Humanities desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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.

May 7[edit]

Elected official from a disenfranchised group[edit]

Has an individual who could not vote in a particular election ever been elected in that same election? Has a woman ever been elected by an all-male electorate, for instance? I am specifically not interested in someone who was disenfranchised as the result of a criminal conviction. LANTZY ^TALK 03:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannette Rankin was elected to serve in the United States House of Representatives in 1916. Women in her home state of Montana did have the right to vote, but nationally, women were only guaranteed that right in 1920 with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. She's the closest I could think of to meet this defintion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To search for examples I used the terms "active suffrage" and "passive suffrage". I found one example: In May 1931, the Second Spanish Republic authorized "women who met certain qualifications [...] to stand for office, along with priests and government employees, despite the fact that Spanish women did not yet have the national vote." Later, in December 1931, the new constitution "did enfranchise all women and men over the age of twenty-three." (Karen M. Offen, European Feminisms, 1700-1950: A Political History, p. 324, Stanford University Press, 2000, ISBN 0804734208) Also mentioned in the article on universal suffrage which states that three women were elected without active suffrage. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Carroll of Carrollton, a Roman Catholic, was elected to the Maryland Convention in 1774, at a time when Maryland Catholics were disenfranchised. Two years later he was chosen as a delegate to the Continental Congress, just in time to sign the United States Declaration of Independence, making him the only Catholic signer. Declaring independence enabled Marylanders to adopt a new constitution in 1776 that extended the franchise to Catholics. —Kevin Myers 13:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, since Maryland was founded as a haven for Catholics to have freedom of worship. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And then the Protestants moved in, and there goes the neighborhood.... —Kevin Myers 00:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British socialist politician Tony Benn was obliged to resign his seat in the House of Commons in 1960, when he unwillingly inherited his father's peerage. Nevertheless, he stood in, and won, the subsequent by-election, and was prevented from taking the seat. Eventually the law was changed to allow peers to renounce their titles, and Benn was able toi resume his illustrious career as an elected politician.

Additionally, in the nineteenth century, several Jews — who were allowed to vote for, but not to sit in, Parliament — were elected to the House of Commons. Although Lionel de Rothschild was originally elected in 1847, he was not permitted to take his seat until 1858. RolandR (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did the USSR ever use the term "New Soviet man"?[edit]

Did the USSR ever use the term "New Soviet man"? I googled extensively, and so far I have not found one positive use of the term from the Soviets themselves, only use by westerners. --Gary123 (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the article New Soviet man it does seem that there are some contemporary Soviet sources (Nikolay Ustryalov, From NEP to Soviet Socialism (1934) (text online) (in Russian) and Bernard Bykhovsky, The New Man in the Making (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House)). However it requires either knowledge of Russian or possession of that other book to verify. Personally I had never heard of the term before, I had however heard about Homo Sovieticus that was created by opponents of the regime. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian text that Saddhiyama linked to does mention "новый советский человек", a new Sovet man:

"Many already speak of a «new man» in the USSR. Yes, the new Soviet man, regardless of his ethnic roots, is the offspring of a great historic upheaval, the child of a new era."

— Kpalion^(talk) 18:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources about the holocaust[edit]

What evidence can be found about the holocaust? I'm not a holocaust denier. I just want to find primary historical sources. Apparently there is still no List of primary historical sources about the holocaust.--Mr.K. (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category: Category:Holocaust historical documents linking to articles. And you will find more on primary sources under criticism of Holocaust denial. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there's Holocaust (resources). — Kpalion^(talk) 13:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gitmo detainees released[edit]

On TV they say the "Gitmo detainees will be released on American soil" but never go farther than that. They're not going to be living across the street from me in my high class neighborhood are they? Where do you think they will go? Mac Davis (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this happen to be FOX News that you're watching? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article[1] says many cannot be returned to their home countries because they may be tortured or killed. Some European countries have indicated that they're willing to accept some released prisoners (Germany is considering whether to add the Uighur prisoners to its existing Uighur community), but others may be settled in the USA. Whether they're going to live across the street from Mac Davis is impossible to answer without knowing his full address. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Chomsky can use them at his national park holiday home?--Radh (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans?[edit]

Why did the United States feel that they were justified in taking land from the Native Americans? Gothrokkprincess (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, majority of the area east of the Appalachians was already under effective European colonial rule before the United States came into existence. AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manifest Destiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The doctrine didn't exist under that particular name until 1839, and was used as often against Mexico and Britain as against Indians... AnonMoos (talk)

