Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 February 27

= February 27 =

Central African Republic
What states have been in the area that is now the Central African Republic before and during its time as a French colony excluding the French colony and the state that was derived from it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:4897:AF86:CD38:DFCF (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the answer is possibly none. There was no organized state in that area when the French showed up. The politics were purely tribal and the area was likely somewhat depopulated due to the slave trade.   Daniel  (talk)  00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To provide some references for Daniel's supposition, see List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa which shows no historic polities located where the French later formed Ubangi-Shari. The area was occupied by non-state civilizations such as the Sao civilization.  The nearest states I can find through research include the Kanem Empire, its successor the Bornu Empire, and the Kingdom of Baguirmi, which all came close to the area, and which had fuzzy enough borders that they may have exerted control over some small parts of what became the CAR.  Most of central African states, however, were really concentrated on Lake Chad and into the Sahel, and probably didn't exert any real state control over what became the CAR, or were much further south along the Congo River.  -- Jayron 32 01:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

House prices: domino effect
If I own a house and I reside in it and I do not wish to sell it and I do not wish to move, and my next-door neighbor demolishes his house and replaces it with an apartment building having a higher assessed value but causing increases in traffic congestion and air pollution and worsening the quality of my life, then why does the apartment building cause my house to have a higher assessed value and a higher tax rate? —Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See Property tax in the United States, particularly the "Valuation" section. Tevildo (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * More importantly, see supply and demand. By increasing the demand for your property, the value goes up.  Quality of living issues, and how much you now "like" it has little to do with it.  Also, your "house" is not necessarily what is being valued, but the total value of your land and all that is on it.  Most of which is land.  The value of the structure itself is of lesser concern.  It's a real estate adage that "Buildings depreciate and land appreciates".  -- Jayron 32 01:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Related to this, consider the potential uses of your property. How big is your lot?  If you own the house and just a few feet past it in every direction, it may be far less valuable because not much could be put there.  This is an interesting aspect of Bloomington, Indiana, where I went to grad school.  While there are some apartments near the huge university campus, most of the campus is surrounded by neighborhoods of small houses, since most of the lots are really tiny, and constructing an apartment building would require that several house owners all be ready to sell together.  Yes, you could buy one at a time, but if one has a young couple who won't move, you might get stuck holding the other houses for decades.  Consider the film Up.  If you've seen it, you remember Mr Frederickson's small house surrounded by all the development — since everything's been built around it, isolating the house and its little lot, there's not much you could put there.  It's not as if someone could buy Mr Frederickson's property and put in a big apartment building, for example.  Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nyttend, my reply has four parts: (1) Monetary values are not the only values. My land could have value for growing fruits and vegetables, for beekeeping, and for maintaining a view for the benefit of my neighbors.  (2) Taxing it while I own it is imposing a capital gains tax on its increased monetary value (of no benefit to me unless I choose the risky option of leveraging its value for a loan), instead of imposing a sales tax after its sale (which sale I do not want).  (3) Real estate brokers might hope to gain from its hoped-for sale, and the local government might gain from increased taxes, but the higher assessment is of no benefit to me.  (4) The expression "supply and demand" is fuzzy, because the term "demand" blurs the distinction between needs and desires.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no clue how potential future uses (e.g. agriculture) or æsthetic uses (e.g. neighbors' views) are taken into account, let alone the way that things like taxes and real estate brokers' wishes fit in; go find a real estate agent if you want to understand how those fit in. Did you see that most of the above comments, especially supply and demand, were made by other people?  Anyway, the concept of demand in economics seemingly doesn't attempt to distinguish between needs and desires; after all, it's virtually impossible to draw a firm line between them.  Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that another editor mentioned supply and demand. Thank you for your replies.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a wp:wikiproject where interested editors can discuss such issues? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. There are WikiProjects in Category:WikiProject Business.  Maybe I will start a discussion in one of those, after this discussion has been archived and when I can provide a link to it in the Archives.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC) and 16:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Leaning liberal-conservative
How can anything or anyone "lean liberal-conservative"? How can you lean in opposite ways simultaneously? Yes, I understand that one can have conservatives within a body called the "Liberal Party" and liberals within a body called the "Conservative Party", but when neither one is capitalised, it looks like the leaner has tendencies toward liberalism and conservatism. The context for this question is our Allgemeine Zeitung article, which says "The newspaper leans liberal-conservative"; the source won't help, as it's no longer a working link. Nyttend (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See liberal conservatism. As I've mentioned other times, "liberal" and "conservative" are not opposites, and not even necessarily in tension. --Trovatore (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all right-wing stuff. Where's the "liberal" part? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing left-wing about liberalism in general. Actually, the entire mainstream of the American political spectrum is liberal in a broad sense.
