Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 19

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 19

Does the BSA currently get to use federal property for anything it does?

Does the Boy Scouts of America, which discriminates on sexual orientation, currently use federal property for any of its jamborees or any other activities for free or after paying for access? 69.243.220.115 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely the Boy Scouts have lots of events held on federal property. The National Parks, for example. Staecker (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there any federal civil rights protection for gays as such? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering that anyone can visit a national park, regardless of their political or moral views, why would the BSA be any different? Is there a law saying that discriminatory organizations may not use national parks to host their activities? If the BSA were using parks to incite violence or spread hate speech, that would be another matter, but as far as I know it does neither. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed by [[User:Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)|Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)]]. Please do not modify it.
It occurs to me that between a history of at least some child abuse cases, along with the huge amount of publicity about the "Pen" State situation, the Scouts probably decided that this was not the best time to be creating a more liberal policy on orientation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I don't see the connection. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC) At Penn state a male coach raped boys, and it was hushed up by the higher-ups. If the coach is a man, and the team members are boys, obviously, he's gay. If you allow homosexuals to volunteer with the boyscouts, you potentially create a situation where 'untold hordes' of gay men are put in charge of young boys, including on overnight trips in national parks, creating the perfect scenario for some one-on-one man/boy love in the forest. Is it realistic to assume that opening the boy scouts up to gays would transform the organisation into a paedophile free-for-all? Probably not. Would it cause massive outrage when Bill O'Reilly reads the monologue part I just wrote for him? Absolutely. V85 (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I assume that was an ironic post, V85, but just in case it wasn't: If the coach is a man, and the team members are boys, obviously, he's gay - wrong. All we know about such a man is that he's turned on by boys. We don't know that he's turned on by adult males. This is the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. The two are as different as chalk and cheese, and I don't know why educated people still conflate them. If you allow homosexuals to volunteer with the boyscouts, you potentially create a situation where 'untold hordes' of gay men are put in charge of young boys ... creating the perfect scenario for some one-on-one man/boy love in the forest - wrong, for the reasons stated above. If you allow homosexuals to volunteer with the boyscouts, you might possibly find them showing interest in other men in the troupe, but there is no reason to suppose they would have any sexual interest in the boys in their charge. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 11:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, that was meant to be ironic. ;-) V85 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I can hardly believe I'm reading this thread, because the UK youth organisations sorted this decades ago. The Scouts now take girls and boys, and lots of women are leaders. The Girl Guides are girls only; they accept male adult volunteers in some roles. The Woodcraft Folk has always been mixed. All have very strong child protection policies in place; all adults helping even short term must have a Criminal Records Bureau check. They address their volunteering calls mainly to parents, and to young people who have grown up in their organisation (a good opportunity for those who want go into school teaching). They don't ask adult volunteers about their sexual orientation, except possibly to monitor their equal opportunities policies, i.e. to ensure that they are getting enough LGBT volunteers. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Maybe the UK is not as puritanical as the US is. Therein lies the core problem, don'cha know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC) The UK might not be as puritanical as the US, but they seem to be very afraid of paedophilia. I read somewhere that even parents picking their children up from school or watching their children's little league games need to present a criminal record to show that they have not previously been convicted of child abuse. V85 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Better safe than sorry. It's the USA's innate puritanism that works to the advantage of child predators. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The National Scout Jamboree used to be held at Fort A.P. Hill but I don't think it is still. Dismas|^(talk) 03:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In Winkler v. Rumsfeld it was ruled that federal (more specifically, military) support of the BSA was permitted. In the past such support has included use of military land. Whether this will continue in the future hasn't yet been decided, though the possibility remains open. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That case was only decided on a technicality. The actual question of whether federal support of BSA is allowed remains open. --108.227.29.193 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I must ask again - Is there any federal civil rights legislation that forbids gay discrimination? The Army rules were specifically passed by Congress, which might suggest that there is not any widespread federal law on the matter. And if not, while I might sympathize with the OP's understandable irritation at the Boy Scouts for reaffirming their anti-gay stance, it would probably take a lengthy court battle to do anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Constitution's Equal Protection Clause has recently been held to apply to sexual orientation in some federal circuits. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that without a constitutional issue at play, the Support Our Scouts Act and Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act would seem to make limiting federal government support problematic. As our Boy Scouts of America membership controversies mentions, there has been a withdrawal of support from other branches of government in the US. BTW, the article is likely of interest to the OP since it describes some of the ways the federal government does support and get involved in the BSA. As the article mentions, it isn't just the sexual orientation thing that's a problem but also their policies towards non religious people. That was what was tested in Winkler v. Rumsfeld which as mentioned above failed due to a lack of standing. As hinted above and mentioned in our articles, future jamborees starting with the 2013 National Scout Jamboree will be held at The Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve partly as a result of the failed lawsuit, however the DoD may still be involved because of the training and recruiting oppurtinities, I don't know whether this level of involvement would be enough for a plantiff who does have standing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fake "reality" shows