1845, I thought. Anyway, it is part of the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part was simply realpolitik. "Because we can." Tempshill (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The land was seen as a wild thing that needed to be tamed. Natives were grouped together with the land and seen in the same way. That is at least part of the underlying philosophy. The Cherokees being forced to leave Georgia in the Trail of Tears was just plain greed. People wanted the land because it was good land, so they took it. Wrad (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember that most of the Native Americans (by any counting method) had died off leaving the land much emptier than before European arrival. Some bands died off completely, others were reduced to levels where the couldn't maintain the previous political balances between tribes. Tribes migrated every which way, came into new conflicts or merged with other tribes. Selling off pieces of land they couldn't utilize, couldn't defend (or which actually belonged to an enemy tribe) could be a good economic policy. Of course, the Americans paid little attention to the political structure of the bands and were willing to sign a treaty with any Indian who claimed to have authority - and the Americans would then enforce compliance over the wishes of the actual band leaders. Rmhermen (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very broad question with many answers. The United States is not a person and does not have feelings of justification. It would be more useful to look at specific cases and the specific people involved and ask why they felt justified in their actions. The number of people involved, the great span of time covered by the process, and the myriad disparate reasons why Native American land became US owned make the OP's broad question impossible to answer in a simple and accurately comprehensive way. Pfly (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like Pfly's answer a lot. If you look honestly at every major civilization, expansion and survival are key attributes. Cultures that don't share these features disappear quickly. Perhaps humans are just another animal. Shadowjams (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the Russian state moved eastward from Russia proper to the Pacific exactly the same things happend as with the conquest of the Americas. Only there was no Ocean between "West" and "East Russia" (no real terms these). Did the "Native Americans" coming over the Bering straight (or from the famous holes in the ground) think about possible people there? There were not that many "Indians", when the British arrived. Also they were farmers, the Indians not. If you are an imperialist you can easily say It is not their land, where is the title? There was no Native American bureau for landownership, there was no state, not even the concept of private property in our sense. Also, you have class wars between farmers and nomads all over the place and since farming began (Dafur just 1 example). Spanish, French, English. Dutch "imperialists", that is the dirt poor people that did the work, all acted in the same way, as did the Russians or the Japanese or the Aztec or the Maya.--Radh (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

0_o? Exactly what happened "exactly the same"? 92.226.92.61 (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was trying to say that the Russsians met, fought, conquered and now rule over various tribes, just like the Americans (and Canadians) did on their way to the Pacific and with the same results for those once nomatic people. If it is the exactly that bothers you, it need not be there--Radh (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons For Opposing Slavery In The North?[edit]

Was the northern section of the United States against slavery simply for moral reasons, or did they want to oppress the economic advancements made in the South during the mid-1800s that resulted from plantations and slavery? Gothrokkprincess (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before about 1818, the predominant reason for opposing slavery was moral grounds, and many in both north and south freely admitted that slavery was morally reprehensible, and should be ideally be gotten rid of. However, beginning about 1818, many in the north began to fear that slavery was dynamic and expanding, and that southerners wanted to devote large sections of the mid-west and Great plains to slave societies, to the detriment of free labor -- while many in the south began to claim that slavery was not reprehensible at all, but was instead a "positive good", and that democratic rights had to be subordinated to the protection of slavery (thus all anti-slavery petitions were banned from being received by the U.S. congress, abolitionist literature was banned from the federal mails in the south, etc. -- see George Fitzhugh for the ultimate development of this tendency). Many northerners also feared that southern adventurers and "filibusterers" wanted to conquer Cuba and all of Mexco and Central America in order to transform the United States into a huge slave empire. If slavery had stayed in existing states south of 36°30', and had not displayed agressively expansionist tendencies, and if southerners had not started to demand extraordinary safeguards for its protection (which were not fully compatible with democratic rights), then slavery would not have becmome a major national political issue. AnonMoos (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly! -^^- Gothrokkprincess (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manifest Destiny?[edit]

What's the role of the term “manifest destiny” in the expansion of the United States during 1818–1849? Gothrokkprincess (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are differences in the leadership traits of the Confederate forces with that of the Union forces? Examples are greatly appriciated..! Gothrokkprincess (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For both sides the most important leadership trait of all was doing one's own homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>_> Touché. Gothrokkprincess (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Confederates were trait-ors. (And I believe you meant to say Touché.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@_@ Thank you very much, I was trying to figure out the proper spelling, but couldn't find it for the life of me..! Gothrokkprincess (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered reading Manifest Destiny? --Tango (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it helped allot, thank you. Gothrokkprincess (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally considered rude to just copy your homewok questions directly in to the Reference Desk without a) reading the articles directly related to your topic and b) showing no effort to us of solving these questions on your own. While the previous answers have been mostly helpful, please try to avoid this in the future. Livewireo (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gothrokkprincess, you've said you're wanting to spell things properly. You'll be interested to learn that your "allot" ("it helped allot") is spelled as 2 words - a lot. It's another way of saying "a great deal", or "very much". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe she meant it helped her to allot her time to the various aspects of her homework. —Tamfang (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's this novel?[edit]