 * I once asked my brother-in-law, a historian, whether there was ever any large American political movement that wouldn't fall under the broad rubric of liberalism. His answer was the American Party from the 19th century, more usually called the Know-Nothings.  There is also plenty of anti-liberal sentiment on the left, among adherents of identity politics, but even they are so influenced by liberalism that only a few radicals really fundamentally reject it as a whole; they just aren't willing to embrace it fully either. --Trovatore (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've seen other editors claim just the opposite - that the US is all conservative (compared to Europe, anyway). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, "liberal" and "conservative" are not opposites. --Trovatore (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, in America they are. Maybe in Canada things are different. Although I recall Dave Foley saying once, "In Canada, we're so liberal we make Castro look like a Republican." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, they are. Conservatives want to maintain the power status quo.  Liberals want to expand liberty to more people.  You can't retain the power status quo AND expand liberty.  Not possible.  The confusion arises because people who were genuinely "liberal" back-in-the-day eventually became entrenched in power, and their policies ARE the status quo; they are no longer interested in expanding liberty to more people.  See classical liberalism, which had to have the word "classical" added to the front because this is no longer modern liberalism. -- Jayron 32 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So this is the American-center-left party line, which I obviously don't agree with. If everyone already has liberty, then there is no "expanding it to more people", because there are no more people to expand it to, and in that case, preservation of the status quo is liberal, because the only way it could change is to take away liberty from someone.  I don't claim that's the situation we're in, certainly, but further discussion of that gets down to details that are not relevant to the current question.
 * What is relevant to Nyttend's query is that the word "liberal" is used in multiple ways. It is not purely an America-rest-of-the-world distinction, but one of a distinction between a (mostly American, but not entirely) sense meaning "center-left", and a broader sense meaning "supports the idea of individual rights, civil liberties, procedural and substantive due process, free enterprise, free trade, etc", things that are virtually universal across the American political spectrum, and not universal but have a strong majority in the Western European spectrum.
 * The broader sense is used even in the United States; you generally have to understand it from context. There was a column by Jeb Bush recently talking about, I think, al-Sisi (I'm not 100% sure on that point) where he raised the question whether this person was a "small-l liberal democrat as we understand it", and responded that he obviously was not, but that he might still be the best option for the region given the alternatives.  Implicit was the claim that Jeb was a "liberal democrat".  And in fact, Jeb Bush is a liberal democrat, understood in this broader sense.  He is also, obviously, a conservative, and the two things are not in contradiction. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What world do you live in where every individual has the ideal level of liberty?!?!? -- Jayron 32 22:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't say they did. However, the threats to individual liberty, in the current American context, come grosso modo as much from the left as from the right.  "Change" is not always liberal; defending against illiberal change is a liberal undertaking. --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Some examples would help. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there's for example the individual mandate from Obamacare, which takes away your freedom to roll the dice and bet that you won't need that coverage you're not buying. More generally there's the trend to hold that the State knows better than you what risks you (or especially your children) should be taking (how about this one?).  Lots more. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the same argument that you shouldn't have to wear a motorcycle helmet because it inhibits your freedom. As to the child-endangerment case, that's at the state level, not the national level, and conservatives love to talk about "states' rights". And are you saying that we shouldn't have child-endangerment laws? Do those laws inhibit the freedom of adults to do whatever they want to their children? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is (the motorcycle thing). And in fact you shouldn't have to wear a motorcycle helmet, because it inhibits your freedom.  Legislating otherwise is illiberal, even if it comes from the center-left, and opposing such legislation is liberal, even if the opposition comes from the center-right. --Trovatore (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably you would also be arguing against seat belts and every other safety device on cars, as well as speed limits. Keep in mind that the state owns the roads, and the people (via their representatives) make those rules. On your own private property, the rules of the road don't apply, and you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and drive as fast as you want to. And by the way, who says it's "liberals" who have passed all these safety rules? