Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 December 9

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.

December 9

Bengali folklore

You know how Punjabi folklore has the famous Heer Ranjha and Sohni Mahiwal. Does Bengali folklore has famous folktale has like Heer Ranjha? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.143 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

1

Apart from being the birth of Jesus, what happened in 1 that made it the first year of the Common Era? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh... that's exactly why it was made the year 1: Annunciation Day was assigned to the Vernal Equinox (which was then March 25) and Christmas Day was assigned to the Winter Solstice (then December 25). The calendar was reworked from the Roman calendar whose basis was the presumed beginning of the Roman Empire. It was also an estimate, as scholars now reckon Jesus to have been born maybe 4 or 5 B.C. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Has it been nailed down that tightly these days? ~10 years ago I remember my college Historical Jesus textbooks arguing for a lightly post-1AD time, something between 10 and 30AD. It's interesting to think it's swung back the other way, and has been so narrowly confined given the source material. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it couldn't have been later than 4 BC, since Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and he had to have lived several months beyond when Jesus was born, if there is any historiocity of the biblical accounts. So that sort of sets a final limit on when Jesus was born. Luke assigns the date of Jesus's birth to the "Days of Caesar Augustus" (Luke 2:1) and his baptism, generally taken to be at age about 30, to "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1), so if those dates are to be believed, then the absolute latest Jesus would have been born would be 14 AD, but that would mean that the Herod mentioned in all of the gospels was Herod Antipas and not Herod the Great; however when mentioned Antipas is usually named as distinctive from his father. Tiberius's 15th year would have been AD 29, which would have made Jesus born very close to 1 AD should we assume him to be baptised at 30; but he could have been baptised at age 27 or 33 or somewhere else in that time frame. It's the date of Herod the Great's death that sets the most reliable date of Jesus' birth at 4 BC. --Jayron32 04:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the while the Gospels of Matthew and Luke make Jesus' birth contemporary with Herod the Great - deceased in 4 BCE/BC - Luke also make him contemporary with the Roman Census of Quirinius which is dated to 6 or 7 CE/AD (although the alleged procedure of having everyone return to their place of ancestral origins seems to be otherwise unattested, impractical and unlikely). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that we have no idea on which date Jesus was born on, but it almost certainly was NOT December 25th, or any other time in the winter. Even using only the bible's own accounts make that highly unlikely, since the descriptions of the shepards who first receive news of Jesus's birth make it more likely that Jesus was born in the springtime. --Jayron32 05:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jesus was most likely born in the springtime. Ironically enough, he was actually born sometime around Easter. In Constantine's time, they associated the Christian God with the pagan sun god (which is not too much of a stretch), and they assigned (as I put it earlier) the winter solstice as His birthdate. Exactly 9 months earlier, of course, was Annunciation Day, neatly connecting Mary's "fertility" with the vernal equinox. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Members of the LDS (Mormon) Church traditionally believe that Jesus was born on April 6, thanks largely to this verse in the Doctrine and Covenants. We still celebrate Christmas on December 25, though. Kingsfold (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dionysius Exiguus (who established the current A.D. year numbering epoch) seems to have thought that the birth of Jesus happened on Dec. 25th in the year 1 B.C. (technically a few days before January 1st, 1 A.D.). AnonMoos (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So I see. As I understand it, in the "old style" the year actually began on March 25. So according to that theory, the first anniversary of the Annunciation Day would have been the first day of 1 A.D. If D.E. could be around today, he would probably argue that the celebration of Jesus' birth in genereal is more important than the specific date (especially as he got it wrong). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for most of history, and for most Christians, Jesus's birth was NOT all that important of a date. Under the Julian Calendar, year 1 was designed to have started on March 25, which would have been the date of Jesus's conception (i.e. when the Virgin Mary became pregnant). The most important date in the Christian year is, of course, Easter. --Jayron32 17:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's fairly confusing. One source says Jesus was reckoned to have been born in 1 A.D. and another says 1 B.C.??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving from the above details back to the OP's specific query, the Before Common Era/Common Era system seems to have been introduced as a reworking of the Christian-specific BC/AD system:

1. to avoid the problems with the uncertainty over the actual (if real) birth year of Jesus while avoiding the obvious paradoxes of saying things like "Jesus was born in 4BC";
2. to avoid imposing an explicitly Christian-derived system on the large proportion of the world that is non-Christian and indifferent to or, for historical reasons, less than sympathetic to Christianity;
3. to avoid the huge upheavel and confusion that would be caused by adopting a different origin year from that in wide use.

