Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 27

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.

June 27

What is the most northern community in Alaska?

Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Barrow, Alaska. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's right to the point. StuRat (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. The folks who live in Barrow are grateful that the town wasn't founded on Point Barrow, because it gets really cold there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

St. Clive?

Plaque on a park-bench in Bangor, County Down

How many people consider C. S. Lewis to be a saint? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean besides the guy that created that sign? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that he's listed in "Category:Anglican saints", so it must be true. To what extent anybody cares about Anglican saints, I couldn't say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well any local parish called "the Church of St Thomas the Martyr" is probably an Anglican church named after Thomas Beckett, since to Catholics that phrase would be clearly ambiguous, possibly referring to Thomas More. So maybe that says something about who cares about Anglican saints. OK, I've put square brackets around "Church of St Thomas the Martyr" just to see where it leads, on the theory that that will explain who cares about Anglican saints.

Anyway, in a science-fiction book by J. Neil Schulman there are references to "Saint Clive", and he doesn't leave any doubt about who is meant. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Thomas Beckett was sainted by the Roman Catholic Church originally. Meanwhile, there's this old poem running through my head: "As I was going to St. Clive's, I met a man with 7 wives..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Were you mis-remembering that on purpose and I missed the joke? It's "As I was going to St Ives" since Ives rhymes with wives. Dismas|^(talk) 07:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And with Clives, chives, hives, lives, etc. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a libertarian sci-fi novel (I think it was The Rainbow Cadenza), which I have to admit I found rather tedious despite my general agreement with its politics, that used the jingle with St. Clive. The story identified Lewis as one of the major proponents of rationalism in his era, despite clearly disagreeing with his conclusions. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Beckett's story is an example of what you had to go through to get sainthood in those days. Lewis died of natural cases, his head in one piece. But there are saints, and then there are Saints. Even the Baseball Hall of Fame has its Babe Ruths, and its Chick Hafeys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's true that you had to be a martyr to be a saint in those days. St. Patrick and St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine were not martyrs, IIRC (but correct me if I'm wrong). They died of natural causes with their heads (etc.) intact. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Canonization#Anglicanism, there's only one genuine Anglican saint - viz, Charles I. It's therefore theoretically possible for Lewis to be canonized, despite his not being a Roman Catholic, but there haven't been any serious official moves towards it. ECUSA commemorates the date of Lewis' death (22 Nov), but I don't think that they recognize him as a saint. Tevildo (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there may be Anglican saints, and also saints recognized by the Anglican churches but who were not themselves Anglicans. Obviously many of the latter exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The category's descriptive paragraph suggests that the term "saint" is used rather loosely in the Anglican church, i.e. it can mean someone who has lived a life of piety, and not necessarily formally canonized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When I saw the question title I assumed it was going to be about this guy. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

At Canonization#Anglicanism, it says: "Some more recent people, while not officially declared saints, have been added to certain Anglican national calendars for commemoration; for example, C. S. Lewis (November 22) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (April 4)." It doesn't say which countries' Anglican churches have added him to their calendars. (It seems the most conspicuous difference between the way the Eastern Orthodox Church is organized (mutually recognizing autocephalous hierarchical churches) and the way the Anglican Communion is organized (also mutually recognizing autocephalous hierarchical churches) is that in the latter, they seem to make something of a big deal out of refusing to let any hierarchy cross international boundaries (e.g. you'll never find anything like the "Episcopal Church of the United States and Canada" whereas the Orthodox Church in America seems to extend through those two countries). Hence the calendars are "national". Am I understanding this point correctly? Is that actually a formal canon or something like that in the Anglican Communion?) Michael Hardy (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

To be a little unhelpful, Anglican Communion#Provinces is the relevant list. The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East is probably one of the better counter-examples, and some of the rest is covered by the Church of England's Diocese in Europe. I suspect the case in America is due to there being fewer Orthodox than Anglicans (or at least, at the time of foundation of the relevant organisations.), and national is an alternative to "provincial" or something. 95.150.20.43 (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, "95.150.20.43". Michael Hardy (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that the Anglican Church of England does not include CS Lewis in its calender of commemorations. Alansplodge (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Google