The blogosphere contains numerous instances of people asserting that reality TV shows are often fake, with actors pretending to bring in items for purchase or appraisal, with the owner of the store where the item was previously listed for sale coming in to evaluate it. Similar complaints have been made about car towing shows, dating shows, survivor shows, home improvement shows, antique restoration shows, and shows where people purchasie storage lockers suspiciously full of extremely valuable articles. Quiz show scandals describes deceptive TV shows of the 1950's being investigated by the US Congress and grand juries, even without there apparently being laws at the time against coaching or instructing quiz show contestants. Laws were later supposedly passed in the US outlawing fake quiz shows. Does the US or other countries have laws against presenting fake reality shows as other than scripted entertainment, akin to TV wrestling? Edison (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not an answer, but I think the reason why most people on Antiques Roadshow seem to have bought a Ming Vase for $1.98 at a local garage sale is that they don't air the vast majority of those who wasted their money buying junk. (They do air a tiny portion of those cases, usually when it's a very good fake.) That said, they did have some scandal involving swords, as I recall. And, this distortion of people's perceptions that buying "antiques" is almost a guaranteed investment is rather self-serving, as the people running the show are in that business, and would love millions of suckers showing up to buy junk which they assume in extremely valuable, despite the price. StuRat (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Do reality TV shows actually assert they are, in fact, real? Do these shows actually have a disclaimer that says "This work is non-fiction. All events presented are real"? I have never seen such a disclaimer but then again I don't watch a lot of TV.A8875 (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Even where 'everything is real' (i.e. people who aren't paid actors, no script etc.) the 'reality' on a reality show is going to be 'constructed': Producers might purposely select participants whom they can foresee won't get along, for example by choosing people with wastly dissimilar interests and incredibly confrontational personalities. Then, after filming, there is of course the editing process, and adding of narration, which can add a lot more drama then was there to begin with. I haven't heard of any country passing laws against reality shows being advertised as 'real', since they are entertainment. Obviously, where there is a cash prize involved, there might be general rules on prizes and fair competition that apply, but I don't think any outrage over a revelation that Jerry Springer's guest are 'playing a part' rather than actually being their honest true selves would pass, since people watch it for entertainment rather than finding out what's really happening in the world. What would the next step be? Making a law on how much a 'based on a true story'-movies can deviate from the original story? V85 (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of discussion about this at Reality television#Criticism. I suppose this is also similar to scripted programming that claims to be "Based on a true story" - this seems to be applied to everything from faithful dramatisations of real events, to fiction with only minor plot elements inspired by reality. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There has been some discussion lately as to whether House Hunters and House Hunters International are fake. See this. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Then again, there was The Joe Schmo Show, which was admittedly a faked reality show, except to one person.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 09:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw an episode where someone repaired an antique phonograph, then played a record on it, and the owner expressed his delight at how nice it sounded. I could see that the needle was clearly not set down on the record, so it was all quite fake. When a show purports to be real people doing business, are we to assume it is fiction, like Sanford and Son? How is this an improvement on fake quiz shows? Ditto for shows where people buy or sell houses for specified prices, but no such transaction took place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 July 2012‎