It was set in the world of classical music performers, came out in the 80's or 90's and was pretty terrible. A mysterious dude goes around to a bunch of highly skilled musicians (orchestra soloists etc) and gives each of them (separately) $10,000 in cash and some sheet music scored for their instrument. They are told to practice the music completely in secret, telling nobody about its existence, then show up at a certain address at a certain date and time to perform. This is probably enough to identify the book so I'll refrain from describing what happens next in case someone wants to actually read the book and not have the surprise spoiled. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Paganini Concerto?--Wetman (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: The Beethoven Conspiracy, by remembering one of the characters' names. Intense googling about various plot elements had surprisingly failed to turn it up. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Unknown Books[edit]

Hello, I am looking for two books that I cannot seem to find anywhere online. I have searched extensively on Google, GoogleBooks, and Amazon.

The first is a children's book about strange and unexplained occurrences. I believe it has something like "truth is stranger than fiction" on the cover. Some of the stories within included a live frog found by coal miners in solid rock; rain on a particular house only, with no clouds in the sky; a novel written without the letter e; a weeping Mary statue; a flying/floating priest; and paratroopers who realized they were being turned into hail.

The second book I am looking for is about the Chicago Prison System. I believe it was titled "Room XX," where XX was a particular number. The room XX of the title was the first room in the prison system that arrestees were taken to. I believe the book was written in a documentary style by a journalist. dlempa (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First book sounds like something written in a Fortean vein... AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that quite a few books of Forteana for young readers have been produced over the years. The one that my local library had when I was a kid (circa 1960) was Strangely Enough! by C. B. Colby, but I can't recall its containing all the items listed by Dlempa. It may be hard to identify the exact one that he or she has in mind. Deor (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little Googling turns up evidence of a book titled Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction (1982) by Betty Burns Paden, which some libraries that have it classify as a juvenile book dealing with "curiosities" and "unexplained phenomena." There doesn't seem to be any more specific information about it on the Web, though. Could this be your book? Deor (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a precise match for your description of the second book, but could you be thinking of Courtroom 302 by Steve Bogira? The eponymous room is in the Cook County Courthouse, not the jail per se, but the book seems to deal with conditions in the jail as well as the courthouse. Deor (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtroom 302 is exactly what I was looking for, though I have no way of confirming whether Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction (1982) by Betty Burns Paden is what I had in mind. Thank you all for your help! dlempa (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The novel written without the letter e is La Disparition by Georges Perec, translated into English as A Void. RolandR (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ten Pound Court"[edit]

At the end of Washington Irving's short story, it is hinted that Ichabod Crane "finally had been made a justice of the Ten Pound Court." After some googling, it seems that such a court actually existed (see for example here), but I couldn't find out what it is about or what with the peculiar name. I suspect there's some joke involved, but I'm just to far removed from Irving's world to get it. --Janneman (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See http://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn3389846 , it seems to have been a small claims court - see also notes on Sleepy Hollow and other stories. Nanonic (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been my guess, a court for any case where the claims were limited to a maximum of value of ten pounds sterling... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK PASSED AT THE Sessions Of The Legislature HELD IN THE YEARS 1797, 1798, 1799 and 1800, inclusive, BEING THE TWENTIETH, TWENTY-FIRST, TWENTY-SECOND AND TWENTY-THIRD SESSIONS.

REPUBLISHED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE OF THE LAWS OF EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-FIVE.

Vol. 4

CHAP. 20.

AN ACT concerning the recovery of debts and demands to the value of ten pounds in the city of New York.

Passed the 16th of February, 1797.