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're making the mistake (common to all sides of the political spectrum) of thinking " is good, therefore if something is good it is ". Telling people they must use seatbelts/helmets is a restriction on liberty, and hence "illiberal" in the most basic sense.  It's also a very minor restriction on liberty, for a lot of benefit, so (in my view) is eminently sensible.  Can someone support such rules while still being liberal?  I guess that depends on how exactly you define "liberal", but unless it means "100% liberal 100% of the time" (which is not a standard demanded of most other political ideologies) then the answer is probably "yes".  But the policy itself isn't "liberal". Iapetus (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is assuming, however, that the ONLY source of restrictions on liberty is the government; the deal with classical liberalism is that, AT THAT TIME, the government was the primary source of illiberalism. What happens when other forces (corporations, societal norms, advantaged social classes, etc.) are providing the restrictions to liberty, and the government itself is acting to expand individual liberty against those forces?  That's really what distinguishes modern liberalism from "classical liberalism", the use of the apparatus of state to expand personal liberty rather than to restrict it.  -- Jayron 32 02:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We aren't going to agree on this point. The thing relevant to Nyttend's query is that "liberalism" has multiple meanings, and the one that matters for understanding why a newspaper can be described as "liberal-conservative" is the one I explained. --Trovatore (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is good to see you've come around to my point, '"liberalism" has multiple meanings' is what I was arguing days ago: Liberalism and Conservatism can only be understood in context, as related to a time and a place: What is liberal and conservative in one place is different than in other places and times. You seemed to want to say that Liberalism was a universal set of principles which did not vary (at least, that's the point you took on in the last discussion).  It's nice to see you've come around to my thinking on this.  -- Jayron 32 05:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. I agree "liberalism" has multiple meanings.  That's completely different from "relative to a time and place".  You seemed to be arguing a historicist notion of a natural progression of history, and a natural refinement of the notion of "liberal" as society "advances".  I haven't signed on to that at all.  I'm just saying the word has different meanings, in a linguistic sense.  What I'm calling the "broad" sense of the word is a set of universal principles. --Trovatore (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Canada, but in America there is no such thing as a "liberal conservative". That would be like a Catholic Unitarian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Canada has to do with anything, but yes, in fact, there is. Jeb Bush implied that he's a "liberal", and he's correct.  He's also a conservative.  In saying that he's a liberal, I don't in any way imply that he's at all left-wing, even within his party; it's a different use of the word from the one you're using, one that is in fact current within the United States, but has to be understood from context. --Trovatore (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When has Jeb Bush ever called himself a "liberal"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Scroll up and see. --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So he didn't actually say it, you're inferring it somehow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What would you infer from his implication that a "small-l liberal democrat as we understand it" would be the best possible politician (at least for a foreign state)? —Tamfang (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a typical Republican attempt to redefine the word or to deny that Democrats are really "liberal". They do the same thing with the word "democrat", claiming that the "Democrat Party" is not "democratic", while the Republican party somehow are the "real democrats" ("small d"). The word "Liberal" is generally treated as poison by conservatives. They use that term as a synonym for "Socialist" or "Communist". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So if I understand you, you're saying that Republicans deny that Democrats are liberal, but conservatives think liberalism is very bad. I suppose that's not quite logically impossible in the strict sense of mathematical logic, but at the very least it seems to invite further elaboration. --Trovatore (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be insisting that liberal has always and everywhere had only the meaning of 'welfare statist', and any other usage is hypocritical "redefinition". Well, you're welcome to that belief. —Tamfang (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Bugs, are you saying that political "liberals" exist only at the Federal level? Or that when "conservatives" howl about the Tenth Amendment they waive their right to express opinions on more local policies? —Tamfang (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * For a threat to liberty from the nominal left, we could mention the Most Transparent Administration In History which has vigorously defended its power to do things that at least some voters expected it to undo. —Tamfang (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Obama found out, as presidents do, that national defense knows no party preference. