Humanities desk
< October 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	November 1 >

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.

October 31

Multi-level political advertising in the US

Having recently moved from Ohio to Virginia's 6th congressional district, I've been surprised to see a new-for-me variation on political signage: the "Trump Pence 2016" signs are familiar, as are the "Hillary Kaine ==>" signs, but a high percentage of the Democratic signs are instead "Hillary Kaine Degner". One can always find unusual signs, many created by the people who own the land where the signs are placed, but these are obviously done by whoever's responsible for creating the Democratic Party signage for this area: I've never before seen ads that advocate both the US House candidate (or anyone else) on the same physical sign as the POTUS/VP candidates, but they're all over the place here. Is this common anywhere else in the USA, or is it merely a local eccentricity here? Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty common, in my own experience (having lived in a few different places); it's just a matter of what signs the congressional or local candidate wants to pay for. It used to be more common, I think, when yard signs and bumper stickers and such were more common, but candidates have figured out that such signs aren't a particularly useful thing to spend money on. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are/were some of the least power hungry absolute monarchs?

Especially from less modern times. Did some stay in power till death without being killed by an enemy? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term you seem to be looking for is benevolent dictatorship - our article lists some examples, but isn't the greatest. See also enlightened absolutism and List of enlightened despots. Matt Deres (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The List of enlightened despots is a horrible article. It does not add anything of value to enlightened absolutism, it has just some dubious opinions, and reddit as a source. Hofhof (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Bear in mind that the papacy has been an absolute monarchy for many centuries of its two-millennium history. I can't speak to which popes were less power-hungry than most (although of course Pope Innocent III wouldn't be one of them), but while there are exceptions such as several who reigned during the Saeculum obscurum, most popes have died in office, in a non-murderous fashion. Aside from martyrs, the last of whom died in the seventh century, the List of murdered popes includes only ten names, and aside from noting the allegations surrounding the 1978 death of John Paul I, the most recent allegedly murdered pope died in 1303. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been absolute monarchs who have (without a revolution forcing their hand) given up powers. Alexander II of Russia might be a good example - he emancipated the serfs, he reconvened the Diet of Finland, and he attempted to create a proper constitution for Russia. At the same time though, he did come down brutally on uprisings in Poland-Lithuania. Alexander II was assassinated in 1881 by the revolutionary socialist group Narodnaya Volya. Smurrayinchester 10:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history of India affords several examples: Samudragupta, Harsha, Akbar and especially Ashoka, who, according to Buddhist legend, started out very badly but became a benevolent ruler and a unique (or at least very rare) example of a ruler who renounced war as a means of policy. Basemetal 11:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renouncing war? That's incredible. Even Popes didn't do that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is in Rock Edict 13, one of his major edicts, a place where he says something like "Victory by Dharma is the highest victory" (as opposed to military victory). There are other places where he criticizes the desire for (military) glory, etc. And historically there is no doubt that, after the Kalinga war, he never waged war again. You can find the text of all of Ashoka's edicts on the net in numerous places. Also of interest are the WP articles about his edicts among which are Edicts of Ashoka, List of Edicts of Ashoka and others, some of which give summaries of the various edicts. There is also data about his life that comes not from his edicts but from other sources, especially Buddhist writings. Basemetal 12:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does one quantify "power hunger" as a numerical value for which we can then rank monarchs? --Jayron 32 12:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, for modern-day absolute monarchies, Freedom House reports and ratings are a reasonable (though not entirely uncontroversial) source for getting a picture of their relative level of power hunger, particularly when it comes to their rating on "civil liberties" (i.e. non-political rights), or whatever term they use for it. (All absolute monarchies will, by definition, rank extremely poorly on the "political rights" rating). Eliyohub (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civil servants