Preamble. Whereas the appointing assistant justices to hear try and determine causes in the city and county of New York by virtue of the act entitled "An act for the more speedy recovery of debts to the value of ten pounds," has not been attended with all the benefits thereby intended, and it is conceived that a better mode may be adopted in the city of New York for the recovery of debts and demands not exceeding ten pounds. Therefore

Be it enacted, by the People of (he State of New York represented in fM?i?ewCe Senate and Assembly, aad it is hereby enacted by the authority of the York same, That it shall and may be lawful for the person administering county. ^ g0vernment; Of this State for the time being, by and with the advice and consent of the council of appointment from time to time to appoint and commission justices of the peace in and for the city of New York, with, power to keep the peace in the said city, and to hear and determine all causes in the city and county of New York, made cognizable before justices of the peace by the eaid act entitled "' An act for the more speedy recovery of debts to the value of ten pounds," and also to hear and determine all actions and informations upon any statute of this State and upon any bye-law of the said city, made or to be made where the penalty of forfeitureehall not exceed ten pounds, doing therein that which to justice doth or shall appertain. And the persons so appointed and commissioned as aforesaid as justices of the peace in and for the city of New York, or any two or more of them shall have power and authority, and are hereby authorized, empowered and required to hold a court for the purposes aforesaid, at the city hall of the city of New York, and therein to hear and determine all such matters of debt, causes, actions and informations as are made cognizable before them by this act according to the directions of the said act entitled " An act for the more speedy recovery of debts to the value of ten pounds," and the several other acts amending, explaining or altering the same, and according to the directions herein after mentioned. And for that purpose two of the said justices for the time being, according to the rotation herein after mentioned, shall from and after the first day of May next, meet, sit and hold the said court in the city-hall of the city of New York, every day, except Sundays, and except the first day of January, the fourth day of July, the twenty fifth day of November, and the twenty fifth day of December in every year. And it shall be the duty of the said justices of the peace in and for the city of New York to hold the said court according to the following rotation, that is to say, the first and second persons named in the commission shall attend and hold the said court the first week, and the third and fourth the second week, and so on until all the said justices shall have served one week, if they consist of an even number, or otherwise all but one, and then the persons first and last named in the said commission shall attend and hold the said court the next week and the second and third persons named therein the week after, and so on in the like rotation thereafter. Provided always that nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude or debar any of the said justices although they be not in rotation, from setting in the said court, but that all and every of them shall and may when and so often as they shall respectively think fit, sit and give judgment therein, and in case of the death or inability of any of the said justices whose duty it may be to attend the said court according to the said rotation at any time, then and in every such case, it shall be the duty of him who is next in rotation, to attend the said court in the place of him so deceased or unable to attend. And if the justices present at any time in the said court shall be equally divided upon any question before them, the senior justice present, that is, he whose name stands first in the commission, shall have the casting vote.

More at http://books.google.com/books?id=kOATAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=An+Act+concerning+the+recovery+of+debts+and+demands+to+the+value+of+ten+pounds+in+the+city+of+New+York&source=bl&ots=SUxKtamsY5&sig=0kkAZoOv3mcO4szKNXb2w49vJ2s&hl=en&ei=a95VS8uNAYfKNYfjtJMJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=An%20Act%20concerning%20the%20recovery%20of%20debts%20and%20demands%20to%20the%20value%20of%20ten%20pounds%20in%20the%20city%20of%20New%20York&f=false

cousin marrying[edit]

Why was marrying one's cousin so prevalent in the past? Is it still prevalent in non-western cultures? PS, Arkansas is technically a western culture I think. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Cousin couple address the questions? Tempshill (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your family have lived in an isolated place time out of mind, you are likely to be related in some degree to every marriageable person of the other sex in your social class within a day's walk or a day's ride. Members of the urban middle classes meet strangers and marry them.--Wetman (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the European middle ages, the Catholic church tended to extend intermarriage prohibitions to wider and wider groups of relatives (which also brought in a lucrative side-business of selling dispensations to get around such prohibitions). As part of the Protestant reformation of the 16th century, one of the reforms introduced was pruning back the scope of the relative marriage prohibitions, usually to those mentioned in the Biblical book of Leviticus (which did not include a prohibition on first cousin intermarriage). In the late 19th century in the U.S., the pendulum started to swing back, and a first cousin marriage ban was introduced in many states as a "scientifically" motivated measure to prevent inbreeding, partly due to the efforts of Lewis H. Morgan. From a strictly scientific point of view this effort was a little misguided, since while inbreeding can certainly produce a higher rate of genetic defects in children, first cousin status by itself is not a very good measurement of inbreeding. If the four grandparents came from four different communities, with no close relatedness, then the risks of a cousin marriage are minimal; while in the case of a small community which has been effectively isolated for many generations, there may be significant risk of defects even if the couple have a more distant relationship than first cousins. AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience it's only the USA that get's all stressed out about cousin relationships/marriage. Unless there are multiple generations of cousins intermarrying there's not a huge increase in the likelihood of birth defects. European countries generally consider the USA's stance to be idiotic and draconian. Exxolon (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vioxx, a pain killer, was found to roughly double the risk of heart attack (but not to greatly increase death rates) - it was immediately taken off the market. First cousin marriages are shown to roughly double the rate of birth defects and parts of the U.S. are looked down on for having banning it. Rmhermen (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a very convincing comparison unless both the initial probability of occurrence (heart attack or birth defect) and the perceived benefit are roughly similar. Doubling a 1:100,000 risk (to 1:50,000) provides a very different risk assessment scenario than doubling a 1:10 risk (to 1:5). Note also that pretty much all birth control pills double the risk of stroke, yet those are not taken off the market and most people would take a very dim view of any efforts to do so. Why? Because the benefit is seen to outweigh the risk. I expect cousins who are very much in love would consider the benefit of their marriage to be quite substantial. Finally, alcohol, smoking, diet, maternal health and age have all been shown to greatly increase risk of birth defects (in some cases quadrupling risk), yet I doubt anywhere in the US bans women from drinking alcohol, makes it illegal for women over 35 to get pregnant or force feeds women folic acid. So why legislate against one risk factor, yet not against other, more significant risks? I'd suggest thats why such a ban is seen as a little illogical by some. Rockpocket 04:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never met an English person that thinks banning cousin couples is idiotic or draconian, in fact many seem to think it's odd that it's legal there. Perhaps you mean continental Europe? TastyCakes (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI cousin marrying is also legal in Canada, but I would say that it is very socially unacceptable. Eiad77 (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin-marrying was only recently (2003, I think?) made illegal in England, if that helps anyone. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not prohibited to marry your cousin in England. See the list of prohibited marriages here: http://www.weddingguideuk.com/articles/legal/prohibited.asp

