Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 13

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.

September 13

9/11 Memorial pools dimensions

(edited)Most coverage of the new 9/11 Memorial pools at the World Trade Centers site just shows an aerial view. It looks like there is a memorial tablet, not very high,serving as an outer barrier around a very deep waterfall, with another "bottomless" square hole in the center of the pool. It is reminiscent of animal habitats at zoos, into which people have jumped, for whatever purpose. Is there a dimensioned cross section of it somewhere, with depths? It looks like it would be easy for the distraught or reckless to climb over the surrounding memorial tablet and slide down the waterfall, and if they survived, then to plunge into the center pit. Edison (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The pools are about 30 feet deep and 1 acre in area each[1]. No idea on how they will deal with someone who decides to kill themselves by diving in. --Jayron32 02:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that a 30 foot drop to a foot-deep water pool, or a 30 foot drop to deep water? Might make a difference. How about the central "bottomless square hole?" How deep, and what is at the bottom? Edison (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. The website I linked is the official website of the memorial itself, so you may find the information you seek by poking around it. --Jayron32 03:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I could not find much information about the structural dimensions at the official website. I thought there might have been published plans in some architectural magazine. Edison (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

At least the Memorial is true to form. While it may have some very well thought out features like the Twin Towers, many of the features that it has may not be very well though out or thought out at all. --DeeperQA (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Are the diagrams secret/proprietary or public record? I mean the construction companies had to work from something, and the builders had to submit something to get building permits. Edison (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

this site seems to indicate the maximum depth of the central hole to be 70 feet from the surface. It also has several diagrams, including some that seem to show structures underground which allow viewing of the waterfalls from the bottom (well, the side) as well as the top. You may find what you want there. --Jayron32 04:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the site says the maximum depth of the entire structure is 70. I suppose the central hole might bottom out a bit above the very bottom of the structure, but that puts it in perspective a bit. Thanks. Edison (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Slavery in France, Spain, Portugal, England, Netherlands and Italy

Like U.S., did France, Spain, Portugal, England, Netherlands and Italy have slavery and the slaves were from Africa and became citizens as of today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.19.196 (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In Europe, black African slaves were not as prominent as in the New World (and the U.S. was not as prominent of a slave-holding society when compared to other places in the Americas. It did of course exist in all of the country during some point, and in the Southern U.S. until the Civil War, but never at the levels which existed in the Carribean and South America.) Wikipedia has some information at History of slavery which covers some European countries, and there are also some seperate articles for some countries, including Slavery in Portugal and Slavery in Britain and Ireland. --Jayron32 03:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

France, Spain, Portugal, England and the Netherlands all imported slaves from Africa in large numbers to their colonies. Not so many of those African slaves ended up in Europe, but there they did become citizens. And in the Caribbean, Central America and South America, the black and mixed-heritage citizens of today are descendants of the slaves brought in by the colonising European countries. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The great majority of non-white European people migrated from colonial territories after World War II. In the UK, there is a substantial community originally from Jamaica, Trinidad, Guyana and other former British colonies in the Carribbean who settled here in the 1950s and 60s. Their ancesters had been transported as slaves to the Carribbean from western Africa in the 18th Century. Slavery wasn't legal in the UK itself, and although some were brought here as domestic servants, they were set free if their owners could be brought to court. See Somersett's Case. Alansplodge (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in this news report - allegedly, slavery is still occurring in England today. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Haitian Revolution, which ended slavery in what was before then a French colony, is one of the defining moments in the struggle against slavery. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Barbary pirates enslaved up to 1.25 million Europeans by 1780 mainly from the western Mediterranean both from the coast and from ships but also from South America, western Africa and the North Atlantic.
121.91.53.163 (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

See Sack of Baltimore, Turkish Abductions (in Iceland!) etc. for examples of that. AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

---

70.31.19.196 -- During the period you have in mind (mainly 16th-18th centuries, I would assume), there were very few slaves actually "in" England, France, and the Netherlands, while Italy was not politically unified... AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP never stated a time. From the beginning of Slavery in Britain and Ireland (which I am not the first to link to), "From before Roman times, the practice of slavery was normal in Britannia. Slaves were routinely exported." And it stillexists -- from the website of Anti-Slavery International: "A new exhibition at the Museum of London and Museum of London Docklands will lift the lid on the shocking reality of trafficking and forced labour in the capital....In partnership with Anti-Slavery International, the world’s oldest human rights organisation, Freedom from: modern slavery in the capital explores the personal impact of human trafficking and slavery in London in the 21st century." BrainyBabe (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