In the U.K., do civil servants have employment contracts with the crown? What about executive agencies, police and armed forces? Are their employment contracts with the crown or with the organisation itself? 82.132.187.145 (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, civil servants appear not to have employment contracts - "For historical reasons, servants of the Crown are treated in common law as a separate category of employee and are not regarded as having a “contract of service” in the normal sense. The main difference is that theoretically a Crown servant is dismissible at any time at the will of the Crown. However, various aspects of employment legislation have been extended to “Crown employment,” particularly in the areas of employment protection, trade union rights and discrimination. researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03698/SN03698.pdf Wymspen (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what subtle distinction that document is trying to draw there. I suspect they are talking about "contract" in the sense that emphasises "duration" rather than the sense that emphasises "legal relationship", i.e. "I have a 2 year contract" rather than "This document is your contract of employment" - because the government definitely and frequently uses the word "contract" in the latter sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC

As I understand it from the document, and my own knowledge, the argument seems to go like this:

A contract requires an intent to create legal relations;

However, the Crown is (was) immune from suit - so no meaningful legal relations can be created;

Therefore, Crown employment is not a contract (and even if it was, the Civil Servant could not enforce it).

There is then a later point about whether (since the Crown is no longer immune from suit, and so the above does not apply) the contract is a contract "of service", i.e. an employment contract. (In my area of law, this is often contrasted with a contract "for service" - essentially the difference between an employee and a contractor, but I'm not sure if this applies here.) MChesterMC (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP's question: as I understand it (but this is more or less hearsay, as a brief Google search didn't turn up anything definitive to confirm this), there is always an "appointing authority" for each civil service position, which is usually the relevant Secretary or Minister of State, or the Prime Minister for very senior roles. The "appointing authority" hires ("appoints") the person on behalf of the Crown. What I'm not sure about is how the appointing authority for each position is determined, I don't know whether this is set down in legislation, or whether the Civil Service Commission or Minister for the Civil Service just makes it up. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think they do have a written terms of employment and other than very senior roles, appointment is delegated to managers but I'm not sure. 82.132.237.192 (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb question: Who's in charge after a government falls but before the next prime minister?

