Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 April 30

= April 30 =

Refunds for defective goods
Why aren't businesses in the US required to give a refund when they sell you goods that are defective? --128.42.156.120 (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally they are, or at least to replace the defective product. In most places in the US there is an implied warranty of merchantability -- although it may be possible to disclaim that warranty if a prominent notice is given.  (This answer should not be taken as legal advice.) Looie496 (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please contact a lawyer, or the Texas state Attorney General's office if you have an actual complaint. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, see a lawyer if you have a complaint about a particular merchant. For a discussion of the legal principle at work, see Caveat emptor.  Textorus (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a product is "defective" only in the mind of the unreasonable or perhaps mentally impaired consumer, and a "reasonable person" or court of law would find no defect. Some people just love to buy things and then return them, often with the packaging damaged so it is difficult to sell to another consumer.  These consumers are referred to as "returnaholics:", , . This may be a consequence of recreational shopping, and buying things they don't need and can't afford. Then there are outright fraudsters, who buy a videocamera to film a graduation, then return it afterwards, or who buy clothing for a special event, wear it, then return it, as if they had rented it. Certainly there are defective consumer goods, and if a merchant expects repeat business, he will cheerfully do refunds or replacements for anything defective, or will issue a store credit or refund for mistaken purchases, if they are in salable condition.  Edison (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How did America become so much more powerful than Canada?
Topic^ ScienceApe (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Pure geographic determinism, pretty much. The United States has more territory suitable for a larger population to live on.  It's noticeable that a majority of Canadians live relatively close to the border with the U.S., but a majority of Americans do not live relatively close to the border with Canada.  To put it in crudest terms, both countries have roughly the same land area, but a lot more Canadian land is covered with snow and ice all or most of the time... AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec)Population and climate. The US has roughly ten times the population of Canada. The harshness of winter in Canada has an inhibiting effect on the development of trade, transport and other infrastructure compared to the US. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * More than just the harshness of the climate, the fact that most of eastern and central Canada is covered by the Canadian Shield, which is unsuitable for agriculture, is a bigger factor. The really harsh climate doesn't hit until quite a ways north, much further than the area of relatively concentrated settlement. --Xuxl (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There's also the fact that the general geography in other ways gave the U.S. a head start; consider that the U.S. began as a series of settlements along the Atlantic Seaboard and along rivers at the fall line which runs quite close to the Atlantic coast. This gave the U.S. a big advantage in natural resources (more natural ports and harbors, the abundance of medium sized rivers along the fall line means lots of water-powered factories in the 19th century, see for just one example the Merrimack Valley).  Canada had some historical advantages in natural resources (the timber resources cannot be underestimated) but on the balance the U.S. had many geographical advantages in terms of where to settle people and how to take advantage of the advances of the Industrial Revolution that Canada simply didn't have.  Canada didn't have as many places to distribute warm water ports along its Atlantic coast to take advantage of trade with Europe, didn't have as many suitable rivers for water powered factories, and as such didn't attract as many settlers to take advantage of those geographic advantages.  Such advantages multiply over time.  -- Jayron  32  13:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Another factor is that the French by and large weren't interested in colonization and didn't put much effort into New France. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the British used the New World as a place to deport their religious minorities, while the French preferred other means of dealing with that issue. To be fair, however, there wasn't a lot of great places to settle in New France.  British North America was easily accessible Atlantic coast, lots of settlement places, all you need to run a tidy little colony in one place.  New France was open, inland wilderness for the most part.  So, it still comes back to Geography.  The French did send colonists where they could (Quebec, Acadia, New Orleans), but most of the land under their claim wasn't ammenable to setting up easy colonies.  -- Jayron  32  23:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's simply a matter of the size of the market and its economic freedom. The US population exceeded that of Britain about 1850.  Except for slavery (which was soon abolished, and comparable to the Irish problem in Britain) trade within the US was almost entirely free.  Large free markets have economic efficiencies, see Zollverein.  Canada was also relatively free, but its population has always been about a tenth that of the US, similar at times to New York or now California.  So, of course its total GDP and hence "power" would be less. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What coat of arms is this please?