One often sees pro-BC/AD advocates (curiously, almost always Christians ;-)) railing against this "modern, Christian-attacking" BCE/CE alternative, but I recall that most of my History textbooks back in the late 1960's, at a school run by the christian Methodist Foundation, used BCE/CE. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of BC/AD BCE/CE... I recall reading a proposal in an old Discover magazine that said the only thing that made sense was to adopt some non-culturally-dependent dating system. The one the writer advocated was the beginning of the Holocene, about 11,700 years ago. That also had the benefit (besides being culture-neutral) of essentially being before anything else we'd ever have real dates for (meaning that no written records have survived so long), so that when it came to dealing with human-based activities, you'd never need to use a negative number again. Of course, even if everyone went for that kind of thing, you'd still need to work out what day it was... :) Matt Deres (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cruel and unusual punishment

When convicted rapists, murderers of children, people who committed horrible crimes, try to delay their executions claiming that the method of their executions (lethal injection, electric chair, gas chamber) is cruel and unusual punishment, isn't that contradictory? can't the Justice overturn that appeal, just to respect the victim's family?. --190.50.108.253 (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The perpetrators' lawyers' job is to do what they can. It's also important to understand that the laws are not written to appease the victims, but to deal with the perps. The "cruel and unusual punishment" argument doesn't really work for capital punishment in the USA. Notice it says "AND" not "OR". Capital punishment is not necessarily legally regard as unusual, nor even necessarily as cruel, especially with lethal injection now the preferred option. If some state were to decide to execute by dropping the perp into a tank of piranhas, the lawyers would have a better case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Believe me Bugs, some would deserve that. --190.50.108.253 (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. McVeigh comes to mind, for example. But, again, the purpose of capital punishment is not revenge primarily, it's permanent removal from society. It used to be that once the perp was found guilty, he was done away with in fairly short order. The dragged-out appeals process now makes capital punishment probably less cost-effective than lifelong confinement. However, sometimes the cost is worth it, for example to finally see an evil character like John Wayne Gacy get fried. Closure is good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he was not fried, Ted Bundy was fried. --190.50.108.253 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking metaphorically. :) Yes, Bundy was fried. Gacy was injected. I learned a bit about executions when Saddam was strung up a few years ago. Hanging is actually a more humane and faster method than almost anything. It just sounds grim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's of course presuming we're talking about the long (or measured) drop method, which several countries use (including Iraq) instead of the short drop or simple suspension which some countries do use (notably Iran) although even then many won't agree. Even with the measured drop method, it can go wrong although the effect of that is probably easier to see then say with some of the things that can go wrong with the lethal injection. The drop being too long is of course probably a better result then it being too short even if it seems gruesome. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally in reply to the original question, in many countries the rights of all people, including convicted criminals are important and denying them their rights simply to respect the victims family is unlikely to be acceptable. One of the reasons why these issues come up in death penalty cases is because of the urgency. Once you've carried out the death penalty, it's too late to reverse any decision. Appeals are not that uncommon in other cases too but there's less urgency there since while you can't give the person back the years they spend in prison, you can release them and given them compensation to try and make up for it so the decision is not permanent as such (in some cases the person may of course die in prison particularly if they're old).

Further in reply to the OP, I'm not sure if you're aware of this but at mention in our article, the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution bans "Cruel and unusual punishment" and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bans "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" so whether the death penaly is a cruel and unusual punishment is an important point in a number of countries including the US. It's not therefore contradictory to argue that the death penalty is a "cruel and unusual punishment". While the method does come in to it and is usually the primary issue in the US, for some abolitionists the idea of a death penalty itself is cruel and unusual, no matter how humanely and painfree it is carried out. In the US, the general current view by the courts is it is not, in Europe there's more support AFAIK for the idea it is. Whether you agree with this view isn't of course an issue suitable for discussion on the RD.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In Europe, the right to not be executed is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which gained the full force of law eight days ago. Algebraist 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To the OP- there is nothing contradictory in protecting the criminal from cruelty. The state's position is that nobody should be treated cruelly and unusually. That is why the criminal is punished (because he has violated the state's laws), and also why the criminal is protected from cruel and unusual punishment. To say "the criminal treated his victim cruelly, so we should treat him cruelly" would be contradictory. Staecker (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Pretty much every advancement in law since the Code of Hammurabi has rejected this "Eye for an Eye" type of revenge. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Eye for an eye, aka "Lex talionis", remember that this legal/moral formula is often thought to have been introduced in order to limit revenge/punishment to "proportionate" responses rather than more savage ones (such as death as a punishment for causing injury). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone wanted to commit murder and get free room and board for life, certainly Europe would be the place to go. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically that is also true for the US as well.--Saddhiyama (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not entirely free - you are usually required to do some kind of work. In the UK, at least, they have to pay you for that work, but they don't pay you very much. But yes, modern prisoners do have it pretty good. You could commit the murder in a US state that doesn't have the death penalty if you wanted, of course. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the European position is that killing is morally wrong, period, and that two wrongs don't make a right. Also, killing isn't the best way for the state to prevent killing unless there is no other option, as is the case in defensive warfare. Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is one of many arguments against the death penalty. Others include the fact that you can't fix miscarriages of justice if you have already killed the wrong person and the fact that, at least for some people, life in prison is more of a punishment than death - if you kill someone they don't suffer for long. There are also objections to the US system because it results in people spending decades on death row, which some people see as cruel and unusual in itself. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

One more thing about the "victim's family" -- they play little part in the proceedings; a criminal case is not "Victim's Family vs. Accused Murderer", but "The State vs. Accused Murderer". There's likely a good reason for this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia & New Zealand Navy against Japanese Whaling?

