September 6, 1900? "Journal Officiel des Établissement Français de l'Océanie" of September 5, 1901? Besides this and this? Can somebody ask this question on the fr:Wikipédia:Oracle in French? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask a question in English at the Oracle. Just say hello first and apologize for not being able to post in French. Lots of regulars there speak English. --Xuxl (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not easy to acess. For Journal Officiel des Établissement Français de l'Océanie of September 5, 1901, here is the link to the first page: http://www.archives.gov.pf/afficher_pdf.php?id_doc=/srv/www/htdocs/etatcivil/donnes/jopf//1901/JOPF_1901_page_00315.pdf, you have to change the URL for the next pages: JOPF_1901_page_00316.pdf, JOPF_1901_page_00317.pdf, etc. — AldoSyrt (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Better, try (and retry if necessary) this link http://www.archives.gov.pf/jopf_liste_repertoire.php?dir=%2Fsrv%2Fwww%2Fhtdocs%2Fetatcivil%2Fdonnes%2Fjopf%2F%2F1901&order=name&asc=a. — AldoSyrt (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly year 1900 is not archived on line on this site. — AldoSyrt (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow that is amazing! Thanks. I will look over them.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Where else could you find this? Is it in libraries in the US?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean what Worldcat calls the Journal officiel with an author of "Etablissement français de l'Oceanie"? If so, the only US library owning it might be the New York Public Library.  Go to Document Delivery, although it might help if you tried the Ask a Librarian feature first; your library may subscribe to some online database that includes it.  Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian newspapers
As a RefDesk regular, I feel a bit weird being the one to ask the question. However, my historical researches have led me to Austria-Hungary, and in particular to Mureck, in Styria. I am interested in tracking down online versions of any Styrian, Imperial Austrian or (post-1867) cis-Leithanian newspapers. At one stage Google Books offered me what seemed to be a large bound collection of the Grätzer Zeitung, but now I can't find them again. Searchable resources would be especially valuable. Can anyone help, please? Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here you can select Austrian newspapers online by name or by date, e.g. Klagenfurter Zeitung or 1-Jan-1867. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Work week in Hong Kong
Which of these two unsourced versions is correct? Paum89 (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The pre-revision version talks about when the typical person (not everyone) works, and about what is open on weekends. This coincides with the section on the US, which says The standard workweek in the United States begins on Monday and ends on Friday, 40 hours per week, with Saturday and Sunday being weekend days. Most stores are open for business on Saturday, and may be open a full or half-day on Sunday as well (except where prohibited by law, which is called the Blue law). In contrast, the new version retains some of this information, but muddies the issue by starting out with In Hong Kong, the working week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday even though presumably few people actually work all seven days. It also says Normally, the Chinese consider the week beginning with Monday and ending with Sunday, which is irrelevant in that it refers to the week and when it starts and ends, not the the workweek which is what the article is about. So I suggest you revert the edit, although you may want to retain the bits about telecomunications and manufacturing. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The first (left) version is better. While some office are open on Saturday morning, this is a fading practice. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Structure of Petition
Does anybody know how the structure of this petition from rulers of Rimatara and Rurutu to the British government would have been like? It is all jumbled up in the sources:, , "November 27, 1888: Petition from the King of Rurutu and the Queen of Rimatara and their nobles to Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, and to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. May you have good health. We, Teuruarii, King of Rurutu and Te Maere, Queen of Rimatara and our nobles, ask for the Prime Minister to place our islands and our ships under the protection of the British flag. These are the islands, namely, Rurutu, Rimatara, and Marià, and there are the names of the ships: Faaito and Ronui, and the masters of the same are natives. This is our word to you: Do not forsake us; we are your children; you taught us the word of God, and that has led us in the path of civilisation; therefore we know that you are a good parent to us. The thoughts of the children cling fondly to their good parent; they do not wish to be separated from their good parent. If the parent forsake the children, the children will seek the parent; so do we; we are like those children, and we ask that you will give us your flag to protect us. We have heard that you have taken Rarotonga and the neighbouring islands under your protection, but we remain without anyone to protect us. When we received the news that Rarotonga and the neighbouring islands were placed under your protection, we wept aloud because we were forsaken by you; we were afraid lest we should be adopted by another paretn. The strange parent we mean is the French. They did not feed us with the milk of the gospel, but you did. O Great Britain; you fed us with that milk which has given life to us. This is our last word to you; we do no wish for French annexation or protection, not al all, but we wish you to be our parent, O Great Britain. We pray you now to accede to this our request. This letter was written in the house of Queen Pa. -TEURUARII, TE MAERE ARII."
 * It seems to be quoted in full in the first source you gave (and you seem to have posted the full petition here). It looks like it is already properly structured. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A petition or any formal diplomatic paper does not look like. I am talking about structure not content. It is there a break after the date? After the title? Is there an indent in the body paragraph? Are the sentences broken into different paragraphs? Is the last part about Queen Pa's house aligned to the left like a letter or is there a break from the last part. Are the names at the end signature? All these question can't be answered by the sources because it is all jumbled up. Even with content each source differ a little on the wording, like one says "a Prime Minister" vs. "the Prime Minister", one uses neighbouring and the other use "neighboring", one uses a semicolon where the other a new sentence is used, etc.