The old guys? There's no other choice right? If it's so easy to remove a political party from power without replacement that'd be a great time to invade the country if there's really no executives anymore. So why can governments resign? It makes parliaments sound so banana republicy to US ears but of course we had an annual extort minutiae with world recession thing recently so we're even worse. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is always at least a caretaker government in power. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the Privy Council has ultimate executive power, and can keep the government operational (through Orders in Council) without a working cabinet. This would only be used in emergencies (such as in time of war) - normally, the functions of each department are just suspended until the new minister is appointed. Tevildo (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When David Cameron resigned recently, he actually continued to serve as Prime Minister even after announcing his intention: only when the party had appointed a successor did he go to the queen to formally resign, and she then immediately appointed the next person. If the government as a whole fell, the same process would happen: the existing prime minister would continue in a caretaker role either until someone from another party was in a position to form a government, or until there was an election. The convention is that a caretaker in such circumstances just keeps thinks functioning, and would no introduce anything new, or take any major decision except in an emergency. Wymspen (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's difficult to give a general answer encompassing all parliamentary systems, but if we look at the example of the United Kingdom, the executive power can kind of be considered "shared" between Parliament and the monarch, under the fusion of powers. Parliament is formally summoned into being by the Queen-in-Council with a Royal Proclamation (see Dissolution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom). Remember, Parliament has its origin as a body of advisers summoned by the monarch. In extraordinary circumstances where Parliament had been dissolved and it was deemed necessary to call Parliament into session immediately, a proclamation doing so would simply be issued, being considered a legitimate use of the monarch's reserve powers. The monarch formally is the one who appoints Prime Minsters as well, so if the previous Prime Minister was unwilling or unable to serve, the monarch can just pick somebody. The Westminster system is rather more flexible in matters like this due to its reliance on precedent and unwritten conventions, compared to a system like the U.S.'s. Note all the questions on here this year (and every Presidential election year) about various scenarios involving the U.S. Presidential race; there are a number of grey areas in the laws relating to Presidential elections and succession. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reliance of the Westminster system on such matters also occasionally creates problems, c.f. the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, where the dismissal of the Whitlam government was technically de jure legal, but practically de facto not; that is on paper it was fine, but given how the Australian government had always worked prior to that point, it looked shifty as hell. --Jayron 32 13:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a Westminster-derived system, conventions can have actual constitutional effect, so something which is against constitutional convention, even if it is technically in compliance with the words of the constitution, can be unconstitutional. The drafters of the constitution were drafting against the background of the unwritten British constitution, and even today Australia's constitution remains part-written and part-unwritten. I support your implication that all we can say is that it looks dodgy, different people have had different interpretations of whether the dismissal was or was not against the established unwritten constitutional principles as they stood in 1975. But if one's view is that it was against those principles, then it's actually illegal, even if those principles aren't written down in the Constitution Act. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's kinda the point of the problem with unwritten laws, isn't it? If you arrest someone for spitting on the sidewalk, and he says "How would I know it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk?" You can't very well say "It's just not how we do things around here..." Due process says that he has the right to have known, before he actually broke the law, what the law was. Otherwise, you're just making it up as they go along. Or more to the point: How was Kerr supposed to have known (that is, where could he read about it) that what he was about to do was against the law? Where would have been told that his actions were not allowed? --Jayron 32 17:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the view that Australia's constitution is party written and partly unwritten. There's the written bit (the Constitution of Australia), and then there are various unwritten conventions that place limits on how it is exercised and how the governor-general operates. For example, the convention that the GG, in significant matters, acts only upon prime ministerial advice, is and has only ever been a convention. The High Court of Australia would never deign to hear a case concerning the governor-general acting contrary to prime ministerial advice, as Kerr did in 1975 (viz. his seeking of advice from the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, contrary to Whitlam's express disapproval). As far as the High Court is concerned, this is not a constitutional matter, as it does not relate to anything written in the Constitution. The HC judges are as aware as anyone else that these conventions are important to the efficient operation of the system; but they are right in their view that the conventions are not part of the law of the land per se. Law is justiciable; lore is not. That is, there's more to the running of a Westminster parliamentary democracy than whatever is in the written constitution. That would be true in any country, not just Australia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: There are two aspects to this. First, whether or not something is justiciable by the High Court is not the correct yardstick to measure whether something is unconstitutional. The UK Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to rule whether an act of Parliament or a Monarch's exercise of a reserved prerogative is unconstitutional, but if the Queen appointed the leader of a minority party in Parliament to be Prime Minister, that would clearly be unconstitutional. The second aspect is that the Australian High Court has incorporated some of the unwritten rules into their jurisprudence. They interpret the constitution - and read implications both structural and verbal into it - in light of the unwritten principles.

@Jayron's question about Kerr, he should have taken legal advice from people who are there to give that kind of advice, in the same way that the King took legal advice in 1914 and the Queen took legal advice recently when faced with a hung parliament. One controversy surrounding 1975 is that Kerr informally consulted Sir Garfield Barwick, and for some reason no formal advice was ever given by the Solicitor General, though it seems that Whitlam might have played a role in stopping this advice being given. Had Kerr successfully obtained this advice and followed it, I think he could have argued more convincingly that he acted within the constitution.