However, slaves were not predominantly from "from Africa" until the 16th century. Anyway, slavery seemed to greatly decrease in overall economic importance and become somewhat vestigial during the late medieval period in northwestern European countries. In England, by Elizabethan times there were no native slaves in England, and Elizabeth enacted a scheme whereby the remaining serfs would buy themselves out of serfdom. In any case, fully-lawful open and aboveboard public slavery should not be indiscriminately confused with furtive illegal human trafficking... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The HM Government is very active in trying to stamp out this sort of behaviour - see this concerning new legislation on the issue. Alansplodge (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Joint venture

In Canada, does the government have the right to ban a joint venture? What I'm finding on the Internet suggests that Canada has no laws specifically addressing joint ventures, but I find this hard to believe. Suppose two major competitors decide to have a joint venture and start selling some new product. Wouldn't the two companies essentially have a monopoly? --140.180.16.144 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This page from the Canadian government says that the Competition Act covers various types of merger, namely "asset acquisitions, share acquisitions, corporate amalgamations, and business combinations otherwise than through a corporation, such as a joint venture." It can prohibit such mergers or demand they be dissolved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Was Port Durnford (Natal coast) named after col. Anthony Durnford ?

Hello Humanities lovers ! I am translating into french the articles about 2 Anglo-Zulu War figures : Lord Chelmsford , and Anthony Durnford (btw, thanks a lot for the substratum !) , and I find in the article battle of Ulundi , § "Invasion" : "(Chelsmford) had established the supply depots of Fort Newdigate, Fort Napoleon and Port Durnford when Sir Garnet Wolseley arrived in Cape Town...".

Can you tell me if the port was named after col. Anthony Durnford ? If it seems obvious that Fort Napoleon was named after Napoleon III's son, could it be possible that Chelsmford accepted to give a port the name of an officer he had just charged with the responsability of Isandlwana disaster ? I assume that Port Durnford is related to the light-house cited in the article List of lighthouses in South Africa , & located in http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?pagename=List_of_lighthouses_in_South_Africa&params=28_55_00_S_31_55_30_E_&title=Durnford+Lighthouse ?... )

Thanks a lot beforehand for your answer, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"It is believed that Port Durnford, Natal was named after Midshipman Edward Philip Durnford". This is a family website and may not be the most reliable source. I'll see what else I can find. Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Port Durnford... derives its name either from a Midshipman E P Durnford, who surveyed the coast here in about 1822, or from Captain A W Durnford of the Royal Engineers, who came to South Africa in 1871 and was killed in 1879 in the Zulu War. The latter's activities seem rather on the late side for the place-name however." Dictionary of World Place Names Derived from British Names by Adrian Room, Routledge 1989. So the answer seems to be probably not. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"...August 13th (1824), Mr E. P. Durnford the principal hydrographer remaining on the Leven, after whom the ports of that name in southeast Africa as well as in Madagacar were named, fell a victim to dysentry." Memoirs of Hydrography 1750 to 1885 by Commander L S Dawson RN Alansplodge (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This snippet suggests that Port Durnford was named in April 1879 by the crew of HMS Forester because of its proximity to Point Durnford. Alansplodge (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Here we go... "A ridge of mountains takes its rise in about 29 degrees south, at a point in the coast we named Point Durnford; (after the young officer who was appointed to delineate it)" From an article called "Narrative of Voyages to Explore the Shores of Africa, Arabia and Madadgascar; performed by H. M. Ships Leven and Barracouta, under the direction of W. F. W. Owen R.N." in the The Eclectic Review for July 1833. We have an article on William Fitzwilliam Owen which briefly describes his survey of the African coast 1821-26. Half the crew of the two little ships were killed by tropical diseases, apparently including the unfortunate Midshipman Durnford. Alansplodge (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ten commandments

I have a little conundrum. One of the ten commandments explicitly says "Thou shalt not kill/murder". But aren't people who have children doing this? After all, prior to having the child, they know fully well that one day it will die, so in effect are they not killers? --Thanks, Hadseys 11:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Giving life to something that will eventually die is not the same thing as actively killing it, much less murdering it. If there was any doubt that the Commandments did not mean that, it is resolved by the copious amount of references in the rest of the Bible saying, "have lots of babies." --Mr.98 (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That is the weirdest logic I've ever read. I thought you were going to ask about the military. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Had God been concerned about passive "killing", the commandment would have been "Thou shalt not kill, nor through inaction allow someone to die." Mitch Ames (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Christians generally believe that it's for God to decide when somebody dies. This is not considered murder (although for fairly obvious reasons the Ten Commandments don't apply to God.)