Googling "St. Clive" (in quotes, so it's verbatim), I find this:

http://cootsona.blogspot.com/2011/05/st-clive-science-and-theology.html

and this:

"131st st., Clive, Iowa, http://maps.google.com/maps?q=clive,+iowa&hl=en&ll=41.606747,-93.798609&spn=0.016686,0.021243&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.178967,43.505859&z=15

and this:

http://www.tyrusclutter.com/images/altarpiece/cliveopen.html (This is obviously C. S. Lewis, unless I'm confused)

and this:

http://www.wheatonpub.org/issues/fall-2009/the-relics-of-st-clive/

and this:

http://sacramentalliving.blogspot.com/2009/05/st-clives-academy.html

and a site that sells "St. Clive" tee-shirts, which the software won't let me post here since it's on Wikipedia's blacklist;

and this item with numerous references to St. Clive, St. Clive's Day, and Clivester:

posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/roncampbell/.../SERMON.doc

Michael Hardy (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

what happens if you don't preheat?

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.115.160 (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't preheat what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The oven, before putting item in for cooking, I would presume. This question is addressed here: "How important is it to preheat your oven?" Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you do not preheat, it may take a bit longer to properly cook whatever it is that you are cooking. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As important a scholarly review as that may be, it is short on theory. If it takes 5 minutes to preheat my toaster-oven, then I put in something from the fridge for 30 minutes (some sausages, say), how different would the effect be if I had just put it in cold for 35 minutes? During those five minutes that the sausages sit there while the toaster oven preheats, going "Well, this is awkward..." What happens to them? I would like a good theoretical understanding of the whole process.... --188.29.206.58 (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Carl Sagan's Apple Pie" requires that you "Preheat oven to 375 F. Make the universe as usual."

One cautionary note is that the universe has billions and billions of calories. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The actual quote, or at least the way Carl said it in the Cosmos TV series, was this, with his stylistic pauses noted, "If you wish to make... an apple pie from scratch... you must first... invent the universe." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

But also zillions of anti-oxidants. Start now and see how you go. Just leave what you can't finish, we'll give it to the dog. While it's digesting, you can be reading the entire internet, which you've just downloaded and printed off on your dot matrix printer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Baking is a more exact science than regular cooking, so preheating is a way for recipe writers to remove the variability of how long the recipe users' ovens take to come to temperature. 2) Putting food in a cold oven increases the time it's in the temperature danger zone (40°F to 140°F) at which bacterial growth is fastest. --Sean 12:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, some techniques require the food to be put into a hot oven, not a cold or lukewarm one. The instant heat browns and caramelises the surface of the meat, whereas a warm oven will just make it tough. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

THis is the answer I was looking for. Could you elaborate? Also: why did Baseball Bugs strike out his text? --188.29.96.144 (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That was Bus stop. As noted here,[1] he decided he didn't like his answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There may be another reason: if you don't preheat, whatever you are cooking will take longer to warm up, and any bacteria etc present will have longer at the optimum temperature range to produce toxins (cooking should kill the bacteria, but the toxins may remain). AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Already answered here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are frying a meat or other foodstuff in a pan,

always preheat the oil or fat before you put the food in, or else it may get soaked with oil and taste very bad and oily.

If you are cooking anything in water or baking in an oven,

there are almost no bad effects of not preheating the water or the oven, at least in my experience as a beginner cook, though some more advanced cooks swear it does sometimes make a difference.

If you are baking in an oven

I retract the above advice about baking. I don't use an oven too much, and if I do, I try to follow the recipee more strictly, so I can't really tell about the effects of not preheating the oven.

– b_jonas 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

One case where you definitely need to bring the water to a boil before you add the food is pasta. It becomes a slimy mess otherwise. StuRat (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Some comments on preheating the oven:

1) Regarding the longer time period in the "danger zone" for bacterial growth: This is true, but unless your oven takes a very long time to preheat, it's probably not long enough to make much difference.