Quebec and the American War of Independence

This one's been bugging me for a while. Quebec was a British colony in the 1770s but seemingly wanted nothing to do with all those pesky troublemakers to the south, right? But why, exactly? Was there a broader reason for the Québécoise remaining loyal to the crown, other than the beneficial political measures of the Quebec Act? Apart from the language barrier, would there have been a noticeable difference in the culture and temperament of the people in, say, Upstate New York and southern Quebec? For that matter, what about Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and East Florida? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You may find Letters to the inhabitants of Canada to be an interesting read. In the First Continental Congress, only 12 of the provinces in British North America showed up. The intent was to send invitations to all provinces of British North America to attend the Second Continental Congress, of the additional invitees, only Georgia showed up at the Second Congress. I can't find any information now, but I also believe that there was some effort to extend invitations to the British West Indies as well, perhaps due to Alexander Hamilton's connections there. I don't know how far that ended up. Quebec did offer some support to the Revolution, see 1st Canadian Regiment and 2nd Canadian Regiment. The support in Quebec and other parts of Canada likely dwindled rapidly after the disasterous Quebec campaign of 1775. The problem with Quebec was that it had no colonial legislature, so it had no way to organize to show any sort of support. It may or may not have been there, but without any formal way to organize a real support, it just sorta petered out. The Thirteen Colonies all had well established colonial legislatures, and these provided a focal point for the political organization of the Revolution; it was the legislatures that approved delegates to the Continental Congresses and that provided the needed local support for raising troops and other organizational needs. Without that in Quebec, nothing ever came of the overtures. --Jayron32 05:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Donald W. Meinig in the Shaping of America, volume 1, the French of Quebec were sympathetic to the American Revolution but more interested in rejoining the French Empire than in joining the new United States. To that end they hoped that France would send troops to Quebec and liberate them. They did not want to become part of the United States but rather wanted to be rejoined to France. To that end they were tentatively supportive of the rebellion. But when French assistance failed to materialize Quebec failed to support the rebellion. Pfly (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also according to Meinig, Newfoundland's population was far too small and far too closely linked to Britain to desire rebellion. East Florida had been only recently conquered from Spain and was populated with very loyal British subjects with little or no local democratic traditions--even if they wanted to rebel, which they didn't, they didn't have the political means to do so. Nova Scotia, on the other hand, came fairly close to open rebellion. See History of Nova Scotia#American Revolution. Since Halifax was the nearest major port to Britain it was imperative for the British to hold onto it as a base of operations. The American rebels made some attempt to win Nova Scotia over, and Nova Scotians made some effort to rebelling, but against the full force of the British Empire it was a lost effort. Pfly (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And again according to Meinig, the West Indies in general were sympathetic to the rebellion but were unable to counter the might of the British Navy, and thus were able at best to offer a kind of passive resistance. Pfly (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the aforementioned Quebec Act, Quebec was probably a bit better off under British rule. They got a pretty good deal from the British that wouldn't have been upheld if they had joined the Revolution, nor if they joined the US (established Catholic church, French-language rights, and especially exclusive rights to settle in the Ohio Valley and what is now Ontario). The Quebec Act was one of the Intolerable Acts, after all. As it turned out, it wasn't such a good deal after all...during and after the Revolution British Loyalists often fled to Canada, and among other things Quebec was split into Upper Canada (modern Ontario) and Lower Canada (modern Quebec). Quebec was mostly still loyal up to the War of 1812 (when, again, the Americans failed to conquer either Upper or Lower Canada), but after that, English power and influence increased so much in Quebec that they did rebel, in 1837. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

John Hopkins, who taught me international law in the seventies, used to cite Wolfe's campaign in Quebec as "the only successful modern instance of acquiring territory by conquest", and ascribed this success to the fact that the British government thereafter offered to ship any Quebecois who wanted back to France, free of charge. He said 80,000 took up the offer, and those that remained stayed loyal when the southern colonies revolted. --ColinFine (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The population of New France was around 60,000 at the time of conquest, so it's hard to see how 80,000 people could have been shipped back to France (only a few Acadians were, and that was not of their own free will). What the British did was leave the French people of New France largely alone, let them freely practice their religion and keep their traditions and legal system, while settling in areas (Upper Canada, the Eastern Townships) where French colonists were not present in significant numbers (it helped that there was still plenty of good virgin farm land available, except for Acadia, again, where the British decided to practice mass deportation to take over the land). As a result, there was little immediate friction between conquerer and conquered, and it took until 1837, as mentioned above, for things to boil over. --Xuxl (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, everyone! Interesting stuff all around. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Copyright Laws