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or the rest of us were reminded that greed for power, and willingness to wrap it in the holy mantle of National Security, knows no party preference (at least within the Established Biparty). —Tamfang (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Some American non-politicians who label themselves "conservative" are liberal by Jayron's definition, or at least oppose what they see as new restrictions on liberty. They vote Republican because Democrats are less likely to give lip service to their (vague) ideals. —Tamfang (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Name one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I once heard William F. Buckley Jr. say that conservatism is all about freedom (exact words forgotten). I was a bit surprised to find him so naïve; at least I don't think he meant 'freedom' in Rudy Giuliani's infamous definition. —Tamfang (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be. Conservatives talk about "freedom" all the time. They consider "liberalism" to be the enemy of "freedom". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So did you really need me to "name one"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, now, remembering that conversation, I think the Know-Nothings were my brother-in-law's answer to a slightly different question, namely whether we had ever had a religious party comparable to Shas in Israel. But I think he might have given the same answer to "large non-liberal party" ("political movement" is not right I guess; the Ku Klux Klan was at some point a large political movement). --Trovatore (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all due to the fact that the US uses the word 'liberal' in a completely different manner than the rest of the world does. Liberal means socially permissive and fiscally conservative in the rest of the world, whereas conservative is socially regressive and fiscally conservative. There is in fact of course no left wing in mainstream American politics, and they are by and large all conservative, yes. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no actual one-size-fits-all definition of left v. right, or liberal v. conservative. Each place and time finds totally different definitions used, frequently simultaneously. Abolitionists were "liberal" but were also "conservative" in many ways - depending on which attributes one looks at. In the US, a huge percentage of people would actually be called "centrist" by the standards of European politics. Collect (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In the US we have RINO's, (Republican in name only) if that's what's meant. John Boehner is widely considered one.  There also used to be Rockefeller Republicans and Arlen Spector and John Lindsay μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Anybody who thinks liberal and conservative in America are somehow the same thing needs to listen to Sarah Palin for a few minutes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could I just shove a rusty cheese grater in my ears instead?
 * American politics usually is a single spectrum with liberalism on the left and conservatism on the right, but I've seen a double spectrum (or even a triple spectrum, like a cube) of authoritarian (or fascist, or populist) vs liberal (or libertarian, or democratic) on one axis, left-wing (socialist or communist) vs right-wing (capitalist) on another, and socially liberal vs socially conservative on the third.
 * American politics, in the grand scheme of things, is really more "moderate vs conservative" (heading toward "moderate vs neoconservative") than truly "liberal vs conservative." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * See political spectrum; many sets of axes to grind have been proposed. One factor analysis of votes in Congress found that the second important dimension is (or for a long time was) race relations. —Tamfang (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that if Left and Right have any meaning that's at all consistent through time and space, the Right seeks social stability and the Left seeks equality — though what they mean by these ideals can vary too! They are not always incompatible, nor do they cover all options. —Tamfang (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider the social pyramid. Conservatives like it to be as tall and steep as possible, while liberals want to make it flatter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the steepness is a consequence of at least some kinds of conservatism (including the conservatism that seeks to preserve power-grabbing Democratic institutions at all costs); I'm skeptical of the assertion that it's the intent of enough people to win elections. —Tamfang (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that - consider Thatcherism and other "neoliberal" (as we call them in the UK) ideologies - generally considered right-wing (certainly not left wing), but all about major alterations to the economy (specifically, selling off state-owned assets) and cuts in benefits, with associated social disruption. Iapetus (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Punishment points of view, sources?