Another thing: if you have the option to have a child, but choose not to, aren't you in fact depriving a child of life, which is the same as murder? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Psalm 139:16 may be relevant to my first point above: "Your [i.e. God's] eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Murder is a crime with a precise legal definition, and none of your examples qualify as murder. I would recommend studying Mosaic case law to find if your examples would have fit the legal definition of murder for that jurisdiction at the time. Googlemeister (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Murder does not have a precise legal definition although the Wikipedia article misleadingly implies that it does, albeit with the Common Law definition followed by a minority of jurisdictions. There is no need to pick up a bible or statute on murder here because the question commits a syllogistic fallacy. Specifically, the question has an illicit minor. The syllogism is this: All births result in deaths; all murders result in deaths; therefore, all births are murders. In the same form, you can substitute the terms for: All fours are numbers, all threes are numbers; therefore, all fours are threes. The question contains an illogical conclusion, this is why there is a conundrum. See Prior Analytics by Aristotle. Gx872op (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• In my question i did not once suggest it was murder, however, regardless of how you want to spin it parents are responsible, ultimately, for the death of their offspring, and i just wondered if the biblical commandment would hold them to account. --Thanks, Hadseys 00:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• "One of the ten commandments explicitly says "Thou shalt not kill/murder". But aren't people who have children doing this?" That is clearly a suggestion that having children is "kill/murder" and therefore against the commandment. I'm using conventional rules of grammar and logic to read your words. Should I be doing something else besides dismissing the question as nonsensical? Gx872op (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• No they aren't, unless they shoot them or something. God, or Nature, or whatever you want to call It, is responsible for their deaths. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• They're responsible in so far as that they created it knowing fully well that one day it would die, maybe if they werent aware of that i would agree with you

• Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Giving birth does not qualify as murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Because you are using the Bible as your main source of reference, why not use all of it? Elijah (and others) never died. Therefore, the claim that giving birth automatically means that the child will eventually die is completely wrong. Since your assumption is wrong, you cannot accept your conclusion. -- kainaw™ 15:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And don't forget those few people who died like Lazarus, were raised from the dead, and presumably eventually died again. Googlemeister (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hadseys, think of it like politics. No matter how electorally successful a major party may be right now in a given jurisdiction, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it will eventually be defeated by some opposing party. Sooner or later that will happen, most probably sooner. So why bother ever voting for any party when you know that it is going to be defeated? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone who speaks Hebrew go back to the original? Does the original actually say "kill" or "commit murder"? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is covered well in You shall not murder. -- kainaw™ 20:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In answering you, one must remove oneself from modern definitions and stick to Biblical approaches to the law. The Bible, in defining its version of manslaughter (which has its differences from modern versions I'm aware of, but I'm not a lawyer) where the offender must flee to one of the Cities of Refuge, specifies that a key condition is that he "did not lie in wait" for the victim, ie there was no intent to injure. Thus, someone who punched someone else intending to harm but not kill might be guilty of manslaughter in many modern law codes, but not the Biblical.

Logically, this intent to injure therefore separates Biblical murder from Biblical manslaughter - you need an intent to [at least] injure to be even in the realms of being guilty of murder. As no parent could possibly intend to injure their child at the moment of conception, the logical extension you're proposing falls down. But an interesting idea. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The widely prevailing view among contemporary ethicists, is that "killing" and "letting die" are two totally different things morally. Still a widely prevailing view, (but not quite as wide), is the view that that there are situations where it is morally permissible to let die, usually involving suffering etcetera. Still a widely prevailing view, (but again, not quite as wide), is the view that that there are situations where it is morally required to let die. In any case, it is almost universally accepted by ethicists that it is morally permissible to give birth. BTW, one really should take the view of contemporary ethicists as more valid and responsible than anyone's view from biblical times including the authors of the Bible. The number one moral issue in human history was slavery, and I am pretty sure the Bible is completely morally wrong on that issue and many, many other issues as well.Greg Bard (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do native tribes in Africa still exist?