2) As for controlling the total amount of heat the food receives: This is true, too, but, since most ovens aren't very accurate in the final temperature, you really shouldn't be doing what I call "dead reckoning" cooking, where you just take it out when the bell rings. Altitude, where in the oven the food is located, etc., will also affect cooking time. Instead you should look at it, smell it, poke a fork into it, use a food thermometer, etc., to determine when it really is done. Set the timer to go off 5-10 minutes early, then keep checking it til it's done.

3) As for wanting to "sear the surface to lock moisture in", this is true, and I see no way around preheating, in that case.

Also note that similar logic applies to whether you remove food from the oven immediately to quickly cool or leave it inside to slowly cool. Leaving it inside will allow for extra cooking, so you would need to account for that. For some types of food that's OK, for others it's not. A nice compromise might be to leave the food in the over to cool, but open the oven door. This reduces the possibility of burning yourself by reaching into a hot oven, but don't do this with children around, or they might touch the inside of the oven or door and get burned (especially if you have a batch of cookies in there). StuRat (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

3) is bullshit. Good Eats did a thorough review of this, and searing food does nothing to keep juices in or keep it "moist"; searing imparts flavor by browning reactions akin to the maillard reaction. That is why you do it, because it tastes good. Keeping meat from drying out has more to do with how you cook it otherwise; paradoxically you can get juicy meat by either using hot fast methods (grilling) and removing the meat at the "rare" stage, OR you can get juicy meat by long, slow, low temperature (sub-boiling) cooking, like barbecue or braising, which allows gelatin formation in the meat, the gelatin traps the moisture and the low temperature keeps it from escaping via evaporation. The cut of meat also has a lot to do with how it will dry out; some meats are better suited to grilling and others to barbecue, depending on their fat content and amount of connective tissue. --Jayron32 19:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

3) gets shot down in flames in our List of common misconceptions, Stu. It's a good thing to brown the meat, but the advantage does not come because of the reason you stated. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The instruction to preheat the oven is because if you use a gas oven, it heats up by running absolutely full on until it reaches the right temperature, then turning itself down (maybe modern fan ovens don't do this, but trad gas ovens do). Consequently there is a danger that you would burn your baking on the side closest the fire if you put it in the oven just after you turn it on. My other half used to do this regularly, till I drummed it into him to let the oven run for 15 mins before putting the food in.

Incidentally, if you put cabbage, green beans, broccoli or other green veg into cold water and bring it to the boil, it will be overcooked. If it grows above the ground, it needs to go into boiling water. Roots can go into either, but since there's no advantage in preboiling the water, you might as well start them off from cold. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's really a matter of what you are cooking. For example, if you are cooking raw potatoes, there is no harm in starting cold, whether you are frying, baking, or boiling -- they take long enough that it doesn't matter. But if you are cooking any bread-like thing, starting cold will pretty much ruin it. Looie496 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, due to density, certain vegetables do better when starting with cold water. Potatoes (and related), carrots, turnip family; all of these should be started in cold water, so as the water heats up so does the entire product. If you start potatoes in boiling water, you will end up with mushy overcooked outsides before the inside is done. → ROUX ₪ 19:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Difference between New York City's boroughs and other city boroughs, such as Mexico City's boroughs