Australia is a common law country, and the common law is used to having things unwritten or partly written. The fact that the Crimes Act does not define what is a "murder" does not stop "murder" from having a clear meaning (but which is capable of evolving and adapting), the written Constitution is supplemented by conventions, which are capable of evolving and adapting, but which are nevertheless part of what defines the constitution. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PalaceGuard008, I am not an expert on constitutional law, but surely this defines "unconstitutional" quite loosely in the sense of "outside what people are accustomed to accept"? My understanding is that in the UK, the queen can appoint whoever she wants as Prime Minister, from Theresa May to her lady-in-waiting. Sure, doing so would immediately cause a political crisis, since the new Prime Minister would have no ability to participate in the House of Commons and pass laws. But as far as I am aware there is no law obliging her to appoint a specific person as Prime Minister, and I understood that if the political parties in Parliament (for whatever reason) just decided to say "sure, we'll accept that" (let's say that the UK had entered default and the creditors had said that they would only accept a non-political Prime Minister like Mario Monti who would be given a peerage to govern from the House of Lords) then she could do so, no? That would be "unexpected", but not "unconstitutional" in the meaning of the word that (say) Americans are used to. Blythwood (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Constitutional conventions of the United Kingdom. The Cabinet Manual determines who can become prime minister - while it doesn't have the power of full-blooded constitutional law, it is a written document that would be violated by the appointment of anyone other than parliament's consented party leader. (For a real world example of the appointment of a constitutionally invalid prime minster, see Alec Douglas-Home. Given a Conservative Party that was torn between leadership candidates, McMillan recommended the queen appoint Douglas-Home, a Lord. He immediately resigned his peerage and stood for election to Commons in the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election, 1963. A fudge, but one that just about worked. No-one liked Douglas-Home, but he didn't cause a constitutional crisis.) Smurrayinchester 09:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blythwood, Smurrayinchester's example is absolutely a good one. I'm detecting from the discussion above a popular notion of "constitutionality" which is tied to the text of the written part of the constitution. I can see how this would come about in countries (like Australia) where there is a single written Constitution. But it is different from the notion of "constitutionality" in legal theory, which in common law countries is based on a notion of "the constitution" which is wider than the written Constitution (if any). A Mario Monti scenario would only happen in a Westminster democracy if Mr Monti first (or immediately after) ran for parliament and then could show that he commanded the support of a majority of the lower house. The conventions that (i) the Prime Minister must be a member of the Parliament; (ii) the Prime Minister must command confidence in the lower house; and (iii) the Monarch/President/Governor-General cannot themselves maintain a government other than that which commands confidence in the lower house (a principle of responsible government), are all very strong conventions so that there is almost no question that a breach would be unconstitutional, creditors or no creditors - even if these principles are not written down in a statute. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia at least, there's in practice never a break in executive power. As everyone here probably knows the instant a sovereign departs the next-in-line instantly becomes the monarch, so there is never any break in sovereign power. Formally, executive power is vested in the Governor-General. Even if there is a break in Governors-General (for example, because the previous one has died or is on a boat back to England and the new one has not arrived yet), there is always someone with a dormant commission who instantly steps up to become Administrator of the Commonwealth. So there is never a break in formal executive power.

The Governor-General is required to be "advised" by the Federal Executive Council in many matters. Appointments to the Federal Executive Council is for life, so there is always a pool of Executive Councillors who can make up the numbers if for some reason the entire incumbent cabinet is wiped out.

In practice, there is never even any break in Prime Ministers. If a Prime Minister advises the Governor-General to call an election, that previous Prime Minister stays on in a "caretaker mode" until the new Prime Minister is commissioned. Similarly, if a Prime Minister is overthrown by the party room, that Prime Minister stays on until the new Prime Minister is sworn in. Even if the Prime Minister suddenly dies or goes missing while swimming, the Governor-General will as soon as possible appoint a temporary replacement (usually the deputy), until a new Prime Minister is chosen by a majority of the House. In all of these cases, the caretaker or temporary Prime Minister is meant to keep the country running for as long as it takes to find the new Prime Minister. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palaceguard008, I want to put something about Blythwood's default scenario. I just want to make it clear that "commanding the confidence of the lower house" and "being the leader of the largest party in the lower house" do not need to be identical. If the UK did fall into default, or some other crisis hit it, it may well be possible that a majority of the lower house accept someone other than the leader of the largest party (or rather, in the UK context, either of the two largest parties) to become prime minister. Something of this sort happened in Israel (admittedly a different political system) back in the Israeli legislative election, 2009. Kadima won the most seats, but Likud had more allies overall in parliament. So Likud got to be the party to form government, even though it itself held one less seat than Kadima. Similarly, if the Liberal Democrats in the UK won enough seats to make them a significant third party, and attempted to drive a hard bargain, they might be able to bargain with their coalition partner for a rotating prime ministership. (Israel has definitely had "rotating prime ministership" deals when the two biggest parties are identical or near-identical in size, and a national crisis strikes which forces them into a Grand Coalition - I think this happened back in the 1960s in the lead-up to the Six-Day War), I don't see why in theory, a similar deal in the UK would be unconstitutional. Peter Slipper got to be speaker in Australia in a Hung Parliament, and whilst it was a clever piece of political gamesmanship, I see nothing unconstitutional about the Gillard government giving him the post, even though he was an independent (precisely why he made a good speaker, enforcing the rules firmly on both sides of the house). I think Blythwood is almost right. The Prime Minister must be a member of parliament, but if for whatever reason, a majority of parliament says "sure, we'll acccept him / her" (meaning they command the confidence of the lower house), which party they come from is irrelevant, isn't it? Couldn't they be an independent, for that matter? It's an unlikely scenario, (barring some sort of crisis) but I don't see anything unconstitutional about it. Do you? Once Alec Douglas-Home became a member of the lower house, how is it unconstitutional to make him prime minister if he enjoys the confidence of the house, regardless of his party affiliation? ugh, the signbot is malfunctioning again 110.140.69.137 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