The Japanese whalers are in Australian water which is its Exclusive Economic Zone. Why Australia and New Zealand aren't sending their navy and coast guards to stop the Japanese whalers? The Japanese whalers would still hunt for whales despite of the anti-whaling protests. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's generally bad form to bomb unarmed vessels out of the water, regardless of what they are doing there. --Jayron32 04:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That'd be rather drastic. 174.114.236.41 was probably thinking of arresting the crews, impounding the boats, etc. Or perhaps just escorting them back to Japanese waters (under threat of the arresting and the impounding, etc.) APL (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. The waters are only in Australia's EEZ because of its claims to Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty System and the positions of all governments who do not have claims basically mean that nobody recognises any soverign claim over Antarctica. Basically, Australia says "that's Australian waters" and Japan says "no its not". Hell, some greenies got a court injunction against the whalers but even the judge giving it to them said that there was no possibility of its enforcement because of the state of international law regarding Antarctica. If it was in undisputed Australian waters the government would (and regularly does....especially to Indonesian fishing vessels) board and confiscate the vessel.203.217.43.224 (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Teaching technique for young adults

Is there a teaching technique, especially for higher education students, where a game is involved that in order to accomplish the goal the process teaches the subject? What are these type of techniques called? Can you give examples?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Edutainment and Educational game should have some useful info. --Pleasantman (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a game called "The Regeneration Game" which was produced by NIACE in the UK, which aimed to increase participants awareness of the issues around urban and rural regeneration. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Randy Pausch, the American professor of computer science and human-computer interaction who achieved worldwide fame with "The Last Lecture: Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams" describes in that lecture this very technique. He calls it a "head fake", and designed Alice (software) to teach kids how to program without them realising that that was what they were learning. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I get it and have a better understanding on this concept. Apparently Aesop's Fables and Parables of Jesus fit this category? Would Paradox (literature) fit this concept? And Allegory of the Cave by Plato?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I always think of these techniques as Karate Kid teaching. Just like Mr. Miyagi teaches Daniel fighting techniques without doing it overtly, but by trickeration, so don't these teaching techniques. They work pretty well for kids, but I should note that as an adult, I always tend to see beyond them, kind of like seeing the man behind the curtain who is making the Wizard of Oz talk, so I am more annoyed when someone tries them on me. I find that adults learn better when you "give it to them straight", but that kids do respond well to this sort of teaching. --Jayron32 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So you were able to see right through Plato: The Allegory of the Cave, from The Republic?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dante's Divine Comedy seems to be a figurative mode of representation conveying meanings other than the literal. According to the article it seems to convey certain levels of meaning: the historical, the moral, the literal, and the anagogical. This to me seems to be "behind the scenes" lessons intended for adults. You can see through the story?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

early Congolese bishop

In A Brief History of the Human Race (New York, 2003, p. 313), Michael Cook writes that a Congolese king sent some of his people to be educated in Europe, of whom "one in due course was made a titular bishop by a reluctant pope." The reference is not documented. Can anyone tell me the bishop's name? Thank you. -- --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a time period? Christianity is 2000 years old or so, so it would be much easier if we knew roughly when this event occured. --Jayron32 17:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This was the Kingdom of Kongo in the sixteenth century. Afonso I of Kongo is the king in question. "Part of the establishment of this church was the creation of a strong priesthood and to this end Afonso's son Henrique was sent to Europe to be educated. Henrique became an ordained priest and in 1518 was named as bishop of Utica (a North African diocese in the hands of Muslims). He returned to Kongo in the early 1520s to run Kongo's new church. He died in 1531 as he was about to go to Europe for the Council of Trent." Adam Bishop (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I'm impressed with the quickness of this response and with the article "Roman Catholic Church in Kongo"" to which it led me. Thanks! --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! There was only a small time period in which there was a kingdom in the Congo that was in contact with Europeans, it wasn't too hard to find. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pompey

In the article on section "Caesar and the First Triumvirate" it says he was overseer of Rome's grain supply in 59 BC during his consulship. Later in 55 BC he obtained another consulship (through political corruption). Did he then have another governorship control as overseer of Rome's grain supply during this second consulship?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Was this in 55 BC the First Triumvirate or the Second Triumvirate?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

::I assume this was during his second political alliance with Crassus that he had governorship of Hispania Ulterior that was in absentia.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently his very first control of Rome's grain supply was in 82 BC when he secured Sicily?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing questions.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Critisms of John Kufuor

Is there any oppositions and concerns about John Kufuor? I originally thought John Kufuor waa an excelent leader until I visit my old high school and the principal told me John Kufuor was on the news all the times and they have been concerns about his leadership.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any leader who manages not to raise concerns? Government is the art of balancing resources and priorities. Even for well run governments, those are not things lending themselves to consensus, and that's before we put an ideological overlay on top. That said, I have no knowledge beyond this general observation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The perfect defense against capital punishment?