I just came back from my first trip ever to New York City, and I have been reading about what boroughs really are on several Wikipedia articles like this one (sorry for not making that clear earlier by not putting a hyperlink) because I had no idea what they are and now I'm a little bit confused. I've read and have been told that the term borough has a unique meaning when it is applied only to New York City. If that's the case, other than the fact that New York City's boroughs are apparently also counties, what is really the difference between New York City's boroughs and other city boroughs, especially Mexico City's boroughs? Can the meaning and concept of borough that's applied to New York City also be applied to Mexico City? If not, why not? Willminator (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, each of these types of jurisdiction is subtly different from the others, and technically borough is just the word Wikipedia happens to use to translate the name of the delegaciones of Mexico City. They might just as well have been called wards or districts. Probably, the word borough was chosen because of their similarity to the major administrative subdivisions of large English-speaking cities such as London and New York. I do not think that New York's boroughs really are radically different from Mexico City's delegaciones. The main difference is just that the New York boroughs are also counties, a type of subdivision that doesn't exist in Mexico. Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For complicated historical reasons, the Five Boroughs inhabit a strange netherworld, where they have no real independent existence but are more than merely administrative conveniences. After various changes to the City's Charter, the only borough official elected borough-wide is the Borough President. The other official elected borough-wide is the District Attorney of the county which shares the same boundaries as the borough. (Wikipedia's articles about each borough include the corresponding county: New York County at Manhattan, Kings County, New York at Brooklyn, Richmond County, New York at Staten Island, Queens County, New York at Queens and Bronx County at The Bronx.) There is no borough-wide legislative council or assembly below the New York City Council, nor for the counties within New York City is there a county legislature or county executive (as there are, for example, in Nassau County on Long Island). Borough presidents used to have more power when they sat on the New York City Board of Estimate, a kind of City-wide senate that could override the budgets and planning decisions of the directly-elected New York City Council. Today's Borough Presidents appoint the voting members of the several Community Boards within each borough, which have some powers over zoning and planning issues. See Government of New York City. (If I haven't thoroughly confused you by now, I obviously haven't been trying hard enough; you'll have even less luck asking me about the Government of England or the special status of the City of London. :-)  ) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