. They are not Arbuthnott in spite of the coronet and motto. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If nobody else is able to answer in the meantime, I'll have a look in my Papworth's when I get home this evening (UK timezone) – I don't bring it to the office, obviously! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The closest I can find may be Nicolson, it is very similar to Otho Nicolson, as this page shows Otho Nicolson's as "Azure two bars ermine in chief Argent three suns in splendour Or", and there are several other Nicolson arms on that page with similar organization to yours: The "three suns in splendour Or" and "Azure/ermine" combination seems to be indicative of Nicolson arms. That yours is also charged with a crescent also indicates a younger son, see Cadency.  I'm by no means an arms expert, but that's the best I can find with Google.  -- Jayron  32  13:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Different motto, but this page associates the blazon "Two bars ermine in chief three suns; Crest: Out of a ducal coronet a lion's head" with one Otto Nicholson... AnonMoos (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Papworth's Ordinary of Arms (1874) lists under these arms (ignoring the cadency crescent):
 * "Nicholl of Greenhill Grove, co, Hereford. Nichols. Nicholson, Thelwell Hall, co. Chester. Nicholson, co Cumberland; and co. Lancaster. Nicholson, London; confirmed 1596."
 * Unfortunately Papworth doesn't run to giving mottos. Debrett's (1909) has no entries of these exact arms, only a couple of recently created Nicholson baronetages with variants (one with nebuly bars, the other with two suns, neither with a similar motto). Best I can do for now, I'm afraid. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.66.241.41 (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fairbairn does and mentions (1892) Lusk and Rundle as using "Laus Deo". On balance though my vote goes with Otto Nicholson. Thanks all. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The right to use public roads
When and how did the right of citizens to use public roads become established in Roman and English law? A friend of mine who knows a bit about law said he thinks it was stipulated in the Magna Carta, but I'm of the opinion the right is much older, the English "inherited" it from the Romans. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rights of way in England and Wales may be a good place to start your research. -- Jayron  32  14:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was thinking that this article may be more likely to (ahem) head you off in the right direction.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm afraid Rights of way in England and Wales and related articles here on WP are about everything except actual public roads - they cover the right to use paths on private land. The Freedom of movement article covers international travel. That's also the subject of the Magna Carta so my friend's claim is incorrect.
 * A bit of background to my question: A mutual friend of mine and my aforementioned friend fell out of his wheelchair due to the bad condition of the sidewalk, so we were just wondering if the use of public roads and streets is an actual legally established right. We're in South Africa where the common law is based on Roman, Dutch and English law.
 * We can't give legal advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not a noob here, I know the no legal advice rule. This is a question about legal history out of curiosity. Our injured friend has already received compensation from the municipality. The legal case is already settled. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In the UK it is quite common for people to sue the local authority for failure to maintain pavements (sidewalks). This is separate from rights of way. Say there is a public right of way to walk across farmland on a footpath. The farmer has to make sure that the footpath is clear of crops. They don't have to make sure that the path is accessible for baby buggies or wheelchairs. But if there is a pavement (sidewalk) along an urban street, there would be an expectation that it would be accessible by everyone, including wheelchair users, people with mobility issues, prams and buggies. From the Rights of Way in England and Wales article you will see that there are different categories of rights of way: footpaths, bridleways, roads used as a public path, byways open to all traffic. Sidewalks on streets are in the top category: highways. Everyone has the right to use the highway. The highway is maintained by the local authority, which is, indeed the Highways authority. The local authority has a duty of care to ensure that the highway is kept in correct condition so that users are not endangered. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In at least some municipalities in the US, maintenance of public sidewalks is the responsibility of the landowner, but will sometimes be subsidized by the city. Failure to keep your sidewalk clear of snow will yield a fine and the homeowner is responsibility for fixing any cracks.  Homeowners can also be liable for injuries sustained by people on their premises.  That's why many companies sell homeowners liability insurance or probably include it with regular homeowners insurance. Ryan Vesey 07:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that in the US sidewalks are on private property rather than part of the municipal street. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a example of a sidewalk easement document from Michigan: Rmhermen (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Roman law definitely dealt with this. Our article on Roman roads talks about it a bit, for a start. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Right of way is one thing; the natural right of people to pass by their own effort on common (public) and undeveloped land and waterways. Negligence and duty of care are other concepts from easement all the way to attractive nuisance may apply according to local custom in the maintenance of roads and publicly accessible lands. But these are separate matters. The positive right to ease of access to be provided for the handicapped is not a traditional one, and wouldn't trace to Roman or common law. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems to me the OP's question is a bit muddled: a public road is by definition open to the public for their use, obviously, and this concept goes back to antiquity; the Romans of course built many roads for public use, and likewise many other governments before and since.  The opposite would be a private road, or a toll road.  But freedom of travel or movement on a public road is a basic freedom in Western society; if the OP really wants to pursue the topic, here is a long brief with quotations from numerous jurists on the idea - but don't take that as legal advice.  But it's such a basic principle that it goes without need of argument in a court of law, IMO; the relevant question would be, who is liable for injuries caused by poorly-maintained roads or sidewalks?  Apparently in the case mentioned by the OP, the municipality was found liable.  Textorus (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - this helps clarify a lot. My friend's matter never went to court, the municipality coughed up without too much threatening.