If someone is accused of a capital crime, the defense attorney, during jury selection, asks each venireman, "Could you ever sentence anyone to death?" If the person answers "yes", the attorney should dismiss him. If the person answers "no", the prosecution can't dismiss him because the prosecuting attorney is required to make his decision before the defense attorney questions the venireman, as well as because of the Supreme Court's decision in Witherspoon v. Illinois. If the jury acquits the defendant, he can't be retried and is thus free to go. If the jury convicts him, they lied during jury selection, meaning that they are guilty of perjury and also that the trial is invalid.

There's got to be some reason why this wouldn't work, otherwise someone would have already thought of this. Why wouldn't this work? ----J4\/4 <talk> 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

They probably aren't allowed to ask that question, especially if the case could lead to capital punishment. They can't just ask any random question, and they can't consciously compose a biased jury. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it the judge who does the sentencing? Also, there are ways of discerning a potential juror's attitude towards various things - particularly, upholding the law whether they agree with that law personally or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In the United States, no, Bugs, the judge doesn't sentence a prisoner to death; in the interest of reducing the capricious and/or random imposition of the death penalty, it is now required to be the jury that sentences, due to Furman v. Georgia. Back to the original question, that's a tactic that doesn't work, because, I believe, each side can strike an unlimited number of potential jurors for reason in the voir dire process, but only a limited number without reason — of course, there is a damn good reason for the "without reason" dismissals, but the attorney doesn't want to tell the judge the reason. The "for reason" dismissals have to be that the attorney has a legitimate concern the juror would not be able to render a fair verdict or sentence under the law. The potential jurors who answer "yes" to your question then the juror is affirming that he/she is able to render a fair verdict under the law, so this would not be a dismissal for cause; it would have to be without cause, and the attorney only gets to do that something like 10 times. Sorry, I've no reference for any of this at the moment; will look later. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Scott Peterson case, which is fairly recent, the jury recommended the death penalty, but the judge made the decision and pronounced sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the judge can't sentence someone to death without that recommendation from the jury. --Tango (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. However, I'm guessing he can reduce the sentence or even vacate the conviction if he thinks the decision is unfair? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he would dismiss the case without letting the jury return a verdict rather than vacate the conviction afterwards, but yes, I think judges can stop juries being overly strict. They just can't require a jury to be stricter. --Tango (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A well known recent case of a judge vacating a conviction after the verdict is the Louise Woodward case. A fictional death penalty one is in Playback (novel). Death-qualified jury may help the OP, usually nowadays the prosecutor has already eliminated the yeses.John Z (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The section on bias in the last article is I think an important point (that I've read discussed before). Also I think you mean the prosecutor has already eliminated the noes. As they have, this of course means that even if the defense were to try it, they would hit their 10 limit without even getting any noes since there are no more noes in the pool. If there were no limit, it would just mean that they run out of candidates since clearly if one is elimnating the noes and the other is eliminating the yeses you're not getting anywhere (well there may be maybes and refuse to answer but the later is almost definitely going to be eliminated and the former probably as well) Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Illegally collecting unemployment in the US

I know someone who is illegally collecting unemployment while she is working 40 hrs a week for a temp agency in CT USA. Will she get caught? I don't think it's fair that my tax dollars are paying for her greed. --JBikeride (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Look up your state's unemployment insurance department phone number and leave an anonymous tip, then. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking this might come under the guidelines of what the reference desk is not or maybe fall under a form of women folk gossip.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

HA HA HA YOU KNOW HOW THOSE WOMEN ARE WITH THEIR GOSSIP AND THEIR UNIMPORTANT CONCERNS. Or, in other words, men and women gossip (although men tend to call it other things, since 'only women gossip'). I have heard at least as many men as women speculate on the employment, situation, etc of people they know.

