Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 March 13

= March 13 =

Other Countries With Equal Legislative Representation for Each State/Province/Et Cetera
The United States Senate has two Senators for each U.S. state regardless of the population of the states. Are and/or were there any other national (as opposed to local) legislative branches in any other countries which also have/had a similar principle/rule (each state/province/et cetera having the same number of seats in this national legislative branch regardless of the population of these states/provinces/et cetera)?

For the record, I know why the U.S. Senate has this provision--I simply want to know if any other countries have and/or had something similar to this. Futurist110 (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the first few entries in Federal Republic, Argentina and Brazil both have three senators per state, while Austria relates the number to population. Maybe it's a New World thing.  Rojomoke (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In Canada each region of the country (comprising one or more provinces) has a set number of senators, with smaller provinces ending up with more representation than larger ones. It's not as strictly egalitarian as the U.S., Argentina or Brasil though: originally, it was 24 seats for Ontario, 24 for Quebec and 24 for the three maritime provinces; the five provinces that joined later were given 6 seats each (even though their population differs vastly) and each territory has one senator. See Senate of Canada for details. --Xuxl (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Australia has ten Senators from each of its six states, and two each from two internal territories. HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It used to be 10, until it was increased to 12 in 1984. There are 76 senators.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the Swiss Council of States (Switzerland's constitution was actually directly inspired by the United States Constitution). ---Sluzzelin talk  09:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Was there no earlier body where the half-cantons were half-represented? —Tamfang (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the body was/is the same, those six cantons (AI, AR, BL, BS, NW, and OW) still only have one representative instead of two. They're just no longer called half cantons officially, though the former "halves" still remain grouped next to each other in the constitution's first article, separated by the word "and" rather than a comma (see link). (Bad analogy, but imagine if the Dakotas, the Carolinas, and Virginia and West Virginia only got one senator per state. Then again, I'd also have to imagine the city of Bern having no representation in the Council of States). ---Sluzzelin talk  07:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The last change to the body happened in 1979, when two seats were added for the newly formed Canton of Jura. In this case the result wasn't one seat for the canton of Bern and one for Jura, but two for each. Doing some googling, I did find there are initiatives for giving both cantons of Basel (-Stadt and -Landschaft) two seats instead of one, but to be honest, I haven't really heard much about that (then again, people from Zurich are famously ignorant about Basel). The other four former half-cantons are among the six smallest by population, but the Basels are in the top half (well, almost, 11th and 14th, out of a total of 26 cantons, but number 14, Basel Stadt, is significant, culturally and economically and should be politically too), so they might have a chance. Who knows? ---Sluzzelin talk  18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you go right back to De Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265 you can - unexpectedly - see this; the knights of each county sent two representatives, and the burgesses and aldermen of each borough selected two representatives. Neither was adjusted for population. The Model Parliament of 1295, seen as setting the standard for subsequent parliaments, again raised two seats from each county/borough/city - whether that was Yorkshire or Rutland. It wasn't until a lot longer that representation was clearly linked to population. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The way in which seats in Commons were apportioned is what led to the issue of rotton boroughs, whereby the population of a borough would shrink over the years to the point where the franchise in that borough was so small as to be silly. One example in that article had a voting population of 7 voters, and still got 2 MPs.  -- Jayron  32  18:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your answers here. Futurist110 (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Further, it's worth noting exactly equal province representation in Senates is a relatively out of fashion system. More recent constitutions for huge countries such as India more usually have somewhere between population and equal provinces. German Bundesrat lawmakers in fact represent provincial governments. The Russian Federation Council also follows the American rule - two electeds per 'federal subject', although an undemocratic country. In Russian political science, a 'federal subject' is a province equivalent, which can come on six different levels. --89.242.206.103 (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

President of the US for a day
There's a legend that so-and-so, President Pro Tempore of the Senate or Speaker of the House of Representatives, was president for a day because inauguration day was a Sunday and the president-elect preferred to wait until Monday. Who was it, and when? I thought it was George M. Dallas, but apparently not. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:BA27 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * David Rice Atchison. -- Jayron  32  15:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