Not that I'm saying they shouldn't, they should and I hope they continue to exist. I'm just curious how/why they didn't get absorbed into civilization yet. Like in Nambia for example, I would have assumed that most of the native tribes would have been either destroyed or absorbed into the local "modern" governing system especially during the age of colonialism. How did they survive? ScienceApe (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think you can make a distinction between tribes and civilization. The two can and do coexist. In fact, African tribes generally have been incorporated into more or less modern political systems, though tribal loyalties may influence those politics. The only big exception is Somalia, where the national state barely exists and no longer controls most of the country, and where tribes really do have somewhat autonomous political power. Now, in many African cities, tribal identities are relatively weak, because many African city dwellers have intermarried with members of other tribes and derive their identity more from neighborhood or religious affiliations. Also, in cities, most people, whatever their tribal or ethnic affinity, tend to speak the local lingua franca rather than the language of their rural homeland (if it is different), especially in public. However, in rural areas especially, tribal identities remain strong. In Somalia, the tribes share a Somali ethnic identity. However, in many parts of Africa, the groups that have been called tribes are really ethnic groups, some of them with their own precolonial history of forming entities very similar to nation-states (such as the Baganda of Uganda). In rural areas, these ethnic groups dominate relatively large regions. Each "tribe" or ethnic group has its own language and customs. It is not surprising that people who grow up in communities belonging to these "tribes" or ethnic groups would identify with them, particularly when dealing with people from other "tribes" or ethnic groups who speak a different language and have different customs. What would be surprising in this context would be for tribal identities to disappear. Marco polo (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Marco Polo makes some very good points. The word "tribe" or "tribal" is often misused. In the context of non-Western socities, it usually means "any cohesive group which does not have a national government of its own". Such usage is somewhat insulting as no one would describe, say, the Quebecois or the Basque as a "tribe" or "tribal", but in the context of Africa, there are many groups, some of them quite large and cohesive, with a distinct cultural identity; and those groups are invariably described as a "tribe" or a "tribal group". The term "ethnic group" or "ethnicity" would probably be more accurate. These are all merely cohesive cultural groups which lack their own autonymous national government, and they aren't any different in that regard than such groups in Europe or the Americas. --Jayron32 14:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Another angle on this is the continued existence of hunter-gatherers amidst pastoralists and farmers. Much can be learned from the example of the Khoisan (including Bushmen): "The San include the original inhabitants of Southern Africa before the southward Bantu migrations from Central and East Africa reached their region". Survival International has good resources to learn from, as well. Note that in many African countries, no one ethnic or linguistic group forms a majority of the population; this may make it easier for small groups to hang on. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this might be a semantic issue, but I'm talking about the hunters and gatherers that still exist in Africa. I'm sure the word "tribe" carries a lot of baggage that I'm not actually talking about. ScienceApe (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Sahlins, Stone Age Economics is a classic arguing that life is not necessarily hard for hunter gatherers. It might be getting harder now though. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that there are very few actual hunter-gatherers anywhere in the world at the moment. Most "tribes" you are probably thinking of (e.g. the Maasai people) are actually farmers or semi-nomads (with domesticated stock). Essentially the only modern hunter gatherers in Africa are the Bushmen, and there are only 90,000 of those (the size of a small city) distributed across multiple countries. Many (most?) of them are actually farmers now. Why do they do it? Because it's what they know and enjoy doing. It's their culture. But this position is clearly in the minority in the world, where most such peoples have either been assimilated, exterminated, or put onto lands where continued hunting and gathering is impossible. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the good land has mostly been taken by farmers. Farmers and herders are constantly encroaching on what's left. The young people of foraging groups generally see little point in maintaining old ways as a result. Marco polo (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't asking why they did what they do, I completely understand that they want to preserve their traditional life. I'm asking how they were/are able to exist especially during the colonial period and today with modern civilization encroaching on their villages and such. ScienceApe (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is that by and large they aren't able to coexist and are fading away pretty quickly. This is also the case with the few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes in South America as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is bleaker, ScienceApe's distinction between tribes and civilization, or Marco polo's enlightened observation that the two actually coexist. It doesn't strike me as any different from a group of Wagner snobs who might discuss why people listen to jazz instead of contenting themselves with listening instead to music.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the organisation I was trying to remember: Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-ordinating Committee. Their website here has as one of its top pages its answer to the question Who is Indigenous?. That page points out that "Particular communities, due to historical and environmental circumstances, have found themselves outside the state-system and underrepresented in governance" -- which doesn't answer the OP's question, but suggests that IPACC may well have resources to begin to untangle the issue. See also our article on Indigenous peoples of Africa. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