More specifically to this case, the OP does not say they think the person is illegally collecting unemployment: sounds like they're pretty sure (possibly the person themself said as much). So, it is the case of knowing that a crime has been and is being committed. Whether you report it or not depends on whether you think the world would be improved by people reporting this sort of crime, whether you think the world would be improved by people being prevented from committing this sort of crime, what you think would happen if you didn't, what you think would happen if you did, etc. The OP has asked for help in finding information to allow them to weigh these factors up ("Will she get caught?") and has been given a possible lead to resolve it (By Comet Tuttle). If you have more information that could help them (such as a phone number specifically set up for such things), provide it. If not, don't. 86.166.148.95 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the amount you can draw out of unemployment insurance tied to how much you have contributed to it? After you extract a certain amount (the amount you put in?) you are no longer able to take it out and the UE cheques stop coming. That's when you have to start abusing welfare instead, which is considerably less generous, I believe. So by collecting UE while you're employed you are hurting yourself, as well as doing something illegal, and it probably doesn't make much sense based on that alone (unless you never expect to withdraw your UE contributions). That is my understanding based almost entirely on the episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia entitled "Dennis and Dee Go on Welfare". TastyCakes (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And we haven't even got to all those that work under the table for CASH. THOSE are the ones I would think one should be concerned about as nothing gets reported and they don't even have to pay taxes. How many of those do you think there are in CT USA? I'll guarantee you way more than you can handle. How many of those do you know about? Do you report those? I'll bet not. If you don't know of any, then maybe there isn't any - or is there? Of course there is! Maybe the problem is really a problem of jealousy about one particular individual. Otherwise why not work on all those CASH workers that don't even pay taxes.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that JBikeride should not report a definite crime that he/she happens to know about because, you surmise, he/she may know about other comparable crimes and, you assume, has not reported them, and you feel free on this basis to speculate about what you hypothesize may be JBikeride's "real" motivations? This line of thought can only morph into a discussion, so I think it should go no further. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that JBikeride has brought three crimes to our attention in the last two days (theft, drug peddling and now fraud). Not sure what to make of that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If she is really concerned about her tax dollars I think perhaps her time would be better spent going after the big fish, instead of the little minnows - like those that do not pay their taxes. Many of those would be day laborers working for CASH and many of the self-employed. How about a person that just got layed off and became a real estate agent. S/he could collect umemployment for up to a year and get commission checks at the same time. Since commission checks are not "in the system" as a normal payroll check is, it simply can be cashed and the money disappears. If that person is not honest on their income tax reporting, then they don't have to pay taxes on their commission checks. This could amount to thousands of dollars, maybe even tens-of-thousands of dollars of tax free money - all the while collecting umemployment at the same time. I'm simply not convinced there is a crime here. If that person is working for a temp agency then they are "in the system" and their imcome is reported to the unemployment insurance agency of their local area. This other lady already obviously knows this, since she "supposedly" is collecting unemployment, because of her previous employer reporting. Since she knows how the system works, then why would she collect unemployment AND work for an employer that would report her income? Doesn't make sense! In many states a real estate agent's commission check is not reported to anyone, so it can slip through the system simply by cashing it. So bottomline is if that person is doing as JBikerid is saying, then yes that person will be caught automatically by the local unemployment insurance agency as they are "in the system" and it would show up in the computers automatically with a red flag. I'd worry about the other ones, otherwise I'd mind my own business.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"if that person is doing as JBikerid is saying, then yes that person will be caught automatically by the local unemployment insurance agency as they are "in the system" and it would show up in the computers automatically with a red flag." Hooray! A helpful answer that directly addresses the question the OP asked. 86.166.148.95 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. I appreciate all opinions. In this case, I was just fed up with the boasting this person makes and her weekly drunken binges at the cars an clubs. I was laid off earlier this year (now employed) but I put my EU to good use (rent, food, essentials) and once I was employed again, I did not file for EU again. This person also uses and sells drugs on the side and that's why I might have a nasty taste in my mouth for this person. --JBikeride (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (oops, forgot to sign in)

I'll even go so far to say I do not see any crimes here; theft, drug peddling nor fraud. The only way JBikeride would "know" this for sure is to have seen a unemployment check and a temp agency payroll check showing the same time period. I don't believe she has (I'm calling her bluff!). This would be a good time to speak up and say so, otherwise I'm sticking to my jealousy theory. I don't think leaving an anonymous tip at the state's unemployment insurance department would do any good. Reason being: How many of those do you suppose they get daily? Do you really believe they have the manpower (or woman power) to follow up on all these, where the odds are most will be dead ends because somebody was speculating. Better have better proof that just speculating or else I speculate nothing will happen. Silence now from the original questionaire person means she is just speculationg, purely guessing - most likely because of jealousy. Besides, if the lady is working for a temp agency it probably means she applied there (as well as many other places) for work - a requirement of her state's unemployment insurance department in order to get further unemployment. I'll speculate after she was hired with the temp agency that she then told her unemployment insurance department she got a 40 hour job and then the checks stopped coming to her. I'm speculating this employed lady obviously knows how the system works, while JBikerid does not.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Understand your stance, regardless, someone abusing privlages is not fair to others who need it. I am at a loss at what to do bc the other things I didn't mention was theft, drug use, drug selling, and claiming unemployment. The "proof" I have is that this person told me directly exactly what she was doing and how she could always find ways to get easy money. You might call it jealousy. Myself, I see a person that needs help and really tired of witnessing these crimes, petty and not petty. --JBikeride (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, jealousy. I knew it all along. The other lady is teasing you. Dr. Phil might be able to help. No more advice from me as I won't be able to help you from here. I answered all your questions.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps teasing is not fully the correct word and a better word would be taunt. She knows you have no proof on all these other items you speak of and is taunting you to do something. This then will get you into trouble, which is exactly what she wants. I'd say ignore her, mind your own business, and go onto bigger and better things - or see Dr. Phil. I can not help you more than this other than to say there is easier ways to make money than you are doing - and not break any laws! Try Brian Tracy. His material is at your local library AND I have not connection to him. Just trying to help you.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In answer to the OP's comment I am at a loss at what to do...: This whole thing doesn't make any difference to me since now I am comfortably retired. I'd say get a skilled job. Spend your time learning something of skill that pays well and you like. Don't spend your time on what others are doing or saying - its a waste of time. In your previous reply you say ....someone abusing privlages is not fair to others who need it. It looks like you did not miss out on any of your unemployment - so I don't see your concern. What I see here, besides jealousy, is you wish to get more from the system for yourself. Looks like lazyness to me. You got enough to get you to your next job, didn't you? What's it to you what other's do with their unemployment money, as you do not know for sure what they did with it AND it doesn't make any difference anyway. I was the best in my field and I earned approximately 10 times what others in that field earned. Get skilled, get really really skilled in some field you like - and you will earn plenty. Anyway, that is the advice from an old retiree. The meek shall inherit the earth.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think you should ignore 64's speculation, and leave that anonymous tip, and then don't worry about it anymore. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to say was: The meek shall inherit the earth.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Old English Proverb