New York's boroughs are a sui generis situation unique to New York. They exist because they were all once seperate cities, towns, and/or counties which were later annexed (in part or in whole) to New York City itself. That's why the postal addresses reflect the earlier independent cities, and why the street systems are independent (i.e. the numbered streets in Brooklyn have no connection to the numbered streets in Manhattan, and mail to Queens is addressed to the names of the former towns like Jamaica, New York or Hollis, New York). Borough (New York City) has some background, as does History of New York City (1855–1897). --Jayron32 21:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, so there's not much difference between the term borough and its function when applied to New York City's and when applied to Mexico City's or London's districts, eh? Now, after doing more research and reading your answers, I've become a little bit more confused and more questions has been raised. I'll ask all of them at once. By the way, I know you can tell that I'm not a New Yorker. :) I just came back to my home in Tampa Bay, Florida from my first visit ever to NYC. So anyway, how does New York City's growth and expansion compare to other cities with boroughs and administrations such as Mexico City and London? When referring to growth here, I'm not talking about how fast they grow. Also, with 5 counties, how does New York City's growth and expansion compare to normal American cities that are inside counties? Again, when referring to growth here, I'm not talking about how fast they grow. Also, what is the purpose and point of such cities having boroughs and administrative divisions instead of none, and what is the purpose and point of New York City being made up of 5 counties instead of 1? Finally, I know that the hierarchy of government in the U.S is this in general: Country, state, county (or parish in Louisiana's case), and city. Would the hierarchy of government in NYC's case be this: Country, state, city, and county? If not, why not? Willminator (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As I explained, New York City's "boroughs" are entirely unique to New York City, because of the way in which New York consolidated in 1898. Prior to the 1898 consolidation of New York, the five boroughs consisted of: 1) The City of New York (modern day Manhattan and Bronx) 2) The City of Brooklyn 3) Richmond County (modern day Staten Island) and the western 2/3rds of Queens County, New York (consisting of several towns and cities, including Long Island City, Hollis, Jamaica, Flushing, etc.). In 1898 these were consolidated ito the single City of New York, and the five boroughs were created (Manhattan, Bronx, Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Queens). The eastern 1/3rd of Queens County became Nassau County. Other cities have also grown by annexation, though none (excepting New York) preserves the prior divisions as "boroughs". Also, most cities grow piecemeal by annexation, that is the sort of nibble up the surrounding towns and/or unincorporated areas around them. Sometimes, a city will merge with the containing county, forming a consolidated city-county. There are also independent citys, which do not belong to any county, among these are many cities in Virginia along with St. Louis, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland. You can look to Boston, Massachusetts as an example of a city which grew by annexing neighboring towns. Originally, Boston Proper was confined to the Shawmut Peninsula. Other than land reclaimed by filling in the Charles River estuary (Back Bay, Boston), the rest of modern Boston (including Charlestown, Allston, Dorchester all used to be independent towns. An oddity in this case is Brookline, Massachusetts which resisted annexation and is now, not only mostly surrounded by Boston, but also is seperated by the rest of its county (Norfolk County, Massachusetts) because the towns around it were annexed into Boston, and thus became part of Suffolk County, Massachusetts). In New York City, the counties only exist and lines on a map, they have no function at all. The boroughs only exist (governmentally) as a single office, the Borough President, who is largely a figurehead. This is different from the rest of New York State, where the counties do have a real administrative and governmental power. --Jayron32 22:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So, would it be correct to say that a New York Borough President being a figurativehead for that borough would be almost similar to the Queen of England being a figurehead of Britain without the royal factor and the Emperor of Japan being a figurehead of Japan without the royal factor? Willminator (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the borough presidents do have a few minor powers, and they are very much political figures, with an informal role as advocates for their boroughs' mundane interests at the city and state level. They have some clout because of the votes they have won and their visibility in New York's media. As I understand it, the royal figures you mention have virtually no real powers and make a point of refraining from political activity. Returning to the original question, New York's boroughs are an odd historical artifact, and they exist mainly because their residents at the time New York City was consolidated in 1898 wanted some independence from the big city government. The delegaciones of Mexico City are not so radically different in their origin, for the most part. Most of them were independent municipalities within the Federal District until they were renamed delegaciones in 1930. Three central districts were carved out of what had previously been the city of Mexico (previously just a fraction of the Federal District) in 1970. London's boroughs likewise evolved from (combinations of) earlier municipalities. Apart from the history, administratively, the delegaciones of Mexico City are very similar in role to the boroughs of New York. (The boroughs of London are actually much more powerful than those of New York, because the powers of London's metropolitan government are so limited.) As for your second set of questions, each city has a unique historical geography. Each city has grown uniquely. In some parts of the United States, for example the Southwest, cities tend to expand to cover their urban areas because of their legal control over water supplies. Developers seek to have areas annexed to the city to ensure ample water and other services. In other parts, especially the Northeast, urban areas have grown to encompass older, formerly rural municipalities, which, for political reasons, have remained politically independent and resisted incorporation into the core city. Jayron's example of Brookline was one of the early cases, but Boston's urban area has since expanded far beyond Brookline. I live in Boston's urban area and have to pass through three different towns (likewise within Boston's urban area) before I reach the city limits. An additional ring of several more municipalities beyond me lies within Boston's urban area. Why this is so, and why beyond the city limits of Las Vegas or Jacksonville is mostly countryside can only be explained by the unique political and geographical circumstances that shaped each city's growth. Marco polo (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In regard to your question about hierarchies, there are really three. In the 57 other counties of New York State outside New York City, it's roughly as you said (ignoring, since I don't know enough, special districts, schools and courts): U.S. → New York State → county → city, town or village, although when I was trying to sort out and rationalize a template for Long Island, New York, I think I found some villages that straddled across the line between Nassau and Suffolk counties. Within New York City, for most purposes, there are two parallel hierarchies: (A) U.S. → New York State → county (e.g. Kings) and (B) U.S. → New York State → New York City → borough (e.g. Brooklyn) → [community board, (e.g. Brooklyn Community Board 6)]. Even here, while election boards designate themselves by county (e.g. New York, Kings, Richmond), they come under the Board of Elections in the City of New York. The financing for the county District Attorneys (e.g. the New York County District Attorney, made famous by Robert Morgenthau and the TV series Law & Order) and elections boards must be even more confusing, much of it I suspect from the general New York City budget. ¶ As for other states, there has historically been no such thing as a county government for the eight counties of Connecticut and the five in Rhode Island, although their court systems are organized by county. Political and administrative functions below the state level are conducted by democratically-elected city and town governments, which between them cover the whole geographical area of each state. After a series of minor scandals, Massachusetts has been moving in this direction, although the separate towns on Cape Cod have found Barnstable County to be a useful authority for their shared common needs. The recently-captured James "Whitey" Bulger is awaiting trial in the Plymouth County House of Correction, and the adjoining Bristol County has a politically powerful sheriff, Thomas Hodgson. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You have all been great and gracious to me, so thank you all. You have all made me understand better a concept that is also probably complicated for others outside of NYC, Mexico City, etc. to understand. So, on one of the parallel government hierarchies that you mentioned for the case of NYC (U.S. → New York State → county), why would "city, town, or village" not be included? I'm just curious. Willminator (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A few functions in New York State aren't managed on the city level at all; for example the district court system is based on the county organization, so there is a "District Court for the County of Richmond" which would cover Staten Island. For most other functions, the City of New York itself does most of the functions that a single county government would do in the rest of New York State; the court system is a state-wide organization that is based on counties; that the counties of New York City themselves don't have any government is still true, but the state uses the county borders to determine how the court districts are assigned. --Jayron32 19:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Within the USA, the term "borough" is defined differently in several different states and not defined at all in many states. I think in Pennsylvania, some incorporated municipalities are officially "boroughs". Michael Hardy (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination of women