 * My original thought that prompted the question was that perhaps there was a Roman or English law or even case law that prevents an authority (the proverbial Sherrif of Nottingham) from denying the common people free use of "the king's highway". IOW is use of a public road actually a right in the strict sense? The answer is clearly yes. Is the road authority's failure to maintain the road in a usable condition an infringement of the freedom of movement? It seems the answer might be yes.
 * To answer Medeis' comment about "handicapped access": In terms of South African constitutional rights any distinction between a wheelchair user and a "traditional" pedestrian is illegal discrimination - we're very big on anti-discrimination in SA, given our history.
 * Thanks for the history lesson. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

interest in pawn
i want to ask.. if i pawn my house and lot to a pawn person.. how much is the right percent of interest he can apply or i will pay to him in legal way... thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.123.171 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. If you wish to find an answer to your question, it would be better to find a person who you can contact locally who is qualified to do so.  -- Jayron  32  14:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Legal limitations on interest vary greatly, but you can get some sense of the background law by looking at our article on usury. If this is actually an issue for you, you should by all means consult a lawyer.  John M Baker (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Mortgage is the relevant article for this enquiry, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A mortgage is not that relevant to a pawn operation.It is usually a 15 or 30 year loan. "Pawning" a house would be difficult: picture carrying the house to the pawn shop and handing it over the counter. This website says the finance charge at a US pawn shop can be 5% to 25% PER MONTH (based on state and federal rules), and that the amount loaned is a small fraction of the value. If the item is not redeemed by the end of the pawn term, the pawnshop gets to sell it and you are out of luck. We have in the US the "home equity loan." It is a short term loan, (perhaps 24 months) subordinate to the first mortgage if any. My local bank will loan up to 75% of the equity in the home (appraised value less any mortgages or other liens) for prime plus a bit, currently 3.99%. Edison (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt your average pawnbroker is interested in laying out that much money for something that isn't easy to turn over if you default. Rick Harrison, maybe. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In many places you cannot pawn a house except by way of of either a legal mortgage or an equitable mortgage. A house is a fixture of the land and a "house and lot" would not be transferrable as chattel. So yeah, mortgage is the relevant article, even if your mortgagee is a pawnbroker. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

World War 1 vs 2
I have seen images of both wars. One thing I noticed is that in the first war, most soldiers have mustache. But in the second, most don't have mustache. Why? --Yoglti (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Shavers were only invented in WWII? :P ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 15:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Fashion. Facial hairstyles, like regular hairstyles, go in and out of fashion. Here's a blog on historical facial hair and a book on the history of beards. 184.147.121.2 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that Hitler and Stalin had mustaches probably didn't help much either... GurkhaGherkin (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @GurkhaGherkin: that could explain why many men don't have mustaches after the WWII, but the question is why they didn't have mustache during the WWII. (I don't know if it's indeed true, although it could be an army policy for all sides about no facial hair, which is not only a question of fashion, but has also practical implications for soldiers). OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A story that I've been unable to pin down, is that during WWI, an order went out for German soldiers to cut back their elaborate handlebar moustaches, so that their gas masks would seal properly. Therefore, Herr Hitler's toothbrush, while making him resemble Charlie Chaplin in the Anglosphere, was the mark of a veteran of the trenches to German people. I'm not sure that this is entirely true, as a number of photographs of him in 1918 show him with facial hair that a walrus would be proud of. Alansplodge (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * According to our article Facial hair in the military British soldiers were forbidden to shave their upper lips until 1916!. --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone should double check that last one... it's sourced to the Daily Mail (and we should be able to do better). Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should be purged of the Daily Mail and the New York Post. Ryan Vesey 22:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everything in the Daily Mail is false. I read the article, and found that it stated that the King's Regulations were amended on a particular date, and decided that the specific reference meant that this was probably accurate. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Professor Richard Holmes tells the story of a British officer who was successfully court martialled for "persistently shaving the upper lip". In response, Lieutenant-General Sir Neville Macready amended King's Regulations by Army Order 340 (3) of 1916, removing the prohibition of shaving the upper lip. See Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front. Alansplodge (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And in Macready's own words, in his autobiography Annals of an Active Life, pp 258-259. "On 8th October, 1916, the order allowing all ranks to grow or not to grow, moustaches according to their fancy was signed... I dropped into a barber's shop and set the example that evening, as I was only too glad to be rid of the unsightly bristles to which I had for many years been condemned by obedience to regulations." 174.88.10.231 (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Our article on Sir Nevil says; "He also abolished the compulsory wearing of moustaches by British soldiers, and immediately shaved off his own, which he had hated." Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the French Army of the Great War didn't share the British obsession with shaving, and allowed their soldiers to grow immense whiskers and beards, leading to their nickname Les Poilus ("the hairy ones"). British troops were often infuriated when being marched away from some desperate action lasting several days, only to be berated by a staff officer for not shaving. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you not seen this, chaps? Shaving is very very important to the British Army!