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Some quotes from Poor Richard's Almanack:

• Idleness and pride tax with a heavier hand than kings and parliaments.
• Trust thy self, and another shall not betray thee.
• He that is rich need not live sparingly, and he that can live sparingly need not be rich.
• A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one.
• Look before, or you'll find yourself behind.
• Necessity never made a good bargain.
• Keep thy shop, & thy shop will keep thee.
• Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.
• Some are weatherwise, some are otherwise.
• If you know how to spend less than you get, you have the Philosophers-Stone.
• God helps them that help themselves.
• Plough deep, while Sluggards sleep; And you shall have Corn, to sell and to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• He that would live in peace and at ease, must not speak all he knows, nor judge all he sees.

--64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Comet Tuttle. It looks like he has a chip on his shoulder. Ignore his rants. Let's all remind him that this is a reference desk, not a soapbox. --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha, another jealous one. This is way too easy to respond to. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Note that Reticuli88 has to yell to get his message across by talking ONLY in bold. Speak softly, its better heard (not sure who said that). Obviously my message got across, why else did he respond that way. I was suspicious my answers were not going to be totally accepted, so that is why I explained up front: This whole thing doesn't make any difference to me since now I am comfortably retired. One of the reasons for this I believe is because I followed the advice of people like Benjamin Franklin and Brian Tracy (who have excellent reputations for giving outstanding advice to life's problems, like Dr. Phil). I think what applies here is Benjamin Franklin's quote: Look before, or you'll find yourself behind. In other words, look ahead before you do anything or you may find yourself further behind. My advice to JBikeride's problem is to do nothing and it will automatically take care of itself. This was confirmed to be a good reply by 86.166.148.95 above. Now if she takes the advice of Comet Tuttle and Reticuli88 then this is what likely will happen (in my opinion). An "anonymous tip" in all likelihood will be ignored. However, lets assume someone follows up on this from the local unemployment insurance department. Then this "other lady" will be interviewed and the "anonymous tipster" will be talked about. One thing will lead to another and in all likelihood it will be figured out it was JBikeride - or at least her name will be thrown into the hat (consisting of one name). The basic reason for this is: Who else would have a grudge against this "other lady"? Now JBikeride will be red flagged and watched closely. And probably she will have to reply to other "authorities" which will not only take much time, but a bunch of money (something I assume is in short supply). Perhaps she might even have to hire an attorney. Seems like a lot of trouble for just a little jealousy. Or she could do nothing and it automatically takes care of itself. With all this extra time then (if she does nothing), she could study up on Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richard's Almanack) and Brian Tracy (which material can be found in the local library). But then what do I know, for I am now comfortably retired.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to think any other authorities are going to pursue JBikeride for honestly reporting what he/she believes may have been a violation of the law. If fact, if this does happen, since we're apparently talking about the US here, it seems to me JBikeride would have a good chance of persuing this in court and getting a good settlement. I don't know what country you live in but I definitely don't want to live there if authorities redflag and harass you for honestly reporting what you genuinely believe to be a violation of the law. Thankfully that's not what happens in most of the developed world and even in many parts of the developing world except for some exceptions (which usually involve when you are reporting powerful people or companies not minnows as you say). Also if this problem will automatically take care of itself, then the authorities will know of that and they may thank JBikeride for his/her information while informing not to worry because their systems are rigirous enough that it'll be taken care of by itself. I.E. there's still little loss to anyone from reporting it and no cause for concern. I do agree that there's a fair chance nothing will happen from this, but it doesn't mean there's no point reporting it, it's probably better to let the authorities decide that. There's little point worrying so much about such things since unless the authorities are really really dumb, they'll already be aware whether it's something they need to be concerned about and won't expect private citizens to always be aware of such details. It's also not the OP's responsibility to decide who the authorities should pursue. The OP is simply reporting someone they encountered in life, there's no evidence they are even chasing after people to try and find crimes (the fact that the OP apparently knows 3 people committing crimes may say something about the kind of company they hang out with, it doesn't mean they are purposely looking for people committing crimes) and if you feel the authorities should go after the 'big fish' more, then you should tell someone who can do something about that rather then complaining to the OP that the authorities are too busy pursing minnows (although if the authorities in your area are genuinely harassing and redflagging people for honestly reporting what they believe to be violations of the law then I think you have far bigger problems). In other words, I agree with CometTuttle and Retticul88, the OP should just report it, anonymously if they wish, and not worry about it or 64.138 anymore. BTW, please don't accuse people of being 'jealous', that's close to a violation of WP:NPA in my book. P.S. I highly doubt Dr. Phil would encourage people to not honestly report what they genuinely believe to be crimes. Far more likely his advice would be something like mine, CT and R88, i.e. report it and don't worry about it anymore Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm way up there on the left