110.140.69.137, I think it is clear that the strict rule is "commanding the confidence of the lower house", rather than "being leader of a party that holds the majority of seats in the lower house". The most common illustration of this distinction is minority governments. A party that holds less than half the seats but that can rely on sufficient other members for confidence (and/or supply) for the time being will be entitled to form government for the time being. Similarly if a majority of the lower house give confidence to an independent candidate I don't see why that would be unconstitutional.

There is no distinction between the two formulations in a situation where there is a majority governing party or formal coalition, but I agree that this is often not the norm even in many Westminster-style parliamentary democracies. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese immigration and other immigrants to the nations

My cousin and I were having an argument about why Chinese barely come to UK and a lot of them come to Canada for immigration. I told him that there was a BBC article, which I think it is gone, that said Chinese people go to Canada and not UK because of land size. He didn't believe it. He said (meaning my cousin) said why not? A lot of South Asians go to UK, a lot of Algerians, Francophonie Africans, Moroccans, Tunisians and Vietnamese come to France, and Arabs come to Libya. My question is that how can I prove him wrong? how can I prove that Indonesians don't go to Netherlands despite being a former colony of Indonesia, Syrians don't go to France despite being a former colony of France; Congolese, Rwandans, and Burundians don't go to Belgium despite being a former colony of that and etc? Donmust90 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you say Indonesians don't go to the Netherlands. Our article Indonesians says there are about 1.8 million Indonesians in the Netherlands, and our article Indo people says there are 431,000 mixed Dutch-Indonesian people in the Netherlands. That's significantly more even than the number of Canadian Chinese.

Most former colonial powers have a lot of immigrants from their colonial empire, although specific patterns of immigration differ depending on the extent of historical cultural interaction between the countries, the colonising country's historical immigration policies, and more recent events post-decolonisation. Nevertheless, colonial history is one factor that helps to explain, for example, why there are more Vietnamese restaurants in Paris' Chinatown than London's. It also helps to explain why the UK's ethnically Chinese population is (or was, until recent decades) dominated by immigrants from Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong and their descendants, rather than those from mainland China. I think you need to rethink your premise if you want to prove your cousin wrong. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See History of Chinese immigration to Canada and History of Chinese immigration to the United Kingdom for background as to how each group came to their respective countries. As far as Syria vs. Algeria in France, part of the issue is that Syria was never part of France. It had a very short history as a League of Nations Mandate (see French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon) and a Mandate is not really a colony; it was always set up as a temporary situation to allow for Syrian self-government once they could be so organized, in response to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the 1920s. On the other hand, Algeria was France from 1848 until 1962. And by that, I don't mean a colony, or a dominion, or a semi-autonomous region; legally, practically, and literally Algeria was as much a part of France as was Provence and Brittany and Normandy were. That's why you find a lot of Algerian people in France; because from 1848-1962, the Algerians were French people. And visa-versa. Until they were driven out in the 1960s, there were also a lot of Metropolitan French who had moved to Algeria as well, see Pied-noir, of whom Albert Camus is perhaps the most famous. --Jayron 32 15:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for 19th C. artist

Looking for poss. 19th C. artist/sculpture Franz Waager and bio. information.Nishnawbe (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find Franz Waager - Figures on a Venetian Bridge. Alansplodge (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human population 2^33; when will this be true??