signature.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you read many 19th-century British formal legal documents? I've seen a ca. 1830s apprenticeship indenture which was also not very well-endowed with paragraph breaks or sentence-internal punctuation. AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Where would the British government even keep the original or did they discard it?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you tried the National Archives? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't find anything searching for Rimatara or Ruturu?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You may need to approach them directly for help. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of a search and it looks like they may be kept at the Institute of Historical Research, University of London. Try and contact them to see (a) whether they do indeed have this document, and if so, how to go about viewing it. I suspect it will have to be done in person. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Of Mice and Men lonliness
Can anyone give me 3 examples of lonliness in the novel "Of Mice and Men"? Exx8 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see the If your question is homework requirement at the top of this page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. thank you.Exx8 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why do you need to find three examples? And why can't you go find those yourself? - Lindert (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, ditto. Also, if it is homework, we can certainly guide you with references and suggestions and the like, we just can't answer the question. We are like a library ref. desk, which will certainly help you with your homework, it just won't do it for you. Show us you've attempted to answer the question, and we can give general advice (eg. clarify x/y/z) or offer reading suggestions (eg. Cliff's notes, although I'm sure someone can do better). IBE (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It really isn't a long book. If you've read it, what's the problem with picking three situations in which people are lonely? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that only George's and Lennie's position is isolated, so I would like to get some help without being attacked.

Exx8 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A quick search online for "loneliness in of mice and men" on google hits you with a first result of the BBCs Bitesize website. This page is their section of the bitesize website in relation to the book of Mice and Men http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/prosemicemen/3prose_mice_men_themerev1.shtml ny156uk (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * George is lonely after he shoots lennieGeeBIGS (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There's loneliness throughout. But read the scene in Crooks' quarters to find a couple.  Also read the scene involving Candy's dog. Antandrus  (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Russian law about computer crimes
Hi,

does anybody have the Russian law about comptuer crimes?

If you have the translation too, I'll be greatful.

Thank you. Exx8 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See Chapter 28 of the Criminal Code of Russia --Ghirla-трёп- 11:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

CREATING A   MEDIEVAL   BARONY
I'm creating a barony for fiction and I could need some feedback. Both positive and negative feedback is welcome. I'm far from finished creating the barony, but here's what I have got so far.

It's the 1100's and a small barony 4000 acres/4x4 square km large consists of:


 * 640 people, included the baron's family
 * 40 men-at-arms (1/16 of the entire population)
 * 2 villages in which the peasant-families live
 * 1 church, a dairy, a tannery, a cartwright's workshop and a smithy in each of the 2 villages
 * one of the villages have a watermill and a fresh-water river running through it, as well as a lumber-mill/sawmill which can use the river for transportation of timber. The other have a horsemill and a nearby quarry.
 * the land is rich and arable, well-suited for agriculture, and it largely conists of fields and pastures. As such, the barony is hugely self-sufficient when it comes to covering their own need for food. Surplus food is a major source of income from the local market in the city.
 * the barony lies at the coast, and have been granted permanent fishing rights in the rich coastal waters, providing even more food.
 * the barony lies close to the nearest city, allowing them to frequently bring fresh, surplus wares (fish, grain and stone) into the city-market.
 * it holds 1000 acres of forest for timber.
 * Due to barony's smallness, hunting is limited. Hunting can be done in the nearby king's forest however, with a hunting licence.
 * the barony have to import metal and cloth. It does produce some wool of its own from their sheep but linen and a very limited amount of silk must be imported.
 * the hides from slaughtered cattle and other livestock animals is obviously sent to the tannery for making leather.

Do these numbers and facts seem realistic?? If anything seem out place or outright wrong/unlikely to you I would appreciate to read your opinions, which hopefully also comes with reasons for why you think the things you do. Do you see anything that needs altering? Then please say so :) F.ex. do you think a barony this size could hold either more or less people than the 320 people I have? Or do you think there are too many men-at-arms in such a small barony? I'd also appreciate any tips or ideas for things to add, even small things that I might not have thought of.