And here is some information about an ongoing study on the health effects of cousin marriages using a project based in Bradford, England. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7404730.stm

It is also worth remembering that the term "cousin" can be used quite widely. First cousins are much more closely genetically connected compared to second cousins, or fifth cousins twice removed, but they are all cousins. We might not refer to them as such in everyday speech, but in previous times "cousin" was a convenient catch-all term of address and reference for many types of imprecise relation. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GSP and past mayors[edit]

Two questions:

Is it possible to find the statistics for GSP for the state of Wyoming going back to the 19th century? In other words, do these statistics exist and if so where are they located?
Where can I find a list of the mayors of the city of Osceola, NE?

--Lost Fugitive (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized System of Preferences?

Governor's Scholars Program?

Geophysical Statistics Project?

DOR (HK) (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the mayors, why not call the town library. The number is here. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If GSP is Gross State Product (like GNP for Gross National Product) you might be able to contact the Wyoming state Tresturer's office and get the information.Somebody or his brother (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Gross State Product is found here (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2007/tables/07s0652.xls), but only back to 1977. Probably wasn't collected before then. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English[edit]

There is a English teaching institution (private, I believe), on Whyte (82) Avenue in Edmonton. Which is this?68.148.149.184 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google suggests Edmonton Language School. Nanonic (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weighing and drying process[edit]

I learned that all of the luggage and carry-on bags left aboard US Airways Flight 1549 had to be weighed, dried, and weighed again. It is said that process takes up to eight weeks and could take several months. How is the proceedure done? Is it done one bag at a time, a few at a time, or all at once? If more information is available, please let me know. Thank you.69.203.157.50 (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A January 25 NY Post story said the carryons as well as suitcases and other possessions were frozen (to prevent mold and mildew) then were dried and cleaned before being returned to the passengers. If a plane crashed and they thought it might have been because it was overloaded (as has happened to some light plane crashes) there would be a reason to reconstruct the (dry) takeoff weight. The (post crash) wet weight might be of some academic interest to see how much extra stress that put on the relatively intact plane when lifting it out of the water. The wet weight might have been a factor in the cost of the shipping (in freezer trucks), storage (in mortuary coolers) and cleaning and drying. Each passenger got a $5000 check regardless of the ultimate return. I expect that at the contractor, they were thawed, washable garments were separated from jewelry, paper goods, drivers licenses, credit cards, cosmetics, etc, then the clothes were laundered or drycleaned, while the jewelry, etc, were cleaned and disinfected (not the world's cleanest river). Paper goods, books, or money could be freezedried. This removes moisture by keeping it in a very cold but very dry environment. The moisture sublimates. Conservation of paper might involve other tricks to avoid welding it into a mass. Currency can be replaced if the serial numbers are readable. If anyone had weapons, dope or huge sums of money in their carryons, they might have some explaining to do. Some passengers insisted on taking their purses, garment bags or carryons with them after the splashdown. Even data on laptops was expected to be recovered. Some carkeys would cost $400 to replace. Edison (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of the bags and carry-ons been returned to the passengers and crew yet?69.203.157.50 (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]