St. Therese Statue search: Is there another one exactly like this in the world?
This Statue depicts St. Therese the Little Flower “without the Crucifix and or the bouquet of Flowers”, as she is usually seen in a Statue Image as St. Therese the Little Flower. In my research on this question I have not found another Statue like this one. Might it be the only one still in existence? I have contacted the manufacturer of this Statue and other Statue manufacturers and suppliers from the Netherlands, United States and Australia and neither knows of any exact duplicate as this one. I am working to do a Genealogy study of this rare Statue and need your reference and help to determine if there is another like it in the (entire world). Most likely would be found in a Chapel or Church named in Honor of Saint Therese the Little Flower. I appreciate your help in my search for another Statue exactly as this one. Thank you for your help.Polkateer (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where was your photo taken? The statue marking the spot in Lisieux cemetery where Therese was buried 1910-1923 (from ) does not have a cross or flowers. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the top leadership at Wegmans religious?
A friend who works there told me all the worker staff like stockers and cashiers get time and a half for all hours worked on Sundays, whether or not they've reached overtime. Does the top ownership of Wegmans openly profess religious reasons for this? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Wegmans, it's a family-owned business, and it might be their opinion that having to work on a Sunday is a burden. This would seem to be a more flexible alternative to a place like Chick-fil-a, which is closed on Sundays. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was just curious if the multimillion-dollar business decision was driven by a rational cost/benefit analysis or mythology. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Bible says not to work at all on the sabbath, not to get time-and-a-half for doing so. As far as a cost/benefit analysis, a significant portion of the staff won't want to work on Sundays, for religious reasons or just wanting to be with their families on weekends, so offering them extra pay is a way to offset that.  Not doing so is likely to lower morale, and/or cause resentment by those forced to work Sundays, and poor morale can lead to lower profits. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here in the UK (thus not necessarily a good answer to your question), evidence seems to support StuRat's answer. A form I can fill out has at least a dozen different overtime rates, including higher rate for Sunday than Saturday, higher rate for before 6am on Sunday than after, markedly even higher rates on Christmas Day, and so on and so forth. (There's also matching rates for being on call across various times, and more rates yet again if you actually get called while being on call on particular days.) This is not for religious reasons, it's either because people expect it (as Stu says) or because some EU/UK rule demands it. Obviously in the USA it's not the latter. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the main thrust of the question here is "whether or not they've reached overtime". This is a meaningless concept to me, and perhaps even to some in the USA. I didn't get paid extra for being on call until I had completed certain requirements to do that job. But if I'd come into the office at a weekend, even to do more basic tasks, I would've expected the weekend uplift for working outside my normal contracted hours.