FLEC-FLAC (Angola)

this article quickly mentions the FLEC-FLAC, without explaining what it is. At first, I thought it was a typo for FLEC-FAC, but I found other mentions of FLEC-FLAC online, without finding the meaning of FLAC (and its relationship to FLEC). Could sombedoy expand the article (and FLAC (disambiguation))? Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "Força de Libertação Armada de Cabinda", see here? - David Biddulph (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably FLEC-FAC, there are various FLEC factions around, FLEC-FAC one of the major ones. FLEC-FLAC is probably a typo. --Soman (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ACH Process

After reading about the ACH process, it looks like when Alice buys a shirt at Bob's Gift Shop for $15, Bob's bank (the originating depository financial institution (ODFI)) sends an ACH Point-of-sale (POS) entry to Alice's bank (the receiving depository financial institution (RDFI)) and then Bob's bank increments the balance number for Bob's account and Alice's bank decrements the balance number for Alice's account. Since there's nothing tangible to physically transfer between banks like coins or bills, it's the bank's own responsibility to change the numbers as it ought to and each bank's motivation to change the numbers as it ought to is the idea of the punishment it would suffer if the law ever found out that it didn't change the numbers as it should have. But if they didn't change the numbers as they should have (say Alice's bank didn't decrement her number after acknowledging Bob's bank's Point-of-Sale (POS) ACH message, letting them (Bob's bank) go ahead and increment his number), how would the inconsistency most likely get found out? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

At the end of a trading interval (usually a day) each institution prepares a balance. If everything is correct (all the money and value received and all that transmitted) then that balance should be zero. In practice, both with manual systems and with electronic ones, there's often a nonzero balance, and it's generally the case that banking regulations compel the bank to look at their transaction logs and identify the cause of the discrepancy. Also, when two banks process lots of transactions that move value back and forward between them, they obviously don't exchange wheelbarrows full of money between them for every transaction. They each prepare a balance - these can be nonzero (one bank moves a net amount to the other) but they both have to have the same value for the net balance (that check is called a "reconciliation"), and if they don't then people have to sit down and figure out why. Even without banking regulations, it's in the interests of all the banks to get this right, as if someone got stuff without there being a relevant transaction completed for that, it means someone else (which usually will be bank) that's short by that amount. Banks don't like losing their own money, and their systems are pretty good about keeping tabs on what went where. Where governments get particularly involved is where the value that's being transacted is a cash-equivalent - I worked on one payment system (the name of which I'll not mention) which was an electronic cash-equivalent system (you had electronic value on a payment card). To "print" this money the banks had to essentially give the central bank an equal amount of real currency (I think it was held in escrow somehow). In addition to merchant<->customer payments, they also could do interbank payments (using robust versions of the same payment equipment). The payment system had a 3-phase-commit scheme so that an interruption in the transaction wouldn't lose or gain value. The banks (reportedly; I wasn't there) showed off the robustness of this exchange to the central (government) bank, and demonstrated the damaged-exchange recovery process. Which failed, and which annihilated the transaction. Destroying (again, I heard, so it may be apocryphal) a seven-figure sum. Even though the central banking folks had seen the equipment lose the value, and the system ensured that the same value couldn't reappear later, they refused to let the private banks regenerate the same value again, meaning they essentially lost the (large) sum they'd been exchanging. TL;DR: there are end-of-day balances which must be reconciled. If the reconciliation produces a non-zero value, someone has to eat that cost, and so everyone is very thorough about keeping records to make sure that the someone isn't them. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The end-of-interval settlement would cover the diffs for that interval. What if Alice's crooked bank lied to Bob's and said at the end of that day "Yeah, you got $15 from us." Now the next day and henceforth, the imbalance doesn't show up on daily settlements, unless the gov't regularly gets all the total amounts from all the accounts of all the banks to see if the volume is the same, which I would think is pretty impossible even with computers as powerful as they are nowadays (and also given that the gov't doesn't have jurisdiction to check the balance sheets of banks in other countries that US account holders may have paid). 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Both Alice's and Bob's banks both keep totals for their mutual transaction. If Alice's bank is crooked and claims it sent more money than it did, that total won't be the same as reported by Bob's bank at reconciliation. So Bob's bank is $15 short, and Bob's bank would have to eat that sum themselves (which they don't like doing). So Bob's bank will phone Alice's bank and they'll both go over their accounts. If they can't figure out the problem, and Bob's bank is convinced the fault isn't theirs, they'll stop dealing with Alice's bank altogether. A bank that can't, or won't, balance its books will very quickly go out of business, because no-one will deal with it. In practice the reconciliation is greatly aided by the way the books are kept and the transactions logged. Firstly, when banks make transactions they exchange cryptographic tokens regarding the transaction (usually a message authentication code covering the time, a sequential transaction number, and details of the accounts and amounts involved). So the very act of successfully sending money entails getting a receipt (a cryptographically sound, verifiable by banking regulators or courts, undeniable receipt). Secondly there's a sequential transaction number, which makes identifying missing or duplicated transactions easy. And thirdly both keep (or can reconstruct from their transaction logs) a running total for the day. In reconciliation they compare running totals (wrt numbered transactions) and the first time at which these differ is the cause of the discrepancy. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As for international transfers: these are more complicated for banks to run, because they have to comply with two sets of banking laws, and each country will often have more stringent checks for international transfers than domestic. For this reason it's very common for smaller banks to be unable to perform international transfers (SWIFT, CHIPS, etc.) themselves. So instead they do a domestic transfer to an agent (which is a big international institution like CitiBank). The agent then does an international transfer to itself (e.g. CitiBank merchant account UK to CitiBank merchant account US) and that account then does a domestic transfer to the recipient bank. So if there's a mismatch on the international transfer, CitiBank would be cheating CitiBank. And don't underestimate the capacity of banking regulators to cooperate with one anther if they think there's some international shenanigans occurring, and governments tend to take a fairly "long arm" view as to "where" a banking transaction occurred. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A culture where only the corrupt rise to power