Does anyone here think that the U.S. govt. will extend the copyright of works published in 1923 and beyond which are due to expire in 2018 and beyond? After all, the U.S. govt. has extended copyright before on numerous occasions, and Disney and a lot of other entertainment companies will probably lobby extremely aggressively to extend the copyright of works published in 1923 and beyond. Futurist110 (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, based on Marxist understandings of primitive accumulation and the role of the state in maintaining the dominant property form. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can persuade Jimbo to shut down the site in protest. I might even agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It'll make the MOS simpler. In relation to changing the dominant property form, out-producing the existing mode of production is usually a superior way forward (if you can avoid the existing dominant class merely expropriating the means of production). At the moment at least the working class seems "ungovernable" in relation to its refusal to treat intellectual "property" as property. OMMV: once we were ungovernable in relation to British elections. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's very possible. There's a lot of money on the line, and the extend-copyright-indefinitely lobby is a hell of a lot bigger than the keep-copyright-temporary lobby. But we lack a crystal ball. Only Congress can do this, though, so if you feel strongly about it, write your Congressperson. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a bigger lobby: it's a more concentrated lobby. —Tamfang (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm kind of hopeful -- at the time the last extension passed in 1998, there wasn't much of an anti-extension political force -- there were EFF and some law professors working against it, but nothing with much muscle -- while there were of course strong economic vested interests in favor of extension. However, since that time, the RIAA has become one of the most hated groups in America, there have been anti-SOPA protests, etc. and many more people understand that rigid and unbalanced copyright laws can personally affect them. I don't think it will be a walkover the next time, as it almost was in 1998... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering that my Congressman is a Republican (Republicans are more pro-corporations) and possibly a birther, despite the fact that he represents an affluent and educated area, I don't have too much faith in him or in writing to him. Also, I seriously doubt that many Congressmen directly read all the letters that get sent to them. Futurist110 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless one is a billionaire, a well-connected lobbyist (presumably working for a billionaire), or another politician, one does not expect one's congressperson to read one's letters. That isn't how the grassroots game is played. Your letter will be opened and skimmed by a low-level staffer in your congresscritter's office. Your name will go into a database, and your views on whatever issues you address will be noted on your record. (For commonly-raised issues, there will likely be a form with checkboxes.) A form letter response will be generated using boilerplate text that may or may not directly respond to the points you make, but will probably be related to the topic at hand. (In the unlikely instance that your letter raises issues your congressman's office has never seen before, a somewhat higher-level aide may be called upon to draft new boilerplate for use in future letters.) Every so often, another aide will dump a report from the database, and say, "Hey, we're getting a lot more letters than we used to on Issue X. Maybe we need to think about this."

Your individual letter, by itself, will have no influence whatsoever. Large numbers of letters, in the aggregate, will draw attention. Original, mailed, paper letters written clearly, concisely, and politely, carry appreciably more weight than campaign form letters, which in turn carry more weight than emails. (They know that it takes a greater level of concern and motivation on the part of voter to drive them out of their chair and down to the mailbox. A dozen paper letters probably outweigh a thousand emails in the only calculus that matters: the number of votes represented by each message sent.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Did the U.S.S.R. Lose the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939?

Also, could this war have turned out differently had it lasted longer? Futurist110 (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As Winter War#Soviet military plan states, Stalin's purge of the Red Army officer corps meant less experienced officers were in charge, and they were overseen by political commissars. So deviation from prearranged plans was essentially unthinkable, allowing the Finns to exploit the Soviet inflexibility. As for the outcome, it could only have gotten worse for Finland. They were already at the breaking point, and Sweden wouldn't allow reinforcements from the Western powers to transit its territory. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Something else I'd heard about Soviet military strategy at that time was that they refused to ever retreat, even executing those who did. This was a disastrous military strategy, since it allowed their enemies to concentrate their attack, break through, outflank, encircle, and then destroy Soviet forces. The effect on morale was equally catastrophic. StuRat (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about Stalin's Order_No._227 which didn't exist yet in 1939.A8875 (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. StuRat (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Could the USSR have captured all of Finland if it stayed in the war for another several months, though? Futurist110 (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard this counterfactual explored. In part because the Soviet Union did not wish to do so. In part because the Soviet Union did not wish to do so at the price expected. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not really accurate to say that the Soviets "lost" the war (except perhaps in a moral sense). While the conduct and result of the war did not meet their initial expectations, the Soviets were able to dictate surrender terms and a significant amount of Finnish territory was ceded. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Soviets did lose an enormous amount of prestige and suffer an embarrassing number of casualties, many times more than the Finns. The weak showing of the Red Army supported Hitler's belief that invading the Soviet Union was a good idea. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

has anyone ever ridden a dog?

