Humanities desk
< October 20	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 22 >

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

October 21[edit]

Finance - Rights and Warrants[edit]

I am looking for a good verifiable source that discuses the difference between a 'right' and a 'warrant' (financial terms). I suspect that they are used interchangeably or with slight market- or country-specific connotations (like "rights" tend to be issued with equity, allowing equity holders (to maintain relative ownership) and "warrants" with debt (to add speculative features and reduce the nominal coupon rate and interest expense).

The definitions on Investorwords.com support the debt/equity distinction, but I think it may be something more...

I was surprised that we didn't have an article on financial rights (also called "subscription rights"). If the definitions were close, I was going to include a line on the "warrant (finance)" page.NByz (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a short article on rights issues. You may also like to read the Investopedia articles on warrants and rights. The terms are definitely not used interchangeably - although there are some similarities between them, there are also significant differences. In particular, warrants are long-term instruments - they typically have a lifetime of several years. Rights, on the other hand, have a much shorter lifetime. A company declares a rights issue in order to raise additional capital; shareholders may exercise their rights and purchase new shares, or (if the rights are transferable) they may sell them to a third party. Either way, the rights must be exercised within a fairly short timescale - usually a few weeks; if the rights are not exercised within that window then they lapse, and are worthless. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin initials[edit]

What do the initials "P.f." and "L.n." stand for in Latin names? For example:

(None of those articles say anything, by the way.) — The Man in Question (sprec) · (forðung) 08:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't listed at List of Latin abbreviations, but according to List of classical abbreviations, P.F. can stand for Pia Fidelis, Pius felix, Promissa fides, Publii filius. We only have articles for one of those (Pia fidelis), and that doesn't appear to be the one we're looking for. A google search shows both Pius felix and Publii filius used in conjunction with individual names. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman naming conventions might help more. The little f means filius and the n means nepos (grandson). The first name means "Publius Cornelius Lentulus, son of Publius, grandson of Lucius". These guys are all from the same family so certain names were used over and over again. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted music in non-commerical media[edit]

Plenty of people circumvent the law and simply use copyrighted music for various Internet art (e.g. Youtube videos, Adobe Flash films, YTMND pages) at will. It'd be nice to see a change in this, where people actually started asking for permission, but I've gotten completed confused on how that's supposed to be done. So, for example, if someone wanted to legally use "Never Gonna Give You Up" in yet another Rickroll parody, how would they go about it? (Question is completely hypothetical.)--SquareOuroboros (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Incase not known) Parody is sometimes dealt with seperately regarding copyright law as is providing a 'critique' of something.

I suspect the best place to start for obtaining permission would be to try to find out the 'owner' of the copyright you are wishing to use, and then emailing/talking with them directly (or if a large firm owns it their trademarks/patents department) who may be able to put you in contact with the appropriate department/provide documents to complete. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's pretty obvious. My question is more about how to go about figuring out who the owner is (the artist or the record company?) and how to contact them (finding email/snailmail addresses for popular bands seems next to impossible).--SquareOuroboros (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no simple answer to this, I'm afraid. There are actually lawyers whose sole job is to figure out who owns the copyright on various properties so it can be bought or licensed. It can be difficult, because there's no reliable and centralized source for this kind of information, and it gets even more challenging when it comes to the very obscure and/or old material. Personally, I would begin by contacting the record company. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are licensing agencies that take care of this for the products of big corporations. For your Rickroll "parody" (most Rickrolls are not parody in the legal definition—just because something is funny doesn't make it parody at all) you'd probably contact ASCAP or BMI. You don't contact the artists—they don't deal with things like that 99.9% of the time (rare exceptions come into play with bands who generally don't license their material for films, for example, but occasionally intervene for projects they really support—Led Zepplin falls into this category if I recall). But as for "getting permission"—unlikely. These organizations exist for the money. This media is in a giant system of copyright ownership that generally speaking lacks flexibility. And they consider internet publishing to be a major broadcast and charge accordingly. If you ever want to get really depressed, look at how Corbis handles the licensing of its photos regarding the internet: you can't just "buy a license for use on the internet", they only license things for short amounts of time, so you'd have to continually renew it if you were planning on keeping the page up for any amount of time. It's all a real pain. These organizations are not set up for small-time, fun use, they are set up to make millions from TV stations and advertising agencies and things like that. They see "making it easy" as a problem, not an answer, as it cedes control and gives people the impression that copyrighted material should be used liberally. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OP, you would really enjoy the work of Larry Lessig. Here's a great talk he gave once about exactly the legal issues you discuss. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Americans During WWI[edit]