Wow, sure can tell how young you guys are. As I already pointed out above Benjamin Franklin also said A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one. However I forgot to include in the list Don't throw stones at your neighbours, if your own windows are glass. Sure am scared of your threats. Experience keeps a dear school, yet Fools will learn in no other. The Devil sweetens Poison with Honey. Must go now, there is a really long beach waiting for me....--64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really give a stuff about blockheads or Benjamin Franklin but when you mention 'threats' I presume you're referring to our my mention of our NPA policy. It is a serious policy and people are blocked for violating it, no matter whether they are retired, learned or whatever. And you're not supposed to be scared, you're simply supposed to understand that we have rules here on wikipedia and yes you do have to obey them regardless of what you think of them and one of those rules is you do not personally attack contributors. If you want to civilly disagree with someone or feel that what they're saying is silly or flawed that's fine (well provided it isn't soapboxing etc), but do it without resorting to attacks on someone's character or anything else. If you are unable to do so, then you probably shouldn't be contributing to wikipedia. And frankly, if your recourse in an argument is to attack the person making the argument, that often indicates you have a poor argument in the first poor place and definitely not something I would consider a sign of maturity. As for your glass houses argument, if you feel I have made a personal attack against you, please point out where since although I freely admit I have been close to guilty of it on occasion, I took care here to avoid it. Similarly if you have any other problems with my behaviour you're welcome to discuss it with me (probably best on my talk page) and bring it to an appropriate venue if you don't get a satisfactory outcome. Again I'll freely admit I often make me mistakes but that doesn't preclude me reminding or informing other editors that they're close to crossing the line when I see it, it never does. Sure if another editor continually harasses someone over their poor behaviour when they themselves are often guilty of it people will often look unfavourably on that but you'll find the 'but he/she's doing it too' argument doesn't work very well on wikipedia, at most both people will be blocked or admonished. Part of contributing to wikipedia is learning to accept criticism from people who are not perfect themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, increase in age doesn't always mean increase in wisdom (or EI). 64 should lay off the Dr. Phil shows and the Farmers Alamanac and read about Downing effect and Dunning–Kruger effect and Crank (person) --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome comeback, Reticuli88!!--JBikeride (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor Richard's Almanack not Farmers' Almanac.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2009 (UT

I thought you were at the beach, gramps? --Reticuli88 (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So very very young! Late Children, early Orphans. This grampy is not grumpy.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As Charms are nonsense, Nonsense is a Charm.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Coronation of Richard II of England

Hello, I'd like a bit of information on the coronation of Richard II of England, particularly information on what events would have taken place and what nobles might have been in attendance. I'd also like a bit of information on the appointment of titles to the nobles during the coronation and in what manner this was done. Basically just general information regarding the event, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• There's a lot of useful information in this book. It seems that most of the details of the event come from Thomas Walsingham's Historia Anglicana, so, if you can obtain a translation, that might well answer your questions. Warofdreams talk 03:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Walsingham is available as PDFs here. It might be better to ask on the Richard II talk page, since it's a Featured Article and whoever worked on it probably has access to that information. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You might also take a look at The Last Plantagenets by Thomas B. Costain. If you're into English history, that entire series, starting with The Conquering Family, is well worth reading. They are non-fiction, but written in almost a novelstic style. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Confessing upon hearing Not guilty verdict