has anyone ever ridden a dog? (I mean like a horse). I'm thinking some breeds of dog must be large enough that maybe a very small child could have ridden one, and they're also domesticated and quite easily trained to do things that are about that simple. It obviously wouldn't have to be for a long distance, I'm just wondering if it's been done. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Just do a Google image search for "riding a dog" or similar search terms. But I guess it's always casual and infrequent. There are probably few cases where a dog was ridden on a regular basis. --::Slomox:: >< 09:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Riding the dog like a small horse is FROWNED UPON IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT! Adam Bishop (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dogs large enough to ride upon are called horses. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct, but a cow too small to ride on is a dogie.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Dog article makes a brief mention of children riding on dogs underneath the "Work" subsection. In my own personal experience, I had briefly rode on the back of an adult black lab as a young child, much to my parents' displeasure. LlamaDude78 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem of riding a dog is not just the sizes of the dog and of the rider, but the backbone of the animal. Horses' backbone cannot be bent down, contrary to backbones of dogs, which are more like humans' backbone. That's also the reason we don't ride zebras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persominus (talk • contribs) 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Currency of Newfoundland

The article Newfoundland dollar asserts (without citation), “The Newfoundland dollar was replaced by the Canadian dollar at par when Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949.” Presumably all circulating Newfoundland bills and coins would have been withdrawn through the banks. My question is, for how long after 1949 did Newfoundland bills and coins remain legal tender in Newfoundland? And, since they were being replaced at par with the Canadian dollar, were Newfoundland bills and coins ever legal tender in the rest of Canada? I am curious because I recently found a 1944 Newfoundland one cent coin mixed in with change I received in Vancouver, and I'm mystified as to how it has circulated all this time without anyone noticing. Kuzak999999 (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My guess would be that because the Canadian penny and the Newfoundland penny are the same size (diameter) and somewhat similar colour, nobody ever bothered looking really hard at them, and they continued circulating. However, one would think that eventually these coins would pass through a bank, and be picked up as being different from the rest of the pennies. In London, I occasionally came across 2 cent € coins circulating as British 1 pennies. V85 (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the agreement between Canada and Newfoundland some time ago for information on demonitisation of stamps and coins, and could find nothing. I believe without particular evidence that Canadian coins probably already circulated in Newfoundland before 1949, due to the identical specifications for some denominations and the relatively low Newfoundland mintages you can see in Krause's or Charlton's. Something was probably done via order in council or as part of legislation implementing the admission of Newfoundland to Confederation. The Canadian Numismatic Association might be a useful source. I'm thinking that as banks would want the flexibility to move coins outside Newfoundland, where the former local currency might not be accepted, banks would have tellers put aside the Newfie coins and they'd be sent in to the Bank of Canada for redemption. Obviously there would be no trouble sorting out the Newfoundland half dime or 20 cent piece.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting column on that subject. It appears pre-1949, things were a bit freestyle in Newfoundland.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was able to reference the sentence the OP mentioned to the Encylopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador, but that source doesn't answer the question of how long after 1949 the coins were legal tender. The Encylopedia is online at the wonderful Memorial University Digital Archives. Someone who's good with search terms might get those archives to cough up the answer; I'm out of time.184.147.130.16 (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

S Walter Stewart

Is S Walter Stewart the same as Walter Stewart and what does the S stand for?99.254.212.239 (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure who you're talking about. Just fed Google with "Walter Stewart" and got....