This is an interesting question for reasons related to the following problem:

Let's assume that there was just one vampire at any time in history. To stay alive, a vampire must bite one person a week, and then the person being bitten also becomes a vampire. How many vampires would there be after 33 weeks?? This problem is an easy way to show that vampires never did exist. Georgia guy (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vampires realize they might be hunted if they kill humans so they drink animal blood instead. They realize a population explosion of vampire animals would not be keeping a low profile so they bite animals in north-facing caves at dawn and incinerate the evidence by throwing them into the sunlight. Or they keep livestock for their blood and ensure a secure diet. Since they get the blood with a knife instead of their teeth they don't have to imprison vampire livestock that's much stronger than when it was alive. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They could also start biting each other. Who's to say that a twice bitten vampire necessarily experiences any inconvenience? Two vampires biting each other in a cave could survive for ever. They could even have fun that way, or at least while away the time. But seriously, the OP's argument is hardly a proof there can be no vampires. It is just a proof that vampire population cannot explode exponentially indefinitely, but that's true for any, er, life form, since any life form needs some resource to stay alive. There is always some limit since on a finite planet resources are limited. With that "proof" you could easily "show" there can be no vampire bats, or lions, or ants, or bacteria. Basemetal 16:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the part of my argument that the people being bitten become vampires after being bitten. Georgia guy (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The biting vampire just has to kill its victim afterwards (using a suitable method for killing vampires, e.g. decapitation, staking, etc), to prevent them rising and becoming competition. Iapetus (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does that change anything? Basemetal 16:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This property of vampires is not shared by the animals you're talking about; the animals they bite stay the same species. Georgia guy (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy is not exact in every respect, but that difference does not change the fact that with a limit amount of resource there will always be a check on growth without that being a proof that life form can not exist in the first place. In the vampire model a vampire is "born" when a human is bitten and becomes a vampire. That's no different than any life form being born. The fact that that vampire used to be a human is completely immaterial. From that point on there is no difference in the model between mosquitoes and vampires, or generally any life form that is born and needs resources to survive. The fact that those resources are limited and so that the growth of the life form is checked by the availability of resources does not by itself mean that life form could not exist. If that's not clear how about this: suppose that all the people the original vampire bites are idiots who turn into incompetent vampires who are not able to find anyone to bite and so they die. So the original vampire stays alone. He keeps biting people. He survives. But all the new vampires just die because they are too dumb to find someone to bite. Does that prove that original vampire cannot exist? Btw, I'm not arguing for the existence of vampires. I'm just saying that your argument for their non-existence is not valid. Basemetal 17:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, Vampires would still be subject to the same properties that govern normal population dynamics, specifically resource availability. Not EVERY Vampire will get enough blood to thrive; some will starve to death. There's a classic problem of looking at the gestation period of flies, and then calculating how long it would take for the mass of flies to exceed the mass of the Earth. It's a shockingly short amount of time, and is the sort of reductio ad absurdum argument to show that there is more to population dynamics than simply births. --Jayron 32 17:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I got this by reading a Childcraft book called "Mathemagic", the 1989 edition. Does Childcraft lie a lot?