In which country are women not allowed to drive automobiles: a) Dominica; b) Dominican Republic; c) Saudi Arabia; or d) Slovakia? --84.61.149.188 (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.

Also, the phrase should be "Discrimination against women". The phrase "Discrimination of women" is vague and could also mean "...for women", "...between women" or "..by women". StuRat (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

<redacted answer to obvious homework question> StuRat (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also a bit worried by the fact that the OP could have got this answer within seconds by typing a couple of dozen characters into Google, and clicking the mouse more or less at random... but instead they choose to come here and write out the entire question. Hmmmmm. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

<redacted answer to obvious homework question> StuRat (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

<redacted Buddy's 2nd answer to obvious homework question> StuRat (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey. This is not appropriate. I have supplied a referenced source, twice, that is on topic, and from a reliable source. If you don't want to answer the question, don't, but don't prevent me from doing what the reference desk is for: providing references. You worry about your posts, I'll worry about mine. Buddy431 (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, here is a thoughtful, informational, on topic, and entirely appropriate news article about this subject [2]. Buddy431 (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Redacting_answers_to_homework_questions.. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Betting in court

Situation: Mr A and Mr B are parties to a civil action. During the trial before the court, Mr B says to Mr A that "Your claim is false. You, liar...blah, blah, blah... If you're brave enough to swear before the city cathedral that may you horribly perish within three days if your claim is not true, then you win this case. But if you aren't, you lose." Mr A fears swearing so and the court adjudges according to this betting.

Is there a specific legal term to call this situation, or judgment or proceedings like this? And is there any Wikipedia article in connection with this? Thank you so much.

--Aristitleism (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but you've just set the stage for the past few thousand years of a real code of law and legal procedures. What you're describing sounds like the first 100,000 years of human law, right up until a few thousand years ago. --188.28.68.234 (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a type of oath. From that article: "The essence of a divine oath is an invocation of divine agency to be a guarantor of the oath taker's own honesty and integrity in the matter under question. By implication, this invokes divine displeasure if the oath taker fails in their sworn duties." (Although people have always lied under oath in court-cases, so it may not be terribly effective.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Trial by ordeal, perhaps. Rmhermen (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like just a slightly unusual settlement (litigation) to me, but then, I'm not a lawyer. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think oath is probably the most relevant concept, see also sworn testimony. Oath is a type of evidence which has been used in a great number of legal sytems. Even in the present day common law system, oath remains at the foundation of all oral evidence, since each witness who gives evidence either in person or by way of affidavits and the like swears an oath (or, alternatively, affirm) that what they say is true, the base implication being that they are compelled to tell the truth because of their fear of divine retribution in some way. However, since the reliability of oath evidence is in itself difficult to test as it rests on the faith or ethical character of the witness, legal systems have overtime developed other ways to supplement, and over time, supplant the function of the oath to ensure true evidence. Such devices in modern usage include the basic regime of cross examination, laws of perjury, laws of evidence and procedural rules - so much so that the "swearing" part of giving evidence is not, in itself, given much formal weight in weighing the parties' evidence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