Walter Stewart, 6th High Steward of Scotland

Walter Stewart (journalist)

Walter Stewart, 3rd High Steward of Scotland

Walter Stewart, Earl of Atholl

Walter Stewart's Market

Walt Stewart Studio

Walter Stewart Profile - University of Cincinnati Official Athletics Site

...etc. No S Walter Stewarts

Can you clarify please? HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

S. Walter Stewart is the name of a public library in Toronto -- it is named after a man who was the head of the library board starting in 1946. Walter Stewart is also the name of a well-known Toronto journalist, but his full name is Walter Donald Stewart and he is clearly a different person. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicknames and "short" names

Is a nickname for Calvin, Charles? Could a surname of FORD be short for the surname of Crawford? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Not as far as I've ever known. 2) Sure, why not? Though again, I've never heard it used that way. Do you have any context for any of this? Was there some passage that you were reading where these things would make the passage make more sense? Dismas|^(talk) 20:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of Charles being a nickname for Calvin and vice versa. I suppose that someone with the last name of Crawford could theoretically be called "Ford" by his friends, though I've never heard of this actually happening in real life. From my personal life experiences, nicknames are primarily for first names, not for last names. I hope that I understood your question correctly. Futurist110 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Surnames are sometimes shortened into nicknames, at least in the world of sports. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not into sports at all, so I wouldn't know about naming customs in sports that much. Futurist110 (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I do believe you BOTH understood my question and have answered it to my satisfaction. It was a long shot, but now that you gave me these answers I also do NOT believe Charles being a nickname for Calvin and vice versa. I didn't know if FORD would be common to be short for Crawford, but now I believe it is NOT. Thanks, I do believe you cleared it up.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What brought the question on? —Tamfang (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither of these would be a natural phonological or semantic development. See nickname. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Vigen dynasty

Is the term "Vigen dynasty" or "Viken dynasty" ever applied to Olaf I of Norway and his family? Or of a Viken/Vigen branch of the Fairhair dynasty? It seems that the only basis of the term would be that his father was the King of Viken and modern scholars don't support the concept of a Fairhair dynasty after Harald II of Norway.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither term brings up any results at all in Google Scholar or in JSTOR, so it doesn't seem academics use the term at all.184.147.121.192 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

evaluation of the currency

how the currency of a country is evaluated in the world market? what are the standreds the currencies are compared to, if they are compared to any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.208.9 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Free market trades in currency futures apply some pressure, primarily from the need by companies to hedge export/import trades, and then central banks try to stabilize that while producing just the right amount of liquidity to balance unemployment against inflation, and then the governments sell bonds. Then the currency speculators treat that mess as a big casino, and the tourists and import markets kind of keep the rest of them all in line. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For currencies that are allowed to float, the rate is set by the same principles of supply and demand as for any other price. The supply and demand of a currency is determined by its international trade (exports create a demand for the currency, imports create a supply). In addition, there are speculators trying to make money out of currency movements. Another key factor that affects current movements is interest rates (see carry trade). --Tango (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In short, why does Israel not want Palestine to be a state?

Topic says it all. ScienceApe (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Who says they don't? Meanwhile, why do Palestine and its allies want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion. The OP asked a question that I believe to be meant serious. Why are you answering it with a obviously provocative one? --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The OP's question is loaded and provocative. Spare me your double-standard lectures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to be loaded and provocative. I'm an outside observer so my question was genuine, but may be misconstrued by someone who is emotionally invested in the matter, which is understandable. All I know is that the UN recognized Palestine as a state (or something) and Israel was not happy about that. ScienceApe (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Because then they would have to abide by stricter laws against occupation. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

They don't object in principle, but they believe that their security would be greatly compromised by a sovereign Palestinian state which they haven't any right to police. If the Israelis could be made to feel secure that there would be no further threats of attacks from the Occupied Territories, they'd stop occupying them. Which is not to say that Israel's hands are completely clean in the conflict either, there's plenty of blame to go around. But as far as the justification for the occupation, that's the Israeli position: it is about security, and as long as they don't trust that they won't be attacked from the Palestinian lands, they won't stop policing them. --Jayron32 22:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The question is misleading. Israel has no problem with the Palestinians creating a state, as long as this comes from direct negotiations between both sides. For this reason, we have the 1993 Oslo Accords, the 2000 Camp David Accords, and the 2008 Olmert offer. The generous 2000 Camp David Accords and 2008 Olmert offer were rejected by the Palestinians. Prime Minister Netanyahu caused a shift in Likud policy when he said Palestinians can create a state and Israel woudl reocgnize it, as long as it came through direct negotiations. In regards to the UN bid, he said Israel would be the 1st country to recognize the state of Palestine as long as it's not declared unilaterally, but rather through both sides.