I'm trying to remember a term which consists of a surname (I think it starts with a "W") and is followed by "law", "rule" or "principle" or something similar. It's a theory or an observation rather about the social dynamics in certain modern organizational or societal cultures whereby a climate of corruption and lawlessness has become so prominent that in order for anyone to rise to power in this climate they must themselves be willing to take part in the corruption. I know we have an article specifically discussing it, but I'm unable to recall its name or otherwise locate it. __meco (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an adaptation of one of the many "iron laws". -- kainaw™ 16:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I did a search for the term 'corrupt' on our List of eponymous laws, but the only one that came up was Campbell's law, which doesn't look like what you are looking for, but take a look at that list and see if it helps. —Akrabbim^talk 17:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Kleptocracy? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, none of the suggestions so far. __meco (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

French colonies

Why does France still hang on to several of its colonies instead of giving them independence? --75.60.15.28 (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

France has generally offered independence in recent years to any dependency that voted for it. The remaining dependencies generally do not want independence, though New Caledonia is divided over the issue. Marco polo (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can answer the question "Why doesn't the U.S. grant independence to Hawaii" or "Why doesn't the U.S. grant independence to Puerto Rico" you can answer the question of why France doesn't grant independence to its Overseas departments and territories. Many of them are full Departments of France and the French State doesn't recognize any legal difference between, say, French Guiana and Morbihan or Pas-de-Calais. A department is a department, and they are all part of France, wholly and completely. There are some overseas territories of France which are not departments, but they do have some representation within the French National Assembly and can vote in National elections, so they have some role in the French State, but they are generally given more autonomy over local issues than actual departments are. That doesn't mean that there aren't some form of independence movements within these overseas departments, but that doesn't mean much, necessarily. There's an independence movement in Texas, and the U.S. isn't giving that up any time soon. --Jayron32 00:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Most modern-day holdout colonies are small, remote islands with tiny populations and economies propped up by investment, tax breaks, and often direct subsidies by the metropole. The locals, especially those with money and political influence, have a vested interest in preserving this situation. So France (or the US or UK) can offer independence to these places with little risk of the offer being accepted. LANTZY^TALK 00:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Recently some French Polynesian politicians tried to get support for calls for its independence [2] at the Pacific Islands Forum but it's not clear how much support their movement had [3] [4]. Note French Polynesia is no longer considered a colony by the UN (actually that was their primary goal at this stage) Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, read French_North_Africa#Decolonisation. France treated some of it's overseas possessions as more integral to France than how colonies are typically viewed - François Mitterrand illustrated this when he said " L'Algérie, c'est la France" ("Algeria is France"). Buddy431 (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem (and this still continues today) is that while Algeria may have been France, Algerians were not treated as French. That's largely why Algeria is no longer France. Even today, France has problems integrating people from immigrant backgrounds into Metropolitan French society, especially those from outside of Europe (People with a European immigrant background have a much easier time assimilating, c.f. Nicolas Sarkozy). Every few years in France there are riots and general strikes among French Arabs; even those who are born in France have problems assimilating into French society. See Islam_in_France#Integration and 2005 civil unrest in France. There is some controversy in even seeing these riots as being due to integration problems, as France officially prides itself on being a more multicultural society than many of its neighbors, (see the somewhat perjorative term Beurgeois), but clearly the official stance and the "facts on the ground" differ as to the experience of those of Arabic descent within France. --Jayron32 04:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Algeria was partly treated more as a part of France because there were a lot of white Europeans who settled there during the 120 year colonial history - the Algerians may not have been considered as very French, but the European immigrants were. I agree with what you're saying though; France does seem to have had a difficult time integrating its foreign born population. Buddy431 (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The spread of colonization