 * Work in the EU, you will like it! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course if you work in the EU, or at least in France, you'll get Sunday off anyway, thanks to Enforced Secular Catholicism :) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess it all comes down to the origin of the weekend, and our expectations that we be given time off work then. Religious reasons were certainly the start of it, with some having sabbath on Sunday and others on Saturday.  But now it has simply become the equivalent of a "secular holiday" for most. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The true Sabbath is Saturday. Sunday, or "The Lord's Day", is sometimes called the "Christian Sabbath". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Time and a half for working on a Sunday would actually seem like an incentive to work on Sundays. I enjoy working Sunday mornings in the Bible Belt, but God damn, I wouldn't work Sunday afternoons for double time. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there something specifically about Wegman's that makes one suspect nefarious religious motives, when most large companies give weekend and holiday differential? μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Little-"o" office of the Vice President
Is there a named, or otherwise well known, office of the Vice President of the United States? I mean the veep's version of the Oval Office, not the veep's version of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:BA27 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Before 1961, there were two offices: A formal office in the United States Capitol, and a working office in the Russell Senate Office Building. Since then, the formal, or "ceremonial" office is in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building while the "working" office is in the West Wing of the White House.  This is all in the article Vice President of the United States in the section titled "Growth of the Office" but it took some digging to find.  You can see on this map here the location of the Veep's working office in the White House.  -- Jayron  32  18:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Short answer has to be no, by the following analogy: everybody has heard about the Oval Office and the White House. People think 'White House', not '1600 Pennsyvania Avenue', because 'White House' has become a brand, an icon in itself. Irish people don't realise its facade is identical to the Irish legislature building in Dublin, Leinster House; and the Oval Office is the same shape and size as room at Castle Coole. The South Korean White House is the Blue House. I doubt, by contrast, you have heard of 'Number One Observatory Circle'? That's right. The Veep's residence is so unheard of that, even if you do know what it is, you have to call it by its address, if it has a name at all.--89.242.206.103 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Life on the Canals in 1800's
Please can you help me.. I know that my grandmother's parents were living/working in a barge on the West London Canal (Brentford)...as I cannot find any birth record for Nan on the UK Births/Deaths/Marriage records..was it possible she was not registered....was it maybe not mandatory to register births in the 1800's???..her siblings were all registered...but by then they were living in a house....I did obtain a marriage certificate for my great grandparents 1885...but my Nan born in that year is nowhere on the register...Thank you for your assistance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.63.47 (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * According to our article General Register Office and other sources, it became compulsory to register births in 1875 in England and Wales. In that year, a fine of £2 (more than £100 at present-day values) was imposed for non-registration.  However, it isn't clear how the authorities discovered and penalized unregistered births.  It's possible that your grandmother was registered but that she was registered under a different name than you know.  It's possible that her registered given name, for example, was different than the one she was known by, or that there was a misspelling.  Marco polo (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And, since you said she was born the same year they were married, if it was less than 9 month later, they might have not wanted an official record of that, as it was a big deal then. So, they might have given a later date for the birth or not have registered it at all. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can check how her name was spelt in the 1891 Census just after she was born, it would at least tell you where she was born. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Longest incarceration
I was quite surprised to see that the perpetrator in the Murder of Kitty Genovese is still alive, is still in prison, and has been in prison since 1964 (a total of 50 years). I never gave it much thought, but I guess I had always assumed that Charles Manson and his crew have maintained the longest incarceration (in the United States), since those crimes were in 1969. So, is there any way of knowing who is the longest-incarcerated prisoner in the USA? And the longest-incarcerated prisoner anywhere else? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, Sirhan Sirhan just came to mind. His crime pre-dated the Manson murders by a year or so.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know about living prisoners, but we have articles on Paul Geidel and William Heirens, who spent over 68 and 65 years respectively in custody. The latter article seems to be wrong in describing Heirens as "reputedly the world's longest serving prisoner", though I suppose he could be reputedly, if not actually; and to confuse matters Geidel spent much of his time in a "Hospital for the Criminal Insane", and the last six years inside were by his own choice as he didn't want to leave despite being granted parole. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * When I read the William Heirens article, I took that statement to mean that he was the longest-serving prisoner at that time. In other words, his incarceration was the longest currently being served, despite others having (historically) served longer.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This CNN article supports Heirens as the longest incarcerated prisoner, at least as of October 2009. -- Jayron  32  01:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "reputedly the longest serving prisoner" The sources say "is", very deliberate present tense. They claimed only that at the time of publication, he was the longest serving prisoner still in prison, and not that he was the longest serving prisoner ever. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, who served longer? -- Jayron  32  01:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * More evidence for Heirens: Richard Honeck once held the record for the longest prison term, and his article notes the date that Heirens broke his record. -- Jayron  32  01:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's still accurate, I just could not find a source that stated it so definitely. I do not personally believe that Geidel counts - if his final years in prison were voluntary, I would not consider that "incarceration". Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect it is a misnomer that he remained in prison "voluntarily". People probably get the impression that his sentence was finished; the warden said "OK, you can leave now"; and the prisoner said "I don't want to leave, may I please stay?"; and the warden said "OK, fine, you can stay.  We won't kick you out."  I doubt that is what happened; in fact, I doubt that that is even legal.  What probably happened is: his sentence was not done; he still had some time remaining to serve; they offered him parole; he refused the parole offer.  That's what I suspect.   Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This article has a list of the longest ever incarceration terms. Geidel is first, but if you want to throw that one out, then the winner according to that list is Johnson Van Dyke Grigsby, followed by Heirens.  The article is updated as of Oct 2013, as Heirens died in Dec. 2012, that means that Grigsby would still hold the record (if you discount Geidel).  -- Jayron  32  01:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The longest serving prisoner in Britain ever is John Straffen, who was in custody from 9 August 1951 until his death on 19 November 2007, with the tragic exception of three hours on the morning of 29 April 1952. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)