Which of their constitutional rights were violated? Please include references. I can't quite understand the constitution's language, despite being a native speaker... 203.188.92.70 (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that Japan and the US were on the same side in WWI? (cf Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I). Perhaps you mean WW2; if so, Korematsu v. United States is the case to read. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they did also suffer during WW1 -- see California Alien Land Law of 1913, Webb-Haney Act (are those duplicate articles?), and Oyama v. California... AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Second World War, I meant. 203.188.92.70 (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try checking the Supreme Court's ruling in Korematsu v United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) (Wikipedia article here.) This was not a unanimous decision, and the Court seemed to tap-dance around the room-filling elephant of racism. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Habeas corpus. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korematsu is a watershed case in American constitutional law. The Court upheld the forced interment of Japanese-American citisens relying on the extremes of war (which no one believes was necessary today). It set the pattern for the Court being highly deferential to military decisions. The language of Korematsu, stating the ordinary case, is soaring. It is the basis for equal protection cases since. A case denying rights is the lodestone for cases granting rights. 75Janice (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 75Janice[reply]

Okinawa Dugong v. Rumsfeld[edit]

What is the current state of the legal case Okinawa Dugong v. Rumsfeld (United States District Court, Northern District of California), also known as Dugong v. Rumsfeld. It doesn't appear on the court's decisions page or on its current business page, and news reports that Google finds date from 2007, when it appeared to be ongoing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, I think I found the ruling here. Dugong v. Gates. Somewhat comically, as part of the ruling saying the Dugong has (kinda) standing, Judge Patel cites the wonderfully titled case "Cetacean Community v. Bush". Gosh, you know you're unpopular when the dolphins sue you :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cemeteries[edit]

In the UK, are municipal cemeteries (ever) consecrated ground, or would that apply only to churchyards?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently yes. From [1]

6.1 The Market Harborough (Northampton Road) Cemetery is currently divided into consecrated, unconsecrated and Roman Catholic sections. Consecrated ground has been blessed by a Bishop of the Church of England. There is no restriction on who may be buried on consecrated ground, but it is generally used by Church of England parishioners. Unconsecrated ground has not previously been blessed and is available to anyone. Graves can be blessed at the time of interment by the deceased's chosen minister of religion.

I don't know how widespread this is, before searching the web I assumed that municipal cemeteries were unconsecrated. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Childrens Book Title[edit]

The book concerns a young boy who meets characters who turn out to be magical members of his family. Each family member controls a different aspect of the city. One for instance runs the police and the courts, another the schools (this one lives in the past) his eldest brother runs the dustbinmen. They cannot leave the city because they promised to look after him and are bound there by their oaths. It turns out he controls the future and technology and he tricks the bad ones onto his spaceship by writing them there.

Does this ring a bell with anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.106.253 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are thinking of Archer's Goon, by Diana Wynne Jones. John M Baker (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire dates for voting since 1776[edit]

New Hampshire has never followed the "first Tuesday after the first Monday on November" rule. Can anyone refer me to an actual list of their election dates since 1776?71.129.57.40 (talk)jbdc+ —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

According to Image:Miltonballotpaper.jpg they voted on November 2 2004 with everybody else. Grsz ^Review! 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in New Hampshire, and I never remember New Hampshire voting on any national election (president, senator, congress) on any date EXCEPT the national election day? Local elections, such as for boards of selectmen, are held on different days, but many states hold seperate local and national elections. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to one reference from the mid-1930s, the Constitution of 1784 was revised in 1793 requiring gubernatorial elections to be held every two years on the first Thursday in January. No end date was given. jbdc+FrJBDCorbett (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

ROBERT CLARK -NAME CHANGED IN 1958 IN N.Y.C.[edit]

A sculpture, versions of which have been installed at several high-profile sites around the world. The image was created for a MoMA Christmas card, and was later featured on a US postage stamp. Hint: The sculpture's creator was born Robert Clark but changed his name in 1958, 4 years after moving to New York City.WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE SCULPTURE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.48.229 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "stump the band": Please don't ask us questions you know the answer to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOVE (sculpture). What do I win? —Tamfang (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates from former American states[edit]