Krikkert7 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going to refer you to a previous thread; Several questions about how things worked in a medieval barony, but I see that you wrote that question too! Alansplodge (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So was I! For this list, 1/8 of the population seems like a lot for men-at-arms, but does that mean anyone capable of being conscripted? That is, all the people the local baron would call up to bring with him - all the teenage/adult men, anyway (no one too old or too infirm). In a population this small, the baron himself would probably be the only knight, who could afford armour and a horse and proper weapons and all that (or maybe one or two others in his family). I'm sure there are lots of academic works about small villages like this, especially in England, we'll have to see if we can find some. I know a list of villages in crusader Jerusalem that also says how many knights each village owed to the king, but that doesn't quite match what we're looking for here. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Economy of England in the Middle Ages Fifelfoo (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "...does not have much forest, and thus it lacks hunting and access to timber." This is a bit of a problem, since woodland was a fundamental element of a medieval manor. A wood, managed as a coppice or sometimes pollard was an essential. You need; firewood (cooking and heating), charcoal (for the blacksmith's forge), fencing, building materiel (sticks for wattle and daub as well as large timber for joists and planks), wood for tool handles, furniture and crafts, acorns and beech mast to feed pigs. If you have to buy all this in, it not only costs you a lot of money but gives you a huge transport problem. You need to start planting trees now. Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this supposed to be in England? Looie496 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A permanent fighting unit of 40 men at arms? You might need that many if you're a robber baron, I suppose, but you'd need to be pulling in a lot of loot to justify the expense. Don't forget, your call-upon fighting force is most of your adult men (and some of what we'd consider adolescents these days, too). You could add a small castle to your list, and one of the villages (the larger one) would be nearby, with the main market, too. Given it's twelfth century, and I too assume you're talking about England, you could have one of those newfangled shell keeps sitting around your ageing motte. Checking out genuine entries in Domesday book, which doesn't precede this period by much, might help with other ideas. --Dweller (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * NB our article on Shell keep is appalling. This site is pretty reliable, although it looks awful. Click the numbered links near the top for more info. Sorry, I'm too knackered to look at it properly now myself - off to bed, methinks. --Dweller (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not obtain a copy of Ken Folloett's excellent and well-researched novel set in a 12th-century English village. Although it's a work of fiction you could get some ideas as to what a medieval barony comprised.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You could check out Michael Wood's The Story of England, which traces the story by examining one village (Kibworth Beauchamp) from prehistoric times to today. The BBC TV series had at least 2 episodes on the medieval period and I suspect the book will cover it too. It also gives sources for you to follow. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Metal, stone and timber are all expensive things to import, and as for the high amount of men-at-arms, I need the barony to have just that, many men-at-arms, and most, if not all need to be well-trained and well-equipped. I can also see the problem with having no timber of their own as Alansplodge says. The barony needs to be relatively small, but there is nothing in the way for me to double the size of the barony to 4000 acres (4x4 square km). 4000 acres is still relatively small I'd think. With double the size of the barony I could have twice as many inhabitants and thus the high number (40+) of men-at-arms would make more sense. With 4000 acres I would also be able to include, say 1000 acres of forest? I am however unclear on how much timber can be gained from 1000 acres of forest and how long it takes for a forest to regrow once cut down for timber. I've also been considering adding a quarry which would be another source of income. I need enough income to be able to equip my many men-at-arms. Horses, armour, weapons and maintenance are expensive. With double the size of the land I'd also like to have two churches, one in each village. I'd also like to have two dairies. And yes, the manor-house will be a mini-castle with walls up on a small height. I'd also need a large stable (or possibly more than one) for all the horses, for as I said, I need my men-at-arms to be well-equipped and have horses, at least most of them. And yes, a local market in the largest of the two villages is important to have. Of course :) At the end of the day, the barony need not be rich, but obviously it needs to be in econimical balance, and to be able to defend itself. It is one of several baronies that lies on the border of the kingdom, with the enemy just across the sea to the north - this is the reason for its many men-at-arms. So the barony can feed itself due its agriculture, and it has 1000 acres of forest, but looking at income vs. expenses I am currently at this: INCOME:
 * Surplus fish
 * Surplus grain
 * Stone from quarry

EXPENSES:
 * Cloth
 * Men-at-arms (maintenance, weapons & armor)
 * Metal for tools and other small things

It really helps with a quarry for income, as well as for personal use. Once again, both positive and negative feedback is very welcome