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is Childcraft's proof there can be no vampires, then I would return the book and ask for a refund. Basemetal 17:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Replace Vampires with <random life form> In order to exist <random life form> must reproduce. Assuming that <random life form> produces "X" offspring in each <random time period>, then after "Z" time periods there should be X^Z <random life forms>. Since I don't see X^Z <random life forms> all around me, then <random life form> cannot exist. It may be sound math, but it's bullshit logic. --Jayron 32 17:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the Van Helsing cartel needs to maintain strict discipline in its ranks to avoid overharvesting. Each stake brings immediate cash rewards from frightened peasants, but if hunters were allowed to stake vamps indiscriminately, their industry would collapse in months. There are also marketing issues with allowing the number of vamps to grow too large, since there are only a few wealthy burghers with budgets available to pay suitable commissions - meaning that allowing the number of vampires to double would mean receiving only half as much per stake. A solution reconcile these pressures, resembling those favored by fishermen and whalers today, is to set up a nature preserve in Transylvania where the vampires can breed to high numbers; then hunt those who stray into other territories, emphasizing to the wealthy patrons of those realms how rare and dangerous a resource these vampires are in order to command the highest price. But unlike with fishermen, it is possible for the Van Helsings to coordinate with the vampire royalty back in the preserve; they understand that by going off-reservation to bite people in particular cities at particular times (then returning safely to the fold after planting their seed), they can command a certain personal leniency when time comes to cull excessive populations in the reserve. In this way the Van Helsings are always right on the spot to deal with a vampire scourge whenever it appears in a city where they had been only rumors and legends, forestalling any hope for competition without even needing to resort to unpleasantness with a crossbow. Wnt (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting - as our article at vampire does - that the question is nonsensical (the original formulation was once per month) because people bitten by vampires do not automatically become vampires, either according to folklore or standard fictional representations. In the novel, Dracula, Lucy Westenra only becomes a vampire after multiple feedings - and feeding on Dracula's blood. Mina Murray, despite being bitten and also partaking of Dracula's blood, does not do so to the extent that she becomes a vampire (though the novel makes it clear that she is nearly there by the end). Matt Deres (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This actually makes Basemetal's idea so much more plausible and funny. I am now imagining young vampires biting people indiscriminately, making no attempts to cover their tracks, or even do it properly to sire others (since the pop-culture version is quite simplified), and then being surprised when they get staked without contributing to the population! Double sharp (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, given that there is not exactly a sample of "real" vampires to compare against, who's to say that any of the fictional possibilities are any more valid than the others? I'd probably just stick to whatever the OP tells us in his formulation, while recognising that this may not apply to the more classical formulations, not that it actually increases the nonexistent risks at all. Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the modelling takes into account the implications of a vampire biting someone who has silver in the fillings of their teeth or happens to be wearing any silver jewellery at the time of being bitten, or, and this is the most fundamental of all, those who are bitten, don't realise they are now vampires or even those who (like most of the members of my family*) aren't well up on vampire memes and therefore wander out into the sunshine. All of which must surely serve to keep the vampiric community numbers low, almost to the point of being endangered. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC) * I plan to run a short lecture series for my family to ensure they are properly prepared for vampire, zombie, were and other, similar problems as they are dangerously ignorant of the dangers of apocalyptic horror memes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here [1] is some slightly more sophisticated modeling of vampire population dynamics. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This question is especially funny to me because, while conversing with Basemetal on my talk page just a few weeks ago, I mentioned the population dynamics of Madoka. Reality is getting too crowded, indeed. (Also, I find it says a lot about ourselves that we haven't actually answered the title question of when the human population could be reasonably expected to reach 8.6 billion.) Double sharp (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classic lighthouse question