When the Norse discovered America in 10th century, why didn't the European started to colonize America from that time? Why have to wait 5th centuries later?Trongphu (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Because communication wasn't as good, because most other European peoples probably weren't even aware of the Viking settlements in Newfoundland. The Vikings in the 10th and 11th centuries were pretty much "Those pale people who just invaded to steal our women and rape our sheep" and they probably didn't spend a lot of time discussing where their cousins vacationed the prior year. The world in 1000 was a very different place than the world in 1500, probably as different as the world today is from the world 500 years ago. Europe wasn't really ready for exploration and colonization in 1000 in the same way it would be around 1500. --Jayron32 00:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There are stories that Christopher Columbus visited Iceland, but by that time the Greenland settlement was defunct, and it's doubtful whether he could have picked up too much practically-useful information other than that there was something "out there" to the west (at least in northern latitudes). AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Jared Diamond points out (in Guns, Germs, and Steel) that the Vikings only try to settle in exceptionally difficult places to settle. This was on account of their transportation at the time — they could only hug the coast, and so it was quite an effort even to just get to Newfoundland, which is still pretty cold and unpleasant. They didn't have the technology or the economy to resupply their colony, and they didn't pick particularly fruitful places to try and set up camp. They didn't communicate their discovery to others or really recognize the magnitude of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

When North America was discovered it was colonised. But the Europeans didn't know Greenland was part of another continent and it was very cold.
Sleigh (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Developments in navigation were important. The mariner's compass was invented in Europe around 1300, though the Arabs and Chinese had simpler versions. The middle ages also saw steady improvements in astronomical navigation tools (quadrant, astrolabe, etc), initially in the middle east. The invention of the caravel in 15th century Portugal allowed European mariners to sail across oceans rather than simply hugging coastlines. The Portolan chart, a type of navigational chart, was a 14th century invention. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Vikings settled (a bit) in Ireland, and (a lot) in Normandy, neither of which were exceptionally difficult places to settle, so not sure that argument holds. In their accounts they said Vinland was an attractive place as I recall, so the main reason it wasn't colonised must be that it so far away. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I meant in their attempts to go further West. But yes, the distance is important with the technology at the time, combined with the fact that their home base (Iceland) was not economically prepared (or politically organized enough) to create a real colony at that distance. Greenland was not an adequate forward base. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Europe was not ready politically, economically, or socially for long-distance colonization in the Middle Ages. Long-distance colonization required a few preconditions: 1) a strong national state to support colonization militarily and sometimes financially, 2) urban mercantile economies that could serve as markets for colonial products and additional sources of financing, and 3) a population willing to emigrate due to constraints on their livelihood in the home country caused by such factors as a shortage of arable land, improved agricultural techniques that reduced the demand for agricultural labor, and urban economies that had not yet industrialized and were unable to provide a good livelihood for the surplus rural population. These three preconditions did not begin to come together in Europe until the very late 15th century, so it is no surprise that large-scale overseas colonization did not begin until the 16th century. Marco polo (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Donald W. Meinig posits three key traditions/skills required by European peoples in order to colonize the Americas: 1) Seafaring, with the ability to extend the range of operations across the ocean in a sizable and sustainable way. 2) Institutionalized conquering: Buccaneers and raiders might be able to win an outpost or foothold, but to secure a larger area required garrisons of soldiers under orderly administration. 3) Planting of true colonies, with settlers or slaves or whatever. With some exceptions, conquest of coastal America tended to result in native depopulation, for a variety of reasons. In order to turn conquest into a long-term return European powers had to have the ability and know-how to resettle Europeans and/or Africans in significant numbers.