Hey, I would like to know if there is any information published by reputable sources that provide criticism of punishment and point toward a reward-based system of discipline to add within the page on "Punishment". That would really help me. thx. Frogger48 (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Supposing someone commits murder, what type of reward should they get? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't be facile, the OP clearly meant what preventative measures are there as disincentives for crimes. 130.195.253.12 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't be arrogant. I'm not the only one (see below) who's apparently dumber than you are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks, we can't have that now can we Baseball Bugs? 130.195.253.60 (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What, only you are allowed to make personal attacks? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Baseball Bugs you need to realise that this Reference Desk is for helpful comments, not sarcastic responses. 130.195.253.60 (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good. So stop attacking other users, and start making helpful comments. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you should stop making sarcastic comments to people and calling people dumb. 130.195.253.60 (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Take your own advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * A search on Google Scholar produced plenty of results. You may wish to refine the search terms depending on whether you are interested in sources relating to children or adults - a spell on the naughty step might not deter bank robbers. Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you interested in the penal system, or child rearing, or something else, or anything related to punishment? If the former, we have Rehabilitation_(penology), if the latter, recall that negative reinforcement is not punishment, and of course there's also positive reinforcement. If you can explain a little bit more about what you're looking for, I can probably get some scholarly references. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In both cases the consensus seems to be to try to use positive reinforcement first, along with the threat of punishment, then, if that fails, switch to actual punishment as a deterrent. So, if you have a kid who is vandalizing buildings by spray painting his "art" on them, try getting him into an art class and maybe getting permission for him to paint on walls or buildings somewhere.  This would be more productive than tossing him in prison.  But when you get hardened criminals, that approach doesn't work any more.  Note that punishment doesn't work very well, either, at that point, since prison may actually be better than life on the outside.  However, prison does serve a removal from society purpose, in that he can't commit crimes (except against other prisoners) while in prison. StuRat (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Humane Society says humans should train dogs with rewards. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Grabbing a dog's tongue when it licks your face will stop that behavior after 3 or 4 lessons. Not sure how one could do that with a treat.  But there's no justification for spanking dogs.  Had God wanted that he'd've given them buttocks. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Pre-2003 USA-Iraq Oil Trading
Did the United States and Iraq under Hussein trade oil before the 2003 invasion? 130.195.253.12 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would surely depend on what you mean by trading. However a simple search for 'us iraq oil' finds which shows US imports or of Iraqi oil. which suggests a peak in October 2001 - January 2002 until October last year edit: the end of the data. However it looks like the peak is because the graph isn't smooth as much as anything, the levels may be slightly higher but seem to have been fairly consistent from August 1998 until the end of the graph with a brief drop around the time of the invasion. Unfortunately the stats start in 1996. It seems that imports was zero for 1996, with a small amount in 1997 before the larger increase in 1998. It wouldn't be surprising if oil imports were zero since about 1990 i.e. the time of the Gulf War but there's probably a fair bet it wasn't zero before then, perhaps since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 (well before 1979, but your question as stated only covers the period from 1979 onwards). Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * has an analysis of the data on a year to year basis until 2007 which shows there was indeed a peak in 2001 although it was only about 20% or so higher than the next higher year, 2004. It also looks like figures seem to have some degree of correlation with Iraqi crude oil production, at least in recent years until 2006. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * See also Sanctions against Iraq for the post Gulf War situation. Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Welsh flag - pre 1953
The current Flag of Wales shows the welsh dragon. During 1953-1959 one was used showing the Royal Badge of Wales. Was any flag or ensign used immediately prior to that or was the Union Jack used for all things? For instance; what would have been used at international football games and the British Empire/Commonwealth games prior to 1953?. Nanonic (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Cumberland Clark’s 1926 book about the flags of England and the Empire has no reference to a Welsh flag, but his 1934 book ‘The Flags of Britain’ has; ‘Those who happen to be in Wales on Saint David’s Day will catch a glimpse of a British banner that is rarely seen beyond the boundaries of Cambria. The national flag of Wales has a horizontally halved white over green background, with the famous Red Dragon over all.’" History of Y Ddraig Goch. The same article also shows another flag, used "by government buildings in London" was a "white field with the dragon standing on a patch of green grass". Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Alansplodge) Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, where the issue was actually raised, and where there's a sort of a discussion going on. --Theurgist (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added my six penn'orth to the discussion by the football people, which I hope has helped. Maybe. Alansplodge (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