As rare as it is for it to be worth reading, the Refdesk talk page just clued me in on a service called ASK NYPL, which allows people to call in and get answers to questions might like the Wikipedia Refdesk, but by professionals.

One of their classic stumper questions was:^[2]

I am from Wilmington, North Carolina, and my daddy owns the second oldest lighthouse in the country. Where can I sell it?
NP Jan 9, 1961

Now we have easy searches, and Wikipedia, and so I can see that Bald Head Light is "the oldest lighthouse in North Carolina", built in 1817 (replacing a first attempt that suffered erosion in 1794). By a process of logic similar to one of those questions in a riddle book, I suppose it is not the oldest lighthouse in the United States, and if the oldest lighthouse were in North Carolina then this would be the second oldest lighthouse in NC, therefore... this must be the second oldest lighthouse in the United States, unless the caller was saying something false. Our list of lighthouses in the United States list several older lighthouses in New England, though there some have xxxx/yyyy dates that have xxxx older. So I'll assume the question is genuine, but it would be nice to have a source so that we can put in the article that Bald Head Light is, by any definition or twist of logic, the second-oldest in the U.S., if true.

The other question is ... where (or did) they sell the lighthouse? Our article says the lighthouse was decommissioned in 1958 so it seems quite plausible it could have been up for sale in 1961. Can we get a source on how the transfers took place? Was it first auctioned off to the daddy before he went to resell it? It was since put on a register of historic places in 1975 and restored. How much can we figure out? Wnt (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have jumped to conclusions not supported by the original question. There is nothing to indicate that the lighthouse concerned is in North Carolina, and nor is it absolutely necessary that the country it is in be the USA. Wymspen (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that jumping to the conclusion that it is in the USA is a reasonable jump, as both the question asker and the audience of the question would have been Americans, so "In the country..." is, by context, implicitly the USA, and obviously not any other country. However, your other point is valid: His father may not have owned Bald Head Light, but some other light house. He never mentions Bald Head Light at all. I don't know if the situation was the same in 1961 as it is today, but today this list notes that the oldest lighthouse is Sandy Hook Light. From that article, it seems like today Boston Light is the second oldest in the U.S., and the Wikipedia article confirms this; though both Sandy Hook and Boston are qualified as "working" light houses, and the 1961 question does not specific "working". --Jayron 32 18:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it wouldn't have been Boston Light or any working lighthouse, as This article on the history of Boston Light indicates that in 1932, the Coast Guard nationalized all of the nation's working light houses, presumably by a form of eminent domain. The 1961 claim must have been, at that point, a privately owned non-functioning light house. --Jayron 32 18:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list of unmaintained light houses from 1993 may also be useful. --Jayron 32 18:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of those, the New Point Comfort lighthouse was from 1806, which seems relevant; the others are more recent. As for the North Carolina assumption, what I actually searched for was a lighthouse in Wilmington, NC, and when I saw that the approach to Wilmington had the oldest lighthouse in NC it seemed like a fair assumption. But no, it's not guaranteed to be right. I also assumed the oldest lighthouse standing now is the same as in 1961, which is even more dubious, come to think of it... Wnt (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being obtuse in thinking that since it's the questioners' daddy that owns the lighthouse, the answer is that the questioner can't sell it at all, as it isn't his? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archdeacon George Mason

Who was Archdeacon George Mason? He was in Hawaii during the 1860s. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was a priest in the Anglican Communion who served under Thomas Nettleship Staley, the first Bishop of Hawaii. Mason features in Staley's memoir Five Years' Church Work in the Kingdom of Hawaii' (1868). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other later biographical information about him that gives his lifespan, time in Hawaii and what he did there? He helped found St. Alban's College or the modern ʻIolani School.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can find is reference to "George Mason, Priest and Schoolmaster" in the Britisih Columbia Historical Quarterly XV (1951). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: Much to my surprise and by a lot of luck, I found Britisih Columbia Historical Quarterly for Jan-Apr 1951 which has a detailed biography starting on page 47 and even a photograph on the preceding page. Google eventually led me to the May-July issue, so I tried changing the last digit in the URL from 2 to 1 and bingo! Alansplodge (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo, Alan. When I dug up the mention of the biographical article yesterday, I didn't think it would be quite so dull, but each to their own. The author, historian Andrew Forest Muir, left papers at Rice University [3], where it's possible there's more on Father Mason, as Muir refers to him. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling him Father Mason indicates that (like Staley) he was an Anglo-Catholic. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this article calls him a "Tractarian" which was the term used in those days. I thought it was quite amusing that, fuelled by missionary zeal, he and his family rushed off from Plymouth to Hawaii without paying their unfortunate maid. Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that Mason and Staley were about as High Church as possible. The person I'd like to hear about is the governess who went out with the family at the beginning of their adventure. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the return to Catholic ritual within Anglicanism was highly controversial at that time and reading the Muir account above, it seems that the mainstream English Anglicans already in Hawaii ganged-up with the Calvinists to make Staley's life as difficult as possible. Staley didn't help himself by calling his new diocese "The Reformed Catholic Church". I can't help thinking that perhaps Staley was sent to Hawaii so that he would be as far away from England as possible. Alansplodge (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]