Krikkert7 (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be really useful if you could tell us where in the world this is supposed to be. Looie496 already asked if this is supposed to be England. The climate and the geography make a big difference to the economic and political situation. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Maintaining enough horses, weapons, and armour for 40 men out of a population of 320 would be incredibly expensive, probably enough to totally impoverish the rest of the barony. A horse is like a luxury car, or in this context like a tank. Most importantly it's a status symbol for a knight, the ability to maintain one is part of their higher social status. In Romance languages and German, for example, the word for "knight" is basically "a guy on a horse". They might even have two or three horses if they could afford it. Forty knights with armour, weapons, and horses in a little barony would be very unusual. Forty foot-soldiers in the retinue of the baron would make sense...at least in real life. For the purposes of your story it's not impossible, but I can imagine that situation raising the suspicions of whoever is in charge of the nearby big city! Maybe they're trying to start a rebellion out there...I wonder, though, when exactly in the 1100s this is? Perhaps the barony is centred around the priory of a military order, like the Hospitallers or Templars? They would have access to more horses. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, 16 sq km (that's what 4kmx4km comes to) seems very small for a whole barony. I'd expect a baron's domain to run to between 1/4 and 1/2 of a county, and thus to be several hundred square kilometres. 16 sq km is the size of the Isles of Scilly, the smallest rural local authority in England. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