bond market - structured products - german "Zertifikate"
hi, anyone here into german "Zertifikate"-stuff? Is it possible to find a translation for them: "structured bonds, bond market"? "Structured derivative european-style bank-issued exotic bonds"? "Structured Reverse_convertible_securities"? "Structured reverse Convertible_bond"? "Over-the-counter derivatives"? Is there a common term for them? (OP on german refdesk: DE:Wikipedia:Auskunft) Thanks advanced! --217.84.85.167 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Are such structured financial products, structured derivative bonds even traded a lot or are they rather considered (european) exotic(s)? [=217.84.85.167] --217.84.84.234 (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Or not even known, after all? O.-o --217.84.66.212 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

UK military decoration ceremonies
L/Cpl Joshua Leakey was awarded the Victoria Cross on Wednesday. As can be seen from, for example, the BBC article on the event, he received the award wearing his everyday camoflage battledress. Not knowing much about this subject, I would have expected a more formal dress uniform to be appropriate for this sort of ceremony - however, my expectations were incorrect. Is there a tradition or protocol which dicates this sort of clothing for medal ceremonies? If so, perhaps a reference to it in the relevant articles would be useful. Tevildo (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find an answer for you, but note that in the same video sequence, there was an image of Johnson Beharry receiving his VC while wearing No.2: Service dress which is more formal, but not THE most formal uniform. I suspect that a decision was taken by his unit that the soldiers should appear in their "working clothes" (actually No.8: Temperate Combat Dress) to show that they are really fighting troops and not parade soldiers, but that's just a guess. Alansplodge (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is he actually receiving the medal in that clip? I don't see it being passed over. Perhaps this was an announcement of the award, and the actual 'handing over' ceremony is at a later date? Dalliance (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

UK Chief Constables
Are UK Chief Constables of Police fully warranted police officers? Does anyone have any references or legislation to shed light on this issue? Thanks. asyndeton  talk  22:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a notoriously difficult to disprove something, but look at it another way... When a serving police officer is made Chief Constable, is he somehow stripped of his powers or required to hand in his warrant card? It seems a bit unlikely. Until recently, many chief constables still wore their whistle chains, a symbol of their status as a police officer. Alansplodge (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The question would then become: are all Chief Constables of Police promoted from the ranks of warranted officers, or are some appointed as "political" position? My wife works in law enforcement in a forensic science lab: the Lab Director has no lab experience whatsoever, it's always been a political appointment of the State Attorney General, and IIRC, neither does the Deputy Director.  The highest ranked person at her lab who are promoted from within are the two Assistant Lab Directors.  So, by analogy, it would not be unexpected that a high ranking person such as the Chief Constable would be a political, rather than professional, appointment.  If there were some Chief Constables who did not get their job by rising through the ranks, they may not be warranted.  I have no idea if this applies to any currently serving, of the 50 listed at Chief constable.  About half of them have biographies on Wikipedia.  I checked the first three, and all were career warranted police officers.  -- Jayron 32 00:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Chief Constables are now all professional police officers promoted through the ranks. They are all warranted officers. (There are political overseers of police forces (police and crime commissioners and the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, and formerly police authorities), but they are not police officers and do not have operational control over the police.) The sole exception - a chief police officer, though not a Chief Constable - is the Commissioner of the City of London Police, which is governed by separate legislation (the City of London Police Act 1839). Although, like other chief officers, he has risen through the ranks (he was formerly Deputy Chief Constable of Kent Police), he is technically a justice of the peace and not a warranted police officer. The same used to be the case for certain senior officers of the Metropolitan Police, but they are now all warranted officers. (For completeness, the City Police are also overseen differently from other forces: instead of a police authority and now a police and crime commissioner, they are overseen by the Court of Common Council.) Proteus (Talk) 12:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite all have risen from the ranks. The last two Chief Constables of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary were, respectively, a former Foreign Office official and a former senior army officer appointed directly to the post. I remember there was disquiet amongst CNC officers at the time of the first appointment as he wasn't a warranted officer. Dalliance (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I should have said that I was only talking about the territorial police forces that are responsible for geographical areas, rather than the special police forces, ports police, parks constabularies, etc., which are governed by different legislation and often have very different ways of selecting and appointing their officers. Proteus (Talk) 14:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Final Authority on UK Law