Has anyone cofessed to a crime upon hearing "not guilty", sure that double jeopardy means they couldn't be tried again. 92.224.205.128 (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hard telling, but that would be a stupid thing to do, as it would open him up to civil action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be foolish as if they had been declared not guilty they couldn't be tried again anyway, regardless of whether they confessed afterwards or not. Although, if they did confess that may be considered as "new evidence", and therefore the person may be tried again for the same crime, but based on different facts (i.e. their confession). In anycase its hard to know if anyone has ever done that, regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He couldn't be tried for the same crime twice. If he had testified in court and proclaimed his innocence, maybe they could get him for perjury. But regardless of the verdict, if someone confesses to a crime, you can bet there will be someone ready to sue him for damages of some kind. The O.J. case is a close example. He didn't confess overtly, but he managed to be found liable in a wrongful-death suit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand double jeopardy the defendant couldn't be tried twice for the same crime if the prosecution is based on the same set of facts, surely the confession would be considered a "new" fact? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This all depends on the jurisdiction. In the US, I believe double jeopardy is pretty absolute, the prosecution have to get all the evidence in place before they start. In the UK, the law was recently changed so that significant new evidence could allow a new trial. I don't know about other jurisdictions. Whether claiming innocence in court is perjury also depends on the jurisdiction - in some jurisdictions the defendant doesn't have to take the oath (this is related to the right to remain silent, I think) so they can lie as much as they like. --Tango (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If they're not compelled to take the oath, I don't see why any juror would believe them. They cannot be compelled to testify, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lying under oath, even if it's claiming innocence, if untrue, is under the auspices of perjury. The 5th amendment (in the US) doesn't permit you to lie, simply to not testify. I've never heard of permitting someone to testify without taking the oath.

Double Jeopardy (again, I'm talking about the US here) only applies to the particular sovereign. So a state may prosecute for a state crime despite an acquittal in a federal case. There are issues of collateral estoppel that might apply, but those are going to vary quite a bit. As for the constitutional protection, it applies to the sovereign, and multiple prosecutions are possible. Shadowjams (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought new evidence could only exonerate you - that you could not be tried again once found not guilty regardless of the new evidence. By the way what really would happen if immediately when the jury read "not guilty" the defendent popped up in their seat and said "ahahaha gotcha bitches! I'm guilty as sin buthank God I live in the greatest country on Earth!!!". What could they do? (other than hold you in contempt of court) 85.181.148.40 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

someone might yell "Mr Garrow!". In all honesty I do not know ^^. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As Bugs said, they could arrest the accused for perjury, which is a felony in the US and rarely prosecuted except for outrageous events such as the one you describe; and also the victim, or the victim's relatives, could file a civil suit for monetary damages and get an easy victory because of the "bitches" confession. But "new evidence" does not allow for trying the accused again in the US; that would be easily gamed by any cruel district attorney, who would try the accused once and withhold a few thimblefuls of evidence barely important enough for the purpose; each time the accused was declared not guilty, the DA would declare he had found an additional thimbleful of evidence and try the accused again, until he was bankrupt and destroyed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And the scenario you've just described is precisely the reason for the double jeopardy rule in the USA - to prevent prosecutors from continuing to retry someone until they get a guilty verdict. Presumably that kind of thing used to happen under British rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, not in the last 940 years or so in England, as our article on Double jeopardy mentions; or did you mean by "British" rule that rule "predating the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England"? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, yes, new evidence can exonerate the convicted person. Note it has to be new evidence. Part of the check and balance is that the defense can't ask for a new trial on the same evidence, in hopes of finding a more sympathetic jury. Appeals are based on claims of new evidence and/or claims of legal errors on the part of the prosecution. That's kind of the flipside of the double jeopardy rule. If the higher courts agree that the trial was unfair or that new evidence could make a difference, they will order a new trial and the convict has another chance to beat the rap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this most of the idea behind Fracture (2007 film)? TastyCakes (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And now we are all lawyers? Bielle (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is actually planning to do this. It's hardly legal advice. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither have we answered the question of whether it has ever actually happened. With all the criminal cases in all the courts in all the world, I'd certainly be surprised if it hadn't, but I haven't heard of any famous cases. Perhaps because defendants in famous cases tend to have good lawyers who will advise them against such admissions. --Anonymous, 05:10 UTC, December 10, 2009.

Emmett Till.—eric 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Julie Hogg.—eric 05:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's more like it! Especially the first one, as the other says it was "years later". Thanks. --Anon, 10:41 UTC, December 10, 2009.

Although the US has a double jeopardy law, it's possible for people to be tried by a federal court for violating someone's human rights even if they've been acquitted of attacking/killing them in a state court, as happened with Rodney King and Vincent Chin. This isn't possible in every case, of course.--Pleasantman (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In the TV series The Practice, although ficticious it was complimented for some of its accuracy. Their one case, as they were defense lawyers, was to defend a serial killer, who insisted he was guilty. They argued insanity, that he believes he committed the murders when in fact he didn't. They win the case, even though the guy was guilty and maintained his guilt throughout, but he was crafty in that he re-stated a lie that the police had put out about one of the murders in the newspaper, as if to demonstrate that he wasn't the murderer but was learning all about the murders from the press. Rfwoolf (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)