To answer ur question whether this is England, no. It is a fictional world and a fictional kingdom which have been long in the making. This allows for a little bit of freedom. However, the kingdom in question is supposed to be very similar to France. The kingdoms are based on real-world kingdoms and the economical and cultural similiraties are definitely there. My version of France is known for its heavy cavalries, its knights, its nobility and as being a leading agricultural kingdom. My version of England is known for their longbownmen and for being leading in the wool-trade, my version of Flanders is a centre of trade and it's weavers are heavy importers of wool from England etc etc. There are many similarites, so you might say the kingdom in question is France. Krikkert7 (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that twelfth century kings of England and France would have had standing forces of men at arms as large as your very small barony. Look, several of us have said the same thing and we can't make you listen to us, but it does seem odd that you'll ask for advice but not take it. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Dweller..? I'm taking advice aplenty (!) and thinking all the feedback of great help ! It helps me to work my way towards my goal - in this case to make a barony that both is what I want it to be and at the same time a realistic one. I knew even before I made my initial post here yesterday that I would have to alter things to succeed in that, being well aware that I had far from all angles covered, but its not done in the blink of an eye. Changing one thing leads to me having to change 1 and 2 and 3 other things and so on, and I'm taking feedback to heart all along. Once I have bled this forum dry of suggestions and feedback (from those willing and able to give any) I will read it over several times and go from there. Not sure why you believe I don't listen. Krikkert7 (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, I apologise - there was no call for me to speak like that. I'll strike the words. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Some further help for you: from our Longbow article: "Yew is the only widespread European timber that will make good self longbows, and has been the main wood used in European bows since Neolithic times.", so make sure you have a decent Yew forest to hand, if you're a warlike baron. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (after ec) Dweller, our Man-at-arms article suggests that in 1363, France was supposed to have a standing army of 6,000 men-at-arms, but that the real number was probably about half that. I think it's unrealistic to suggest that an entire kingdom would have as few as 40 men-at-arms even 200 years earlier. Our examples of feudalism article mentions that in 12th century England, a barony might consist of as many as 60 knights' fees - each of which should be able to furnish a knight-bachelor, his esquires, their mounts, steeds, armour and equipment. So a barony might in principle have able 3-400 men under arms if needed. However, those were not permanent, but only for 40 days each year. It's doubtful whether anyone was equipped for war 24/7/365, unless the baron or one of his leading tenants paid for a bodyguard out of their own purse. It's not unlikely that a 16 sq km territory like the one you're describing might be contained in just one or two manors, and be a single knight's fee. If you want to describe a single manor, that's one thing; if you want a functioning barony, you're looking at a larger scale - not just two villages with their churches, but market towns, abbeys, highways, game forests, and so on. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's my very point. It's entirely reasonable that a baron would be able to call on 40 armed men if he needed them, but for the vast majority their day jobs would not be military. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts on this:
 * This is a rather small domain for a baron. I would expect an area this small would have only a baronet.
 * It's also a rather densely populated area, considering that it's a rural agricultural district, although the doubling of the size makes it somewhat less implausible.
 * You're not going to be able to have any significant number of sheep; they require too much land. There would probably be a few cows for milk purposes, but not enough to export milk or beef unless the local people go without.
 * How important are the fishing rights? If they're important enough that you export fish, as you suggest, then you must have full-time fishermen, and you've given no indication of them.  If you don't have full-time fishermen, fishing could still be an important source of protein for locals based upon part-time fishing, but it would not be a significant source of exports.
 * I echo the thoughts of others on fighting men. You essentially have every able-bodied man a fighter.  This is realistic for militia defense, but it is not realistic as their full-time occupation.
 * One of your settlements will be smaller than the other. I would characterize the smaller settlement as a hamlet, rather than a village.
 * An area this small would probably not have a proper castle. People would probably go to the church for refuge.  There might conceivably be a fortification if it's on the border, as you indicate.
 * This is going to be a poor area, though not unsustainably so. People who are able to work will have food to eat, but no luxuries.  People who are not strong enough to work in the fields will be dependent on the charity of others.  The family of the baron(et) will have some luxuries, but will long for the greater luxuries that they see in other landed families.
 * There will be very few horses. Horses need a lot of food, and you don't have space for pasturage for them.  Other than a small number of horses owned by the family of the baron(et), all of the horses will be needed for farmwork, although they will be multifunctional and also available for other uses.  John M Baker (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Baronets were only invented by James I and VI in the early 17th century - do you mean banneret? A baron was and is the lowest level of peerage; baronets were introduced as a way to raise money (by selling titles) to pay for the hired troops that were needed after the collapse of bastard feudalism.
 * If you're interested in the use of fortified churches for refuge, there are some good examples in the French Theirache region. But I agree that 16 sq km is much too small for a real castle. A properly-sized barony (say 600 sq km) might have one decently-sized castle, a handful of free-standing keeps, and a number of tower houses, fortified churches and other fortifications. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Thiérache? (French WP: Fortified Churches in Thiérache)— AldoSyrt (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Perhaps what we're talking about here is a Lord of the Manor; "A manorial lordship is not an aristocratic title...". Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Alex and Alan: I stand corrected.  John M Baker (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Alex and Dweller - surely you agree that even well-trained men-at-arms needed a place to live (on the baron's land) and likely even fields etc to work on. So no, they wouldn't be running around armed to their teeth 24/7, but they would be expected to answer their baron's call when called upon. And they would need to stay fit and ready for military service - the rest of the time they would be working the land or whatever needed be worked on much like peasants and serfs. They would also have families of their own, being fathers and husbands. Some of them might even be 'freemen' who wasn't directly tied to their landlord's land like a villein or serf, instead renting a very small patch of land from the baron for only personal use. And a way of paying that rent could f.ex. be military service rather than paying with coin, or maybe both. At least that makes sense to me. If they were free to work only their own patch of land and did not owe the baron labour-time like serfs they would also find it easier to train and stay sharp. Krikkert7 (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * With "surely you agree...", it sounds like you're trying to convince me that your existing plan works. I'd earnestly encourage you to look again at what I've said about just how big a barony is, and recalculate on those grounds. If you get answers that are on the same order of magnitude as real-life manors (or real-life kingdoms), then your calculations just aren't feasible. Please read our articles on manor, knight's fee, barony, hundred examples of feudalism, and so on. There's a lot there about how the various feudal levels fit together. Your knights are generally going to be lords of the manor, and if you have a knight banneret, he may well also be a tenant-in-chief. All of these people will have their own peasants (eg villeins) to farm their estates. Our modern idea of rent for land post-dates Quia Emptores; the receipt of land for service was the norm before that, and lesser landowners held their land from more senior ones through subinfeudation. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

hehe, I was merely talking about men-at-arms and their role outside military tasks ;) But your words are noted, Alex. I eventually have to sit down and really look over everything - more than once too. Krikkert7 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

John M. Baker. you make many good points and I'll be sure to delve into these matters and do even more research. Krikkert7 (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition to Economy of England in the Middle Ages, try England in the Middle Ages, which may help with some of this. Even England varied considerably, region to region, of course. One general comment I'd make is to be cautious about what one might term environmental determinism, e.g. "the land is rich and arable, well-suited for agriculture, and it largely consists of fields and pastures. As such, the barony is hugely self-sufficient when it comes to covering their own need for food". A region can be rich and arable and many people can still be poor and ill-fed, if - for example - it is supporting a large population and individual land holdings are small, or perhaps if rents are high. You'd probably enjoy Oliver Rackham's "The History of the Countryside", by the way. If you want any advice on literature for particular areas of England (e.g. you specifically fancy the barony being a bit like Suffolk or Yorkshire, etc.) do drop me a line and I may be able to recommend particular books/articles. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)