Can legislation.gov.uk be taken to be the final authority on UK law? If so, why is this? How many times is it peer reviewed (I ask as I wonder how sure they can be there are no errors that would affect the law)? Are there any other safeguards? How does the whole thing happen, if that can be easily explained? Thanks. asyndeton  talk  22:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks to be the official government website. If there was an error on that site (anything is possible), it would not be binding.  What is binding is the wording of the legislation as it was passed by Parliament, not a mistake in publishing it to a website.  Is there a specific piece of legislation, whose text is on that website, which you have reason to doubt is the same as the text originally passed by Parliament?  If you have specific questions about that website, This page here I found with a few clicks will likely answer them for you.  -- Jayron 32 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the final interpretation of the law, so in that sense the final authority, is by the judicial service. However, the website does indeed carry the legal text of the law, as held by the National Archives (see 'About Us'). You'd have to contact the National Archives about their error save-guards. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Interpretation of the law wasn't the question; the question asks about the text of the law (which can easily be ascertained from the printed originals), not its meaning or application. Only in an extremely rare situation, if ever, would the judiciary have to attempt to ascertain the official text itself, since official texts are routinely printed and distributed to law libraries.  Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The question was about "the final authority". Nowhere did it mention the text of the law.  Whatever a law says, it's the interpretation of that law by a judge (or a series of judges) that matters in the end.  Judges surely are the final authority, except where countermanded by a more senior judge.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologise for not being clear in my question. By final authority, I meant to ask whether or not the text of any act on legislation.gov.uk can be taken to be "the law" in the sense that it is the complete and official version and representation of the law, as passed by Parliament. I wondered whether or not there is a paper document somewhere that is seen as the unquestioned representation of the law, and the aforementioned site is simply meant to make what this says more widely available. Apologies again for not being clear. Thanks. asyndeton   talk  00:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] Neither their About Us page nor the page linked by Jayron addresses the issue of the website's authoritativeness. Based on viewing other legislation-hosting websites, I'll guess that Jayron's correct: in general, websites of this type are provided as public services, not as authoritative sources.  While the webmasters attempt to be as accurate as possible, the online text has the force of law only if it's identical to the text of the law enacted by the legislature; if they make any mistakes in transcription, the officially enacted text takes precedence over the online text.  This is why some such websites have disclaimers that say basically "If you rely on an erroneous piece of text on our website, you will be liable for violating the actual law, so consult a printed copy of the law and/or talk with a lawyer."  Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be as good as printed copies, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing as it is an official website of the UK Parliament, and not an independent site, I suspect (but cannot prove) that the text is not transcribed (by hand or OCR) but rather simply copied from the actual word processing files used to print the text of the bills voted on in Parliament. It is quite likely (but again, cannot be proven from what I can read at the site) that the text is as identical as possible.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably is, but it's still possible for corruptions to occur. I don't remember where I read it, but there was a US court case (Supreme Court?) that held federal law to consist of what had officially been enacted by Congress and published in its official organ, the Statutes at Large — any other medium of publication is unofficial, unless Congress decides to make something else official.  I would strongly suspect the same to be true of the UK Parliament with its website: unless they've designated the website as their official organ, some other publication is the complete and official version and representation of the law.  If you don't have a single official publication, which always takes precedence when differences arise, you're in a horribly undesirable situation: people can always debate the meaning of the law, but it's absolutely necessary for the judiciary and the rest of the citizens to be able to know what the official text of the law says.  Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia articles are a bit out-of-date, but it does appear that the online database is official. See UK Statute Law Database and Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom.   It appears that the office responsible for maintaining accurate records of the Acts of Parliament in force (and thus the corpus of British statutory law) is the The National Archives (United Kingdom).  If the OP has genuine questions regarding the official copy of legislation, how it is maintained, and how to research it, they would be the people to contact.  Their website is at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ and they have a contact page at http://apps.nationalarchives.gov.uk/contact/ which even has a phone number.  That'd be the best way to get the question answered, since they are the ones responsible for maintaining the official records.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh. Well, if Parliament have decreed that the online database be their official organ, it is the final authority on UK law, and there's no getting around it.  I'm somewhat surprised, but I suppose it's to be expected in our electronic age.  Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe or maybe not. The Wikipedia articles are either uncited, out of date, or unclear on the matter.  They certainly imply or state that, but where they state it outright they are uncited.  Near as I can tell, the National Archives are the body charged by Parliament with maintaining the official records, and the online database MAY be that official record, or may be a copy of that record, it is unclear since we don't have a definitive outside-of-Wikipedia statement to that effect.  Which is why I recommended the OP (and you if you really want to know) contact the National Archives directly and ask them.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, again, it is not. It may be the final authority on the text of the law, copied from that held in the National Archives, but the final authority on the law itself is still the judiciary. Very important distinction to make. 82.21.7.184 (talk)