Weekly news magazines
Weekly news magazines are a staple of print media in many countries - for example, Time and Newsweek in the USA, Der Spiegel and Stern in Germany, Profil in Austria, Le Nouvel Observateur and L'Express in France, and so on. The one country where these magazines have never really been successful is the UK. The only attempt at such a publication in the UK, Now, was a flop. The Economist is not comparable. What are some of the reasons why the UK has never taken to the idea of a weekly news magazine? (I don't buy the argument that the Sunday papers fulfil that function in the UK, since other countries have equally encyclopaedic Sunday papers as well.) --Viennese Waltz 17:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you not counting The Spectator and New Statesman as news magazines? There's also Private Eye, albeit on a fortnightly basis. Dalliance (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, those three are all different from the ones listed. They don't report news exactly, nor do they have a strong emphasis on photojournalism. They are more analytical and discursive. --Viennese Waltz 19:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Way back in the dim, distant past we had the Sunday Pictorial. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And other hasbeens were the Illustrated London News and Picture Post. New Statesman still caters for an educated-left-of-centre readership. Both Time and Newsweek had European editions that had a British following. I suspect that it is the strength of the national broadsheet newspapers that is to blame; you can read in quality in-depth news articles in The Times, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph or The Guardian and their Sunday counterparts, without having to buy a magazine as well. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Week is the only contemporary newsmagazine I can think of. Tevildo (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it's "one hasbeen, many havebeen". Probably not.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's "many has-beens," dating back to at least 1888. Textorus (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Newsweek went out of business as a print magazine. Edison (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, my guess is that the UK has a tradition of quality daily newspapers, and therefore it doesn't need the weekly newspapers in the same way. The main reason for buying a weekly newspaper (in my eyes) is that it provides some commentary or in-depth analysis that the daily newspaper can't. However, UK dailies provide a lot of commentary, e.g. through multiple editorials. And tehn, of course, there are the Sunday papers, which provide a lot of reading material. V85 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Distribution
How much US federal spending is distributed to each state for things like infrastructure? Is it in proportion to each state's population? Pass a Method  talk  20:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope... the amount each state gets is determined by the various Congressional committees. Ideally appropriations are based on need (if a state already has lots of good roads and bridges, it does not need as much infrastructure funding as the states that have poor roads and bridges).  Of course the reality is that "need" is often influenced by political calculations.  See our article on Pork barrel politics for more on that. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A good, important question. Our article on Revenue sharing is meager and too broad, and gives wrong impressions, and I can't find a better one. A major factor in the comparatively poor economic performance of the USA in the so-called Great Moderation (and with worldwide effects because of the US economy's size) was the drop in such infrastructure spending, federal money to the states, first under Nixon, and only worse as time went by. Less Pork barrel than earlier eras (adjusting for the size of government, the level of (federal) taxation) led states to rely more on economically destructive, often regressive taxes.John Z (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Infrastructure covers a very broad range of projects, but probably you can find specific dollar amounts by searching the website of the U.S. Government Accountability Office website at gao.gov. A quick google search turns up a number of different programs and projects, like these.  Textorus (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is an interesting article. Notice that the states that complain about taxes (Republican) are the ones that receive the most of it!165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)