For France, see fr:Serment décisoire. Apokrif (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This kind of proceedings did not exist in the past procedure, it does exist in the law of my country (Thailand). Few days ago I attended an evidence law class where I came to the knowledge that the Thai Code of Civil Procedure allows the result of a betting in court to take effect as an adjudicative point. Its section 103/2 (which has just been inserted in 2007) reads:

"The relevant parties may request the court to take evidence according to the method agreed upon by them. If the court finds expedient for the sake of the expeditious and fair taking of evidence, it may grant the request, save where such taking of evidence is contrary to a statutory prohibition or public policy."

The Thai Supreme Court of Justice once ruled that:

"Both the plaintiff and the defendant viewed the map of the land in dispute...and bet before the court of first instance that, if the official engineer inspects the map and testifies that the land in dispute belongs to either of them, the other will give in. Such betting was recorded onto the minutes of... The court of first instance questioned the official engineer in the presence of every party and the official engineer replied that the land in dispute belongs to the defendant. The court of first instance therefore declared the plaintiff lost...

"The plaintiff lodged an appeal on the basis of a question of law as to whether the betting is lawful. ... Having considered, the Supreme Court found that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to have the testimony of the official engineer taking effect as an adjudicative point is the acceptance of certain facts according to the Code of....And by virtue of such agreement, if the result of the proceedings agreed upon benefited any party, the other party may not refuse it. When the official engineer gave a testimony that the map of the land in dispute is correct and the said land thereby belongs to the defendant, the plaintiff must 'give in' according to his agreement. ..."

So, I just wonder if there is a specific term for such kind of proceedings. But, I don't think it is an oath at all (its my fault that I've provided an example as to swearing). --Aristitleism (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like arbitration really. Googlemeister (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The technical expression is "trial by compurgation". According to our article, it was abolished in England for criminal cases in 1164 and for civil cases in 1833. I don't know if it was ever valid in US law. Tevildo (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Pay until you're sick in China a true story?

I've heard many times that in medieval times, the Chinese paid their doctors for being healthy and stopped the payments while being sick, giving a nice incentive to the doctors to keep you well (implying the weird incentive for modern or Western doctors to keep the patient coming by keeping them sick). Is that just a made-up story using the Chinese as an example nobody can check or is it true? And if it's just invented as an example of how things should work, is the example known in for example the US? Joepnl (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, isn't that basically how health insurance works ? That is, you pay premiums all the time, but, when you're sick, they end up paying back more than they get from you. That is, of course, assuming they don't refuse to pay and/or drop your policy. Unfortunately, those insurance companies are often after short-term profit, so, while preventative care may save them money in the long run, they don't care, as it increases their costs this quarter. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that convinced that insurance companies are that much interested in the short term. Most stockholders aren't, and there are plenty companies that sort out the amount of smokers or obese an insurance company provides service too. Anyway, adding insurance companies to the equation just adds complication to my simple question. Joepnl (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In the case of smokers or the obese, they can just charge them higher premiums, so they don't have to take a short-term loss in order to improve the insured's long-term health (and thus improve long-term profitability of the insurance company). StuRat (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That approach would never wash under community rating, where everybody pays the same premium for the same cover irrespective of pre-existing conditions. The catch, if you want to call it that, is that those with pre-existing conditions may have to serve a waiting period before being able to claim under their cover at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed on the Straight Dope Message Boards a while ago, but they failed to find any evidence.[3] This idea is mentioned a lot on alternative health websites (which are frequently hostile to conventional doctors and western medicine), and by anti-healthcare conspiracy theorists, but no evidence is ever offered.[4][5][6][7] --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, from now on I'll consider it an urban legend :) Joepnl (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)