A Palestinian state without direct negotiations is dangerous, and is not in the wishes of much of the international community, particularly the West. Consider the fact that the Palestinians currently have two governments, each hates each other furiously. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and Hamas in Gaza. The latter won elections in 2006 (including the West Bank), but the P.A. didn't let them take over, and Hamas launched a bloody coup in 2007 and threw the P.A. out of Gaza and off of buildings and rooftops. Hamas has also launched approximately 13,000 rockets at Israel, and has engaged in lethal terrorist attacks. Gaza is also home to many other such organizations, including Islamic Jihad and the PFLP. [all this info can be found in the internal linked articles]

The dangers of unilateralism are immense. The situation in Gaza would probably not be like that had it not been for Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, in which settlers in Gaza and their homes were removed, in the hopes of making peace. This gave rise to Hamas, unfortunately.

Setting unilateral borders stifles peace, rather than promote it. While many doubt that peace will even come in our generations, most of those will say that if it does come (in any generation), it must be through direct negotiations and not unilateral moves and stunts in the U.N.

In the past, Israel gave up the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, not in a unilateral move but rather through direct negotiations and the promies of creating peace between Egypt and Israel (on a side note, it was more of a cold peace, but until today, a bit over 30 years, Egypt has not attacked Israel, and Egypt used to be Israel's biggest rival). Israel is willing to concede land for peace, but not without assurances that Israelis will be safe and that peace will be created (which is made tougher with the fact Hamas was elected in 2006, currently controls Gaza, and mass-murderer Marwan Barghouti was predicted as the winner for leadership in polls [assuming elections were held, which have not been held for years by the Palestinian Authority or Hamas]]. This can only come through direct negotiations.

I hope this clarifies it.

--Activism1234 22:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC) *

I fully agree with what Activism1234 said (especially in regards to the difference in a unilaterally declared state versus a negotiated peace), and I want to add that it was primarily the Palestinians whose actions have been holding back efforts to reach a negotiated peace over the last 20 years, rather than the Israeli actions:

-Before the 1996 Israeli elections, the Palestinians launch a wave of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Arafat fails to stop those attacks, and in response Israelis throw the pro-peace Shimon Peres out of office. -In 2000 and 2001, Israel makes a lot of compromises (dividing Jerusalem, etc.) which previous Israeli leaders (such as Rabin) said that Israel should never make, even for a final peace treaty. The Palestinians refuse to make a counter-offer in 2000, and also refuse to give up their demands for a right of return to Israel proper and for sole Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount, which is an extremely holy site to Jews as well. Also, as a "reward" for Israel making huge concessions, Palestinians launch the Second Intifada. -In 2006, Palestinians elect the terrorist organization Hamas, which further reduces the hope of peace in the region. -In 2009, once Benjamin Netanyahu becomes Israeli Prime Minister again and announces his support for a Palestinian state, Palestinians refuse to negotiate with him until they get an absolute, no-exceptions settlement freeze. Netanyahu implements a settlement freeze for 10 months (albeit not an absolute one), and the Palestinians still refuse to enter direct negotiations with Israel until the settlement freeze almost expired. The 2009-2010 Israeli settlement freeze was the longest in Israeli history, and it's even more surprising that a conservative/rightist-majority Knesset was able to implement it for that long. Once the settlement freeze expired, the Palestinians immediately stopped negotiating with Israel again, without much negotiations being able to occur in the first place. As a result of the Palestinians' intransigence, direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been deadlocked almost continuously over the last 3.5 years now.

In regards to the 2008 Olmert offer, the Palestinians rejected it, but Abbas (unlike Arafat) actually was willing to negotiate further in good faith. It's just that Olmert ran out of time to negotiate a final peace treaty due to him being forced to resign due to the corruption allegations against him.

In regards to Barghouti, I saw those polls showing that he'd win a Fatah/Palestinian leadership race right now. However, as long as he's in prison (and I don't see Netanyahu ever letting him out of prison), I seriously doubt that Israel would allow Barghouti to run in the next Fatah/Palestinian elections.

I hope that my response helped in responding to your question. Futurist110 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Both these responses are in serious need of references. Please add them if you can. Mingmingla (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I added internal links and a few references. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have.--Activism1234 05:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)