Hypothetical question: Let's say one of the United States secedes and becomes an independent nation while someone born in that state is running for President? Is that candidate automatically disqualified or kept under a sort of grandfather clause? And would people who were born in that nation/state while it was still a state be allowed to run for President? (The same could apply to US territories which become independent or are acquired by other nations.) 137.151.174.128 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No state has ever succeeded from the US, so the answer to your question is hypothetical. We don't know what citizenship people would have after such an imaginary succession. These are matters that would have to be decided in some future negotiation, treaty, constitutional amendment, or legal ruling. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you meant is no state has ever succeeded in an attempt to secede. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some state such as Alaska you mean? :) Well, of course some states did once try to secede, but the North didn’t recognize them as a separate state so presumably a presidential candidates from the south would have been regarded as still born in America. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Lincoln's second veep, Andrew Johnson, was born in North Carolina, which did secede from the union (though, as noted, the north did not recognize such secession), and was in a state of open rebellion at the time of the election. Lincoln, a Northern Republican, selected Johnson, a Southern (unionist) Democrat, as his running mate in 1864 specifically to mend the wounds caused by the Civil War. They officially ran as the National Union Party to emphasize its intent. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presuming that as well as the requirement to be a natural born citizen you actually have to be a US citizen at the time you run for office (anyone confirm that?). So it would entirely depend on the agreements between the US and the seceding state. There are precedents for this, such as the citizenship arrangements between the UK and ROI on independence. Presumably someone born in the state before it secession, and retaining their US citizenship, would still be eligible. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's the intent. Being a natural-born citizen means being such not just at some time in their life, but specifically at the time of the election and inauguration. I guess a person who was born in the USA, somehow lost their U.S. citizenship (perhaps as a child), but later regained it, could still run for president. Since we're dealing in absurd hypotheticals, is there anything to prevent an incumbent president from relinquishing his U.S. citizenship and still remain president? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington was considered eligible for the Presidency because he was born in what became a US state, even though it was before the formation of the country. But Alexander Hamilton was not eligible because he was born in a British colony that did not become part of the US. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton's biographer stated that Hamilton's supporters believed the constitutional requirements could be altered if he chose to run for president. The requirements were not so hallowed with age for his generation. I have no personal opinion. The Jeffersonians hated him with vigor. Hamilton never viewed the requirement as a hindrance.75Janice (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the case is like that of a certain Senator who was born in a US territory (the Canal Zone) which was later returned to the country that was created around it, and then ran for President. Since he qualified (?) at birth, the change in the status of the place he was born is not important . . . unless he also changed his citizenship. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

75Janice

Take John McCain for example. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone which today is simply Panama and no longer a part of the U.S. (Arguably, it never was.) He is still considered a "natural born" citizen. —D. Monack ^talk 02:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The economy will have to get a whole lot worse before I vote for an "unnatural born" citizen. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is mentioned a fair amount in natural-born citizen#US presidential candidates born outside the US BTW Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, McCain is a bad example, because as the son of American Citizens, he is "natural born" regardless of where he was actually born. Natural born American citizens must either be born on American soil or be born to an American parent. Either condition is all that is needed, not both. What the constitution requires is that a candidate for president must be an American citizen since birth, and not have gained the citizenship later in life. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, if someone was born as a US citizen, changed nationality to something else, then later became naturalised again would they be permitted to become president? I realise of course that the chances of anyone with such a history would be very unlikely to be electable, but in theory could they? -- Q Chris (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not believe it, but someone is bringing a lawsuit - Berg v. Obama - claiming Obama falls afoul of just such a situation. Shimgray | talk | 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this possibility up above, but I wasn't aware I was referring to an actual live candidate in 2008. However, that case is alleging he lost his US citizenship and never regained it. It's the never regaining it that's the issue, not the losing it per se. If he had regained it, I couldn't see a problem, because the Constitution says a candidate must be natural-born citizen, it doesn't say that they have to have been a US citizen for their entire life. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays it seems next to impossible to lose US citizenship. When I worked for an immigration lawyer, one client was an ex-citizen who had been naturalized in Canada and was seeking to re-immigrate to the US. Several years later I learned that a schoolmate of mine has been naturalized Australian without losing her US status. Serving a foreign government used to be grounds for denaturalization, but in John Walker Lindh's case I guess the State Department waived that because if he's not a citizen he can't be threatened with a treason charge. —Tamfang (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was apparently a big sea-change some years ago on this. This FAQ has some interesting comments on it; see pt. 10. Shimgray | talk | 18:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a vaguely related point, I've always wondered whether I – born abroad to US parents, and thus not covered by the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – am a citizen of any State. Presumably a pre-1868 law would apply if it has not been expressly repealed or superseded. —Tamfang (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This clause in the Confederate States Constitution shows how a somewhat similar issue was handled:

(7) No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the limits of the Confederate States, as they may exist at the time of his election.

--Sean 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BET telethon[edit]

When Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, BET put on it's own telethon, and called it SOS: Saving OurSelves. The purpose was to raise funds for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Fashion designer Tommy Hilfiger and his son were the only Caucasian Americans to appear. Hilfiger donated $250,000 in the form of a check, and $250,000 worth of clothes. How much money was raised through that telethon?72.229.139.171 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differing sources give differing amounts - $14 million ([2]), $11 million ([3]) and 'more than $10 million' ([4]). Nanonic (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read them, and got confused. Right now, I'm wishing someone would create an article on the BET hurricane relief telethon SOS: Saving OurSelves. That could give out more information.72.229.139.171 (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why a fashion designer and his son are mentioned as "the only Caucasian Americans to appear" ? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. I watched the telethon. Hilfiger and his son appeared. Bill Clinton, another Caucasian American, appealed for contributions via telephone. But only a picture of him was shown, that's it.72.229.139.171 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]