One can argue that while the Norse applied all three of these abilities in parts of Europe, in the deeper Atlantic they were unable or unwilling to conquer—Iceland and southern Greenland were uninhabited when they arrived, and they only managed a small, short-lived outpost on mainland North America. Even by 1500 only a few European peoples had all three abilities and traditions. Meinig points to the Iberian Peninsula, where the Spanish and Portuguese had a centuries old tradition of conquering and planting in the form of the Reconquista, and had already extended it into the deeper Atlantic and south along the coast of Africa. That the fall of the last Moorish stronghold in Europe came in 1492, the same year Columbus stumbled upon America, is telling if not exactly causal. The other early colonization "hearth" was around the English Channel, especially the Huguenots in France and the English. This area was quick to tap the fisheries of North America but slower to colonize. Still, the region had some conquest and planting experience in their centuries old relation with the Celts of Brittany, Wales, Ireland, etc. Pfly (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Final destination of Wikipedia?

I wonder when Wikipedian will no longer write anymore new article? In other word when will we have an English version of Encyclopedia that cover everything in human knowledge from every languages in the world? I noticed the number of new article created are declining due to "a great" amount of knowledge has been covered. I can tell the end of this hard working road to achieve the greatest Encyclopedia in human history is coming soon. The longest time it's going to take is probably less than a decade according to what i think, it could be in few years who knows. What are some of you guys opinions on this?Trongphu (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well because new things are happening, being discovered and researched everyday, and that there are some questions that can probably never be answered either due to lack of information (did Jesus actually exist? how were the pyramids built? etc) or their complexity (the origins of the universe or god for example), that wikipedia's work may never be done --Thanks, Hadseys 00:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that basically expansion from existing articles. I agree that new things, knowledge are born everyday but not all of them will create another article to write about. Example, today someone may discover something new in a a specific math field doesn't guarantee that we will create a new article about that information. We can just add that new information into existing articles. One thing can certain is new branch of any ology like math, science... won't just come out often. It takes years, could be 10 years, 100 years who knows. What exactly i'm asking is when wikipedia will cover all the knowledge since the first human until that day, not including new information come out on that day.Trongphu (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• • New people are being born all the time, new events will always happens, so there will always be new things to document. As long as humanity exists and keeps publishing new information about new things, Wikipedia will always have reliable sources for new articles. --Jayron32 00:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events." (see header) However, we can safely say that as long as Wikipedia is still functioning there will always be new articles written (although perhaps not at the rate they have been previously). For example, before 2008, Justin Bieber was not notable. Now he is. Arab Spring wasn't anything in early 2010, now it's unlikely that any comprehensive encyclopedia would omit it. Likewise the winner of the US Presidential Election of 2040 likely doesn't have an article now, but should have one in 2041 (if Wikipedia still exists). There will always be new celebrities and new events which rise from unknown beginnings to notability. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The biggest threat to Wikipedia is not a shortage of material to write about, but rather a shortage of contributors. Right now we don't have to worry about that happening any time soon, but things can easily change within the next 10 to 20 years. Social networks and other online communities rise and fall all the time... if a bright entrepreneur were to start a successful project that compiled information better or faster than we can, then that would basically spell the end of Wikipedia. Ragettho (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

By an end I meant that when we finished writing everything in human knowledge not that wiki is going to die. I doubt wiki would ever die. Even there is a project that better and faster than wiki but it still needs a lot of volunteer contributors and donation just like wiki. Why would someone try to build something else when it's already there somewhere else? It doesn't matter if the new project is way better, they both are encyclopedia, have the same function and purpose. By the time someone else build something faster and better i think wikipedia would have cover every knowledge at that time. I doubt that someone will stupid enough to try to build another mimic encyclopedia. So wikipedia will live forever in my opinion of course because i can't prove future nor can I guarantee it. It's not like there haven't been something that still well known by people since it first found or created until today.Trongphu (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Last topic pool. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 September 6#All human knowledge? How many articles? and User:Emijrp/All human knowledge.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)